INTERIM RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2
JACKSON CERAMIX SUPERFUND SITE
CLEARFIELD AND JEFFERSON COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
sr^
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 3
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
APRIL 2023
-------
[Page intentionally left blank]
2
-------
Table of Contents
I. DECLARATION 7
II. DECISION SUMMARY 13
1.0 Site Name, Location and Description 14
2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities 14
2.1 Site-wide History of Contamination 14
2.2 OU2 Previous Environmental Investigations and Response Actions 15
3.0 Community Participation 15
4.0 Scope and Role of Operable Unit 16
5.0 Site Characteristics 16
5.1 Overview of the Site 16
5.2 OU2 Geology and Hydrogeology 17
5.3 OU2 Nature and Extent of Contamination and Conceptual Site Model 17
6.0 Current and Future Potential Land Use and Water Use 20
7.0 Summary of Site Risks 20
7.1 Human Health Risk Assessment 22
7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment 23
7.3 Basis for Remedial Action 23
8.0 Remedial Action Objectives 23
8.1 Remediation Goals 24
9.0 Description of Alternatives 25
9.1 Remedial Alternatives 26
9.2 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy 29
10.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 29
10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 31
10.2 Compliance with ARARs 31
10.3 Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence 33
10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment 33
10.5 Short-term Effectiveness 34
10.6 Implementability 35
10.7 Cost 35
10.8 State Acceptance 36
3
-------
10.9 Community Acceptance 36
11.0 Principal Threat Waste 37
12.0 Selected Remedy 37
12.1 Summary of the Rationale for Selected Remedy 37
12.2 Description of the Selected Remedy 38
12.3 Cost Estimate for the Selected Remedy 40
12.4 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy 40
13.0 Statutory Determinations 41
13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 41
13.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 41
13.3 Cost Effectiveness 42
13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions to the Maximum Extent Practicable 42
13.5 Five-Year Review Requirements 42
14.0 Documentation of Significant Changes 42
15. State Role 42
III. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 43
FIGURES, TABLES, APPENDICES
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Layout
Figure 2 - Layout of Operable Unit 2
APPENDICES
Appendix A Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Concurrence Letter
Appendix B Risk Assessment Tables and Rationale
Appendix C Detailed Cost Estimate
Appendix D Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
4
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ALM
Adult Lead Model
ARARs
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
bgs
Below Ground Surface
BLL
Blood Lead-Level
B&P
Buffalo Pittsburgh Railroad
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
COC
Contaminant of Concern
COPC
Contaminant of Potential Concern
CY
Cubic Yards
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ERA
Ecological Risk Assessment
FFS
Focused Feasibility Study
FL
Former Lagoon
FS
Feasibility Study
FYR
Five-Year Review
HHRA
Human Health Risk Assessment
HI
Hazard Index
ICs
Institutional Controls
IEUBK
Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic model
IVBA
In Vitro Bioaccessibility
LDR
Land Disposal Requirements
mg/kg
Milligrams per Kilogram
NCP
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL
National Priorities List
OU
Operable Unit
OU1
Operable Unit 1
-------
0U2
Operable Unit 2
0U3
Operable Unit 3
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
PADEP
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
PADER
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
ppm
Parts Per Million
RAO
Remedial Action Objective
RCRA
Resource Conservation Recovery Act
RG
Remediation Goal
RI
Remedial Investigation
RI/FS
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD
Record of Decision
RSL
Regional Screening Levels
TBC
To Be Considered
TCLP
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
1-ig/dL
Micrograms per Deciliter
voc
Volatile Organic Compound
-------
I. DECLARATION
JACKSON CERAMIX SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 2
CLEARFIELD AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
-------
INTERIM RECORD OF DECISION FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
JACKSON CERAMIX SUPERFUND SITE, OPERABLE UNIT 2
I. DECLARATION
Site Name and Location
The Jackson Ceramix Superfund Site (Site) is located in the southern portion of the Borough of
Falls Creek (the Borough), Pennsylvania. It consists of approximately 233 acres and extends into
both Jefferson and Clearfield Counties. The Site includes a former china manufacturing facility
that operated from 1917 to 1985. The National Superfund Database Identification Number for
the Site is PADOO1222025. A Site Location Map is included as Figure 1 and the Site Layout is
included as Figure 2.
Statement of Basis and Purpose
The Site has been subdivided into three Operable Units (OUs) and each OU is being addressed
separately.
• OU1 encompasses approximately 37 acres of soil, sediment and surface water affected by
former manufacturing activities west of and including the Buffalo Pittsburgh Railroad (B&P)
property. OU1 includes the area where the former manufacturing facility was located. This
portion of the Site is located in Jefferson County. The Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1
was signed on March 21, 2021.
• OU2 encompasses approximately 197 acres of the Sandy Lick Creek floodplain (Floodplain)
that lies immediately downstream of OU1. OU2 is bounded by wooded land to the north,
Wolf Run to the northeast, Sandy Lick Creek to the east and south, and the B&P rail line
property to the west. The OU2 Floodplain is a mixture of forests and wetlands, including
forested wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands, emergent wetlands, and meadows. OU2 is primarily
located in Clearfield County, with a small portion located in Jefferson County.
• OU3 encompasses the overburden and bedrock aquifers underlying OU1 and OU2. OU3 is
located in Clearfield County and Jefferson County. OU3 is currently in the Feasibility Study
phase and will be addressed following removal of source material present in OU1 and OU2.
The focus of this Interim ROD is the ceramic waste and elevated lead concentrations exceeding
1,000 mg/kg (milligrams per kilograms) in soil and sediment present in the OU2 wetlands that
are acting as a continuing source of contamination. Observations of white silty-clay sludge
material originating from the china manufacturing processes are associated with areas where lead
concentrations are above 1,000 mg/kg, and based on treatability studies conducted by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), also coincide with where lead cannot be treated
8
-------
in place. EPA has defined the ceramic waste and elevated lead concentrations exceeding 1,000
mg/kg as source material or principal threat waste. A source material is material that includes or
contains hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants that act as a reservoir for migration of
contamination, for example, to groundwater. Principal threat wastes are those source materials
considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile, which would present a significant risk to human
health or the environment should exposure occur.
After source material is addressed, remaining Contaminants of Concern (COCs) in Site media
will have cleanup levels proposed in a separate Proposed Plan and selected in a final ROD for
OU2 after the requisite public comment period. A final ROD for OU2 will be necessary in the
future to identify protections to human health and the environment through the extent of OU2.
The Selected Remedy was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et seq. as
amended, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300, as amended. This Interim ROD is based on the
Administrative Record for the Site, which was developed in accordance with Section 113(k) of
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(k).
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) concurred with the
Selected Remedy (Appendix A) in a letter dated March 23, 2023.
Assessment of the Site
The Selected Remedy in this Interim ROD is necessary to protect the public health or welfare or
the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the
environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The Selected Remedy in this Interim ROD will address ceramic waste and elevated levels of lead
contamination exceeding 1,000 mg/kg in the Sandy Lick Creek floodplain within OU2. While
the specific treatment area will be further refined during the design, EPA will target the lateral
area (or footprint) where lead concentrations exceed 1,000 mg/kg. Within the designated
treatment area (or 1,000 mg/kg footprint) lead will be treated vertically to the Remediation Goals
(RGs) identified in this Interim ROD. EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy will be the
most effective approach for addressing lead at concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg as 'source
material' or 'principal threat waste.'
The Selected Remedy for OU2 is Alternative 2 - Excavation of Source Material, Dredging of
Sediments, Off Site Disposal, and Wetlands Restoration, and consists of the following
components to address ceramic waste and elevated lead concentrations:
• Clear vegetation in emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands in areas impacted by source material.
9
-------
• Conduct limited removal of mature trees and vegetation in forested wetlands impacted by
source material.
• Utilize equipment to access partially saturated soils, allowing excavation equipment to
maneuver efficiently without becoming stuck or overly compacting the soils.
• Construct a temporary cofferdam and dewater flooded areas as much as possible, likely
performing the excavation activities in phases. Dewatering the flooded areas would allow
excavation activities to proceed under drier conditions.
• Collect in situ waste characterization samples for disposal profiling at a frequency to be
determined during remedial design.
• Excavate source material/lead-contaminated soil considered to be hazardous1 (from 0 to 2 ft
below ground surface (bgs)) and directly load in dump trucks that are licensed to transport
hazardous waste (estimate of 58,000 tons). Trucks would be lined and covered. Waste would
be transported to a Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C hazardous waste
disposal facility. After the source material (lead exceeding 1,000 mg/kg) is removed,
excavation will continue in these areas until lead in soil is no greater than 99.4 mg/kg in
confirmation samples submitted to an accredited analytical lab. Existing data does not
provide vertical delineation to the soil RG of 99.4 mg/kg in most of the area covered by
source material, which is a data gap that will be addressed during pre-design sampling.
Overall, refinement of lateral and vertical extent will be needed prior to implementing the
Interim Remedial Action (Interim RA). It is anticipated that lead concentrations in materials
located approximately 2 to 4 ft bgs will not be hazardous. The materials at these depths and
other nonhazardous material will be directly loaded in lined/covered dump trucks and
transported to a RCRA Subtitle D solid waste disposal facility (estimate of 32,000 tons).
• Construct a dewatering containment area to dry out dredged sediment prior to disposal.
• Vacuum-dredge lead-contaminated sediment and place in a dewatering containment area.
• Treat dewatered fluid through a skid-mounted treatment system. Treated water could be
either discharged to surface water or discharged to a sanitary sewer in accordance with
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
• Collect waste characterization samples from dredged and dewatered sediments at a frequency
to be determined during remedial design.
• Excavate dewatered sediment from the dewatering containment area and load into dump
trucks. If the results of the waste characterization analysis determine that the dewatered
sediment is classified as nonhazardous waste, then it would be transported off-Site for
disposal at a RCRA Subtitle D disposal facility. If the soil contains concentrations of lead
above the regulatory limit of 5 parts per million (ppm) using the TCLP, then it would be
transported to a RCRA Subtitle C facility for treatment and disposal.
• Collect confirmation samples from the sidewalls and subfloor of the excavation areas at a
frequency to be determined during remedial design to confirm that contaminated
soils/sediments with concentrations above 1,000 mg/kg laterally and the RGs vertically for
soils and sediments are removed. If confirmation samples show that the remaining
1 Based on historical data, lead concentrations exceeding 2,000 mg/kg is anticipated to be characterized as hazardous
waste using the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).
10
-------
soils/sediments exceed 1,000 mg/kg laterally or the RGs vertically, additional soils/sediments
would be removed until concentrations are met.
• Restore excavated areas and surrounding areas with soil, native wetlands seed mix and
vegetation to reduce dust generation, mitigate surface runoff, and restore wetlands habitat.
Excavated areas may be backfilled with approved backfill material or regraded, depending on
estimates of the original elevations of the wetlands. For cost estimating purposes, it was
assumed that 50 percent of the excavations would be backfilled, but backfilling may not be
necessary since removal of the waste could restore the wetlands to the pre-disposal
elevations. This determination would be made based on modeling during the remedial design
phase. Restoring the wetlands to their original elevations will increase the wetlands storage
capacity over current conditions so they will be more resilient to climate change
vulnerabilities (i.e., increased rainfall and storm events).2
Statutory Determinations
The Selected Remedy for OU2 in this Interim ROD is protective of human health and the
environment, cost effective, and utilizes a permanent solution for removal of principal threat
waste.
ROD Data Certification Checklist
The following information is included in the Decision Summary (Part II) of this Interim ROD.
Additional information can be found in the Administrative Record for the Site:
ROD CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST
Information
Location/Page Number
COCs and respective concentrations
Section 5.3, pages 17-19
Baseline risk represented by COCs
Section 7, pages 20-23
Cleanup levels established for COCs and the basis for
these levels
Section 8.1, pages 24-25
How source materials constituting principal threat are
addressed
Section 11.0, page 37
Current and reasonably anticipated future land use
assumptions and potential future beneficial uses of
groundwater used in the baseline risk assessment and
ROD
Section 6.0, page 20
2 EPA is conducting a Climate Vulnerability Assessment that will be incorporated in the Remedial Design. This
assessment will ensure that decisions are made to ensure the long-term protectiveness of the remedy in consideration
of climate changes and the health of the wetland.
11
-------
Potential land use that will be available at the Site as a
result of the Selected Remedy
Section 6,0, page 20
Estimated capital, annual Operation & Maintenance
(O&M), and total present worth exists, discount rate, and
the number of years over which the remedy cost estimates
are projected
Section 12.2, pages 38-40
Section 12.3, page 40
Key factors that led to selecting the remedy
Section 12.1, page 37
DAI 11 1 COM A Rn Digitally signed by PAUL LEONARD
r nUL LLUIMnnU Date: 2023.04,28 15:17:43 -04'00'
Paul Leonard, Director Date
Superfund and Emergency Management Division
EPA Region III
12
-------
II. DECISION SUMMARY
JACKSON CERAMIX SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 2
CLEARFIELD AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
-------
II. DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 Site Name, Location and Description
The Site is located in the southern portion of the Borough of Falls Creek (the Borough),
Pennsylvania. The City of Dubois is approximately 1.6 miles southeast of the Site. The Site
extends into both Jefferson and Clearfield Counties. The Site includes a former manufacturing
facility that operated from 1917 until 1985. The Site has been subdivided into three Operable
Units (OUs) and each OU is being addressed separately. OU1 is in Jefferson County and is
where former manufacturing operations took place. While some remnants of building
foundations still exist in the subsurface at the Site, the only remaining structure on OU1 is a
former china shop in the southwest corner of the Site property. OU2 encompasses approximately
197 acres of the Floodplain that lies immediately downstream of OU1. OU2 is bounded by
wooded land to the north, Wolf Run to the northeast, Sandy Lick Creek to the east and south, and
the B&P rail line property to the west. The OU2 Floodplain is a mixture of forests and wetlands,
including forested wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands, emergent wetlands, and meadows. OU2 is
primarily located in Clearfield County, with a small portion located in Jefferson County. OU3 is
the overburden and bedrock aquifers underlying OU1 and OU2. OU2 is the focus of this Interim
ROD. The National Superfund Database Identification Number for the Site is PAD001222025.
2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities
This section of the Interim ROD provides the history of the Site and a discussion of EPA and
PADEP investigations and response activities. The "Proposed Rule" proposing the Site to the
National Priorities List (NPL) was published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2005. The
"Final Rule" adding the Site to the NPL was published in the Federal Register on September 14,
2005. EPA has not identified any liable, financially viable potentially responsible parties at the
Site and all response actions at the Site have been conducted by EPA as fund-lead actions.
2.1 Site-wide History of Contamination
A former china manufacturing facility operated from 1917 until 1985. After operations ceased,
the facility was abandoned. A fire in October 1989 destroyed about 75 percent of the facility,
including the main building. The china manufacturing process involved the production of
decorated, vitrified china plates, cups, saucers, and a variety of other chinaware. This process
involved a variety of chemicals including chlorinated solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons, paint
compounds, as well as lead and other metals. Undecorated chinaware was initially molded in the
mold shop and fired in kilns to create china blanks. A glazing compound, typically containing
lead (i.e., frit) was then sprayed onto the china blanks in the glaze spray area (also known as the
slip house). During wash-down cycles and daily cleanup in the glaze spray area, wastewater
containing unheated glaze was discharged to a former 7,200 square-foot unlined sludge settling
lagoon (now the OU1 Former Lagoon, also known as FL). In addition, wastewater from other
operating areas within the facility, including the slip house (china manufacturing process area)
and the paint process line, were also discharged to the FL via the former drainage ditch. The
wastewater was documented to be laden with production sludge consisting of sand, clay,
-------
unheated glazing product, and paints containing oxides of aluminum, tin, chromium, manganese,
lead, and possibly copper. These materials were discharged to the FL until the facility closed in
1985. During periods of high precipitation, overflow from the FL discharged into the Floodplain
(OU2) via a 48-inch diameter drainage pipe. Off-specification and broken china debris were
stockpiled around the china manufacturing facility and mapped during previous investigations.
2.2 OU2 Previous Environmental Investigations and Response Actions
The previous Site investigations determined that china manufacturing processes and waste
handling practices resulted in the release of organic and inorganic contaminants to soils,
drainages, and groundwater and several surrounding properties. EPA and PADEP conducted
removal actions at OU1; however, no removal actions have occurred at OU2.
In 1995, the Federal Emergency Management Agency concluded that a 100-year peak discharge
flow would pose potential risk of inundation, scouring, and transport of waste deposits in the
Floodplain (OU2). At the time of the evaluation, there were no stream gauge or flow records for
the Borough. The flow for the 100-year flood was developed using multiple regression formulae
based on factors including drainage area, stream length, stream slope, and basin shape. The study
determined that, in general, the Sandy Lick Creek 100-year floodplain south and east of the B&P
rail line tracks roughly coincides with an elevation of up to 1,395 ft above mean sea level.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER), now PADEP, conducted
sludge sampling on April 1, 1996, using soil pits to determine sludge thicknesses within the
Floodplain. Based on the data provided, the sludge was observed to be widely distributed and
noted to be 2 to 12 inches thick. Based on field investigation results and previous investigations
of the OU2 Floodplain, the report estimated that approximately 11,360 cubic yards (CY) of
ceramic waste sludge was present in the Floodplain. The Site was added to the NPL on
September 14, 2005, due to approximately 20 acres of wetlands that remained contaminated with
lead. From the EPA 2005 Hazardous Ranking System (HRS) summary, groundwater migration,
air migration, and the soil exposure pathways were not evaluated because these migration and
exposure pathways were not expected to add significantly to the overall HRS score. In contrast,
the surface water migration pathway is associated with 20 acres of wetlands that have been
primarily contaminated by lead.
3.0 Community Participation
On November 1, 2022, pursuant to Section 113(k)(2)(B) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
§ 9613(k)(2)(B), EPA released the Proposed Plan describing EPA's Preferred Alternative for
OU2 for a 30-day public comment period. The Proposed Plan was based on documents contained
in the Administrative Record File for the Site. EPA held a public meeting on November 15,
2022, to present the Proposed Plan to community members. Representatives from EPA answered
questions about EPA's Preferred Alternative for the Site. Oral comments were documented
during the meeting. This transcript is included in the Administrative Record for the Site. EPA's
response to comments received during the public comment period is included in the
Responsiveness Summary in this Interim ROD.
15
-------
Information provided by EPA in the Proposed Plan is based largely on findings of the RI Report
(2018) and Focused Feasibility Study (2022).
The Administrative Record can be found in the Administrative Record File located at the DuBois
Public library in DuBois, Pennsylvania and online at www.epa.gov/superfund/jacksonceramix.
The notice of the availability of these documents was published in the Courier-Express on
November 1, 2022. The public comment period was held from November 1, 2022, to December
1, 2022.
A fact sheet detailing the Proposed Plan was mailed to local citizens on October 28, 2022.
4.0 Scope and Role of Operable Unit
This Interim ROD focuses on the ceramic waste and elevated lead concentrations exceeding
1,000 mg/kg in soils/sediments present in OU2 that are acting as a continuing source of
contamination to soils, sediments, surface water and groundwater. The Interim RA for OU2 will
be followed by a final ROD and RA that will address all contaminated media within OU2, not
just the source material. It is anticipated that any remaining contamination present in OU2
following the Interim RA, will be addressed in a final ROD and RA. The OU1 ROD was signed
March 21, 2021, and OU1 is currently in the Remedial Design Phase, with the next phase being
the Remedial Actions Phase. OU3 groundwater is currently in the Feasibility Study (FS) stage
and will be addressed following the removal of source material present in OU1 and OU2.
5.0 Site Characteristics
This section of the Interim ROD provides an overview of the Site's geology, the sampling
strategy used during Site investigations, and the nature and extent of contamination. Additional
information regarding the nature and extent of contamination can be found in the Administrative
Record.
5.1 Overview of the Site
The Site is located in the southern portion of the Borough of Falls Creek, Pennsylvania. It
extends into both Jefferson and Clearfield Counties. The Site includes a former manufacturing
facility that operated from 1917 until 1985. EPA has divided the Site into three OUs and EPA
plans to address each OU separately. OU1 encompasses approximately 37 acres of soil, sediment
and surface water affected by former manufacturing activities west of and including the B&P
railroad property. OU1 includes the area where former manufacturing operations took place, and
while some remnants of building foundations still exist in the subsurface at the Site, the only
remaining structure on OU1 is a building in the southwest corner of the Site property. This
portion of the Site is located in Jefferson County. OU2 encompasses approximately 197 acres of
soil, sediment, and surface water in the Sandy Lick Creek floodplain wetlands that lies
immediately downstream of OU1 and is affected by the migration of waste from the former
16
-------
manufacturing area to the wetlands area. 0U2 is bounded by wooded land to the north, Wolf Run
to the northeast, Sandy Lick Creek to the east and south, and the B&P rail line property to the
west. The OU2 Floodplain is a mixture of forests and wetlands, including forested wetlands,
scrub-shrub wetlands, emergent wetlands, and meadows. OU2 is primarily located in Clearfield
County, with a small portion located in Jefferson County. OU3 is the overburden and bedrock
aquifers underlying OU1 and OU2. The City of Dubois is approximately 1.6 miles southeast of
the Site. The National Superfund Database Identification Number is PAD001222025. OU2, and
specifically the source area within OU2, is the focus of this Interim ROD.
5.2 OU2 Geology and Hydrogeology
The Floodplain is underlain by the consolidated bedrock of the Millstone Run Formation. The
bedrock topography is highly variable in the wetlands area with bedrock encountered at varying
depths ranging from 19.2 ft bgs to 52 ft bgs. The average depth to bedrock is approximately 30 ft
bgs in OU2. The consolidated subsurface underlying the Floodplain consists of beds of
sandstone, less laterally continuous layers of shale, and coal seams that dip to the southeast. The
saprolite topography overlying bedrock also varies considerably within the Floodplain area, at
varying degrees of weathering.
During dry periods, groundwater appears to be just below the ground surface within the drainage
channels and wetlands. At the higher elevations within OU2, the depth to groundwater ranges
between 4 and 7 ft bgs. During wetter periods, the eastern, southeastern, and central portions of
the Floodplain are inundated with 0.5 to 2 ft of water. The groundwater flow in this area is to the
east and east-southeast direction. Overburden monitoring wells also indicate that the Sandy Lick
Creek is a gaining and losing stream based on the precipitation events. During high precipitation
events or snow melt during spring, surface water from Sandy Lick Creek appears to recharge into
the surrounding alluvium.
During drier seasons, groundwater flows east-southeastward from the OU1 portion of the Site
toward Sandy Lick Creek (OU2). All bedrock wells within OU2 show flowing artesian
conditions, meaning the groundwater tends to rise to the surface as induced by underlying
pressure.
5.3 OU2 Nature and Extent of Contamination and Conceptual Site Model
COCs were determined for each OU during the Remedial Investigation (RI). For the purposes of
this Interim ROD, the primary risk driver and COC is lead in ceramic waste, soils, and
sediments. Lead is the most widespread human health and ecological risk driver in OU2. Lead
concentrations negatively impact all receptors, both human and biological, and affect all
ecological communities.
Ceramic waste within OU2 covers approximately 6.4 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands and 6.1 acres
of forested wetlands as shown on Figure 2. For purposes of the treatability studies EPA divided
several parts of the wetland into a Central Drainage Area, a Main Drainage Channel, a Western
Drainage Channel, a Cattail Area, a Beaver Pond, and an Oxbow Lake. These features are all
17
-------
depicted on Figure 2 and are based on geographic conditions of the area to assist discussing Site
conditions and locations.
Contamination appears to follow the drainage paths and channels through OU2. As surface water
containing waste within the OU1 Former Lagoon discharged via a 48-inch culvert drainage pipe
to the OU2 Floodplain, it spread throughout OU2 using normal drainage pathways.
Contaminated surface water spread into the Cattail Area of the OU2 Central Drainage Area by a
breach in the beaver pond side wall, as well as flowing south-southeastward through the OU2
Western Drainage Channel into the OU2 Main Drainage Channel. Within the OU2 Central
Drainage Area, deposition of source material and contaminated sediment over time filled in
former drainage pathways and low spots within the floodplain leaving source material from
depth to ground surface.
5.3.1 Remedial Investigation and Treatability Studies
EPA conducted multiple sampling events in OU2 during the RI and treatability studies. EPA
conducted a site-wide RI between 2009 and 2018 and data were collected to supplement two
treatability studies between 2018 and 2021. The summary below discusses data that were
collected during these field events.
Contamination in OU2 was found to generally follow drainage patterns starting at the 48-inch
culvert which drained contaminated surface water from the Former Lagoon into OU2. There are
thin (less than 1 inch) layers of organic material and ceramic waste sludge from former facility
operations mixed with the silty loam in surface and shallow subsurface soils. These layers are
typically underlain by a thick layer of soft gray, mottled clay with some silt to clayey silt.
Deposition of ceramic waste sludge occurs primarily within the OU2 Central Drainage Area
(Figure 2) as well as within and south of the Cattail Area and the northern portion of the OU2
Western Drainage Channel. Further south, deposition of the ceramic waste sludge appears to
have occurred primarily within the OU2 Main Drainage Channel.
Previous investigations indicate that ceramic waste sludge present in the OU2 wetlands is buried
beneath soil and sediment that were deposited after facility operations ceased, suggesting a high
rate of sediment deposition in the wetlands during periods of high surface flow. Currently, the
elevation in the wetlands is consistent and sedimentation of clean sediments is no longer
occuring. Thus, the current exposure to waste in the top 2 ft is unlikely to change over time.
From 0 to 2 ft bgs, lead concentrations in soil range from 0.08 J3 mg/kg to 45,713 mg/kg.
Elevated lead concentrations decrease rapidly below 2 ft bgs, with concentrations ranging from
8.90 mg/kg to 425 mg/kg. The one exception is where the 48-inch culvert (identified above)
connects the OU1 Former Lagoon to OU2. At this location, lead concentrations are as high as
1,310 mg/kg at 2-3 ft bgs.
3 J refers to a concentration that was identified but the amount is estimated.
18
-------
Sediments are found in surface water bodies that hold standing water year-round (described as
the "beaver pond" and the "Oxbow lake" shown in Figure 2). Lead concentrations in sediments
in the beaver pond ranged from 34.7 mg/kg to 36,800 mg/kg. In sediments from the Oxbow lake,
lead concentrations ranged from to 16.8 mg/kg to 626 J mg/kg. Similar to lead contamination in
soil, the maximum concentrations of lead are found in the upper 2-ft interval of sediments. The
maximum lead concentration in sediment was detected in the beaver pond, with elevated lead
concentrations extending to 4 ft bgs (Figure 2).
Observations of the white silty-clay sludge material originating from the china manufacturing
processes are where lead concentrations are above 1,000 mg/kg, which covers an area of about
23 acres in OU2. The ceramic waste sludge and all soils and sediments containing lead at
concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg are defined in this Interim ROD as "source material" or
"principal threat waste."
Treatment technologies evaluated during the two treatability studies evaluated the use of
amendments to reduce the lead bioavailability but were unable to achieve or even approach
acceptable levels of bioavailable lead derived in the risk assessments at these elevated lead
concentrations. Due to the limited effectiveness of the amendments, soils and sediments
containing lead at concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg have the potential to act as a continuing
source of lead, acting as principal threat waste. Principal threat waste acts as a source of
contamination to downstream soils, sediments, surface water, and groundwater and continue to
negatively impact surrounding and downstream habitats. Therefore, this Interim RA will target
the lateral area (or footprint) where lead concentrations exceed 1,000 mg/kg. Within the
designated treatment area (or 1,000 mg/kg footprint), lead will be treated vertically to the RGs
identified in this Interim ROD.
5.3.2 Conceptual Site Model
The Conceptual Site Model is developed by EPA to integrate the different types of information
collected during the RI and during subsequent treatability studies including the physical setting,
the nature and extent of contamination, and the contaminant fate and transport.
The historical source of contamination was from the manufacturing operations that produced
waste streams. Process wastewater and production sludge was discharged to the unlined sludge
settling lagoon (OU1 FL) which subsequently discharged to the OU2 Floodplain via the 48-inch
culvert. Sludge laden process wastewater periodically overflowed the OU1 FL during periods of
high precipitation and discharged into wetland areas within the adjacent OU2 Floodplain via the
48-inch diameter drainage pipe underlying the B&P Railroad tracks (Figure 2). Water from on-
Site septic tanks and catch basins were also believed to have discharged to the OU1 FL (Ogden,
1998). The process wastewater that discharged to the OU1 FL was documented to be laden with
production sludge consisting of sand, clay, unheated glazing product, and paints containing
oxides of aluminum, tin, chromium, manganese, lead, and possibly copper (PADER, 1986).
19
-------
6.0 Current and Future Potential Land Use and Water Use
The land present in OU2 is currently a mixture of forests, wetlands, vernal pools, channels,
surface water bodies, and has portions of both Sandy Lick Creek and Wolf Run. The Interim RA
includes steps to restore the wetland following remedy implementation, so it is expected the land
will continue to be a mix of forests and wetlands, considering the complexity of building in
wetland areas. Due to the nature of the Interim ROD, contamination will be left in place that will
be addressed by a future decision document. Future potential land use includes private
recreational use and logging. At the time of this ROD's signature there is no known interest in
commercial or residential development of OU2.
The groundwater underlying the Site property is not used for drinking water purposes, although
several groundwater potable wells are present within one-mile of the eastern Site boundary. The
Borough of Falls Creek draws its water from two Dubois reservoirs, the Anderson Creek
Reservoir, and the Munic Reservoir. The Anderson Creek Reservoir is located downgradient of
the Site and 5 miles east of the city of Dubois. The Munic Reservoir is located 0.25 miles
northwest of the Site.
Less than 20 private wells are located 0.9 to 1 mile from the eastern Jackson Ceramix Site
boundary (Sandy Lick Creek). Several of the homeowners have connected to public water, but
still use their private well for outdoor use (e.g., watering lawn, washing cars). Based on
estimated property elevations and well depths provided by the property owners/representatives,
the bottom elevations of the drinking water wells appear to be higher in elevation than the water
bearing zones identified in the bedrock at the Site during geophysical surveying and packer
testing. Based upon the regional grade of the underlying bedrock as mapped in the area of
DuBois, the difference in elevations between the potable water wells and the Site bedrock water
bearing zones suggests OU3 bedrock groundwater is not being utilized by the local population.
7.0 Summary of Site Risks
As part of the RI, a baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and Ecological Risk
Assessment (ERA) were conducted by EPA to determine the current and potential future effects
of contaminated media on human health and the environment in the absence of any cleanup
actions at the Site. These baseline risk assessments (before any cleanup) provide the basis for
taking a remedial action and indicate the exposure pathway(s) that need to be addressed by the
remedial action. This section summarizes the results of the HHRA and ERA.
Contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) were identified for each exposure area and each
medium based on a comparison of maximum detected concentrations from the RI to health-based
screening values. These health-based screening values are the Regional Screening Levels
(RSLs) developed by EPA, representing a hazard quotient (HQ) of 0.1 and cancer risk of 10"6. If
the maximum detected concentration was greater than the appropriate RSL, the chemical was
identified by EPA as a COPC for that medium for the exposure area and received a more detailed
20
-------
site-specific evaluation. Ecological risk was determined using toxicity benchmarks and food
chain modeling.
WHAT IS RISK AND HOW IS IT CALCULATED?
A Superfund human health risk assessment estimates the baseline risk. The baseline risk is an
estimate of the likelihood of health problems occurring if no cleanup action were taken at a
site. To estimate the baseline risk at a Superfund site, EPA undertakes a four-step process:
Step 1: Analyze Contamination
Step 2: Estimate Exposure
Step 3: Assess Potential Health Dangers
Step 4: Characterize Site Risk
In Step 1, EPA looks at the concentrations of contaminants found at a site as well as past
scientific studies on the effects these contaminants have had on people (or animals, when
human studies are unavailable). Comparisons between site-specific concentrations and
concentrations reported in past studies help EPA to determine which contaminants are most
likely to pose the greatest threat to human health.
In Step 2, EPA considers the different ways that people might be exposed to the contaminants
identified in Step 1, the concentrations that people might be exposed to, and the potential
frequency and duration of exposure. Using this information, EPA calculates a "reasonable
maximum exposure" scenario, which portrays the highest level of human exposure that could
reasonably be expected to occur.
In Step 3, EPA uses the information from Step 2 combined with information on the toxicity of
each chemical to assess potential risks. EPA considers two types of risk: cancer and non-
cancer risk. The likelihood of any kind of cancer resulting from a Superfund site is generally
expressed as an upper bound probability; for example, a "1 in 10,000 chance." In other words,
for every 10,000 people that could be exposed, one extra cancer may occur as a result of
exposure to site contaminants. An extra cancer case means that one more person could get
cancer than would normally be expected to from all other causes. For non-cancer health
effects, EPA calculates a "hazard index" (HI). The key concept here is that a "threshold level"
(measured as a HI of equal to or less than 1) exists below which non-cancer health effects
would not be expected. For lead, the non-cancer hazard is not represented by an HI because no
threshold has been identified; rather, blood-lead models are used with the goal of minimizing
lead exposure.
In Step 4, EPA determines whether site risks are great enough to cause health problems for
people at or near the Superfund site. The results of the three previous steps are combined,
evaluated, and summarized. EPA adds up the potential risks from the individual contaminants
21
-------
and exposure pathways and calculates a total site risk. Generally, cancer risks between 10"4
and 10"6, and a non-cancer HI of 1 or less are considered acceptable for EPA Superfund sites.
For lead at this Site, the goal was for no more than 5% of a modeled population to have a
blood lead-level (BLL) of 5 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dL).
Multiple contaminants were identified as human health and/or ecological risk drivers. Lead is the
most widespread human health and ecological risk driver, impacting all receptors and ecological
communities present in OU2. Exposure to lead in surface soil, sediment, and surface water may
result in BLLs above target levels for human and ecological receptors. Many other contaminants
are co-located with elevated lead concentrations or are located within the area of the lead-
contaminated soils/sediments. Lead in soils and sediments is the primary risk driver for this
Interim RA. EPA will further evaluate all the risk drivers for OU2 and evaluate them in a
subsequent FS for OU2 that will form the basis of a final ROD for OU2.
7.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
A HHRA and ERA were prepared to support the RI. The HHRA evaluated potential human
health risks associated with contact with soils, groundwater, surface water, and sediments, and
ingestion of venison and fish. Because lead does not have published toxicity factors, potential
risks associated with lead were evaluated differently from the other contaminants of potential
concern in the HHRA.
Lead toxicity is evaluated by EPA through blood-lead uptake using a physiologically based
pharmacokinetic model called the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model. The
IEUBK model predicts the probability of elevated BLLs for children ages 0 to 7 years from
potential exposure to lead in various media. The IEUBK model was used to evaluate potential
risks associated with child exposures to lead in soil, sediment, surface water, groundwater,
venison, and fish. The IUEBK model also considered a site-specific in vitro bioaccessibility
(IVBA) of 86%. The lead exposure risks are expressed as the predicted geometric mean BLLs
for children and the percent of the population potentially experiencing concentrations greater
than a target value. EPA's current recommendation is for less than 5 percent of the population to
exceed a BLL of 10 micrograms per deciliter ([j,g/dL) (EPA, 1994). Current scientific literature
on lead toxicology and epidemiology provides evidence that adverse health effects are associated
with BLLs less than 10 |ig/dL. Concurrent with the acknowledgement that lead exposure in
young children can cause harm at lower levels than previously targeted, EPA is evaluating its
existing policy on human health risks from lead contamination in soil. Should the lead policy
change, EPA will determine if the risk assessment for OU2 needs to be reevaluated.
For adult exposure to lead, the Adult Lead Model (ALM) was used, which was developed by
EPA's Technical Review Workgroup for Lead (EPA, 2003, 2009). The ALM evaluated risks
associated with non-residential adult exposure to lead in soil and sediment. The ALM is a
variation of the IEUBK model and focuses on estimating fetal blood-lead concentrations in
22
-------
pregnant women exposed to lead in soil. It was used to evaluate risk for potentially sensitive
receptors for the site worker, construction worker, and adolescent recreational user populations
that may be exposed to soil and/or sediment. The lead exposure risks are expressed as the
predicted geometric mean BLLs for adults (that is, women of child-bearing age), the
corresponding 95th percentile fetal blood-lead concentrations, and the percent of the population
potentially experiencing concentrations greater than 10 |ig/dL. EPA considered an RG based on
an evaluation at 5 ug/dl in the human health risk assessment.
7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
The ERA evaluated the exposure of ecological receptors to Site contaminants. The habitat
assessment determined that OU2 is predominantly floodplain habitat, which includes forested
wetlands and scrub-shrub habitats. Aquatic ecological habitats were included in the evaluation as
part of the OU2 Floodplain habitat, specifically the channels and permanently inundated areas of
the wetlands (i.e., the areas wetted year-round) that could support water column invertebrates.
Other ecological receptors in this habitat include birds and mammals. Ecological receptors in the
Floodplain can be exposed to contaminants in soil, sediment, surface water, overburden
groundwater (through discharge to the surface water bodies), and food items (plants, soil and
benthic invertebrates, small mammals, amphibians, and fish) in which Site contaminants have
bioaccumulated.
7.3 Basis for Remedial Action
In summary, the HHRA and ERA specific to OU2 demonstrated the presence of unacceptable
risks to human health and the environment, and that remedial action is necessary to reduce the
risks to within or below EPA's acceptable risk range. Therefore, EPA has determined that the
Selected Remedy identified in this Interim OU2 ROD is necessary to protect the public health or
welfare or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the
environment.
8.0 Remedial Action Objectives
Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) are specific goals to protect human health and the
environment. These objectives are based on available information and standards, such as
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), to-be-considered (TBC) guidance,
and site-specific risk-based levels.
This Interim RA is not intended to reduce all contamination in all media types at OU2. However,
the Interim RAOs are designed to be consistent with a final RA that will comply with CERCLA
requirements for cleanup of contaminated media. This Interim RA is intended to address
principal threat waste (ceramic waste and elevated levels of lead exceeding 1,000 mg/kg in soils
and sediments) within OU2. Therefore, the RAOs for this action do not specify cleanup levels
but instead address principal threat waste.
23
-------
The RAOs for the OU2 Interim RA are as follows:
• RAO 1 - Prevent human exposure via ingestion and dermal contact to Principal Threat
Waste.
• RAO 2 - Minimize migration of Principal Threat Waste into OU2 wetlands, drainage
channels, and the Floodplain.
• RAO 3 - Prevent ecological receptor exposure to Principal Threat Waste.
By addressing principal threat waste within OU2, the Interim RA will reduce risks by ensuring
contamination from principal threat waste within OU2 does not continue to migrate towards
locations where it could impact human and ecological receptors. These RAOs are designed to be
consistent with a final RA which will entail complete restoration of OU2.
8.1 Remediation Goals
RGs are developed to establish an acceptable cleanup level or range of levels for each exposure
route. As stated above, since the Selected Remedy is for an Interim RA, the RAOs for this action
do not specify cleanup levels but instead address principal threat waste. However, as explained
below, while the lateral limits of the Interim RA are defined by the presence of principal threat
waste and not RGs, the vertical extent of lead removal will be determined by RGs for this
Interim RA. While the specific treatment area will be refined during the design, EPA will target
the lateral area (or footprint) where lead concentrations exceed 1,000 mg/kg for this Interim RA.
Principal threat waste will define the lateral extent of excavation to ensure the footprint of all
principal threat waste is captured. Within the designated treatment area (or 1,000 mg/kg
footprint), lead will be treated vertically to respective soil and sediment RGs identified below.
The principal threat waste is defined by areas that include where ceramic waste is present and
where lead concentrations in soil and sediment exceed 1,000 mg/kg. While source material with
lead concentrations exceeding 2,000 mg/kg is anticipated to be characterized as hazardous
waste,4 EPA has defined source material or principal threat waste where lead concentrations
exceed 1,000 mg/kg based on two key factors.
(1) Observations of the ceramic waste sludge/ceramic sludge that looks like white silty-clay
sludge material are associated with where lead concentrations are above 1,000 mg/kg.
(2) Treatment technologies evaluated during the two treatability studies evaluated the use of
amendments to reduce the lead bioavailability but were unable to achieve or even
approach acceptable levels of bioavailable lead derived in the risk assessments at these
elevated lead concentrations. Due to the limited effectiveness of the amendments, soils
and sediments containing lead at concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg have the
4 This is based on historical data and the use of TCLP.
24
-------
potential to act as a continuing source of lead, acting as principal threat waste. Principal
threat waste acts as a source of contamination to downstream soils, sediments, surface
water, and groundwater and continue to negatively impact surrounding and downstream
habitats.
Source material is present throughout the central portion of the Floodplain, as well as within
some vernal pools, channels, and surface water bodies. In areas wetted year-round that support
water column invertebrates, source material should be addressed until lead concentrations in
sediments are protective of ecological receptors and meet RGs. The lead RG for sediment5 in
OU2 is 69 mg/kg, which is protective of invertebrates as well as highly exposed birds and
mammals that rely on the aquatic food chain. The soil RG for lead of 99.4 mg/kg is a background
number that is consistent with the lead RG established for the OU1 Northern Drainage
Channel/Former Lagoon in the 2021 OU1 ROD. It is protective of all receptors, including human
health-based derived numbers established from the IEUBK model (with the current site-specific
86% IVBA factor) for unrestricted use. It is also protective of recreational use of the Site,
including consumption of fish and venison.
• Sediment RG for lead = 69 mg/kg
• Soil RG for lead = 99.4 mg/kg
After source material is addressed in this Interim RA, EPA will propose cleanup levels for the
remaining COCs on-Site in a separate Proposed Plan and will select them a final ROD for OU2
after the requisite public comment period.
9.0 Description of Alternatives
CERCLA § 121(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 9621(b)(1), mandates that remedial actions must be
protective of human health and the environment, cost-effective, comply with ARARs, and utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery alternatives, to
the maximum extent practicable. Section 121(b)(1) also establishes a preference for remedial
actions which employ, as a principal element, treatment to permanently and significantly reduce
the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants at a
site. CERCLA § 121(d), 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d), further specifies that a remedial action must attain
a level or standard of control of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants, which at
least attains ARARs under federal and state laws, unless a waiver can be justified pursuant to
CERCLA § 121(d)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d)(4). Emphasis is also placed on treating the wastes at
a site whenever possible, and on applying innovative technologies to clean up the contaminant.
Detailed descriptions of the remedial alternatives for addressing the contamination associated
with the Site can be found in the OU2 Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) Report. To facilitate the
presentation and evaluation of the alternatives, the alternatives in the FFS Report were
reorganized in this Interim ROD to formulate the remedial alternatives discussed below.
5 Per this Interim ROD, sediment refers to soils that are permanently inundated or perennially overlain by water.
25
-------
9.1 Remedial Alternatives
The following Remedial Alternatives were evaluated to determine if they could address principal
threat waste at OU2 as an interim RA:
• Alternative 1: No Action
• Alternative 2: Excavation of Source Material, Dredging of Sediments, Off-Site Disposal,
and Wetlands Restoration
• Alternative 3: Excavation of Source Material, Dredging of Sediments, Soil Stabilization
of Characterized Hazardous Waste, Off-Site Disposal, and Wetlands Restoration
Alternative 1: No Action
Estimated Capital Cost: $0
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $0
Estimated Construction Timeframe: N/A
The NCP, 40 C.F.R. Part 300, which governs Superfund response actions, requires that EPA
evaluate a "No Action" alternative for every NPL site in order to establish a baseline for the
comparison of alternatives. The No Action alternative involves no additional remedial activities
to be conducted for source material in OU2, providing an environmental baseline against which
impacts of the various remedial alternatives can be compared. With this alternative, there would
be no change in the concentrations of COCs in the media because no treatment, containment, or
removal would occur of source material. Lead concentrations would continue to negatively
impact all receptors and affect all ecological communities. The No Action alternative would only
be selected if the existing Site conditions were protective of human health and the environment.
This alternative does not meet the threshold criteria of protectiveness and compliance with
ARARs, which must be satisfied in order for a remedy to be eligible for selection.
Alternative 2: Excavation of Source Material, Dredging of Sediments, Off-Site Disposal,
and Wetlands Restoration
Estimated Capital Cost: $19,700,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $19,700,000
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 8.7 months
The components of this alternative would include the following:
• Clear vegetation in emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands in areas impacted by source material.
• Conduct limited removal of mature trees and vegetation in forested wetlands impacted by
source material.
26
-------
• Utilize equipment to access partially saturated soils, allowing excavation equipment to
maneuver efficiently without becoming stuck or overly compacting the soils.
• Construct a temporary cofferdam and dewater the flooded areas as much as possible, likely
performing the excavation activities in phases. Dewater flooded areas to allow excavation
activities to proceed under drier conditions.
• Collect in situ waste characterization samples for disposal profiling at a frequency to be
determined during remedial design.
• Excavate source material/lead-contaminated soils considered to be hazardous6 (from 0 to 2 ft
bgs) and directly load in dump trucks that are licensed to transport hazardous waste (estimate
of 58,000 tons). Trucks would be lined and covered. Waste would be transported to a RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste disposal facility. After the source material (lead exceeding 1,000
mg/kg) is removed, excavation will continue in these areas until lead in soils is no greater
than 99.4 mg/kg in confirmation samples submitted to an accredited analytical lab. Existing
data do not provide vertical delineation to the soils RG of 99.4 mg/kg in most of the area
covered by source material, which is a data gap that will be addressed during pre-design
sampling. Overall, refinement of lateral and vertical extent will be needed prior to
implementing the Interim RA. It is anticipated that lead concentrations in materials located
approximately 2 to 4 ft bgs will not be hazardous. The materials at these depths and other
nonhazardous material will be directly loaded in lined/covered dump trucks and transported
to a RCRA Subtitle D solid waste disposal facility (estimate of 32,000 tons).
• Construct a dewatering containment area to dry out dredged sediments prior to disposal.
• Vacuum-dredge lead-contaminated sediments and place the sediments in a dewatering
containment area.
• Treat dewatered fluid through skid-mounted treatment system. Treated water could be either
discharged to surface water or discharged to a sanitary sewer in accordance with NPDES
requirements.
• Collect waste characterization samples from dredged and dewatered sediments at a frequency
to be determined during remedial design.
• Excavate sediments from the dewatering containment area and load into dump trucks. If the
results of the waste characterization analysis determine that the dewatered sediments are
classified as nonhazardous waste, then the dewatered sediments would be transported off-Site
for disposal at a RCRA Subtitle D disposal facility. If the sediments contain concentrations
of lead above the regulatory limit of 5 ppm using the TCLP, then they would be transported
to a RCRA Subtitle C facility for treatment and disposal.
• Collect confirmation samples from the sidewalls and subfloor of the excavation areas at a
frequency to be determined during remedial design to confirm that contaminated
soils/sediments with concentrations above 1,000 mg/kg laterally and the RGs vertically for
soils and sediments are removed. If confirmation samples show that the remaining
soils/sediments exceed 1,000 mg/kg laterally or the RGs vertically, additional soils/sediments
would be removed until concentrations are met.
6 Based on historical data, lead concentrations exceeding 2,000 mg/kg is anticipated to be characterized as hazardous
waste using TCLP.
27
-------
• Restore excavated areas and surrounding areas with soil, native wetlands seed mix and
vegetation to reduce dust generation, mitigate surface runoff, and restore wetlands habitat.
Excavated areas may be backfilled with approved backfill material or regraded, depending on
estimates of the original elevations of the wetlands. For cost estimating purposes, it was
assumed that 50 percent of the excavations would be backfilled, but backfilling may also not
be necessary since removal of the waste could restore the wetlands to the pre-disposal
elevations. This determination would be made based on modeling during the remedial design
phase. Restoring the wetlands to their original elevations will increase the wetlands storage
capacity over current conditions so they will be more resilient to climate change
vulnerabilities (i.e., increased rainfall and storm events).7
Alternative 3: Excavation of Source Material, Dredging of Sediments, Soil Stabilization of
Characterized Hazardous Waste, Off-Site Disposal, and Wetlands Restoration
Estimated Capital Cost: $48,400,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $48,400,000
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 12 months
This alternative is similar to Alternative 2 with the exception that excavated source material
characterized as hazardous would be treated in place with soil stabilization amendments,
rendering it as nonhazardous, and disposing it at an off-Site RCRA Subtitle D solid waste
disposal facility. The primary elements of Alternative 3 that are in addition to those identified in
Alternative 2 include:
• Add soil stabilization amendment to source material in place and mixing in the top 2 ft of
material with a backhoe or excavator. For costing purposes and based on results from
treatability studies, MetaFix® was assumed to be used at 5 percent by weight to stabilize
material in place.
• Collect confirmation samples from treated material at a frequency to be determined during
remedial design and submit for laboratory analysis for TCLP metals. If the treated soil
exceeds TCLP concentration limits, additional soil stabilization amendment would be added
and mixed until confirmation samples verify that the material was rendered nonhazardous.
• Excavate treated and rendered nonhazardous material, load directly into dump trucks and
transport to a RCRA Subtitle D disposal facility. After the treated source material is removed
from the top 2 ft, excavation will continue in these areas until lead in soil is 99.4 mg/kg from
confirmation samples. It is anticipated that lead concentrations from approximately 2 to 4 ft
bgs are nonhazardous and require no treatment.
7 EPA is conducting a Climate Vulnerability Assessment that will be incorporated in the Remedial Design. This
assessment will ensure that decisions are made to ensure the long-term protectiveness of the remedy in consideration
of climate changes and the health of the wetland.
28
-------
Five-Year Reviews
The first five-year review (FYR) for this Site will be completed within five years after the start
of on-Site construction for OU1, which is anticipated to begin in the Summer of 2023, and will
be conducted every five years thereafter. A FYR is necessary for this Site because the Remedial
Actions at OU1 and the Remedial Alternatives evaluated for OU2 will result in hazardous
substances remaining on-Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA will conduct a statutory review no less often than every five years to ensure that
the Selected Remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment pursuant to
Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c), and 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of theNCP.
FYRs will continue until hazardous substances are no longer present above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
9.2 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy
The Selected Remedy presented herein will remove and prevent exposure to source material,
specifically ceramic waste, soil, and sediment containing lead concentrations above 1,000 mg/kg
in the OU2 wetlands. The removal of this source material will address the most contaminated
areas of the wetlands, significantly reduce risk, and reduce the likelihood of further migration of
contaminants from and within the wetlands. Wetlands restoration in the areas of removal will
mark the start of mitigation of the impacted habitat in OU2. Additionally, removing the source
material may restore wetlands to the pre-disposal elevation which may increase the wetlands
storage capacity over current conditions so the watershed will be more resilient to climate change
(i.e., increased rainfall, storm events). A final remedy for OU2 will be presented in a future ROD
and will address remaining contamination in OU2.
10.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
The alternatives discussed above were compared to each other with the nine criteria set forth in
40 C.F.R. § 300.430(e)(9)(iii) of the NCP in order to select a remedy for the Site. These nine
criteria are categorized according to three groups: threshold criteria; primary balancing criteria;
and modifying criteria. These evaluation criteria relate directly to the requirements of Section
121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621, which determine the overall feasibility and acceptability of
the remedy.
Threshold criteria must be satisfied in order for a remedy to be eligible for selection. Primary
balancing criteria are used to weigh major trade-offs among remedies. State and community
acceptance are modifying criteria formally taken into consideration after public comment is
received on the Proposed Plan. A summary of each of the criteria is presented below, followed
by a summary of the relative performance of the alternatives with respect to each of the nine
criteria. These summaries provide the basis for determining which alternative provides the "best
balance" of trade-offs with respect to the nine criteria.
29
-------
l Aaluation ( riteria for Superl'iind Ki*inc«li:il \llernali\ es
Threshold criteria: Musi he s;i 1 is lied in order lor a remedy 1» he eligible lor selection.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment determines whether an
alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to public health and the environment
through institutional controls (ICs), engineering controls, or treatment.
2. Compliance with ARARs evaluates whether the alternative will meet all ARARs of
Federal and State environmental statutes, regulations, and other requirements that pertain to
the site, and/or justifies a waiver.
Primary balancing criteria: I sed to weigh major IradeolT between remedial
alternatives.
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence considers the expected residual risk and the
ability of an alternative to maintain protection of human health and the environment over
time.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Contaminants through Treatment
evaluates the anticipated performance of an alternative's use of treatment to reduce the
harmful effects of principal contaminants, their ability to move in the environment, and the
amount of contamination present.
5. Short-term Effectiveness considers the length of time needed to implement an alternative
and the risks the alternative poses to workers, residents, and the environment during the
construction and implementation period, until the cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Implementability considers the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing
an alternative, including the availability of goods and services needed to implement a
particular option.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and annual operations and maintenance costs; compared as
present worth cost.
Modifying criteria: Considered In EPA after public commcnl is received on the
Proposed Plan.
30
-------
Kvaluafion Criteria lor Super fund Remedial Alternalives
8. State/ Support Agency Acceptance addresses whether the State concurs or has comments
on the preferred alternative, as described in the Proposed Plan.
9. Community Acceptance considers whether the local community agrees with EPA's
analysis of the preferred alternative, as described in the Proposed Plan.
10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The No Action alternative is required by the NCP and serves as the baseline against which the
other alternatives are compared. Under this alternative, no further efforts, active remediation, or
resources will be expended to remediate OU2. All ceramic waste and lead-contaminated soil will
remain on-Site with this alternative, and no measures will be taken to protect the community.
Because the No Action alternative would not be protective of human health and the environment,
it fails the threshold criteria and is eliminated from further consideration under the remaining
eight criteria.
Alternative 2 and 3 would only be protective to human health and the environment where the
Selected Remedy as discussed in this Interim ROD will occur. A final ROD for OU2 will be
necessary in the future to identify protections to human health and the environment throughout
the extent of OU2.
Alternative 2 would provide protection to human health and the environment where source
material has been identified. The source material would be removed from OU2, transported, and
disposed of at approved permitted facilities. Source material that fails TCLP analysis (anticipated
to be from 0 to 2 ft bgs) would be transported and disposed at a RCRA Subtitle C-licensed
hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility. For soils/sediments with elevated lead
concentrations but below the TCLP limit, the material would be transported to a nonhazardous
disposal facility (i.e., RCRA Subtitle D solid waste disposal facility).
Alternative 3 would provide protection to human health and the environment where source
material has been identified by treating hazardous source material on-Site and rendering it
nonhazardous before transporting and disposing it at a nonhazardous landfill.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would therefore both reduce risks from potential exposure to source
material, protecting human health and the environment where source material has been identified
by removing contaminated soil/sediment and hauling off-Site for proper disposal.
10.2 Compliance with ARARs
Any cleanup alternative selected by EPA must comply with all applicable or relevant and
appropriate federal and state environmental requirements or provide the basis upon which such
requirement(s) can be waived. Applicable requirements are those environmental standards,
31
-------
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal or state law that are legally
applicable to the remedial action to be implemented at the Site. Relevant and appropriate
requirements, while not being directly applicable, address problems or situations sufficiently
similar to those encountered at the Site that their application is well-suited to the particular
circumstance. The to be considered category consists of advisories, criteria, or guidance that
were developed by EPA, other federal agencies, or states that may be useful in developing
CERCLA remedies.
ARARs are divided into three categories, chemical specific, location specific, and action
specific. Chemical specific ARARs are usually health or risk based numerical values or
methodologies which, when applied to site-specific conditions, results in the establishment of
numerical values. These values establish the acceptable amount or concentration of chemical that
may be found in, or discharged to, the ambient environment. Location specific ARARs are
restrictions placed on the concentration of hazardous substances or the conduct of cleanup
activities solely because they are in specific locations. Action specific ARARs are usually
technology- or activity-based requirements or limitations on actions taken with respect to
hazardous wastes. The ARARs are described in detail in Appendix D.
ARARs that have a more significant influence for how Alternatives 2 and 3 are performed,
include:
• Wetlands Protection and Mitigation Regulations (40 C.F.R. § 230.10) - Excavation of
contaminated soil and sediment from the wetlands will need to address and avoid
wherever possible any potential short-term and long-term adverse impacts on the
wetlands. Additionally, restoration/mitigation activities will need to take place following
removal of contaminated material.
• RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (including 40 C.F.R. § 261.24; 25
Pa. Code §§ 261a. 1; 261a.2; 261a.3(b); and 261a.7) - These requirements must be
followed for any remedy that generates and stores hazardous waste.
• Dam Safety and Encroachment Act (25 Pa. Code §§ 105.15; 105.17; 105.18a)-
Disruption to wetlands may occur during the implementation of any remedial
alternative.
• NPDES Requirements (including regulations set forth in 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.41;
122.44; 40 C.F.R. Part 423, App. A; 25 Pa. Code §§ 92a.3 and 92a.41) - While
no permit is required, the substantive provisions of these requirements are
applicable to any portion of the remedy that may affect the water quality in the
nearby vernal pools and creeks, such as treatment and discharge of treated water.
Sediment and erosion control features will need to be implemented before the
start of intrusive construction activities.
A more complete description of the specific ARARs identified for the Selected Remedy in this
Interim ROD are set forth in Appendix D.
32
-------
Alternatives 2 and 3 would require location-specific ARARs (specifically Wetlands Protection
and Mitigation) by performing excavation activities in a wetland and 100-year floodplain. With
respect to complying with action-specific ARARs, Alternatives 2 and 3 would require
stabilization of potentially hazardous source material to render it nonhazardous to meet RCRA
Hazardous Waste Management Regulations and Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs).
Construction of cofferdams or water diversion structures under both Alternatives 2 and 3 would
be performed in accordance with Pennsylvania's Dam Safety and Encroachments Act regulations
and Federal Wetlands Protection and Mitigation ARARs to meet the location-specific ARARs.
Treated water could be either discharged to surface water or discharged to a sanitary sewer in
accordance with NPDES requirements.
10.3 Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-term effectiveness would be achieved for Alternative 2 through the removal of the source
material from OU2 and disposal at an appropriate disposal facility (RCRA Subtitle C for
hazardous material and RCRA Subtitle D for nonhazardous material). For proper disposal at a
RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill, the hazardous source material would be
stabilized/treated to LDRs at the landfill.
Long-term effectiveness would be achieved for Alternative 3 by excavating the source material,
adding stabilization agents to reduce toxicity and mobility. The material would be properly
disposed at a RCRA Subtitle D landfill.
Both alternatives would take measures to minimize impacts and destruction to the wetlands by
using smaller-sized excavating equipment, such as using mini marsh or amphibious excavators to
minimize disturbances to the wetlands. Additionally, both alternatives would take measures to
restore excavated areas and surrounding areas with soil, native wetlands seed mix and vegetation
to reduce dust generation, mitigate surface runoff, and enhance wetlands habitat.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would help to restore pre-disposal elevation to the wetlands containing
soils/sediments above 1,000 mg/kg of lead, which would increase the wetlands storage capacity
over current conditions so they would be more resilient to climate change compared to current
conditions.
Thus, Alternatives 2 and 3 would both provide similar degrees of long-term effectiveness and
permanence by removing source material from the Site and reducing vulnerabilities to climate
change.
10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
Under Alternative 2, the hazardous source material would be stabilized at the hazardous waste
landfill prior to disposal.
33
-------
Under Alternative 3, the toxicity and mobility of source material would be reduced by adding an
appropriate amendment to chemically sequester lead, reducing its leachability, and rendering it
nonhazardous. The volume of source material would increase with the addition of amendment,
then be removed, and placed at an off-Site landfill.
Overall, Alternatives 2 and 3 would offer similar reductions in contaminant toxicity and mobility
by removal. Alternative 3 would significantly decrease contaminant toxicity through the addition
of soil stabilizers, rendering the soil non-hazardous prior to land disposal. The difference
between Alternatives 2 and 3 is whether the stabilization efforts occur at a licensed hazardous
waste facility (Alternative 2) or occur in-place at OU2 before being excavated (Alternative 3).
Both alternatives include disposing of the material at off-Site landfills beneath an engineered
liner system.
10.5 Short-term Effectiveness
Alternatives 2 and 3 could pose potential short-term risks by generating fugitive dust emissions
during excavation of the source material, and through general construction hazards. Primary risks
would be to construction workers. Adjacent properties to OU2 include the B&P rail line property
and undeveloped private wooded areas. Standard practices and controls, such as dust
suppression, would be used to mitigate short-term risks.
Both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 include transporting a substantial quantity of excavated
material to disposal facilities. Transportation activities have inherent risks due to the potential for
traffic accidents and the release of the material being transported. Under Alternative 2, over
58,000 tons of hazardous material would be transported up to 2 hours away (one way) to a
licensed hazardous waste landfill for treatment and about 32,000 tons would be transported to a
nonhazardous landfill less than 30 miles away. For Alternative 2, it is assumed there would be up
to 135 days with 12 trucks per day transporting hazardous and nonhazardous material. For
Alternative 3, the hazardous material would be treated in place and transported to a
nonhazardous landfill, with a total of 90,000 tons of material being transported to a
nonhazardous landfill. With respect to distance traveled, Alternative 2 has greater potential for
short-term impacts due to the longer travel distance for hazardous soil. However, significant
short-term impacts also are possible with Alternative 3 due to transport, hauling, and staging of
over 5,800,000 pounds of stabilization amendment. For Alternative 3, it is assumed there would
be up to 189 days with 15 trucks per day transporting nonhazardous material, which includes 54
days with 15 trucks per day transporting the stabilization amendment. Overall, Alternative 3
includes much more truck traffic and transportation of material. Containment areas and
mitigation strategies would be in place to prevent spills and exposure to construction workers
and the environment.
Both alternatives would result in significant short-term impacts to roadways due to extensive
daily hauling and transportation of removed material to appropriate disposal facilities.
Both alternatives would have negative short-term impacts on the wetlands (i.e., destruction of
wetlands) and the habitat in adjacent areas needed to access the contaminated wetlands.
34
-------
10.6 Implementability
All the materials and services needed for Alternative 2 are standard and are readily available
from vendors. This alternative would require management of large quantities of both surface
water and excavated material. Source material is present throughout over 23 acres of OU2.
Potentially 58,000 tons of hazardous material would be transported by hazardous waste-licensed
haulers. The nearest licensed hazardous waste disposal facility is approximately 2 hours from the
Site. Nonhazardous material would be transported to a nonhazardous waste landfill, which is less
than 30 minutes from the Site. Direct loading and hauling of material to an appropriate disposal
facility will limit issues with storing, staging, and handling of contaminated media. The
anticipated time to implement Alternative 2 is approximately 8 months following a completed
and approved Remedial Design.
For Alternative 3, most of the treatment components and materials are readily available from
multiple vendors. One exception is the large quantity of amendment (over 5.8 million pounds)
that would be needed to effectively treat over 58,000 tons of hazardous source material and
render it nonhazardous to meet LDRs. Bench-scale studies could be performed to determine the
specific amount of material or ratio of materials to purchase from one vendor. However, supply
chain delays could be an issue when sourcing amendment. Additionally, the amendment would
need to be shipped and stored on-Site in a staging area. Treating the material in batches and
waiting for confirmation sampling results would add time to the overall implementation
timeframe. The anticipated time to implement this alternative is approximately one year
following a completed and approved Remedial Design.
Alternatives 2 and 3 could be readily implemented with construction techniques, albeit those that
involve utilizing equipment to access partially saturated soils which allow excavation equipment
to maneuver efficiently without becoming stuck or overly compacting soils. Alternatives 2 and 3
would result in similar impacts on forested wetlands as both include excavation and dredging of
source material. Although Alternative 2 requires transportation of hazardous material to a
hazardous waste treatment facility, Alternative 3 requires sourcing, delivering, and storing over
5,800,000 pounds of stabilization amendment on-Site. With respect to construction time,
Alternative 2 would require less time to implement compared to Alternative 3.
Overall, Alternative 2 is more implementable compared to Alternative 3.
10.7 Cost
The EPA Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) guidance specifies that a +50 percent
to a -30 percent range of cost be used for evaluating cost estimates. The following table
35
-------
summarizes the +50 percent to -30 percent range of estimated present-value costs of the viable
alternative.
Because the alternatives discussed in this Interim ROD do not include O&M or annual costs,
only present-value capital costs are presented, rounded to the nearest $100,000.
Alternative Cost Comparison
Alternatives
Present-
Value Capital Cost
Present-Value of
O&M ami Periodic
Costs
Total Present-Value Cost
Alternative 1
$0
$0
$0
Alternative 2
$19,700,000
$0
$19,700,000
Alternative 3
$48,400,000
$0
$48,400,000
Prcscnt-Value Cost Summary
Cost Basis
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
+50 percent
$29,500,000
$72,600,000
Base Cost
$19,700,000
$48,400,000
-30 percent
$13,800,000
$33,900,000
10.8 State Acceptance
PADEP concurred with the selection of Alternative 2 in a letter dated March 23, 2023 (Appendix
A).
10.9 Community Acceptance
The public comment period for the Proposed Plan was from November 1, 2022, to December 1,
2022. Additionally, a public meeting was held on November 15, 2022, in DuBois City Hall in
DuBois, Pennsylvania, to present the Proposed Plan to community members. Representatives
from EPA answered questions about EPA's Preferred Alternative for the Site. Oral comments
were documented during the meeting. This transcript is included in the Administrative Record
for the Site. EPA's response to comments received during the public comment period is included
in the Responsiveness Summery in this Interim ROD.
Information provided by EPA in the Proposed Plan is based largely on the findings of the RI
Report (2018) and the FFS Report (2022). Both of these documents, along with the other
documents that EPA relied upon to prepare this Interim ROD, are available in the Administrative
Record for this Site.
36
-------
11.0 Principal Threat Waste
The NCP, 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(a)(l)(iii)(A), establishes an expectation that EPA will use
treatment to address the principal threats posed by a site wherever practicable. The principal
threat concept is applied to the characterization of source materials at a Superfund site. A source
material is material that includes or contains hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants
that act as a reservoir for migration of contamination, for example, to groundwater. Principal
threat wastes are those source materials considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile, which
would present a significant risk to human health, or the environment should exposure occur.
As more fully discussed above in Section 8.1 (Remediation Goals), EPA considers materials at
this Site that have lead concentrations above 1,000 mg/kg to be principal threat waste because
they contain significant concentrations of highly toxic materials, because of the unusually high
bioavailability resulting in high toxicity, and the migration potential for this material to be a
continuing source of contamination. Additionally, lead concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg
are coincident with observations of white silty-clay sludge material originating from china
manufacturing processes, indicating a visual reference to source material. Thus, the Interim RA
for OU2 will address source material where ceramic waste material and soil/sediment with lead
concentrations exceed 1,000 mg/kg.
12.0 Selected Remedy
Following review and consideration of the information in the Administrative Record, the
requirements of CERCLA and the NCP, and public comments, EPA has selected the following
alternative as the Selected Remedy for the OU2 Interim RA.
Alternative 2 - Excavation of Source material, Dredging of Sediments, Off-Site Disposal, and
Wetlands Restoration.
12.1 Summary of the Rationale for Selected Remedy
EPA's Selected Remedy meets the threshold criteria for overall protection of human health and
the environment and compliance with ARARs. Based on the information currently available,
EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy will meet the RAOs for the OU2 Interim RA and
provides the best balance of advantages and disadvantages among the alternatives when
evaluating them using the balancing criteria.
In addition, it will address principal threat waste and eliminate a major source of contamination
in the OU2 wetlands. Removing ceramic waste and these elevated concentrations of lead will
reduce risk and facilitate the restoration of the impacted wetland and adjacent habitat. Restoring
the wetlands to their original elevation will increase their storage capacity, in effect, enhancing
the resiliency of the Site and watershed to climate change vulnerabilities (i.e., increased rainfall
and storm events).
37
-------
12.2 Description of the Selected Remedy
Based on the comparison of the nine criteria, EPA selects Alternative 2 - Excavation of Source
material, Dredging of Sediments, Off-Site Disposal, and Wetlands Restoration as the Selected
Remedy for the OU2 Interim RA.
EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy will be the most effective in addressing principal
threat waste present in OU2. A conceptual layout of the Selected Remedy is shown on Figure 2.
Remedy Components
The components of the Selected Remedy include the following:
• Clear vegetation in emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands in areas impacted by source material.
• Conduct limited removal of mature trees and vegetation in forested wetlands impacted by
source material.
• Utilize equipment to access partially saturated soils, allowing excavation equipment to
maneuver efficiently without becoming stuck or overly compacting the soils.
• Construct a temporary cofferdam and dewater the flooded areas as much as possible, likely
performing the excavation activities in phases. Dewatering the flooded areas would allow
excavation activities to proceed under drier conditions.
• Collect in situ waste characterization samples for disposal profiling at a frequency to be
determined during remedial design.
• Excavate source material/lead-contaminated soil considered to be hazardous8 (from 0 to 2 ft
bgs) and directly load in dump trucks that are licensed to transport hazardous waste (estimate
of 58,000 tons). Trucks would be lined and covered. Waste would be transported to a RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste disposal facility. After the source material (lead exceeding 1,000
mg/kg) is removed, excavation will continue in these areas until lead in soil is no greater than
99.4 mg/kg in confirmation samples submitted to an accredited analytical lab. Existing data
do not provide vertical delineation to the soil RG of 99.4 mg/kg in most of the area covered
by source material, which is a data gap that will be addressed during pre-design sampling.
Overall, refinement of lateral and vertical extent will be needed prior to implementing the
Interim Remedial Action (RA). It is anticipated that lead concentrations in materials located
approximately 2 to 4 ft bgs will not be hazardous. The materials at these depths and other
nonhazardous material will be directly loaded in lined/covered dump trucks and transported
to a RCRA Subtitle D solid waste disposal facility (estimate of 32,000 tons).
• Construct a dewatering containment area to dry out dredged sediment prior to disposal.
• Vacuum-dredge lead-contaminated sediment and place it in a dewatering containment area.
• Treat dewatered fluid through skid-mounted treatment system. Treated water could be either
discharged to surface water or discharged to a sanitary sewer in accordance with NPDES.
8 Based on historical data, lead concentrations exceeding 2,000 mg/kg is anticipated to be characterized as hazardous
waste using TCLP.
38
-------
• Collect waste characterization samples from dredged and dewatered sediments at a frequency
to be determined during remedial design.
• Excavate sediment from the dewatering containment area and load into dump trucks. If the
results of the waste characterization analysis determine that the dewatered sediment is
classified as nonhazardous waste, then it would be transported off-Site for disposal at a
RCRA Subtitle D disposal facility. If the sediment contains concentrations of lead above the
regulatory limit of 5 ppm using the TCLP, then it would be transported to a RCRA Subtitle C
facility for treatment and disposal.
• Collect confirmation samples from the sidewalls and subfloor of the excavation areas at a
frequency to be determined during remedial design to confirm that contaminated
soils/sediments with concentrations above 1,000 mg/kg laterally and the RGs vertically for
soils and sediments are removed. If confirmation samples show that the remaining
soil/sediment exceed 1,000 mg/kg laterally or the RGs vertically, additional soil/sediment
would be removed until concentrations are met.
• Restore excavated areas and surrounding areas with soil, native wetlands seed mix and
vegetation to reduce dust generation, mitigate surface runoff, and restore wetlands habitat.
Excavated areas may be backfilled with approved backfill material or regraded, depending on
estimates of the original elevations of the wetlands. For cost estimating purposes, it was
assumed that 50 percent of the excavations would be backfilled, but backfilling may also not
be necessary since removal of the waste could restore the wetlands to the pre-disposal
elevations. This determination would be made based on modeling during the remedial design
phase. Restoring the wetlands to their original elevations will increase the wetlands storage
capacity over current conditions so they will be more resilient to climate change
vulnerabilities (i.e., increased rainfall and storm events).9
O&M Components
There is no O&M associated with the Selected Remedy.
Design Considerations
Source material present in seasonal dry areas would be excavated with standard
excavation/backhoe equipment in the dry. Smaller equipment such as a mini march or
amphibious excavators would be used to minimize destruction and impacts to the wetlands.
Cofferdams and water diversion activities would be implemented prior to excavation activities to
ensure conditions were suitable for dry excavation through the life of the remedial action. Based
on historical data, source material with lead concentrations exceeding 2,000 mg/kg is anticipated
to be characterized as hazardous using TCLP. This material, which is within the upper 2 ft of
area being excavated, would be excavated separately, direct loaded into trucks, and transported
9 EPA is conducting a Climate Vulnerability Assessment that will be incorporated in the Remedial Design. This
assessment will ensure that decisions are made to ensure the long-term protectiveness of the remedy in consideration
of climate changes and the health of the wetland.
39
-------
to an off-Site hazardous waste facility licensed to accept and treat the soil. Treatment of the
material to meet the RCRA LDRs will be the responsibility of the hazardous waste disposal
facility. Nonhazardous soil located beneath the source material with concentrations ranging from
99.4 mg/kg to 2,000 mg/kg will be excavated and transported to a nonhazardous waste disposal
facility. It is anticipated that excavations that exceed 3 ft bgs will encounter groundwater.
Erosion control and contingency measures for managing/dewatering groundwater from
excavations will be required. Excavated areas would be restored with native wetlands seed mix
and vegetation to reduce dust generation, mitigate surface runoff, and enhance wetlands habitat.
Amended soils may be placed in areas adjacent to the excavated areas, with consideration given
to the use of soil amendments such as biochar and/or compost.
Following removal and disposal activities, equipment and materials would be demobilized from
the Site. Depending on the final excavation depth, clean fill may be imported to return the Site to
an appropriate grade for the 100-year Floodplain based on modeling. The excavated area would
be graded, covered with amended topsoil, and seeded/planted with native vegetation as part of
wetlands mitigation/ restoration efforts. Disturbed areas beyond the limits of excavation will be
revegetated appropriately as required.
12.3 Cost Estimate for the Selected Remedy
The estimated present worth cost for the Selected Remedy is $19,700,000. Appendix C includes
details of the estimated costs to construct and implement the Selected Remedy. The information
in this cost estimate is based upon the best available information regarding the anticipated scope
of the Remedial Action. This estimate is an order-of-magnitude engineering cost estimate that is
expected to be within +50 to -30 percent of the actual project cost.
Changes to the cost estimates may occur during implementation as a result of new information
and data collected during the engineering design of the Selected Remedy. Changes to the
Selected Remedy may be documented in the form of a memorandum to the Administrative
Record File, an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), or a ROD Amendment, as
appropriate.
12.4 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy
The Selected Remedy presented herein will remove and prevent exposure to source material,
specifically ceramic waste, soil, and sediment containing lead concentrations above 1,000 mg/kg
in the OU2 wetlands. The removal of this source material will address the most contaminated
areas of the wetlands, significantly reduce risk, and reduce the likelihood of further migration of
contaminants from and within the wetlands. Wetlands restoration in the areas of removal will
mark the start of mitigation of the impacted habitat in OU2. Additionally, removing the source
material could restore the wetlands to the pre-disposal elevations, which increases the wetlands
storage capacity over current conditions so the watershed will be more resilient to climate change
(i.e., increased rainfall, storm events). A final remedy for OU2 will be presented in a future ROD
and will address remaining contamination in OU2.
40
-------
13.0 Statutory Determinations
Under Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621, and 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(5)(ii) of the NCP,
EPA must select remedies that are protective of human health and the environment, comply with
ARARs, are cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery to the maximum extent possible. There is also a preference for
remedies that use treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or
mobility of hazardous wastes as a principal element. The following sections discuss how the
Selected Remedy meets these statutory requirements.
13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Based on the information currently available, EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy for
this Interim ROD improves protectiveness of human health and the environment as it would
achieve RAOs in a relatively quick timeframe (within 8 months). A final remedy will be selected
in a furture ROD to address any remaining sources of risk. The Selected Remedy would remove
source material from OU2 and ensure it is appropriately transported and disposed in licensed
permitted facilities. Removal of principal threat waste from areas of wetlands would
substantially reduce ecological risk and enable restoration of the wetlands to pre-disposal
conditions.
13.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
The NCP, 40 C.F.R. §§ 300.430(f)(5)(ii)(B) and (C), requires that a ROD describe Federal and
State ARARs that the remedial action will attain or provide a justification for any waivers.
Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal environmental or state
environmental of facility siting laws that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant,
contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance found at a CERCLA site. Relevant
and appropriate requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other
substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal environmental or
state environmental or facility siting laws that, while not "applicable" to a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site,
address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that
their use is well suited to the particular site. The to be considered category consists of advisories,
criteria, or guidance that were developed by EPA, other federal agencies, or states that may be
useful in developing CERCLA remedies.
The Selected Remedy will comply with all the ARARs listed in Appendix D.
41
-------
13.3 Cost Effectiveness
The Selected Remedy is cost-effective in providing overall protection of human health and the
environment by limiting the risk posed by Site COCs and meeting all other requirements of
CERCLA and the NCP at a cost that is proportional to the other alternatives that were evaluated.
Further, the Selected Remedy is readily implementable and provides a high degree of both short-
and long-term effectiveness. The estimated present worth cost of the Selected Remedy is
$19,700,000.
13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The Selected Remedy is an interim remedial action to address source material and is not intended
to provide a permanent solution to the contamination in OU2. The Interim RA for OU2 will be
followed by a final RA that will address all contaminated media within OU2, not just the source
material. With respect to addressing source material, the Selected Remedy represents the
maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment are practicable to remove and treat
ceramic waste and elevated lead present in soils and sediments.
13.5 Five-Year Review Requirements
The first FYR for this Site will be completed within five years after the start of on-Site
construction for OU1, which is anticipated to begin in the Summer of 2023, and will be
conducted every five years thereafter. A FYR is necessary for this Site because the Remedial
Actions at OU1 and the Interim RA for OU2 would result in hazardous substances remaining on-
Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA will conduct a
statutory review no less often than every five years to ensure that the Selected Remedy is, or will
be, protective of human health and the environment pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. § 9621(c), and 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the NCP. FYRs will continue until
hazardous substances are no longer present above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure.
14.0 Documentation of Significant Changes
The Proposed Plan was released for public comment on November 1, 2022. EPA has reviewed
all comments submitted during the public comment period and has determined that no significant
changes to the remedy, as originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary or
appropriate.
15. State Role
42
-------
PADEP, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has reviewed the remedial
alternatives presented in this ROD and has provided its concurrence with the Selected Remedy
a letter dated March 23, 2023.
III. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
JACKSON CERAMIX SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 2
CLEARFIELD AND JEFFERSON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
-------
III. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Overview of Responsiveness Summary:
This section summarizes the questions and comments received during the Proposed Plan public
meeting. There were no comments received during the public comment period besides those
asked during the public meeting. The Proposed Plan was released for public comment on
November 1, 2022. The public comment period was from November 1, 2022, to December 1,
2022. A public meeting was held at the DuBois City Hall Council Chambers on the evening of
November 15, 2022.
Questions and comments received during the public meeting and EPA's responses are
summarized below and are also documented in the meeting transcript that can be found in the
AR file for this Site.
After considering the public's questions and comments during the public meeting, EPA
determined that no significant changes to the proposed interim remedial action, as described in
the Proposed Plan, were necessary or appropriate.
Stakeholder Comments During the Public Meeting:
Comment #1:
A local citizen asked where EPA is doing the cleanup and whether EPA is excavating and
dredging only where the Jackson China facility was located, or will activities be conducted at
other areas on private property?
Response to Comment #1:
Interim Action activities will not be conducted in the area where the former manufacturing
facility was located. Interim Action activities will be conducted at properties located on the
44
-------
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain area within OU2 that were impacted by the former china
manufacturing facility operations. These properties are private or commercial properties.
Comment #2:
A local citizen voiced concerns regarding flooding and contamination spreading beyond the area
of the Operable Unit 2 (OU2) boundary. This individual also asked if additional testing could be
done outside the current boundary of OU2 and if additional sampling is done, whether it would
just be for lead or would EPA sample for additional contaminants.
Response to Comment #2:
During the public availability session held prior to the meeting, EPA and the local citizens
reviewed maps showing the extent of contamination within and properties in proximity to OU2.
EPA has defined the extent of contamination within OU2 (in the Sandy Lick Creek floodplain
area) and has determined that additional sampling beyond the current OU2 boundary is not
warranted. EPA has identified the OU2 boundary based on Site conditions. EPA will be
collecting additional data in January 2023 to further refine the 1,000 mg/kg lead boundary within
OU2. EPA will reevaluate if any new information comes to light that would warrant additional
sampling beyond the current OU2 boundary, and in this evaluation, it will be determined if more
contaminants besides lead will need to be assessed.
After the public meeting, EPA followed up with a phone call to the concerned citizens and it was
determined that the citizens were unclear as to the location of their properties in proximity to the
Site. As a follow up, EPA is providing the citizens that had questions regarding the proximity of
their properties to the Site a map of the parcel(s) they own, and sampling data collected in closest
proximity to their properties. Based on sampling data, the lead results found in close proximity to
the properties in question were below levels that would be a concern for direct contact with the
water or sediment. If the local citizens have additional questions following their receipt of the
sampling maps and data, EPA will be available for further follow up.
Comment #3:
A local citizen asked whether lead is the only contaminant of concern at the Site or were other
contaminants released.
Response to Comment #3:
Lead is not the only contaminant of concern at the Site, but lead is the major contaminant in
OU2. Other contaminants of concern in OU2, including manganese, arsenic, chromium, and
cobalt in soils, are less pervasive than lead, and in some cases are co-located with lead.
There are also Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and metals contamination in OU1. EPA
will be conducting a Remedial Action to address contamination in OU1. EPA is currently at the
final design stage and will initiate Remedial Actions for OU1 in 2023. As set forth in a ROD for
45
-------
0U1 issued in March 2021, EPA will conduct in situ thermal remediation to address VOC
contamination and will clean up the metals (primarily lead) contamination in OU1 as well.
Comment #4:
A local citizen asked whether there are other contaminants at OU2, in addition to lead, that may
be capable of killing vegetation in the wetlands.
Response to Comment #4:
Although lead is the primary contaminant of concern at the Site, other metals found at the Site,
include manganese, arsenic, chromium, and cobalt in soil. EPA has evaluated these contaminants
and has a good understanding as to the extent to which contamination from these metals may
have a negative impact on vegetation. Addressing the highest lead concentrations first will
immediately help the ecosystem, and at the same time it may remove other contaminants that are
co-located with lead. However, after the proposed Interim Action is completed, EPA will assess
whether any hazards remain, whether from lead or other contaminants, which will be addressed
in a final remedy for OU2.
Comment #5:
A local citizen asked whether EPA implemented this type of remediation before and whether
there is testing to ensure it was successful.
Response to Comment #5:
EPA has implemented this type of response action at other sites where wetlands are located.
Excavation and removal of contamination off-site is often utilized as part of a site cleanup. When
conducting these activities in wetlands at the Site, EPA will ensure that negative impacts to the
wetlands are reduced by using machinery such as an amphibious marsh excavator, which is
smaller in scale compared to a typical excavator. To provide more detail, EPA has conducted
treatability studies to try to address wetlands contamination in OU2 by using technology other
than excavation and dredging that may have a lesser impact on the wetlands. For example, EPA
investigated whether a carbon-based material could be mixed into the sediments to reduce the
toxicity of lead. These treatability studies revealed that the levels of lead that are very high
(concentrations above 1,000 mg/kg are considered principal threat waste, or source material)
cannot be treated in place. It is important to remove the high concentrations of lead so that the
wetlands can start the restoration process. The Interim Action selected in the Interim ROD for
OU2 is just a first step of cleanup for OU2. This Interim Action would remove the source
material of lead at levels of 1,000 mg/kg. Outside this footprint, there will still be lead
contamination in OU2, which EPA will address at a later date. EPA anticipates that work to be
performed by EPA at OU2 subsequent to the Interim Action will be intended to reach a cleanup
level of 99.4 mg/kg in soils and 69 mg/kg in sediments.
46
-------
Comment #6:
A local citizen asked whether there will still be wetlands when EPA completes the Interim
Action.
Response to Comment #6:
Yes. One of the objectives of the Interim Action is to restore the wetlands. This means EPA will
take measures to avoid negative impacts to the wetlands or to restore the wetlands to their
condition prior to the remedial action being done. Also, removing the lead source material from
the wetlands will be extremely beneficial to the health of the wetland's ecosystem. EPA is
conducting a Climate Vulnerability Assessment that will be incorporated in the Remedial Design
that will ensure that decisions are made to ensure the long-term protectiveness of the remedy in
consideration of climate changes and the health of the wetlands.
Comment #7:
A local citizen asked whether EPA will be working with local contractors and local companies to
make this work happen.
Response to Comment #7:
EPA typically has contractors involved in Superfund projects. With regard to the Site, EPA
already has a design contract with a firm known as Hydrogeologic, Inc (HGL). HGL has been
involved at the Site for several years and it works on all Operable Units at the Site in the
Feasibility Study and Design stage of the Site. At times, HGL will subcontract some aspects of
work, and at times this has involved local companies and firms. Since EPA already has an
existing contract with HGL, it will save some time once an Interim ROD is completed since a
new contractor will not need to be procured for the design. When EPA reaches the Remedial
Action phase, a new contractor will conduct the Remedial Action work and EPA has a standard
process for procuring this type of contract.
Comment #8:
A few local citizens asked whether EPA will be replanting at the end of the project, and, if so,
what EPA plans to plant and whether it will be just vegetation or trees.
Response to Comment #8:
Wetlands restoration is an objective of the Interim Action which includes reestablishment of
native vegetation. Wetlands restoration typically involves both reseeding and replanting of trees,
shrubs, and other vegetation that is typically found in the wetlands and similar wetlands in the
area.
47
-------
EPA has completed restoration and ecological revitalization projects as part of remedial actions
at other sites. These have included planting trees and shrubs. The Jackson Ceramix team would
rely on the expertise of the team's biologist and other members of the Region's Biological
Technical Assistance Group who will consult with other regional specialists with both state and
Federal agencies, as well as other local stakeholders as needed.
Comment #9:
A local citizen asked whether landowners have any input on what is being planted on their own
property.
Response to Comment #9:
EPA takes all input into consideration. Anyone is welcome to reach out to the Site Remedial
Project Manager and Community Involvement Coordinator. EPA's information has been made
available and is accessible on the Site profile page, which is included as a link on the Fact Sheet.
It should be noted that all of the restoration work anticipated on this Site is connected to the
restoration of the Site wetlands and adjacent natural areas. To this end, EPA will be targeting the
reestablishment of the same type of vegetation that is currently there to the extent that is
commercially available.
Comment #10:
A local citizen asked whether EPA would plant species that are going to survive in the water
given that there are not many species that survive in the water.
Response to Comment #10:
The EPA biologist will select and plant species that can live in the water and saturated soil
conditions were called for by the design that will be prepared for the Site. The design will target
recreating wetlands similar to what existed prior to the waste disposal and remedial activities to
the degree that Site conditions allow. See EPA response to Comment #8.
Comment #11:
A local citizen asked whether EPA is going to do anything with the Operable Unit 1 area.
Response to Comment #11:
Yes. EPA will be finalizing two Remedial Designs in the near future for Operable Unit 1 (OU1).
Once the Remedial Designs are complete, EPA can move forward with awarding Remedial
Action contracts to conduct the cleanup work. The first Remedial Action contract will be to
conduct in situ thermal remediation to address the VOC source area in proximity to the Former
48
-------
Manufacturing Area. The second Remedial Action contract will involve the excavation of lead
contaminated soils and sediments, dredging of sediments in waterways, in situ stabilization using
a carbon-based amendment that will reduce the toxicity of lead in the wetlands in OU1 and
promote vegetative regrowth, as well as repair of the existing soil cap. This work will start in
2023.
Comment #12:
A local citizen asked whether work planned at OUlwill be conducted where the culvert comes
over.
Response to Comment #12:
The Former Lagoon in OU1 is close to the culvert and this area is going to be excavated as it
contains high concentrations of lead in soils and sediments. In addition, the culvert is where OU1
connects to OU2. The OU1 Remedial Action contract for this work is expected to be awarded in
2023 and EPA is nearing the final completion of the Remedial Design to do this work.
Comment #13:
A local citizen asked whether the proposed Interim Action is final.
Response to Comment #13:
This Interim ROD focuses on the source material present in OU2 that is acting as a continuing
source of contamination. The Interim Remedy will be followed by a final remedy for OU2 that
will address all contaminated media within OU2, not just the source material.
Comment #14:
A local citizen asked whether the priority on this Site is high.
Response to Comment #14:
Yes. EPA presented the Preferred Alternative as set forth in the Proposed Plan for Operable Unit
2 (OU2) to remove high concentrations of lead from OU2 and to protect human health and the
environment. Once a ROD is issued, EPA will seek to implement the Interim Remedy. Cleanup
of the Site is not a small project, as the budget and timeline are significant, and this Site is a
priority. In addition to this cleanup in OU2, work is moving forward to cleanup OU1 and EPA
will evaluate appropriate response actions that may be required with regard to addressing
groundwater (OU3) following upcoming OU1 and OU2 work.
Comment #15:
49
-------
A local citizen asked whether there is any chance of further pollution occurring during the
excavation process and whether there is a threat that the surface water could carry lead further
off the Site.
Response to Comment #15:
EPA and its contractors take precautions when doing remedial action to prevent further
contamination from occurring. The work is being conducted in a big area. EPA would likely start
with the most contaminated areas and remove that material first, then work its way down to the
less contaminated areas. Measures would be taken to contain the contaminated material and
prevent any migration of this material from the areas where work is being conducted.
Comment #16:
A local citizen asked whether there are certain times of year when EPA will be working on the
Site and whether that is going to change the timeframe in which EPA is able to complete the
work.
Response to Comment #16:
There are certain times of year when it is better to conduct excavation and dredging activities in
wetlands. EPA site technical specialists consider a number of variables to make decisions as to
the timing of when response actions are performed. It is generally better to do this work when
conditions are relatively drier. Also, EPA considers what species may have habitat in this area,
when determining timing of response activities. For example, the Site contains habitat that would
support the endangered Northern Long-Eared Bat and Tri-Colored Bat proposed endangered in
September 2022. EPA consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to ensure that any clearing of
vegetation is conducted during times when these bat species would not be using the site.
Comment #17:
A local citizen asked whether EPA would remove the water first during dredging and if so, will
EPA have to install a well and try to bring the water down.
Response to Comment #17:
Where dredging will be conducted, EPA will have to make that area dry first before excavating
the sediments. This will be done on a small scale and EPA will use what are referred to as
cofferdams. A cofferdam is a temporary damming structure that will be enclosed around the area,
where the water is subsequently pumped out so that dry excavation can occur. Wells will not be
used to draw down the water. There is a lot of surface water in this area so it would be too
difficult to try to draw down water levels with pumping.
50
-------
FIGURES
51
-------
\
Statewide Location
V
X
\
PENNSYLVANIA
Jackson Ceramix
Superfund Site
v.
w
' V A /- -
| ' i.67i
^~~Sl F
/-V .' ¦ *^W0y'
VJfSsS/ J \3wt5^^ \v-i ///K*3g3s^>V"^iSf J" *•
//ycvrfl 'ftt \Lv^\*r \ H&4 •! - /J l*ej&*+irzaZ. JJJrfillii
\ —^ ^ _
' * 1
. f • *«.« .
N
L/CK
1,000 2,000
II /s=J w. ¦V\\i;5-V ¦£'•. /
x-- , /'•*••. .[ / '
:- \ "r ~ ib0
K. \ \ 'si ! 1 .. _
2^-V B.H \Paiveo»st ., "na>
-Strip Mine
X"
L
e
I J
»
i
^ /)
1
j//
i
/(Iff
f
¥\
i
AV
il /A
l-'cirt
• ! /
1 Rv7\,^
St Mxhjds - • • •
lA\>. / ).^7/jk actIKt/ ¦• JE;?-
./* % '-si /
S. :> .<,'-.¦ i I 's. - , -
EPA-QU-2 Interim ROD, Jackson Ceramix Superfund
^_^_SiteJjJe^rson^£jmt\^CIecir^eJd^Cmmt^i^A^_^_
Figure 1
Site Location
r-
¦
>_.
Legend
Site Boundary'
Notes:
B&P=Buffalo and Pittsburgh
OU=Operable Unit
\ \Srv-gst- 01 \ hglgis\Jackson_C eramix \ _MSI W\0 U2_FFS\
(1 -01 )Site_Loc. mxd
3/4/2022 JM
Source: HGL, EPA
ArcGIS Online Imagery
y HGL
~ HydroGeoLogic, Inc
-------
' Beaver, Rondi
OU-2
Northeast
Drainage
48-inch Diameter
Culvert
[OU.-2, Central!
Drainage Area
OU-2 Western
Drainage'Channel
Culvert
OU-2 Main
Drainage Channel
OxDomllake,
; OU-2
Drainage
Outlet
EPA-OU-2 Interim ROD Jackson Ceramix Superfund
Site, Jeffei-soti Cmmty/Clearfield County, PA
Figure 2
Approximate Area of Interim
Remedial Action
Legend
W Historical Soil Samples
A Historic Sediment Samples
Lead Concentration in Soil
(dashed where inferred, mg/kg):
1,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
—*—«- Railroad
--t—t—• Abandoned Railroad
Culvert (dashed where inferred)
Surface Water Drainage
(dashed where inferred)
Intermittent Surface Water Drainage
Ceramix Waste Sludge
(dashed where inferred)
Cattail Area (inferred)
Emergent Wetland
Scrub-Shrub
Vernal Pool
Wetlands Coverage (AMEC, 2002)
Surface Water Pond
OU-l (West Side of Railroad Tracks)
OU-2 (Sandy Lick Floodplain)
Notes:
Lead concentrations are in units of mg/kg.
Historical lead data collected during various field events between
August 2001 and December 2020.
B&P=Buffalo and Pittsburgh
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
OU=operable unit
\ \Srv-gst- 01 \ hglgis\Jackson_C eramix \ JvtSI W\0 U2_FFS\
(I-14)Historical_Lead_Concentrations. mxd
9/20/2022 JM
Source: HGL, EPA, TetraTech
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
~ HydroGeoLogic, Inc
-------
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
52
-------
APPENDIX A
PADEP CONCURRENCE LETTER
53
-------
l »Pennsylvania
CRIMEN! OF ENVIRONMENTAL
rMZS ' OTECTION
March 23, 2023
CERTIFIED MAIL NC3. 7(120 1810 0001 1895 4638
Paul I eonard, Director
Super fund and I meir.eucy Management Division
rs i.v\ Rck-uus m*
1 otii Pan? C entci
Philadelphia, PA I1) 103-2029
Re: Record of Decision (ROD)
Jackson Ceraniix - OU2
Falls Creek Borough, Clearfield and Jefferson Counties
Dear Mr. Leonard:
Hie Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has received and reviewed the Record of
Decision (ROI» for the Jackson Ceramix site in Falls Creek Borough, Clearfield and Jeffer.son
Counties. 1 his R( )I) presents the selected remedial action for Operable Unit 2 (Ot 2 j. w hicb
addresses the following area of contamination:
• OU2 encompasses approximate!} I4)? acres of the Sandy Lick Creek floodplain
(Floodplaint that lies immediate!) downstream of OU1. OTT2 is bounded by wooded land
to the north. Wolf Run to the northeast. Sand) 1 ick ('seek to the easi and south, and the
B&P rail line propert> to the west. Ol "2 is primaril) located in ( learlleld t onnty. with a.
small portion located in Jefferson Count).
• The historical source of Site contamination was process wastewater and production
sludge discharged to a settling lagoon and ultimatel} the floodplain and wetlands. The
wastewater and production sludge contained oxides of \arious metals icsuhing from
ceramics production.
• Ceramic waste within OU2 covers approximately 6.4 acres of wetlands due to deposition
of source material and contaminated sediment over time. Lead concentrations in
sediment throughout < H *2 range from 342' nig'kg to "?(¦»,, 800 ing kg. A teas containing
lead concentrations abo\e 1,0(H) nig'kg are defined in the Interim k< U) as "source
material" or '"principal threat waste" and are she focus ol the Interim ROD.
• I cad. the constituent of concern dri\ ing the remedy, is present at lex els I P \ has
deteimined to pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the em ironment.
I heiefore. 1 I' \ has determined that the Selected Rented) identified in this Interim OU2
R< )l) is neeessaiy to protect the public health or welfare or the environment from actual
or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment.
Environment,! t, I > in..}' iind Brovwrvld- f -ograrn
Northcentral Regional Office | 208 ' Pi street I HiV t a • I VVilliamsport, PA 17701-6448
570,32.7 !(. V | I d> 570. !? J KM I www.dep.pa.gov
-------
The Selected Remedy for OU2 includes the following major components:
• (dear \ citation in cnvi cent and scrub-shrub wetlands and remove trees in forested
wetland areas impacted in source material.
• Construct a temporary cofferdam and dewater the flooded areas as much as possible,
Iikch performing the excavation activities in phases.
• f\ea\ate source inaterial lead-contaminated soil t onsidercd to be hazardous1 (from 0 to
^ It below p round surface (bps)) and dircetl) load in dump trucks dust are licensed to
transport hazardous waste (estimate of 58,000 tons). Waste would be transported to a
Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C hazardous waste disposal
laeilit). Alter the sou tee matei ial (lead exceeding 1.000 mp kg) is remoud. c\ca\ ation
will continue in these areas until lead in ->od is no m eater than (W 4 me ka (the R( i, or
Remediation iioah in continuation samples submitted to an accredited anal) tical lab. It
is anticipated that lead concentrations in materials located approximately ' to d ft bps
as ill not be hazard oils, flic matei i; 11 at these depths and other nonhazardous material
will be directly loaded in lined eo\cred dump trucks and transported to a RCR \ Subtitle
D solid waste disposal facilit) testimate of 3_.HOu tons).
• Vacuum-dredge lead-contaminated sediment and place in a constructed dewatering
containment area.
• 1 real dewatered fluid throuph skid-mounted treatment s\ stem. Treated water could be
either dischaiged to surlaee water or to a sanitarx sewei in accordance with National
Pollutant Disehaipe f Jiminaiion System t NPDl St.
• Collect waste characterization samples from dredged and dewatered sediments at a
frequenc} to be detei mined during remedial design.
• Excavate from the dewatering containment area and load into dump trucks. Dispose of
dewatered sediment in the same manner as the excavated soil based on the results of the
waste characterization analysis.
• Collect continuation sainpk s from the sidewalls and subtloor ok the cxca\ ation areas at
a frequenc) to be determined durinu remedial design to confirm that contaminated
soils sediments with concentrations above 1,000 rng/kg laterally and the R(is vertically
loi soils and >edimcnts are removed. If confirmation samples show that the remaining
soil sediment exceed 1,000 nip kp lateral!) or CW, 1 nprkp at depth, additional
soil sediment would be remo\ed and disposed until concentrations arc met.
• Rcstoic e\ca\ated areas and sumntndinp areas with soil, nali\e wetlands seed tnix and
vegetation to reduce dust generation, mitigate surface runoff, and restore wetlands
habitat.
' Based on historical data, lead concentrations exceeding 2,000 nig/kg is anticipated to be characterized as hazardous
waste using the TCLP.
-------
DEP hereby concurs with EPA's proposed remedy with the following conditions:
• DEP will be given the t»ppotlunii\ to review and comment on documents and provide
meaningful input tetuirding decisions, i elated to the design and implementation of the
remedial aetion. to assure compliance with Pennss Kania's applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirement*- i ARARs) and to be considered (TBC) requirements,
• DEP will have the opportunity to review and comment before any modification to the
ROD in the form of an Amendment or an Explanation of Significant Differences
USD),
• I PA will assure that l)I P is provided an opportunity to fully participate in any
negotiation-. vsith responsible parties,
• DEP reserves the right and responsibility to take independent enforcement actions
pursuant to state law.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and concur on this EPA Record of Decision. If you
have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Jared Dressier
Director
Nurt (ventral Regional Office
ec: Michael DcRonis. 1 P \ Region III
( beryl Sinclair. 1\\ DPP
And} I honiton. PA DEP
"Noreeti Waenci. PA DPP
File
Sincerely,
-------
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
54
-------
APPENDIX B
RISK ASSESSMENT TABLES AND RATIONALE
55
-------
TABLE 3.8
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Point
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE
MG/KG
6.9E-02
8.4E-02 (NP)
3.2E-01 J
8.4E-02
MG/KG
95% KM (% Bootstrap) UCL
1
BENZO[A]PYRENE
MG/KG
7.7E-02
9.3E-02 (NP)
2.9E-01 J
9.3E-02
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,3
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE
MG/KG
1.2E-01
1.4E-01 (NP)
5.4E-01
1.4E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,3
DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE
MG/KG
5.2E-02
8.4E-02 (NP)
7.8E-02 J
7.8E-02
MG/KG
Maximum
1,2, 5
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE
MG/KG
7.0E-02
8.5E-02 (NP)
2.3E-01 J
8.5E-02
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,3
AROCLOR-1254
MG/KG
6.8E-02
4.1E-02 (G)
2.0E-01
4.1E-02
MG/KG
95% Approximate Gamma KM-UCL
1,3
ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)
MG/KG
1.1E+04
1.2E+04 (N)
2.3E+04 J
1.2E+04
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL
2, 3
ANTIMONY
MG/KG
2.0E+00
2.5E+00 (NP)
1.5E+01
2.5E+00
MG/KG
95% KM (BCA) UCL
4
ARSENIC
MG/KG
1.1E+01
1.2E+01 (G)
5.7E+01
1.2E+01
MG/KG
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
1,3
CHROMIUM
MG/KG
1.5E+01
1.6E+01 (N)
3.2E+01
1.6E+01
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL
2
COBALT
MG/KG
1.6E+01
2.1E+01 (NP)
2.0E+02
2.1E+01
MG/KG
95% KM (BCA) UCL
1
CYANIDE
MG/KG
3.8E-01
4.6E-01 (NP)
2.2E+00 J
4.6E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (% Bootstrap) UCL
1
IRON
MG/KG
3.0E+04
3.4E+04 (G)
1.3E+05
3.4E+04
MG/KG
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
3
LEAD
MG/KG
1.9E+03
3.5E+03 (NP)
4.6E+04
1.9E+03
MG/KG
Mean
4, 6
MANGANESE
MG/KG
7.8E+02
1.5E+03 (NP)
1.3E+04
1.5E+03
MG/KG
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
1
VANADIUM (FUME OR DUST)
MG/KG
2.1E+01
2.3E+01 (G)
6.0E+01
2.3E+01
MG/KG
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
3
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(5) ProUCL recommended 95% UCL greater than maximum detected concentration.
(6) Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.
G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal
J = Estimated Value
MG/KG = milligram per kilogram
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.8A
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Ambient Air (Surface Soil)
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(Distribution)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
(Receptors other than
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE
ug/m3
5.5E-08
6.6E-08 (NP)
2.5E-07 J
6.6E-08
ug/m3
95% KM (% Bootstrap) UCL
1
Construction Worker)
BENZO[A]PYRENE
ug/m3
6.1E-08
7.4E-08 (NP)
2.3E-07 J
7.4E-08
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL
1, 3
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE
ug/m3
9.4E-08
1.1E-07 (NP)
4.3E-07
1.1E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL
1, 3
DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE
ug/m3
4.1E-08
6.7E-08 (NP)
6.2E-08 J
6.2E-08
ug/m3
Maximum
1,2,5
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE
ug/m3
5.6E-08
6.8E-08 (NP)
1.8E-07 J
6.8E-08
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL
1, 3
AROCLOR-1254
ug/m3
5.4E-08
3.2E-08 (G)
1.6E-07
3.2E-08
ug/m3
95% Approximate Gamma KM-UCL
1, 3
ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)
ug/m3
8.6E-03
9.2E-03 (N)
1.8E-02 J
9.2E-03
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL
2, 3
ANTIMONY
ug/m3
1.5E-06
2.0E-06 (NP)
1.2E-05
2.0E-06
ug/m3
95% KM (BCA) UCL
4
ARSENIC
ug/m3
8.5E-06
9.5E-06 (G)
4.5E-05
9.5E-06
ug/m3
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
1, 3
CHROMIUM
ug/m3
1.2E-05
1.3E-05 (N)
2.5E-05
1.3E-05
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL
2
COBALT
ug/m3
1.3E-05
1.6E-05 (NP)
1.6E-04
1.6E-05
ug/m3
95% KM (BCA) UCL
1
CYANIDE
ug/m3
3.0E-07
3.6E-07 (NP)
1.7E-06 J
3.6E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (% Bootstrap) UCL
1
IRON
ug/m3
2.4E-02
2.7E-02 (G)
1.0E-01
2.7E-02
ug/m3
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
3
LEAD
ug/m3
1.5E-03
2.8E-03 (NP)
3.6E-02
1.5E-03
ug/m3
Mean
4, 6
MANGANESE
ug/m3
6.2E-04
1.2E-03 (NP)
1.1E-02
1.2E-03
ug/m3
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
1
VANADIUM (FUME OR DUST)
ug/m3
1.7E-05
1.8E-05 (G)
4.7E-05
1.8E-05
ug/m3
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
3
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
(Construction Worker)
ARSENIC
ug/m3
9.5E-04
1.1E-03 (G)
5.1E-03
1.1E-03
ug/m3
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
1, 3
CHROMIUM
ug/m3
1.4E-03
1.4E-03 (N)
2.8E-03
1.4E-03
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL
2
COBALT
ug/m3
1.4E-03
1.8E-03 (NP)
1.8E-02
1.8E-03
ug/m3
95% KM (BCA) UCL
1
MANGANESE
ug/m3
6.9E-02
1.3E-01 (NP)
1.2E+00
1.3E-01
ug/m3
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
1
Air Concentration = CS*1000 ug/mg "(1/PEF + 1/VF)
CS (soil concentration) presented on Table 3.8
VF calculated on Table 3 Supplement A (VF only included for VOCs)
PEF calculated on Table 3 Supplement B (receptors other than construction worker) or C (construction worker)
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(5) ProUCL recommended 95% UCL greater than maximum detected concentration.
(6) Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.
G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal
J = Estimated Value
ug/mJ = micrograms per cubic meters
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.8B
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil (for Venison concentration estimation)
Exposure Point
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
BENZO[A]PYRENE
MG/KG
7.7E-02
9.3E-02 (NP)
2.9E-01 J
9.3E-02
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,3
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE
MG/KG
1.2E-01
1.4E-01 (NP)
5.4E-01
1.4E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,3
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
MG/KG
1.7E-01
2.4E-01 (NP)
2.6E+00 J
2.4E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (BCA) UCL
1
DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE
MG/KG
5.2E-02
8.4E-02 (NP)
7.8E-02 J
7.8E-02
MG/KG
Maximum
1, 2, 5
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE
MG/KG
7.0E-02
8.5E-02 (NP)
2.3E-01 J
8.5E-02
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,3
AROCLOR-1248
MG/KG
3.0E-02
3.6E-02 (NP)
8.3E-02
3.6E-02
MG/KG
95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL
1, 2, 3
AROCLOR-1254
MG/KG
6.8E-02
4.1E-02 (G)
2.0E-01
4.1E-02
MG/KG
95% Approximate Gamma KM-UCL
1,3
AROCLOR-1260
MG/KG
1.5E-02
1.9E-02 (NP)
1.1E-01 J
1.9E-02
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,3
ARSENIC
MG/KG
1.1E+01
1.2E+01 (G)
5.7E+01
1.2E+01
MG/KG
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
1,3
CHROMIUM
MG/KG
1.5E+01
1.6E+01 (N)
3.2E+01
1.6E+01
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL
2
COBALT
MG/KG
1.6E+01
2.1E+01 (NP)
2.0E+02
2.1E+01
MG/KG
95% KM (BCA) UCL
1
COPPER
MG/KG
2.2E+01
2.4E+01 (LN)
1.6E+02
2.4E+01
MG/KG
95% H-UCL
1
IRON
MG/KG
3.0E+04
3.4E+04 (G)
1.3E+05
3.4E+04
MG/KG
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
3
LEAD
MG/KG
1.9E+03
3.5E+03 (NP)
4.6E+04
1.9E+03
MG/KG
Mean
4, 6
MERCURY
MG/KG
7.8E-02
1.1E-01 (NP)
6.0E-01
1.1E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL
4
ZINC
MG/KG
9.4E+01
1.0E+02 (G)
2.9E+02
1.0E+02
MG/KG
95% Approximate Gamma UCL
1,3
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(5) ProUCL recommended 95% UCL greater than maximum detected concentration.
(6) Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.
G = Gamma, LN = Log-Normal, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal
J = Estimated Value
MG/KG = milligram per kilogram
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.9
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil
Exposure Point
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
BENZO[A]PYRENE
MG/KG
4.6E-02
2.8E-01 (NP)
8.3E-02 J
8.3E-02
MG/KG
Maximum, all SLC
6
DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE
MG/KG
N/A
N/A
1.6E-02 J
1.6E-02
MG/KG
Maximum, all SLC
5
ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)
MG/KG
1.1E+04
1.2E+04 (G)
2.0E+04 J
1.2E+04
MG/KG
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC
1,3
ARSENIC
MG/KG
1.2E+01
1.5E+01 (G)
3.4E+01
1.5E+01
MG/KG
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC
1,3
CHROMIUM
MG/KG
2.0E+01
2.1E+01 (G)
4.2E+01
2.1E+01
MG/KG
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC
1,3
COBALT (a)
MG/KG
1.3E+01
2.3E+01 (NP)
8.0E+01
2.3E+01
MG/KG
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, excluding WLSS-89-0304
4, excluding hot spot
CYANIDE
MG/KG
N/A
N/A
7.3E-01 J-
7.3E-01
MG/KG
Maximum, all SLC
5
IRON
MG/KG
5.1E+04
6.2E+04 (G)
1.5E+05 D
6.2E+04
MG/KG
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC
1,3
LEAD
MG/KG
9.3E+01
1.9E+02 (NP)
1.3E+03
9.3E+01
MG/KG
Mean, all SLC
4, 7
MANGANESE (a, b)
MG/KG
7.9E+02
1.6E+03 (NP)
4.9E+03 D
1.6E+03
MG/KG
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL, excluding WLSS-85-0203 and WLSS-89-0304
1, excluding hot spots
VANADIUM (FUME OR DUST)
MG/KG
2.3E+01
2.6E+01 (N)
5.5E+01
2.6E+01
MG/KG
95% Modified-t UCL, all SLC
1
Notes:
a. Data shown here excludes sample WLSS-89-0304, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WLSS-89-0304, Cobalt = 318 MG/KG, Manganese = 24,400 MG/KG.
b. Data shown here excludes sample WLSS-85-0203, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WLSS-85-0203 Manganese = 10,000 MG/KG.
ProllCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(5) Only detected in one sample, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.
(6) ProUCL indicated not enough detected concentrations to perform goodness of fit tests, and ProUCL recommended 95% UCL is greater than maximum detected concentration.
(7) Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.
G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal
J = Estimated Value
J- = Estimated Value, result may be biased low
D = The analyte was quantitated from a diluted analysis
MG/KG = milligram per kilogram
N/A = not available
SLC = Sandy Lick Creek
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.9A
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Ambient Air (Subsurface Soil)
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(Distribution)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
(Receptors other than
BENZO[A]PYRENE
ug/m3
3.7E-08
2.2E-07 (NP)
6.6E-08 J
6.6E-08
ug/m3
Maximum, all SLC
6
Construction Worker)
DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE
ug/m3
N/A
N/A
1.3E-08 J
1.3E-08
ug/m3
Maximum, all SLC
5
ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)
ug/m3
8.9E-03
9.6E-03 (G)
1.6E-02 J
9.6E-03
ug/m3
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC
1, 3
ARSENIC
ug/m3
9.6E-06
1.2E-05 (G)
2.7E-05
1.2E-05
ug/m3
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC
1, 3
CHROMIUM
ug/m3
1.5E-05
1.7E-05 (G)
3.3E-05
1.7E-05
ug/m3
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC
1, 3
COBALT (a)
ug/m3
1.0E-05
1.8E-05 (NP)
6.3E-05
1.8E-05
ug/m3
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, excluding WLSS-89-0304
4, excluding hot spot
CYANIDE
ug/m3
N/A
N/A
5.8E-07 J-
5.8E-07
ug/m3
Maximum, all SLC
5
IRON
ug/m3
4.0E-02
4.9E-02 (G)
1.2E-01 D
4.9E-02
ug/m3
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC
1, 3
LEAD
ug/m3
7.4E-05
1.5E-04 (NP)
1.0E-03
7.4E-05
ug/m3
Mean, all SLC
4, 7
MANGANESE (a, b)
ug/m3
6.2E-04
1.3E-03 (NP)
3.9E-03 D
1.3E-03
ug/m3
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL, excluding WLSS-85-0203 and WLSS-89-0304
1, excluding hot spots
VANADIUM (FUME OR DUST)
ug/m3
1.8E-05
2.0E-05 (N)
4.3E-05
2.0E-05
ug/m3
95% Modified-t UCL, all SLC
1
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
(Construction Worker)
ARSENIC
ug/m3
1.1E-03
1.3E-03 (G)
3.0E-03
1.3E-03
ug/m3
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC
1, 3
CHROMIUM
ug/m3
1.7E-03
1.9E-03 (G)
3.7E-03
1.9E-03
ug/m3
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC
1, 3
COBALT (a)
ug/m3
1.2E-03
2.0E-03 (NP)
7.1E-03
2.0E-03
ug/m3
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, excluding WLSS-89-0304
4, excluding hot spot
MANGANESE
ug/m3
7.0E-02
1.4E-01 (NP)
4.3E-01
1.4E-01
ug/m3
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL, excluding WLSS-85-0203 and WLSS-89-0304
1, excluding hot spots
Notes:
a. Data shown here excludes sample WLSS-89-0304, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WLSS-89-0304, Cobalt = 318 MG/KG, Manganese = 24,400 MG/KG.
b. Data shown here excludes sample WLSS-85-0203, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WLSS-85-0203 Manganese = 10,000 MG/KG.
Air Concentration = CS*1000 ug/mg *(1/PEF + 1/VF)
CS (soil concentration) presented on Table 3.8
VF calculated on Table 3 Supplement A (VF only included for VOCs)
PEF calculated on Table 3 Supplement B (receptors other than construction worker) or C (construction worker)
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(5) Only detected in one sample, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.
(6) ProUCL indicated not enough detected concentrations to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
(7) Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.
G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal ug/m" = micrograms per cubic meters
J = Estimated Value N/A = not available
J- = Estimated Value, result may be biased low
D = The analyte was quantitated from a diluted analysis
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.10
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
BENZO[A]PYRENE
MG/KG
2.6E-02
4.5E-02 (NP)
5.2E-02 J
4.5E-02
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,2, 3
ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)
MG/KG
7.0E+03
1.1E+04 (N)
1.6E+04
1.1E+04
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL
1,2, 3
ARSENIC
MG/KG
4.4E+00
8.3E+00 (N)
1.4E+01
8.3E+00
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL
1,2, 3
CHROMIUM
MG/KG
7.7E+00
4.8E+01 (LN)
2.0E+01
2.0E+01
MG/KG
Maximum
1,5
COBALT
MG/KG
7.1E+00
2.0E+01 (NP)
1.8E+01
1.8E+01
MG/KG
Maximum
1,5
CYANIDE
MG/KG
7.3E-01
1.5E+00 (NP)
2.2E+00 J
1.5E+00
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,2, 3
IRON
MG/KG
3.8E+04
4.7E+04 (N)
5.4E+04
4.7E+04
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL
1,2, 3
MANGANESE
MG/KG
3.0E+02
5.8E+02 (N)
9.5E+02
5.8E+02
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL
1,2, 3
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(5) Recommended 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration.
LN = Log-Normal, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal
J = Estimated Value
MG/KG = milligram per kilogram
N/A = not available
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.1 OA
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment (for fish concentration estimation)
Exposure Point
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
MG/KG
7.3E-02
9.8E-02 (N)
1.2E-01 J
9.8E-02
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
CHLORDANE
MG/KG
1.0E-03
2.7E-03 (G)
2.5E-03 J
2.7E-03
MG/KG
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
1,3
DIELDRIN
MG/KG
N/A
N/A
3.0E-04 J
3.0E-04
MG/KG
Maximum
6
HEPTACHLOR
MG/KG
N/A
N/A
3.3E-04 J
3.3E-04
MG/KG
Maximum
6
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
MG/KG
N/A
N/A
7.8E-05 J
7.8E-05
MG/KG
Maximum
6
AROCLOR-1260
MG/KG
N/A
N/A
3.8E-03 J
3.8E-03
MG/KG
Maximum
6
ARSENIC
MG/KG
4.4E+00
8.3E+00 (N)
1.4E+01
8.3E+00
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
CHROMIUM
MG/KG
7.7E+00
4.8E+01 (LN)
2.0E+01
2.0E+01
MG/KG
Maximum
1,5
LEAD
MG/KG
3.8E+01
6.2E+01 (N)
1.2E+02
3.8E+01
MG/KG
Mean
1, 2, 3, 7
MERCURY
MG/KG
8.4E-02
1.1E-01 (NP)
1.1E-01 J
1.1E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,2
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(5) Only detected in one sample, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.
(6) ProUCL indicated not enough detected concentrations to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
(7) Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.
(8) Recommended 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration.
G = Gamma, LN = Log-Normal, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal
J = Estimated Value
MG/KG = milligram per kilogram
N/A = not available
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.1 OB
FISH CONCENTRATION CALCULATION - SANDY LICK CREEK FLOODPLAIN
CAS Number
Chemical of Potential Concern
Sediment Concentration (1)
(mg/kg-sediment)
BSAF Value (2)
Organism Used for Deriving BSAF
Tissue Used for Deriving BSAF
BSAF Reference
Fish
Concentration (3)
(mg/kg-fish)
117-81-7
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
9.8E-02
2.6E+02
Freshwater Fish (All Available fish species)
Fillet
EPA, 2008
2.3E+01
57-74-9
CHLORDANE
2.7E-03
1.0E+01
Freshwater Fish (All Available fish species)
Fillet
EPA, 2008
2.4E-02
60-57-1
DIELDRIN
3.0E-04
1.1E+02
Freshwater Fish (All Available fish species)
Fillet
EPA, 2008
2.9E-02
76-44-8
HEPTACHLOR
3.3E-04
7.6E+00
Freshwater Fish (Brown bullhead)
Fillet
EPA, 2008
2.2E-03
1024-57-3
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
7.8E-05
8.8E+00
Freshwater Fish (All Available fish species)
Fillet
EPA, 2008
6.1E-04
11096-82-5
AROCLOR-1260
3.8E-03
1.9E+00
N/A
N/A
EPA, 1997
6.3E-03
7440-38-2
ARSENIC
8.3E+00
1.2E-01
Fish (Yellow perch)
Whole body
WDE, 1995
2.5E-01
7440-47-3
CHROMIUM
2.0E+01
4.3E-02
Fish (Yellow perch)
Whole body
WDE, 1995
2.2E-01
7439-92-1
LEAD
3.8E+01
1.6E-01
Carnivorous, Omnivorous, and Herbivorous Fish
Whole body
WDE, 1995
1.5E+00
7439-97-6
MERCURY
1.1E-01
3.5E-01
Fish (Available fish species)
Whole body and muscle
WDE, 1995
9.5E-03
Notes:
(1) Sediment Concentrations are presented in Table 3.10a.
(2) BSAFs for metals are presented in kg-sed[dw]/kg-fish [dw]; BSAFs for organics are presented in kg-OC[dw]/kg-lipid[dw],
(3) Fish EPCs were calculated using the following equations:
Inorganics: Fish EPC (mg/kg-fish [ww]) = Sed EPC (mg/kg-sed [dw]) x BSAF (kg-sed [dw]/kg-fish [dw]) x 0.25 (kg-biota [dw]/kg-fish [ww]).
Organics: Fish EPC (mg/kg-fish [ww]) = Sed EPC (mg/kg-sed [dw]) x lipid normalized BSAF (kg-OC [dw]/kg-lipid [dw]) x (%lipid / %OC) x 0.25 (kg-biota [dw]/kg-fish [ww]).
Fish EPCs were calculated assuming 1.4% organic carbon (site-specific) in sediment, 5% lipid for fish (EPA, 2000), and 75% moisture in fish (EPA, 1993).
mg/kg-fish - milligram per kilogram offish
mg/kg-sediment - milligram per kilogram of sediment
dw - dry weight basis
ww -wet weight basis
Sources:
EPA, 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Volume I of II. USEPA/600/R-93/187a
EPC - exposure point concentration
BSAF - biota-sediment accumulation factor
OC - organic carbon
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
WDE - Washington Department of Ecology
EPA, 2008. Biota-Sediment Accumulation Factor Data Set, Version 1.0. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Mid-Continent Ecology Division (MED),
Duluth, Minnesota. Prepared Computer Sciences Corporation Duluth, Minnesota Contract 68 W-02 032, Task 5003 and 5004. January 2008. http://www.epa.gov/med/Prods_Pubs/bsaf.htm
Washington Department of Ecology (WDE), 1995. Bioaccumulation Factor Approach Analysis for Metals and Polar Organic Compounds.
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.11
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Water
Exposure Medium: Surface Water
Exposure Point
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (a)
UG/L
1.8E+00
4.8E+00 (NP)
1.8E+01
4.8E+00
UG/L
95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL, excluding WL-SW-19_7212
1,2,3, excluding hot spot
VINYL CHLORIDE (a)
UG/L
8.5E-01
1.3E+00 (NP)
1.4E+00
1.3E+00
UG/L
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding WL-SW-19_7212
6, excluding hot spot
ARSENIC
UG/L
1.3E+00
2.1E+00 (NP)
1.1E+01 L
2.1E+00
UG/L
95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL, all SLC
1, 2, 3
CADMIUM (b)
UG/L
7.8E-01
1.1E+00 (NP)
2.6E+00
1.1E+00
UG/L
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding WL-VP-02
1,2,3, excluding hot spot
CHROMIUM
UG/L
2.1E+00
3.2E+00 (NP)
1.2E+01
3.2E+00
UG/L
95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL, all SLC
4
COBALT (b)
UG/L
5.9E+00
5.4E+00 (G)
1.5E+01
5.4E+00
UG/L
95% Gamma Adjusted KM-UCL, excluding WL-VP-02
1,3, excluding hot spot
CYANIDE (e)
UG/L
N/A
N/A
4.6E+01
4.6E+01
UG/L
Maximum, all SLC
5
IRON
UG/L
4.2E+03
1.1E+04 (LN)
2.7E+04 J
1.1E+04
UG/L
95% H-UCL, all SLC
1
LEAD (b, c, d)
UG/L
3.5E+00
4.6E+00 (NP)
1.4E+01
3.5E+00
UG/L
Mean, excluding WL-VP-01, WL-VP-02, WL-SW-06
1,2,3, 7, excluding hot spots
MANGANESE
UG/L
1.5E+03
2.3E+03 (G)
8.6E+03
2.3E+03
UG/L
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC
3
Notes:
a. Data shown here excludes sample WL-SW-19_7212, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WL-SW-19_7212, cis-1,2-Dichloroethene = 1,200 UG/L, Vinyl chloride = 92 UG/L.
b. Data shown here excludes sample WL-VP-02, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WL-VP-02, Cadmium = 36.8 UG/L, Cobalt = 134 UG/L, Lead = 3,170 UG/L.
c. Data shown here excludes sample WL-VP-01, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WL-VP-01, Lead = 1,140 UG/L.
d. Data shown here excludes sample WL-SW-06, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WL-SW-06, Lead = 188 UG/L.
e. Cyanide also evaluated separately as a hot spot at WL-VP-01, the location of the sole detection.
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(5) Only detected in one sample, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.
(6) ProUCL indicated not enough detected concentrations to perform goodness of fit tests.
(7) Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.
G = Gamma, LN = Log-Normal, NP = Non-Parametric SLC = Sandy Lick Creek
J = Estimated Value
D = The analyte was quantitated from a diluted analysis
L = Estimated value, result may be biased low
UG/L = micrograms per liter
N/A = not available
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.11 A
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Water
Exposure Medium: Surface Water (for fish concentration estimation)
Exposure Point
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
VINYL CHLORIDE (a)
UG/L
8.5E-01
1.3E+00 (NP)
1.4E+00
1.3E+00
UG/L
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding WL-SW-19_7212
6, excluding hot spot
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
UG/L
1.0E+00
2.0E+00 (NP)
4.2E+00 J
2.0E+00
UG/L
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all SLC
4
ALPHA-BHC
UG/L
N/A
N/A
6.1E-03 J
6.1E-03
UG/L
Maximum, all SLC
9
ALPHA-CHLORDANE
UG/L
N/A
N/A
4.5E-03 J
4.5E-03
UG/L
Maximum, all SLC
5
GAMMA-CHLORDANE
UG/L
8.3E-03
1.0E-02 (NP)
9.4E-03 J
9.4E-03
UG/L
Maximum, all SLC
6, 8
ARSENIC
UG/L
1.3E+00
2.1E+00 (NP)
1.1E+01 L
2.1E+00
UG/L
95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL, all SLC
1, 2, 3
CADMIUM (b)
UG/L
7.8E-01
1.1E+00 (NP)
2.6E+00
1.1E+00
UG/L
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding WL-VP-02
1,2,3, excluding hot spot
LEAD (b, c, d)
UG/L
3.5E+00
4.6E+00 (NP)
1.4E+01
3.5E+00
UG/L
Mean, excluding WL-VP-01, WL-VP-02, WL-SW-06
1,2,3, 7, excluding hot spots
MANGANESE
UG/L
1.5E+03
2.3E+03 (G)
8.6E+03
2.3E+03
UG/L
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all SLC
3
MERCURY
UG/L
1.8E-01
2.0E-01 (NP)
3.7E-01
2.0E-01
UG/L
95% KM (t) UCL, all SLC
1,2
NICKEL
UG/L
1.5E+01
3.1E+01 NP
9.9E+01
3.1E+01
UG/L
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL
1
Notes:
a. Data shown here excludes sample WL-SW-19_7212, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WL-SW-19_7212, Vinyl chloride = 92 UG/L.
b. Data shown here excludes sample WL-VP-02, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WL-VP-02, Cadmium = 36.8 UG/L, Lead = 3,170 UG/L.
c. Data shown here excludes sample WL-VP-01, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WL-VP-01, Lead = 1,140 UG/L.
d. Data shown here excludes sample WL-SW-06, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At WL-SW-06, Lead = 188 UG/L.
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(5) Only detected in one sample, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.
(6) ProUCL indicated not enough detected concentrations to perform goodness of fit tests. ProUCL recommended 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration.
(7) Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.
(8) ProUCL recommended 95% UCL exceeds maximum detected concentration.
(9) Detected in insufficient samples (less than 6) to enable calculation of 95% UCL. Maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration
G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric
J = Estimated Value
L = Estimated value, result may be biased low
UG/L = micrograms per liter
N/A = not available
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.11B
FISH CONCENTRATION CALCULATION - SANDY LICK CREEK FLOODPLAIN
CAS
Number
Chemical of Potential Concern
BCF Value
(L-sw/kg-fish)
BCF Source
Surface Water
Concentration
(mg/L-sw) (1)
Fish Concentration
(mg/kg-fish) (2)
75-01-4
VINYL CHLORIDE, excluding WL-SW-19_7212
5.47E+00
ORNL,
2015
1.3E-03
7.1E-03
75-01-4
VINYL CHLORIDE, hot spot WL-SW-19_7212
5.47E+00
ORNL,
2015
9.2E-02
5.0E-01
117-81-7
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
5.9E+02
ORNL,
2015
2.0E-03
1.2E+00
319-84-6
ALPHA-BHC
3.72E+02
ORNL,
2015
6.1E-06
2.3E-03
5103-71-9
ALPHA-CHLORDANE
2.68E+04
ORNL,
2015
4.5E-06
1.2E-01
5103-74-2
GAMMA-CHLORDANE
2.68E+04
ORNL,
2015
9.4E-06
2.5E-01
7440-38-2
ARSENIC
3.00E+02
ORNL,
2015
2.1E-03
6.3E-01
7440-43-9
CADMIUM, exluding WL-VP-02
2.00E+02
ORNL,
2015
1.1E-03
2.2E-01
7440-43-9
CADMIUM, hot spot WL-VP-02
2.00E+02
ORNL,
2015
3.7E-02
7.4E+00
7439-92-1
LEAD, excluding WL-VP-01, WL-VP-02, WL-SW-06
3.0E+02
ORNL,
2015
3.5E-03
1.1E+00
7439-92-1
LEAD, hot spot WL-VP-01
3.0E+02
ORNL,
2015
1.1E+00
3.4E+02
7439-92-1
LEAD, hot spot WL-VP-02
3.0E+02
ORNL,
2015
3.2E+00
9.5E+02
7439-92-1
LEAD, hot spot WL-SW-06
3.0E+02
ORNL,
2015
1.9E-01
5.6E+01
7439-96-5
MANGANESE
4.00E+02
ORNL,
2015
2.3E+00
9.0E+02
7439-97-6
MERCURY
1.00E+03
ORNL,
2015
2.0E-04
2.0E-01
7439-97-6
MERCURY, hot spot WL-VP-01
1.00E+03
ORNL,
2015
3.7E-04
3.7E-01
7440-02-0
NICKEL
1.00E+02
ORNL,
2013
3.1E-02
3.1E+00
Notes:
(1) Surface water concentration from Table 3.11a
(2) Fish concentration calculated using the following equation:
Fish Concentration (mg/kg-fish) = BCF (L-sw/kg-fish) x Surface Water Concentration (mg/L-sw)
BCF - bioconcentration factor
COPC - chemical of potential concern
EC - Environment Canada
L-sw/kg-fish - Liter of surface water per kilogram offish
mg/kg-fish - milligram per kilogram offish
mg/L-sw - milligram per liter of surface water
ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Source:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), 2015. Risk Assessment Information System. URL: http://rais.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/tools/TOX_search
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.2a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Site Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
MANGANESE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Central Nervous System | 8E-01
N/A
8E-01
2E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 8E-01
N/A
8E-01
2E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
2E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
2E+00
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total
N/A
2E+00
Notes: Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
n/a = Not applicable Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 2E+00
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.4a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
MANGANESE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Central Nervous System | 3E+00
1E+01
2E+00
2E+01
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 3E+00
1E+01
2E+00
2E+01
Exposure Point Total
N/A
2E+01
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
2E+01
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total
N/A
2E+01
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203
MANGANESE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Central Nervous System | 1E+00
4E+00
9E-01
6E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 1E+00
4E+00
9E-01
6E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
6E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
6E+00
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203 Total
N/A
6E+00
Notes: Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
n/a = Not applicable Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 2E+6T
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203
Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 6E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.8.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Surface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System | 8E-01
N/A
5E-01
1E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 8E-01
N/A
5E-01
1E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
1E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
1E+00
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil Total
N/A
1E+00
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System | 9E-01
N/A
5E-01
1E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 9E-01
N/A
5E-01
1E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
1E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
1E+00
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Total
N/A
1E+00
Receptor Total - Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water
N/A
Receptor HI Total
1E+00
Receptor Total - Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water
N/A
Receptor HI Total
1E+00
Notes: Surface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water Subsurface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water
n/a = Not applicable Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 1E+00 | Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 1E+00
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.8a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
COBALT
MANGANESE
Thyroid I 1E+01
Central Nervous System 1E+01
N/A
N/A
3E-01
8E+00
1E+01
2E+01
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3E+01
N/A
8E+00
3E+01
Exposure Point Total
N/A
3E+01
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
3E+01
Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System | N/A
4E-01
N/A
4E-01
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| N/A
4E-01
N/A
4E-01
Exposure Point Total
N/A
4E-01
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
4E-01
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total
N/A
3E+01
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System | 5E+00
N/A
3E+00
8E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5E+00
N/A
3E+00
8E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
8E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
8E+00
Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System
N/A
2E-01
N/A
2E-01
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2E-01
N/A
2E-01
Exposure Point Total
N/A
2E-01
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
2E-01
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-85-02035 Total
N/A
9E+00
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot - WLSS-85-02035
Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 9E+00
HOT Spot - VVLSS-»y-U3U4
Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media =
Total Thyroid HI Across All Media =
2E+01
1E+01
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.12a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System | 1E+00
N/A
1 E+00
3E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 1E+00
N/A
1 E+00
3E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
3E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
3E+00
Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System | N/A
4E-01
N/A
4E-01
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| N/A
4E-01
N/A
4E-01
Exposure Point Total
N/A
4E-01
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
4E-01
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total
N/A
3E+00
Notes: Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
n/a = Not applicable Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 3E+00
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.17.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Lifetime, Age-Adjusted
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
2E-05
7E-05
N/A
N/A
3E-06
7E-05
2E-05
1E-04
Chemical Total
9E-05
N/A
8E-05
2E-04
| N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exposure Point Total
2E-04
N/A
Exposure Medium Total
2E-04
N/A
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Total
2E-04
N/A
|Receptor Total - Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil
2E-04 | Receptor HI Total
N/A |
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.20a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Recreational User
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
MANGANESE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Central Nervous System | 5E-01
N/A
2E+00
3E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 5E-01
N/A
2E+00
3E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
3E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
3E+00
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total
N/A
3E+00
Notes: Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
n/a = Not applicable Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 3E+00
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.21.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Fish and Game Consumer
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Chemical
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
of Potential
Concern
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Sandy Lick Creek
Soil
Venison
Floodplain
COBALT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thyroid
2E+00
N/A
N/A
2E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2E+00
N/A
N/A
2E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
2E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
2E+00
Venison Total
N/A
2E+00
Water /
Fish
Floodplain
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
2E-05
N/A
N/A
2E-05
Liver
1E+00
N/A
N/A
1E+00
DIELDRIN
3E-05
N/A
N/A
3E-05
Liver
5E-01
N/A
N/A
5E-01
ARSENIC
7E-05
N/A
N/A
7E-05
Skin, Vascular
2E+00
N/A
N/A
2E+00
CHROMIUM
4E-05
N/A
N/A
4E-05
NOE
6E-02
N/A
N/A
6E-02
MANGANESE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Central Nervous System
6E+00
N/A
N/A
6E+00
MERCURY
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Developmental, Neurological
2E+00
N/A
N/A
2E+00
Chemical Total
2E-04
N/A
N/A
2E-04
1E+01
N/A
N/A
1E+01
Exposure Point Total
2E-04
1E+01
Exposure Medium Total
2E-04
1E+01
Fish Total
2E-04
1E+01
Receptor Total - Venison
N/A
Receptor HI Total
2E+00
Receptor Total - Fish
2E-04
Receptor HI Total
1E+01
Notes: Venision Fish
N/A = Not applicable
Total Thyroid HI Across All Media = Q
2E+00 |
Total Liver HI Across All Media =
1E+00
HI = Hazard Index
Total Skin HI Across All Media =
2E+00
NOE = No Observed Effects
Total Vascular HI Across All Media =
2E+00
Total Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media =
7E+00
Total Developmental HI Across All Media =
2E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.21a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Fish and Game Consumer
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion jlnhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Water/
Fish
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot- WL-SW-19 7212
VINYL CHLORIDE
4.E-04
N/A
N/A
4E-04
|
Chemical Total
4E-04 | N/A
N/A
4E-04
| N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exposure Point Total
4E-04
N/A
Exposure Medium Total
4E-04
N/A
Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-SW-19_7212
4E-04
N/A
Surface
Water/
Sediment
Fish
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot-WL-VP-01
MERCURY (METHYL)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Development and neurological | 3E+00
N/A
N/A
3E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 3E+00
N/A
N/A
3E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
3E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
3E+00
Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-VP-01
N/A
3E+00
Surface
Water/
Sediment
Fish
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WL-VP-02
CADMIUM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Proteinuria (Kidney) | 6E+00
N/A
N/A
6E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 6E+00
N/A
N/A
6E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
6E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
6E+00
Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-VP-02
N/A
6E+00
Notes: Hot Spot - WL-VP-01
n/a = Not applicable Total Development and Neurological HI Across All Media = | 3E+00
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot - WL-VP-02
Total Kidney HI Across All Media = | 6E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.22.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Fish and Game Consumer
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Chemical
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
of Potential
Concern
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Primary
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Target Organ(s)
Routes Total
Water/
Fish
Sandy Lick Creek
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
5E-05
N/A
N/A
5E-05
Liver
6E-01
N/A
N/A
6E-01
Floodplain
DIELDRIN
7E-05
N/A
N/A
7E-05
Liver
3E-01
N/A
N/A
3E-01
ARSENIC
1E-04
N/A
N/A
1E-04
Skin, Vascular
1E+00
N/A
N/A
1E+00
CHROMIUM
2E-05
N/A
N/A
2E-05
NOE
4E-02
N/A
N/A
4E-02
MANGANESE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Central Nervous System
3E+00
N/A
N/A
3E+00
MERCURY
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Developmental, Neurological
1E+00
N/A
N/A
1E+00
Chemical Total
3E-04
N/A
N/A
3E-04
6E+00
N/A
N/A
6E+00
Exposure Point Total
3E-04
6E+00
Exposure Medium Total
3E-04
6E+00
Fish Total
3E-04
6E+00
|Receptor Total - Fish
3E-04
Receptor HI Total
6E+00 |
Notes: Fish
N/A = Not applicable
Total Liver HI Across All Media =
1E+00
HI = Hazard Index
Total Skin HI Across All Media =
1E+00
NOE = No Observed Effects
Total Vascular HI Across All Media =
1E+00
Total Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media =
4E+00
Total Developmental HI Across All Media =
1E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.22a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Fish and Game Consumer
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Surface
Water/
Sediment
Fish
Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
Hot Spot - WL-VP-01
MERCURY (METHYL)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Development and neurological | 2E+00
N/A
N/A
2E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 2E+00
N/A
N/A
2E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
2E+00
Exposure
Medium Total
N/A
2E+00
Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-VP-01
N/A
2E+00
Surface
Water/
Sediment
Fish
Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
Hot Spot - WL-VP-01
CADMIUM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Proteinuria (Kidney) | 4E+00
N/A
N/A
4E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 4E+00
N/A
N/A
4E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
4E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
4E+00
Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-VP-02
N/A
4E+00
Notes: Hot Spot - WL-VP-01
n/a = Not applicable Total Kidney HI Across All Media = | 2E+00
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot - WL-VP-02
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.23.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Site Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary I Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
5E-07
N/A
7E-08
6E-07
Immune System, 6E-02
Developmental, Heart |
N/A
8E-03
7E-02
Chemical Total
5E-07
N/A
7E-08
6E-07
| 6E-02
N/A
8E-03
7E-02
Exposure Point Total
6E-07
7E-02
Exposure Medium Total
6E-07
7E-02
Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
N/A
4E-06
N/A
4E-06
Immune System, N/A
Developmental, Heart |
1E+00
N/A
1E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
4E-06
N/A
4E-06
| N/A
1E+00
N/A
1E+00
Exposure Point Total
4E-06
1E+00
Exposure Medium Total
4E-06
1E+00
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809 Total
5E-06
2E+00
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot-OU1SB23-0809
Total Immune System HI Across All Media =
Total Developmental HI Across All Media =
Total Heart HI Across All Media =
2E+00
2E+00
2E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.24.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Site Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
MANGANESE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Central Nervous System | 8E-01
N/A
8E-01
2E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 8E-01
N/A
8E-01
2E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
2E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
2E+00
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total
N/A
2E+00
Notes: Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
n/a = Not applicable Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 2E+00
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.26.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
MANGANESE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Central Nervous System | 3E+00
1E+01
2E+00
2E+01
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 3E+00
1E+01
2E+00
2E+01
Exposure Point Total
N/A
2E+01
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
2E+01
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total
N/A
2E+01
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203
MANGANESE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Central Nervous System | 1E+00
4E+00
9E-01
6E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 1E+00
4E+00
9E-01
6E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
6E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
6E+00
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203 Total
N/A
6E+00
Notes: Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
n/a = Not applicable Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 2E+6T
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203
Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 6E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.30.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Surface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System | 8E-01
N/A
5E-01
1E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 8E-01
N/A
5E-01
1E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
1E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
1E+00
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil Total
N/A
1E+00
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System | 9E-01
N/A
5E-01
1E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 9E-01
N/A
5E-01
1E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
1E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
1E+00
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Total
N/A
1E+00
Receptor Total - Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water
N/A
Receptor HI Total
1E+00
Receptor Total - Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water
N/A
Receptor HI Total
1E+00
Notes: Surface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water Subsurface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water
n/a = Not applicable Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 1E+00 | Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 1E+00
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.30a.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
COBALT
MANGANESE
Thyroid I 1E+01
Central Nervous System 1E+01
N/A
N/A
3E-01
8E+00
1E+01
2E+01
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3E+01
N/A
8E+00
3E+01
Exposure Point Total
N/A
3E+01
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
3E+01
Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System | N/A
4E-01
N/A
4E-01
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| N/A
4E-01
N/A
4E-01
Exposure Point Total
N/A
4E-01
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
4E-01
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total
N/A
3E+01
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System | 5E+00
N/A
3E+00
8E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5E+00
N/A
3E+00
8E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
8E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
8E+00
Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-85-0203
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System
N/A
2E-01
N/A
2E-01
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2E-01
N/A
2E-01
Exposure Point Total
N/A
2E-01
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
2E-01
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-85-02035 Total
N/A
9E+00
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot - WLSS-85-02035
Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 9E+00
HOT Spot - VVLSS-»y-U3U4
Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media =
Total Thyroid HI Across All Media =
2E+01
1E+01
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.34.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System | 1E+00
N/A
1 E+00
3E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 1E+00
N/A
1 E+00
3E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
3E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
3E+00
Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System | N/A
4E-01
N/A
4E-01
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| N/A
4E-01
N/A
4E-01
Exposure Point Total
N/A
4E-01
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
4E-01
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total
N/A
3E+00
Notes: Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
n/a = Not applicable Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 3E+00
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.39.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Lifetime, Age-Adjusted
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
2E-05
7E-05
N/A
N/A
3E-06
7E-05
2E-05
1E-04
Chemical Total
9E-05
N/A
8E-05
2E-04
| N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exposure Point Total
2E-04
N/A
Exposure Medium Total
2E-04
N/A
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Total
2E-04
N/A
|Receptor Total - Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil
2E-04 | Receptor HI Total
N/A |
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.42.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Recreational User
Receptor Age: Adolescent
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
MANGANESE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Central Nervous System | 5E-01
N/A
2E+00
3E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 5E-01
N/A
2E+00
3E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
3E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
3E+00
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304 Total
N/A
3E+00
Notes: Hot Spot - WLSS-89-0304
n/a = Not applicable Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 3E+00
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.43.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Fish and Game Consumer
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Chemical
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
of Potential
Concern
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Sandy Lick Creek
Soil
Venison
Floodplain
COBALT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thyroid
2E+00
N/A
N/A
2E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2E+00
N/A
N/A
2E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
2E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
2E+00
Venison Total
N/A
2E+00
Water /
Fish
Floodplain
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
Not Site-Related
N/A
Liver
Not Site-Related
N/A
DIELDRIN
Not Site-Related
N/A
Liver
Not Site-Related
N/A
ARSENIC
7E-05
N/A
N/A
7E-05
Skin, Vascular
2E+00
N/A
N/A
2E+00
CHROMIUM
Background Constituent
N/A
NOE
Background Constituent
N/A
MANGANESE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Central Nervous System
6E+00
N/A
N/A
6E+00
MERCURY
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Developmental, Neurological
2E+00
N/A
N/A
2E+00
Chemical Total
7E-05
N/A
N/A
7E-05
9E+00
N/A
N/A
9E+00
Exposure Point Total
7E-05
9E+00
Exposure Medium Total
7E-05
9E+00
Fish Total
7E-05
9E+00
Receptor Total - Venison
N/A
Receptor HI Total
2E+00
Receptor Total - Fish
7E-05
Receptor HI Total
9E+00
Notes: Venision Fish
N/A = Not applicable
Total Thyroid HI Across All Media = Q
2E+00 |
Total Liver HI Across All Media =
NA
HI = Hazard Index
Total Skin HI Across All Media =
2E+00
NOE = No Observed Effects
Total Vascular HI Across All Media =
2E+00
Total Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media =
7E+00
Total Developmental HI Across All Media =
2E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.43a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Fish and Game Consumer
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion jlnhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Surface
Water/
Sediment
Fish
Sandy Lick Creek
Flood plain
Hot Spot - WL-SW-
19_7212
VINYL CHLORIDE
4.E-04
N/A
N/A
4E-04
Chemical Total
4E-04 | N/A
N/A
4E-04
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exposure Point Total
4E-04
N/A
Exposure Medium Total
4E-04
N/A
Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-SW-19_7212
4E-04
N/A
Surface
Water/
Sediment
Fish
Sandy Lick Creek
Flood plain
Hot Spot - WL-VP-01
MERCURY (METHYL)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Development and neurological | 3E+00
N/A
N/A
3E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 3E+00
N/A
N/A
3E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
3E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
3E+00
Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-VP-01
N/A
3E+00
Surface
Water/
Sediment
Fish
Sandy Lick Creek
Flood plain
Hot Spot - WL-VP-02
CADMIUM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Proteinuria (Kidney) | 6E+00
N/A
N/A
6E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6E+00
N/A
N/A
6E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
6E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
6E+00
Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-VP-02
N/A
6E+00
Notes: Hot Spot - WL-VP-01
n/a = Not applicable Total Development and Neurological HI Across All Media = | 3E+00
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot - WL-VP-02
Total Kidney HI Across All Media = | 6E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.44.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Fish and Game Consumer
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Chemical
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
of Potential
Concern
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Primary
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Target Organ(s)
Routes Total
Water/
Fish
Sandy Lick Creek
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
Not Site-Related
N/A
Liver
Not Site-Related
N/A
Flood plain
DIELDRIN
Not Site-Related
N/A
Liver
Not Site-Related
N/A
ARSENIC
1E-04
N/A
N/A
1E-04
Skin, Vascular
1E+00
N/A
N/A
1E+00
CHROMIUM
Background Constituent
N/A
NOE
Background Constituent
N/A
MANGANESE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Central Nervous System
3E+00
N/A
N/A
3E+00
MERCURY
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Developmental, Neurological
1E+00
N/A
N/A
1E+00
Chemical Total
1E-04
N/A
N/A
1E-04
5E+00
N/A
N/A
5E+00
Exposure Point Total
1E-04
5E+00
Exposure Medium Total
1E-04
5E+00
Fish Total
1E-04
5E+00
|Receptor Total - Fish
1E-04
Receptor HI Total
5E+00 |
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
NOE = No Observed Effects
Fish
Total Liver HI Across All Media =
Total Skin HI Across All Media =
Total Vascular HI Across All Media =
Total Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media =
Total Developmental HI Across All Media =
1E+00
1E+00
4E+00
1E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.44a.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Receptor Population: Fish and Game Consumer
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Surface
Water/
Sediment
Fish
Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
Hot Spot - WL-VP-01
MERCURY (METHYL)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Development and neurological | 2E+00
N/A
N/A
2E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 2E+00
N/A
N/A
2E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
2E+00
Exposure
Medium Total
N/A
2E+00
Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-VP-01
N/A
2E+00
Surface
Water/
Sediment
Fish
Sandy Lick Creek
Floodplain
Hot Spot - WL-VP-01
CADMIUM
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Proteinuria (Kidney) | 4E+00
N/A
N/A
4E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 4E+00
N/A
N/A
4E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
4E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
4E+00
Surface Water Hot Spot - WL-VP-02
N/A
4E+00
Notes: Hot Spot - WL-VP-01
n/a = Not applicable Total Kidney HI Across All Media = | 2E+00
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot - WL-VP-02
Total Kidney HI Across All Media = | 4E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 5a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Average Concentration
Current/Future Site Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
1888
mg/kg
Average Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 5b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean surface soil
concentration; see Table 3.8,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 5b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this is
outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
Yes
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
Yes
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG 1
Soil
1888 ppm lead in surface soil results in geometric mean blood lead
levels ranging from 8.8 to 12.9 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed women
in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The probabilities
that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range from 3.1% to
9.6%. These values exceed the blood lead goal as described in the
1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children (fetuses of
exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 5b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Current/Future Site Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 6/21/09
\ ariahle
Description of Variable
I nils
(¦Sill and I'hIJo
from Analysis of
MIANKS 1999-
2004
(¦Sill and I'hIJo
from Analysis of
MIANKS III
(Phases \&2)
PbS
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
1888
1888
-^fetal/m aternal
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
—
0.9
0.9
BKSF
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
GSD,
Geometric standard deviation PbB
—
1.8
2.1
PbB0
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.0
1.5
IRS
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
iR-sb
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
—
—
Ws
Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil
--
--
—
Ksd
Mass fraction of soil in dust
—
—
—
AFS D
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
—
0.12
0.12
efs>d
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
219
219
ATS D
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
PbBadu]t
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
3.7
4.2
PbB fetal, 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
8.8
12.9
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBt)
Probability that fetal PbB > PbB„ assuming lognormal distribution
%
3.1%
9.6%
Source: U.S. EPA (1996). Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead
for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 6a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Site Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
93
mg/kg
Average Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 6b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean subsurface soil
concentration; see Table 3.9,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 6b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this is
outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
Yes
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
Yes
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG 1
Soil
93 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean blood
lead levels ranging from 2.7 to 5 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 0.005% to 0.5%. These values are below the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 6b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Future Site Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 6/21/09
CSDi and I'hllo
CSDi and I'hllo
IVom Analysis of
IVom Analysis of
Ml.WES 1999-
\iia\i:s iii
\ ariahle
Description of \ ariahle
I nits
2004
(Phases I&2)
PbS
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
93
93
-^fetal/m aternal
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
—
0.9
0.9
BKSF
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per
ug/day
0.4
0.4
GSD,
Geometric standard deviation PbB
—
1.8
2.1
PbB0
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.0
1.5
IRS
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.050
0.050
IRs+d
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
—
—
Ws
Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil
—
—
--
Ksd
Mass fraction of soil in dust
—
—
—
AFS D
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
—
0.12
0.12
efs>d
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
219
219
ATS D
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
PbBadu]t
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.1
1.6
PbBfeta^ 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
2.7
5.0
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal>PbBt)
Probability that fetal PbB > PbB„ assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.005%
0.5%
Source: U.S. EPA (1996). Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead
for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 11a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Construction Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
1888
mg/kg
Average Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 11 b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration
terms and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment
that support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean surface soil
concentration; see Table 3.8,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 11 b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range
of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this
is outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
Yes
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
No, IR of 100 mg/day used for
construction worker per ALM
Frequent Questions.
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG1
Soil
1888 ppm lead in surface soil results in geometric mean blood lead
levels ranging from 15.2 to 21.2 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 17.7% to 26.3%. These values exceed the blood lead goal as
described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table lib
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Future Construction Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 6/21/09
\ ariahle
Description ol' \ ariahle
I nils
l.SUi and I'hIJo
IVom Analysis ol'
\ HANKS 1999-
2004
(.SIJi and I'hIJo
from Analysis ol'
NIIANKS III
(Phases l£2)
PbS
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
1888
1888
-^fetal/m aternal
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
—
0.9
0.9
BKSF
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per ug/day
0.4
0.4
GSD,
Geometric standard deviation PbB
—
1.8
2.1
PbB0
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.0
1.5
IRS
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.100
0.100
iR-sb
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
—
—
Ws
Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil
--
--
--
Ksd
Mass fraction of soil in dust
—
—
—
AFs.d
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
—
0.12
0.12
efs>d
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
219
219
ATS D
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
PbBadu]t
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
6.4
6.9
PbBfeta^ 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
15.2
21.2
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBt)
Probability that fetal PbB > PbB„ assuming lognormal distribution
%
17.7%
26.3%
Source: U.S. EPA (1996). Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead
for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 12a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Construction Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
93
mg/kg
Average Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 12b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration
terms and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment
that support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean subsurface soil
concentration; see Table 3.9,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 12b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range
of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this
is outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
Yes
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
No, IR of 100 mg/day used for
construction worker per ALM
Frequent Questions.
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG
Soil
93 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean blood
lead levels ranging from 3 to 5.4 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 0.01% to 0.7%. These values are below the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.
PRG not calculated.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 12b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Future Construction Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 6/21/09
\ ariahle
Description ol' Variable
I nils
(ISI)i and
I'b Bo IVoni
Analysis ol'
mi \\i:s
CSDi and I'hllo
from Analysis ol'
\iia\i:s in
(Phases \&2)
PbS
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
93
93
-^fetal/m aternal
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
—
0.9
0.9
BKSF
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per ug/day
0.4
0.4
GSD,
Geometric standard deviation PbB
—
1.8
2.1
PbB0
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.0
1.5
IRS
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.100
0.100
iR-sb
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
—
--
Ws
Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil
--
--
--
Ksd
Mass fraction of soil in dust
--
--
--
afSjD
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
—
0.12
0.12
efs>d
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
219
219
ATs,d
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
PbBatjuit
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.3
1.8
PbB feta^ 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
3.0
5.4
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBt)
Probability that fetal PbB > PbB„ assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.01%
0.7%
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 19a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
1888
mg/kg
Average Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4
|jg/L
IEUBK Model Default
Value
15
|jg/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date was used)?
Lead Model for Wndows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)
Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 19b and Figure
7)
What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?
8.7 - 45,700 mg/kg (surface soil)
What statistics were used to represent the exposure
concentration terms and where are the data on
concentrations in the risk assessment that support
use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean concentration; located in Table 3.8,
Attachment 1.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Not all samples were collected from top 2 cm. Samples
collected for multiple analyses.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.
No - Samples were collected for multiple analyses.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 19b and Figure
7)
Was the model run using default values only?
Yes, except for soil concentration.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes - Default is 30%
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes - Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day
If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG
Soil
Input value of 1888 mg/kg in surface soil results in 77% of
children above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL. Geometric
mean blood lead = 14 |jg/dL. This exceeds the blood lead
goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no
more than 5% of children exceeding 10 |jg/dL blood lead.
PRG not calculated.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 19b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1
Model Version: 1.1 Buildll
User Name: ch2m
Date: 03/23/2016
Site Name: Jackson Ceramix
Operable Unit: Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
# Soil/Dust Data
average surface soil concentration
* * * * * * p ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ail
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(m3/day)
(%)
(Hg Pb/m3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.100
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.100
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
****** ******
Age Diet lntake(ng/day)
.5-1
2.260
1-2
1.960
2-3
2.130
3-4
2.040
4-5
1.950
5-6
2.050
6-7
2.220
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table 19b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
****** D|-jnkjrig Water ******
Water Consumption:
Age Water (L/day)
.5-1
0.200
1-2
0.500
2-3
0.520
3-4
0.530
4-5
0.550
5-6
0.580
6-7
0.590
Drinking Water Concentration: 4.000 ng Pb/L
****** £q|| ^ Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Average multiple source concentration: 1331.600 ng/g
Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No
Age Soil (ng Pb/g) House Dust (ng Pb/g)
.5-1
1888.000
1331.600
1-2
1888.000
1331.600
2-3
1888.000
1331.600
3-4
1888.000
1331.600
4-5
1888.000
1331.600
5-6
1888.000
1331.600
6-7
1888.000
1331.600
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ng Pb/day)
.5-1
0.000
1-2
0.000
2-3
0.000
3-4
0.000
4-5
0.000
5-6
0.000
6-7
0.000
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table 19b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******
Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 ng Pb/dL
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(Hg/day) (ng/day) (M-g/day) (ng/day)
.5-1 0.021
1-2 0.034
2-3 0.062
3-4 0.067
4-5 0.067
5-6 0.093
6-7 0.093
0.796
0.654
0.743
0.741
0.779
0.851
0.941
0.000 0.282
0.000 0.667
0.000 0.726
0.000 0.770
0.000 0.879
0.000 0.963
0.000 1.000
Year Soil+Dust Total Blood
(M-g/day) (ng/day) (Mg/dL)
.5-1 28.424
1-2 42.751
2-3 44.713
3-4 46.570
4-5 37.925
5-6 35.453
6-7 34.198
29.523
44.106
46.244
48.148
39.650
37.360
36.232
15.2
17.6
16.7
16.2
13.7
11.7
10.3
Page 3 of 3
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100 T
50
25
Figure 7
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
16
Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl
Geo Mean = 14.184
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 77.146
24 32 40 48 56
Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)
64
72
80
96
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
Comment = On-site Subsurface Soil
-------
TABLE 20a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
93
mg/kg
Average Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4
|jg/L
IEUBK Model Default
Value
15
|jg/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date was used)?
Lead Model for Wndows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)
Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 20b and Figure
8)
What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?
8.9 -1,310 mg/kg (subsurface soil)
What statistics were used to represent the exposure
concentration terms and where are the data on
concentrations in the risk assessment that support
use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean concentration; located in Table 3.9,
Attachment 1.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Data set only includes subsurface soil sample.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.
No - Samples were collected for multiple analyses.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 20b and Figure
8)
Was the model run using default values only?
Yes, except for soil concentration.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes - Default is 30%
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes - Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day
If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG
Soil
Input value of 93 mg/kg in subsurface soil results in 0.01%
of children above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL. Geometric
mean blood lead = 1.7 |jg/dL. This is below the blood lead
goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no
more than 5% of children exceeding 10 |jg/dL blood lead.
PRG not calculated.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 20b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1
Model Version: 1.1 Buildll
User Name: ch2m
Date: 03/23/2016
Site Name: Jackson Ceramix
Operable Unit: Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurrface Soil
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
# Soil/Dust Data
average subsurface soil concentration
Air
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age Time Ventilation Lung Outdoor Air
Outdoors Rate Absorption Pb Cone
(hours) (m3/day) (%) (ng Pb/m3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.100
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.100
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
****** ******
Age
Diet lntake(ng/day)
.5-1
2.260
1-2
1.960
2-3
2.130
3-4
2.040
4-5
1.950
5-6
2.050
6-7
2.220
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table 20b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
****** D|-jnkjrig Water ******
Water Consumption:
Age Water (L/day)
.5-1 0.200
1-2 0.500
2-3 0.520
3-4 0.530
4-5 0.550
5-6 0.580
6-7 0.590
Drinking Water Concentration: 4.000 ng Pb/L
****** £q|| ^ Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Average multiple source concentration: 75.100 ng/g
Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No
Age Soil (ng Pb/g) House Dust (ng Pb/g)
.5-1
93.000
75.100
1-2
93.000
75.100
2-3
93.000
75.100
3-4
93.000
75.100
4-5
93.000
75.100
5-6
93.000
75.100
6-7
93.000
75.100
****** Alternate Intake
******
Age
Alternate (ng Pb/day)
.5-1
0.000
1-2
0.000
2-3
0.000
3-4
0.000
4-5
0.000
5-6
0.000
6-7
0.000
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table 20b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******
Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 ng Pb/dL
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(Hg/day) (ng/day) (M-g/day) (ng/day)
.5-1 0.021
1-2 0.034
2-3 0.062
3-4 0.067
4-5 0.067
5-6 0.093
6-7 0.093
1.086
0.937
1.024
0.987
0.952
1.004
1.089
0.000 0.384
0.000 0.956
0.000 1.000
0.000 1.025
0.000 1.074
0.000 1.136
0.000 1.158
Year Soil+Dust Total Blood
(M-g/day) (ng/day) (Mg/dL)
.5-1 2.038
1-2 3.221
2-3 3.239
3-4 3.257
4-5 2.435
5-6 2.199
6-7 2.080
3.529
5.149
5.325
5.336
4.527
4.432
4.420
1.9
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.4
1.3
Page 3 of 3
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100 T
Figure 8
Sandy Lick Creek Floodfilain Subsurface Soil
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
25
5 6 7
Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)
10
11
12
Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl
Geo Mean = 1.736
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 0.010
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
Comment = On-site Subsurface Soil
-------
Table 21b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1
Model Version: 1.1 Buildll
User Name: ch2m
Date: 03/23/2016
Site Name: Jackson Ceramix
Operable Unit: Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
# Water Data
average surface water concentration
* * * * * * p ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ail
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(m3/day)
(%)
(Hg Pb/m3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.100
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.100
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
****** ******
Age Diet lntake(ng/day)
.5-1
2.260
1-2
1.960
2-3
2.130
3-4
2.040
4-5
1.950
5-6
2.050
6-7
2.220
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table 21b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1
Model Version: 1.1 Buildll
User Name: ch2m
Date: 03/23/2016
Site Name: Jackson Ceramix
Operable Unit: Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
# Water Data
average surface water concentration
* * * * * * p ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ail
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(m3/day)
(%)
(Hg Pb/m3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.100
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.100
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
****** ******
Age Diet lntake(ng/day)
.5-1
2.260
1-2
1.960
2-3
2.130
3-4
2.040
4-5
1.950
5-6
2.050
6-7
2.220
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table 21b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******
Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 ng Pb/dL
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(Hg/day) (ng/day) (M-g/day) (ng/day)
.5-1 0.021
1-2 0.034
2-3 0.062
3-4 0.067
4-5 0.067
5-6 0.093
6-7 0.093
1.061
0.912
1.000
0.967
0.939
0.993
1.079
0.000 0.329
0.000 0.814
0.000 0.855
0.000 0.879
0.000 0.927
0.000 0.984
0.000 1.004
Year Soil+Dust Total Blood
(M-g/day) (ng/day) (Mg/dL)
.5-1 4.131
1-2 6.499
2-3 6.562
3-4 6.620
4-5 4.985
5-6 4.513
6-7 4.276
5.542
8.260
8.479
8.533
6.918
6.584
6.452
3.0
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.5
2.1
1.9
Page 3 of 3
-------
Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 2.692
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
% Above = 0.262
-------
TABLE 22a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water - Hot Spot WL-VP-02
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
200
mg/kg
IEUBK Model Default
Value
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
3,170
|jg/L
Hot Spot Surface
Water Concentration
15
|jg/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date was used)?
Lead Model for Wndows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)
Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 22b and Figure
10)
What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?
Hot spot concentration - 3,170 |jg/L (surface water)
What statistics were used to represent the exposure
concentration terms and where are the data on
concentrations in the risk assessment that support
use of these statistics?
Hot spot concentration; located in Table 3.11,
Attachment 1.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Not applicable, surface water data.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.
Not applicable, surface water data.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 22b and Figure
10)
Was the model run using default values only?
Yes, except for surface water concentration and surface
water ingestion rate (0.1 jjg/day).
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes - Default is 30%
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes - Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day
If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG
Surface Water
Input value of 3,170 |jg/L in surface water and surface
water ingestion rate of 0.1 jjg/day results in 99% of children
above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL. Geometric mean
blood lead = 29.6 |jg/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more
than 5% of children exceeding 10 |jg/dL blood lead.
PRG not calculated.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 22b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-VP-02- Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1
Model Version: 1.1 Buildll
User Name: ch2m
Date: 03/23/2016
Site Name: Jackson Ceramix
Operable Unit: Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
# Water Data
hot spot surface water concentration
# Water Data
surface water ingestion rate
*{* *{* *{* *{* *{* *{* p
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ail
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(m3/day)
(%)
(Hg Pb/m3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.100
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.100
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
Diet
Age Diet lntake(ng/day)
.5-1
2.260
1-2
1.960
2-3
2.130
3-4
2.040
4-5
1.950
5-6
2.050
6-7
2.220
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table 22b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-VP-02- Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
****** D|-jnkjrig Water ******
Water Consumption:
Age Water (L/day)
.5-1 0.100
1-2 0.100
2-3 0.100
3-4 0.100
4-5 0.100
5-6 0.100
6-7 0.100
Drinking Water Concentration: 3170.000 ng Pb/L
****** £q|| ^ Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Average multiple source concentration: 150.000 ng/g
Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No
Age Soil (ng Pb/g) House Dust (ng Pb/g)
.5-1 200.000 150.000
1-2 200.000 150.000
2-3 200.000 150.000
3-4 200.000 150.000
4-5 200.000 150.000
5-6 200.000 150.000
6-7 200.000 150.000
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ng Pb/day)
.5-1 0.000
1-2 0.000
2-3 0.000
3-4 0.000
4-5 0.000
5-6 0.000
6-7 0.000
****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table 22b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-VP-02- Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 ng Pb/dL
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(Hg/day) (ng/day) (M-g/day) (ng/day)
.5-1
0.021
0.501
0.000
70.297
1-2
0.034
0.477
0.000
77.089
2-3
0.062
0.550
0.000
81.887
3-4
0.067
0.558
0.000
86.725
4-5
0.067
0.564
0.000
91.677
5-6
0.093
0.618
0.000
95.536
6-7
0.093
0.688
0.000
98.284
Year Soil+Dust Total Blood
(M-g/day) (ng/day) (Mg/dL)
.5-1
1.951
72.770
35.2
1-2
3.398
80.997
32.7
2-3
3.609
86.108
30.0
3-4
3.823
91.173
29.6
4-5
2.993
95.301
29.4
5-6
2.807
99.054
28.5
6-7
2.728
101.793
27.2
Environmental exposures associated with blood lead levels above 30 ng/dl are above
the range of values that have been used in the calibration and empirical validation of
this model. (Zaragoza, L. and Hogan, K. 1998. The Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic Model for Lead In Children: Independent Validation and Verification.
Environmental Health Perspectives 106 (supplement 6). p. 1555)
Page 3 of 3
-------
Prob. Distribution (%) Figure 10
Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 29.628
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
% Above = 98.958 Comment = hot spot surface water
Environmental exposures associated with blood lead levels above 30 ng/dl are above
the range of values that have been used in the calibration and empirical validation of
this model. (Zaragoza, L. and Hogan, K 1998. The Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic Model for Lead In Children: Independent Validation and Verification.
Environmental Health Perspectives 106 (supplement 6). p. 1555)
-------
TABLE 23a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water - Hot Spot WL-VP-01
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
200
mg/kg
IEUBK Model Default
Value
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
1,140
|jg/L
Hot Spot Surface
Water Concentration
15
|jg/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date was used)?
Lead Model for Wndows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)
Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 23b and Figure
11)
What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?
Hot spot concentration - 1,140 |jg/L (surface water)
What statistics were used to represent the exposure
concentration terms and where are the data on
concentrations in the risk assessment that support
use of these statistics?
Hot spot concentration; located in Table 3.11,
Attachment 1.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Not applicable, surface water data.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.
Not applicable, surface water data.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 23b and Figure
11)
Was the model run using default values only?
Yes, except for surface water concentration and surface
water ingestion rate (0.1 jjg/day).
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes - Default is 30%
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes - Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day
If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG
Surface Water
Input value of 1,140 |jg/L in surface water and surface
water ingestion rate of 0.1 jjg/day results in 84% of children
above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL. Geometric mean
blood lead = 16 |jg/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal as
described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than
5% of children exceeding 10 |jg/dL blood lead.
PRG not calculated.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 23b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-VP-01- Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
****** D|-jnkjrig Water ******
Water Consumption:
Age Water (L/day)
.5-1
0.100
1-2
0.100
2-3
0.100
3-4
0.100
4-5
0.100
5-6
0.100
6-7
0.100
Drinking Water Concentration: 1140.000 ng Pb/L
****** £q|| ^ Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Average multiple source concentration: 150.000 ng/g
Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No
Age Soil (ng Pb/g) House Dust (ng Pb/g)
.5-1 200.000 150.000
1-2 200.000 150.000
2-3 200.000 150.000
3-4 200.000 150.000
4-5 200.000 150.000
5-6 200.000 150.000
6-7 200.000 150.000
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ng Pb/day)
.5-1 0.000
1-2 0.000
2-3 0.000
3-4 0.000
4-5 0.000
5-6 0.000
6-7 0.000
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table 23b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-VP-01- Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******
Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 ng Pb/dL
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(Hg/day) (ng/day) (M-g/day) (ng/day)
.5-1 0.021
1-2 0.034
2-3 0.062
3-4 0.067
4-5 0.067
5-6 0.093
6-7 0.093
0.709
0.657
0.747
0.745
0.741
0.801
0.882
0.000 35.741
0.000 38.216
0.000 39.962
0.000 41.609
0.000 43.345
0.000 44.524
0.000 45.311
Year Soil+Dust Total Blood
(M-g/day) (ng/day) (Mg/dL)
.5-1 2.758
1-2 4.684
2-3 4.898
3-4 5.100
4-5 3.935
5-6 3.638
6-7 3.497
39.229
43.592
45.669
47.520
48.088
49.056
49.783
19.8
18.3
16.5
16.0
15.5
14.7
13.8
Page 3 of 3
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100 T
75
50
25
Figure 11
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-VP-01
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
18
Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl
Geo Mean = 15.969
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 84.035
27 36 45 54 63
Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)
72
81
90
99
108
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
Comment = hot spot surface water
-------
TABLE 24a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water - Hot Spot WL-SW-06
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
200
mg/kg
IEUBK Model Default
Value
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
188
|jg/L
Hot Spot Surface
Water Concentration
15
|jg/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date was used)?
Lead Model for Wndows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)
Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 24b and Figure
12)
What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?
Hot spot concentration - 188 |jg/L (surface water)
What statistics were used to represent the exposure
concentration terms and where are the data on
concentrations in the risk assessment that support
use of these statistics?
Hot spot concentration; located in Table 3.11,
Attachment 1.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Not applicable, surface water data.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.
Not applicable, surface water data.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 24b and Figure
12)
Was the model run using default values only?
Yes, except for surface water concentration and surface
water ingestion rate (0.1 jjg/day).
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes - Default is 30%
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes - Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day
If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG
Surface Water
Input value of 188 |jg/L in surface water and surface water
ingestion rate of 0.1 jjg/day results in 9.1% of children
above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL. Geometric mean
blood lead = 5.3 |jg/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more
than 5% of children exceeding 10 |jg/dL blood lead.
PRG not calculated.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 24b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-SW-06- Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1
Model Version: 1.1 Buildll
User Name: ch2m
Date: 03/23/2016
Site Name: Jackson Ceramix
Operable Unit: Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
# Water Data
hot spot surface water concentration
# Water Data
surface water ingestion rate
* * * * * * p ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age Time Ventilation Lung Outdoor Air
Outdoors Rate Absorption Pb Cone
(hours)
(m3/day)
(%)
(Hg Pb/m3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.100
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.100
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
****** ******
Age
Diet lntake(ng/day)
.5-1
2.260
1-2
1.960
2-3
2.130
3-4
2.040
4-5
1.950
5-6
2.050
6-7
2.220
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table 24b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-SW-06- Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
****** D|-jnkjrig Water ******
Water Consumption:
Age Water (L/day)
.5-1 0.100
1-2 0.100
2-3 0.100
3-4 0.100
4-5 0.100
5-6 0.100
6-7 0.100
Drinking Water Concentration: 188.000 ng Pb/L
****** £q|| ^ Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Average multiple source concentration: 150.000 ng/g
Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No
Age Soil (ng Pb/g) House Dust (ng Pb/g)
.5-1 200.000 150.000
1-2 200.000 150.000
2-3 200.000 150.000
3-4 200.000 150.000
4-5 200.000 150.000
5-6 200.000 150.000
6-7 200.000 150.000
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ng Pb/day)
.5-1 0.000
1-2 0.000
2-3 0.000
3-4 0.000
4-5 0.000
5-6 0.000
6-7 0.000
****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table 24b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-SW-06- Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 ng Pb/dL
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(Hg/day) (ng/day) (M-g/day) (ng/day)
.5-1 0.021
1-2 0.034
2-3 0.062
3-4 0.067
4-5 0.067
5-6 0.093
6-7 0.093
0.974
0.856
0.947
0.922
0.901
0.957
1.043
0.000 8.099
0.000 8.213
0.000 8.362
0.000 8.497
0.000 8.684
0.000 8.775
0.000 8.829
Year Soil+Dust Total Blood
(M-g/day) (ng/day) (Mg/dL)
.5-1 3.790
1-2 6.104
2-3 6.215
3-4 6.315
4-5 4.781
5-6 4.348
6-7 4.131
12.884
15.208
15.587
15.801
14.432
14.173
14.096
6.9
6.5
5.8
5.5
4.9
4.4
4.0
Page 3 of 3
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100 T
Figure 12
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Water Hot Spot WL-SW-06
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
25
12 15 18 21
Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)
24
27
30
33
36
Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl
Geo Mean = 5.336
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 9.073
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
Comment = hot spot surface water
-------
TABLE 32a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Average Concentration
Current/Future Adolescent Recreational User
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
1888
mg/kg
Average Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 32b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean surface soil
concentration; see Table 3.8,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 32b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this is
outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No, recreational EF of 60 days/year
used.
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
No, recreational IR of 120 mg/day
used.
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG 1
Soil
1888 ppm lead in surface soil results in geometric mean blood lead
levels ranging from 6.6 to 10 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed women
in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The probabilities
that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range from 0.9% to
5.0%. These values are less than the blood lead goal as described
in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children
(fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood lead.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 32b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Surface Soil - Current/Future Adolescent Recreational User
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 6/21/09
\ ariahlc
Description ol' \ ariahlc
I nils
(.MJi and
Phlio from
Analysis ol'
mi \\i:s
l.SUi and I'hlio
IVoni Analysis ol'
\MA\i:s mi
(Phases l»S2)
PbS
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
1888
1888
-^fetal/m aternal
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
--
0.9
0.9
BKSF
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per ug/day
0.4
0.4
GSD,
Geometric standard deviation PbB
--
1.8
2.1
PbB0
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.0
1.5
IRS
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.120
0.120
IRs+d
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
—
—
Ws
Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil
--
--
--
Ksd
Mass fraction of soil in dust
—
—
—
AFs.d
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
--
0.12
0.12
efs>d
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
60
60
ATS D
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
PbBadu]t
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
2.8
3.3
PbBfeta^ 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
6.6
10.0
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBt)
Probability that fetal PbB > PbB„ assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.9%
5.0%
Source: U.S. EPA (1996). Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead
for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 33a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Adolescent Recreational User
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
93
mg/kg
Average Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 33b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean subsurface soil
concentration; see Table 3.9,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 33b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this is
outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No, recreational EF of 60 days/year
used.
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
No, recreational IR of 120 mg/day
used.
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG 1
Soil
93 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean blood
lead levels ranging from 2.6 to 4.8 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 0.004% to 0.4%. These values are below the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 33b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Subsurface Soil - Future Adolescent Recreational User
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
U.S. EPA Technical Review Workgroup for Lead, Adult Lead Committee
Version date 6/21/09
\ ariahle
Description ol' Variable
I nils
CShiand
I'bBo IVom
Analysis ol'
mi \ \i:s
CSUi and I'hlio
from Analysis ol'
\IIA\i:S III
(Phases I&2)
PbS
Soil lead concentration
ug/g or ppm
93
93
-^fetal/m aternal
Fetal/maternal PbB ratio
--
0.9
0.9
BKSF
Biokinetic Slope Factor
ug/dL per ug/day
0.4
0.4
GSD,
Geometric standard deviation PbB
--
1.8
2.1
PbB0
Baseline PbB
ug/dL
1.0
1.5
IRs
Soil ingestion rate (including soil-derived indoor dust)
g/day
0.120
0.120
IRs+d
Total ingestion rate of outdoor soil and indoor dust
g/day
—
—
Ws
Weighting factor; fraction of IRS+D ingested as outdoor soil
--
--
--
Ksd
Mass fraction of soil in dust
—
—
—
AFS D
Absorption fraction (same for soil and dust)
--
0.12
0.12
efs>d
Exposure frequency (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
60
60
ATS D
Averaging time (same for soil and dust)
days/yr
365
365
PbBadu]t
PbB of adult worker, geometric mean
ug/dL
1.1
1.6
PbBfeta^ 0.95
95th percentile PbB among fetuses of adult workers
ug/dL
2.6
4.8
PbBt
Target PbB level of concern (e.g., 10 ug/dL)
ug/dL
10.0
10.0
P(PbBfetal > PbBt)
Probability that fetal PbB > PbB„ assuming lognormal distribution
%
0.004%
0.4%
Source: U.S. EPA (1996). Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead
for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposures to Lead in Soil
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 34a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Venison (from Surface Soil) - Average Concentration
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
200
mg/kg
IEUBK Model Default
Value
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4
|jg/L
IEUBK Model Default
Value
15
|jg/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Venison
2.9
mg/kg
Average Venison
Concentration
N/A
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date was used)?
Lead Model for Wndows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)
Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 34b and Figure
15)
What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?
0.013 - 71 mg/kg (venison concentration modeled from
surface soil)
What statistics were used to represent the exposure
concentration terms and where are the data on
concentrations in the risk assessment that support
use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean concentration; located in Table 3.8c,
Attachment 1.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Not applicable
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.
Not applicable
What was the point of exposure/location?
Venison from Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 34b and Figure
15)
Was the model run using default values only?
Yes, except for venison concentration and percent of
meat that is venison from site (33%).
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes - Default is 30%
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes - Default values for 7 age groups are 85,135,135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day
If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG
Venison
Input value of 2.9 mg/kg in venison results in 27% of
children above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL. Geometric
mean blood lead = 7.5 |jg/dL. This exceeds the blood lead
goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no
more than 5% of children exceeding 10 |jg/dL blood lead.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 34b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Venison - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1
Model Version: 1.1 Buildll
User Name: ch2m
Date: 03/24/2016
Site Name: Jackson Ceramix
Operable Unit: Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
# Diet Data
assumed 33% of total meat ingested is venison caught on site
* * * * * * ^ |p ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age Time Ventilation Lung Outdoor Air
Outdoors Rate Absorption Pb Cone
(hours) (m3/day) (%) (ng Pb/m3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.100
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.100
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
****** ******
Age
Diet lntake(ng/day)
.5-1
12.409
1-2
30.252
2-3
38.550
3-4
41.151
4-5
43.753
5-6
47.308
6-7
54.351
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table 34b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Venison - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
Alternative Dietary Values
Home grown fruits concentration: 0.000 ng/g
Home grown vegetables concentration: 0.000 ng/g
Fish from fishing concentration: 0.000 ng/g
Game animals from hunting concentration: 2.900 ng/g
Home grown fruits factor: 0.000 % of all fruits
Home grown vegetables factor: 0.000 % of all vegetables
Fish from fishing factor: 0.000 %of all meat
Game animals from hunting factor: 33.000 % of all meat
****** D|-jnkjrig Water ******
Water Consumption:
Age Water (L/day)
.5-1
0.200
1-2
0.500
2-3
0.520
3-4
0.530
4-5
0.550
5-6
0.580
6-7
0.590
Drinking Water Concentration: 4.000 ng Pb/L
****** £q|| ^ Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Average multiple source concentration: 150.000 ng/g
Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No
Age Soil (ng Pb/g) House Dust (ng Pb/g)
.5-1
200.000
150.000
1-2
200.000
150.000
2-3
200.000
150.000
3-4
200.000
150.000
4-5
200.000
150.000
5-6
200.000
150.000
6-7
200.000
150.000
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table 34b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Venison - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ng Pb/day)
.5-1 0.000
1-2 0.000
2-3 0.000
3-4 0.000
4-5 0.000
5-6 0.000
6-7 0.000
****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******
Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 ng Pb/dL
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(Hg/day) (ng/day) (M-g/day) (ng/day)
.5-1 0.021
1-2 0.034
2-3 0.062
3-4 0.067
4-5 0.067
5-6 0.093
6-7 0.093
5.541
12.711
16.187
17.559
19.075
20.807
23.849
0.000 0.357
0.000 0.840
0.000 0.873
0.000 0.905
0.000 0.959
0.000 1.020
0.000 1.036
Year Soil+Dust Total Blood
(M-g/day) (ng/day) (Mg/dL)
.5-1 3.928
1-2 5.871
2-3 5.867
3-4 5.962
4-5 4.512
5-6 4.097
6-7 3.860
9.848
19.456
22.989
24.492
24.613
26.017
28.839
5.3
7.7
8.2
8.4
8.1
7.8
7.8
Page 3 of 3
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
100 T
Figure 15
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Venison
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
50
25
12 16 20 24 28
Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)
32
36
40
44
48
Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl
Geo Mean = 7.504
GSD= 1.600
% Above = 27.060
Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
-------
TABLE 35a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Fish (from Surface Water and Sediment) - Average Concentration
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
200
mg/kg
IEUBK Model Default
Value
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4
|jg/L
IEUBK Model Default
Value
15
|jg/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
Fish
1.5
mg/kg
Average Fish
Concentration
N/A
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date was used)?
Lead Model for Wndows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)
Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 35b and Figure
16)
What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?
0.13 - 950 mg/kg (fish concentration modeled from
surface water and sediment data)
What statistics were used to represent the exposure
concentration terms and where are the data on
concentrations in the risk assessment that support
use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean concentration; located in Table 3.10b,
Attachment 1.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Not applicable
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.
Not applicable
What was the point of exposure/location?
Fish from Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 35b and Figure
16)
Was the model run using default values only?
Yes, except for fish concentration and percent offish
that is from site (25%).
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes - Default is 30%
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes - Default values for 7 age groups are 85,135,135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day
If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG
Fish
Input value of 1.5 mg/kg in fish results in 5.5% of children
above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL. Geometric mean
blood lead = 4.7 |jg/dL. This exceeds the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more
than 5% of children exceeding 10 |jg/dL blood lead. Note -
hot spot evaluation not run since concentrations are higher,
and therefore, would also result in exceedance of the blood
lead goal.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table 35b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Fish - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
LEAD MODEL FOR WINDOWS Version 1.1
Model Version: 1.1 Buildll
User Name: ch2m
Date: 03/24/2016
Site Name: Jackson Ceramix
Operable Unit: Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain
Run Mode: Site Risk Assessment
# Diet Data
assumed 25% of total fish is from site
* * * * * * p ******
Indoor Air Pb Concentration: 30.000 percent of outdoor.
Other Air Parameters:
Age
Time
Ventilation
Lung
Outdoor Ail
Outdoors
Rate
Absorption
Pb Cone
(hours)
(m3/day)
(%)
(Hg Pb/m3)
.5-1
1.000
2.000
32.000
0.100
1-2
2.000
3.000
32.000
0.100
2-3
3.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
3-4
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
4-5
4.000
5.000
32.000
0.100
5-6
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
6-7
4.000
7.000
32.000
0.100
****** ******
Age Diet lntake(ng/day)
.5-1
6.231
1-2
13.032
2-3
16.383
3-4
17.344
4-5
18.306
5-6
19.756
6-7
22.618
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table 35b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Fish - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
Alternative Dietary Values
Home grown fruits concentration: 0.000 ng/g
Home grown vegetables concentration: 0.000 ng/g
Fish from fishing concentration: 1.500 ng/g
Game animals from hunting concentration: 0.000 ng/g
Home grown fruits factor: 0.000 % of all fruits
Home grown vegetables factor: 0.000 % of all vegetables
Fish from fishing factor: 25.000 %of all meat
Game animals from hunting factor: 0.000 % of all meat
****** D|-jnkjrig Water ******
Water Consumption:
Age Water (L/day)
.5-1
0.200
1-2
0.500
2-3
0.520
3-4
0.530
4-5
0.550
5-6
0.580
6-7
0.590
Drinking Water Concentration: 4.000 ng Pb/L
****** £q|| ^ Dust ******
Multiple Source Analysis Used
Average multiple source concentration: 150.000 ng/g
Mass fraction of outdoor soil to indoor dust conversion factor: 0.700
Outdoor airborne lead to indoor household dust lead concentration: 100.000
Use alternate indoor dust Pb sources? No
Age Soil (ng Pb/g) House Dust (ng Pb/g)
.5-1
200.000
150.000
1-2
200.000
150.000
2-3
200.000
150.000
3-4
200.000
150.000
4-5
200.000
150.000
5-6
200.000
150.000
6-7
200.000
150.000
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table 35b
Calculations of Blood Lead Concentrations (PbBs)
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain Fish - Future Child Resident
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
****** Alternate Intake ******
Age Alternate (ng Pb/day)
.5-1 0.000
1-2 0.000
2-3 0.000
3-4 0.000
4-5 0.000
5-6 0.000
6-7 0.000
****** Maternal Contribution: Infant Model ******
Maternal Blood Concentration: 1.000 ng Pb/dL
CALCULATED BLOOD LEAD AND LEAD UPTAKES:
Year Air Diet Alternate Water
(Hg/day) (ng/day) (M-g/day) (ng/day)
.5-1 0.021
1-2 0.034
2-3 0.062
3-4 0.067
4-5 0.067
5-6 0.093
6-7 0.093
2.867
5.811
7.343
7.868
8.461
9.197
10.538
0.000 0.368
0.000 0.892
0.000 0.932
0.000 0.962
0.000 1.017
0.000 1.080
0.000 1.100
Year Soil+Dust Total Blood
(M-g/day) (ng/day) (Mg/dL)
.5-1 4.047
1-2 6.230
2-3 6.262
3-4 6.339
4-5 4.783
5-6 4.336
6-7 4.099
7.303
12.967
14.599
15.235
14.327
14.707
15.830
3.9
5.2
5.3
5.3
4.8
4.5
4.4
Page 3 of 3
-------
Prob. Distribution (%)
Blood Pb Cone (ng/dL)
Cutoff = 10.000 ng/dl Age Range = 0 to 84 months
Geo Mean = 4.722
GSD = 1.600 Run Mode = Site Risk Assessment
% Above = 5.520
-------
Table H.l
Preliminary Assessment and Measurement Endpoints
Assossinciil Kndpoinl linsis l-'oi* Assossinciil Kndpoinl Mciisiiiviiicul Kndpoinl Receptor
l oi'i'osli'iiil Open l ield 11 ;ihit;it
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of soil
invertebrate communities.
Soil invertebrates promote development of a well-
conditioned soil to support plant growth. Soil
invertebrates are an important dietary component for
a number of upper trophic level receptors.
Comparison of the maximum detected concentration in
the top two feet of soil to benchmark values.
Evaluation of contaminant distribution for chemicals
with concentrations greater than benchmark values.
Soil Invertebrates
(earthworms)
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of terrestrial
plant communities.
Plants provide food and habitat for a multitude of
wildlife receptors.
Comparison of the maximum detected concentration in
the top two feet of soil to benchmark values.
Evaluation of contaminant distribution for chemicals
with concentrations greater than benchmark values.
Terrestrial plants
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of avian
terrestrial insectivores.
Avian terrestrial insectivores are important
consumers of soil invertebrates, and serve as prey
species for upper trophic level receptors.
Calculation of maximum chemical intake and
comparison to no observed adverse effect levels
(NOAELs). Calculation of central tendency intake and
comparison to NOAELs and lowest observed adverse
effects levels (LOAELs) found in the literature.
American robin
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of mammalian
terrestrial insectivores.
Mammalian terrestrial insectivores are important
consumers of soil invertebrates, and serve as prey
species for upper trophic level receptors.
Calculation of maximum chemical intake and
comparison to NOAELs. Calculation of central
tendency intake and comparison to NOAELs and
LOAELs found in the literature.
Short-tailed shrew
l-oivslcd Wolliind iind l-'loodpliiin ll;d>il;ils
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of soil
invertebrate communities.
Soil invertebrates promote development of a well-
conditioned soil to support plant growth. Soil
invertebrates are an important dietary component for
a number of upper trophic level receptors.
Comparison of the maximum detected concentration in
the sediment or the top two feet of soil to benchmark
values. Evaluation of contaminant distribution for
chemicals with concentrations greater than benchmark
values.
Soil Invertebrates
(earthworms)
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of benthic
invertebrate communities.
Benthic invertebrates recycle nutrients and condition
the sediment. They are also important prey species
for upper trophic level receptors.
Comparison of the maximum detected concentration in
the sediment to benchmark values. Evaluation of
contaminant distribution for chemicals with
concentrations greater than benchmark values.
Benthic invertebrate
Community
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table H.l
Preliminary Assessment and Measurement Endpoints
Assossinciil Kndpoinl
liiisis l-'or Assossiikmii Kndpoinl
Mciisiiivmcnl Kndpoinl
Km*|)lor
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of terrestrial
plant communities.
Plants provide food and habitat for a multitude of
wildlife receptors.
Comparison of the maximum detected concentration in
the sediment or the top two feet of soil to benchmark
values. Evaluation of contaminant distribution for
chemicals with concentrations greater than benchmark
values.
Terrestrial plants
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of aquatic
communities.
A healthy aquatic community is critical to
maintenance of stream function. Members of this
community serve as prey species for upper trophic
level receptors.
Comparison of the maximum detected concentration
in the surface water to aquatic benchmark values.
Evaluation of contaminant distribution for chemicals
with concentrations greater than benchmark values.
Freshwater Aquatic
Community
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of transition
zone communities.
The transition zone is where potentially
contaminated groundwater mixes with surface water.
Areas of groundwater discharge can support
spawning, feeding, and nursing habitats. Benthic
and epibenthic organisms can live in these zones,
and fish can find refuge in groundwater discharge
areas.
Comparison of the maximum detected concentration in
the groundwater near the discharge point to aquatic
benchmark values. Evaluation of contaminant
distribution for chemicals with concentrations greater
than benchmark values.
Transition Zone Community
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of amphibians.
Amphibians are prey species for upper trophic level
receptors
Comparison of the maximum detected concentration in
the sediment and surface water to benchmark values.
Evaluation of contaminant distribution for chemicals
with concentrations greater than benchmark values.
Amphibians
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of avian
terrestrial insectivores.
Avian terrestrial insectivores are important
consumers of soil invertebrates, and serve as prey
species for upper trophic level receptors.
Calculation of maximum chemical intake and
comparison to NOAELs. Calculation of central
tendency intake and comparison to NOAELs and
LOAELs found in the literature.
American woodcock and
eastern phoebe
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of avian
terrestrial carnivores.
Avian terrestrial carnivores consume small birds and
mammals, thereby ensuring balance in the
ecosystem. These receptors may be particularly
vulnerable to compounds which bioaccumulate.
Calculation of maximum chemical intake and
comparison to NOAELs. Calculation of central
tendency intake and comparison to NOAELs and
LOAELs found in the literature.
Barred owl
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table H.l
Preliminary Assessment and Measurement Endpoints
Assossinciil Kndpoinl
liiisis l-'or Assossiikmii Kndpoinl
Mciisiiivmcnl Kndpoinl
Km*|)lor
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of mammalian
terrestrial herbivores.
Mammalian terrestrial herbivores are consumers of
the nuts, seeds, and berries produced by plants, and
serve as prey species for upper trophic level
receptors.
Calculation of maximum chemical intake and
comparison to NOAELs. Calculation of central
tendency intake and comparison to NOAELs and
LOAELs found in the literature.
Meadow vole
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of mammalian
terrestrial insectivores.
Mammalian terrestrial insectivores are important
consumers of soil invertebrates, and serve as prey
species for upper trophic level receptors.
Calculation of maximum chemical intake and
comparison to NOAELs. Calculation of central
tendency intake and comparison to NOAELs and
LOAELs found in the literature.
Short-tailed shrew
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of mammalian
piscivores
Mammalian piscivores consume fish, amphibians,
and some types of benthic invertebrates, thereby
providing balance for the aquatic ecosystem. These
receptors may be particularly vulnerable to
bioaccumulative chemicals.
Calculation of maximum chemical intake and
comparison to NOAELs. Calculation of central
tendency intake and comparison to NOAELs and
LOAELs found in the literature.
Mink
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of avian
piscivores.
Avian piscivores consume fish, amphibians, and
some types of benthic invertebrates, thereby
providing balance for the aquatic ecosystem. These
receptors may be particularly vulnerable to
bioaccumulative chemicals.
Calculation of maximum chemical intake and
comparison to NOAELs. Calculation of central
tendency intake and comparison to NOAELs and
LOAELs found in the literature.
Green heron
Growth, survival, and
reproduction of flying
insectivores.
Bats consume insects and are particularly useful in
terms of controlling insect populations. The
northern long-eared bat's population has been
decimated by white nose syndrome, and the
surviving population may be more vulnerable to
environmental contamination.
The short-tailed shrew was used as s surrogate species
for the flying insectivore.
Northern long-eared bat
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table H.2
Exposure Parameters for Upper Trophic Level Ecological Receptors
Keeeplor
l-ood 1 iiiiestion Kate (g/g-risiM
Soil/Sedimenl Ingestion Kale
(as l-'raelion of l-'ood Ingestion Kale)
Waler Ingestion Kale
(ii/!i-da\)
Dielan Composition ipereenl)
l-ora^in^ Area
Value
( urn men I
Value
( oiii men I
Value
( OIllllK'lll
Terreslrial
Plants
ln\erlel>rales
Small
Mammals
Amphibians
l-'isli
( onmieni
Value
( onmieni
Birds
Eastern phoebe1
1.57
Food ingestion rate was
allometrically derived. Body
weight from Terres (1980) and
Weeks (1994)
2.0%
Estimated from Beyer (1994)
0.209
Allometrically derived
using equation in
USCHPPM (2004)
3
97
0
0
0
Martin etal. (1951)
NA
American robin
1.52
Mean ingestion rate from
Hazelton et al. (1984), as cited
in EPA 1993
10.4%
No value in EPA 1993; proposed
value based on that for the
American woodcock.
0.14
Estimated value provided in
EPA (1993)
7
93
0
0
0
Spring diet, eastern
United States study by
Wheelwright (1986), as
cited in EPA 1993
0.42 ha
Mean value, spring,
Tennessee campus study
by Pitts (1984), as cited in
EPA 1993
American
woodcock
0.77
Mean ingestion rate from
Stickel et al (1965) as cited in
USCHPPM (2004)
10.4%
EPA (1993)
0.1
Estimated value provided in
EPA (1993)
10.5
89.5
0
0
0
Summer diet, North
America study by
Sperry (1940) as cited
in USCHPPM (2004)
3.1 ha
Median value, active
males, Pennsylvania study
by Hudgins et al. (1985) as
cited in USCHPPM (2004)
Barred owl1
0.0265
Dry weight ingestion rate for
great horned owl under
laboratory conditions, from
Duke, et al. 1993
0.0%
0
Owls obtained water from
prey, Duke, et al, 1993
0
5
85
5
5
Estimated from Cornell
University website
781 ha
Mean annual range,
Washington study by
Hamer et al. (2007)
Green heron1
0.190
Food ingestion rate obtained
fromKushlan (1978). Body
weight obtained from Dunning
(1993). Both as cited in
USCHPPM (2004).
5.0%
Estimated from Beyer (1994) as
cited in EPA (1993)
0.098
Estimated value provided in
USCHPPM (2004)
3
10
0
20
67
Alexander (1977) as
cited in USCHPPM
(2004)
NA
Mammals
Meadow vole
0.35
Maximum mean ingestion rate
from Ognev (1950) as cited in
EPA (1993)
2.4%
EPA, 1993
0.21
Ernst (1958) as cited in
EPA (1993)
98
2
0
0
0
Average of studies
listed in EPA (1993)
0.037 ha
Female,
Massachusetts/grassy
meadow; Ostfeld, et al
(1988) as cited in EPA
(1993')
Short-tailed
shrew
0.62
Barrett and Stuek, 1976, as cited
in EPA (1993)
3.0%
Attachment 4-1, OSWER
Directive 9285.7-55, rev. April
(2007)
0.223
Chew (1951) as cited in
EPA (1993)
15.1
79.4
0
0
0
Average of the diet
studies provided in EPA
(1993)
0.36 ha
Maximum range for adult
female in summer, Blair
(1940) as cited in EPA
(1993)
Mink
0.22
Estimated year-round rate for
adult male, EPA (1993)
2.0%
Recommended value listed in
USCHPPM (2004)
0.099
Estimated value for adult
male, EPA (1993)
0
7
6
0
85
Michigan, river, year-
round, Alexander
(1977) as cited in EPA
(1993)
7.8 ha
Adult female, Montana
riverine with heavy
vegetation, Mitchell
(1961) as cited in EPA
(1993^1
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table H.2
Exposure Parameters for Upper Trophic Level Ecological Receptors
Notes:
(1) Food ingestion rate, soil/sediment ingestion rate, and dietary composition provided by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 Biological Technical Advisory Group
(2) Unless otherwise noted, ingestion rates provided in wet food weight per body weight.
(3) Assumed water content of terrestrial diet components is: 85% plants, 9.3% seeds, 84% earthworms, and 68% small mammals (Attachment 4-1, EPA, 2003).
(4) Assumed water content of aquatic diet components is 75% fish, 75.5% amphibians, and 78% benthic invertebrates. Table 4-1 of Wildlife Exposure Factors Flandbook, EPA/600/R-93/187, December 1993.
ha = hectare. EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency,
g/g-day = grams per gram a day. OSWER = Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
% = percent. NA = not available
Duke, G.E., J.G. Ciganek, and O.A. Evanson, 1993. Food consumption and energy, water, and nitrogen budgets in captive great-horned owls (Bubo virginianus). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. 44(2):283-292.
EPA, 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/R-93/187.
Flamer, Thomas E., Eric D. Forsman, and Elizabeth M. Glenn, 2007. Flome range attributes and habitat selection of barred owls and spotted owls in an area of sympatry. The Candor. 109:750-768.
Fludgins, J. E.; Storm, G. L.; Wakeley, J. S., 1985. Local movements and diurnal-habitat selection by male woodcock in Pennsylvania. J. Wildl. Manage. 49: 614-619.
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. 1; 37 pp.
Stickel, W. H.; Flayne, D. W.; Stickel, L. F., 1965. Effects of heptachlor-contaminated earthworms on woodcocks. J. Wildl. Manage. 29: 132-146.
Terres, J., 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
U.S. Army Center for Flealth Promotion and Preventative Medicine (USCF1PPM), 2004. Development of Terrestrial Exposure and Bioaccumulation Information for the Army Risk Assessment Modeling System. April.
Weeks, H.P., Jr. 1994. Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe). In The Birds of North America, No. 94 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' Union.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table H.3
Avian NOAELs
Ansilvlc
NOAEL
(m»/k»-b\\-il:iy)
CiUilion
Arsenic
2.24
EPA, 2005a
Cadmium
1.47
EPA, 2005b
Chromium (III)
2.66
EPA, 2008
Copper
4.05
EPA, 2007a
Lead
1.63
EPA, 2005c
Mercury'11
0.0064
Sample, et al., 1996
Nickel
6.71
EPA, 2007b
Selenium
0.29
EPA, 2007c
Silver
2.02
EPA, 2006
Zinc
66.1
EPA, 2007d
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
1653
Appendix 5.1, EPA, 2007e
High Molecular Weight PAHs
2
Appendix 5.2, EPA, 2007e
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
No TRV
1,3 -Dichlorobenzene
No TRV
Aldrin
No TRV
Chlordane
2.14
Sample, et al., 1996
DDT and Metabolites
0.227
EPA, 2007f
Dieldrin
0.0709
EPA, 2007g
Endosulfan (alpha and beta)
10
Sample, et al., 1996
Endrin
0.01
Sample, et al., 1996
Heptachlor
No TRV
Heptachlor epoxide
No TRV
alpha-BHC
Use NOAEL for BHC mixed
isomers
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC
2
Sample, et al., 1996
BHC mixed isomers
0.56
Sample, et al., 1996
Methoxychlor
No TRV
Aroclor 1248[21
0.18
Sample, et al., 1996
Aroclor 1254
0.18
Sample, et al., 1996
Aroclor 1260[21
0.18
Sample, et al., 1996
[1] Mercury in the form of methyl mercury dicyandiamide
[2] NOAEL for Aroclor 1254 used as a surrogate
mg/kg-bw-day = milligrams per kilogram of body weight a day
Eco-SSL = Ecological Soil Screening Level
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
TRV = toxicity reference value
References
Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suter II, 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife, 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-86/R3.
EPA, 2005a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Arsenic. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-62. March.
EPA, 2005b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Cadmium Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-65. March.
EPA, 2005c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Lead. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-70. March.
EPA, 2006. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Silver. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-77. September.
EPA, 2007a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Copper. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-68. February.
EPA, 2007b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Nickel. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-76. March.
EPA, 2007c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Selenium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-72. July.
EPA, 2007d. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Zinc. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-73. June.
EPA, 2007e. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9278.7-78, June.
EPA, 2007f. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for DDT and Metabolites. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-57. April.
EPA, 2007g. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Dieldrin. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-56. April.
EPA, 2008. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Chromium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-66. April.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.4
Mammalian NOAELs
Aiiiilvtc
NOAEL
b\\-il:iy)
Ciliilioii
Arsenic
1.04
EPA, 2005a
Cadmium
0.77
EPA, 2005b
Chromium (III)
2.4
EPA, 2008
Copper
5.6
EPA, 2007a
Lead
4.7
EPA, 2005c
Mercury
0.054 (meadow vole)
0.07 (short-tailed shrew)
0.015 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Nickel
1.7
EPA, 2007b
Selenium
0.143
EPA, 2007c
Silver
6.02
EPA, 2006
Zinc
75.4
EPA, 2007d
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
65.6
EPA, 2007e
High Molecular Weight PAHs
0.615
EPA, 2007e
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
No TRV
1,3 -Dichlorobenzene
No TRV
Aldrin
0.336 (meadow vole)
0.44 (short-tailed shrew)
0.154 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Chlordane
4.2 (meadow vole)
5.5 (short-tailed shrew)
1.9 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
DDT and metabolites
0.147
EPA, 2007f
Dieldrin
0.015
EPA, 2007g
Endosulfan
0.25 (meadow vole)
0.33 (short-tailed shrew)
0.12 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Endrin
0.084 (meadow vole)
0.109 (short-tailed shrew)
0.038 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Heptachlor
0.218 (meadow vole)
0.286 (short-tailed shrew)
0.1 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Heptachlor Epoxide'21
0.218 (meadow vole)
0.286 (short-tailed shrew)
0.1 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
alpha-BHC
Use NOAEL for BHC mixed
isomers
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC
13.4 (meadow vole)
17.6 (short-tailed shrew)
6.15 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
BHC Mixed Isomers
2.69 (meadow vole)
3.52 (short-tailed shrew)
0.014 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Methoxychlor
6.7 (meadow vole)
8.8 (short-tailed shrew)
3.1 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Aroclor 1248
0.033 (meadow vole)
0.043 (short-tailed shrew)
0.015 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Aroclor 1254
0.051 (meadow vole)
0.067 (short-tailed shrew)
0.14 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Aroclor 1260[31
0.051 (meadow vole)
0.067 (short-tailed shrew)
0.14 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
[1] Mercury in the form of methylmercury chloride
[2] NOAEL for heptachlor used as a surrogate
[3] NOAEL for Aroclor 1254 used as a surrogate
mg/kg-bw-day = milligrams per kilogram of body weight a day
Eco-SSL = Ecological Soil Screening Level
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
TRV = toxicity reference value
References
Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suterll, 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife, 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-86/R3.
EPA, 2005a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Arsenic. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-62. March.
EPA, 2005b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Cadmium Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-65. March.
EPA, 2005c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Lead. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-70. March.
EPA, 2006. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Silver. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-77. September.
EPA, 2007a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Copper. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-68. February.
EPA, 2007b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Nickel. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-76. March.
EPA, 2007c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Selenium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-72. July.
EPA, 2007d. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Zinc. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-73. June.
EPA, 2007e. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-78. June.
EPA, 2007f. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for DDT and Metabolites. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-57. April.
EPA, 2007g. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Dieldrin. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-56. April.
EPA, 2008. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Chromium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-66. April.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.5
Avian LOAELs
A n :il vie
I.OAElJ"
(m»/k»-b\\-il:iv)
C'iliilion
( omnvnl
Arsenic
3.55
EPA, 2005a
Lowest LOAEL greater than the NOAEL;
bounded LOAELs not listed in Table 5.1 ol
EPA, 2005a
Cadmium
2.37
EPA, 2005b
Lowest bounded LOAEL greater than the
NOAEL
Chromium (trivalent)
2.78
EPA, 2008
Lowest bounded LOAEL greater than the
NOAEL
Copper
12.1
EPA, 2007a
LOAEL associated with the NOAEL
Lead
3.26
EPA, 2005c
LOAEL associated with the NOAEL
Mercury'1
0.064
Sample, et al., 1996
Nickel
11.5
EPA, 2007b
Lowest bounded LOAEL greater than the
NOAEL
Selenium
0.579
EPA, 2007c
LOAEL associated with the NOAEL
Silver
20.2
EPA, 2006
Lowest LOAEL for reproduction, growth,
and survival
Zinc
86.6
EPA, 2007d
Lowest bounded LOAEL greater than the
NOAEL
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
No TRV
High Molecular Weight PAHs
20
EPA, 2007e
Appendix 5.2; only LOAEL listed
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
No TRV
1,3 -Dichlorobenzene
No TRV
Aldrin
No TRV
Chlordane
10.7
Sample, et al., 1996
DDT and Metabolites
2.27
EPA, 2007f
LOAEL associated with the NOAEL
Dieldrin
3.78
EPA, 2007g
LOAEL associated with the NOAEL
Endosulfan
(alpha and beta)
No TRV
Endrin
0.1
Sample, et al., 1996
Heptachlor
No TRV
Heptachlor epoxide
No TRV
alpha-BHC
Use NOAEL for BHC
mixed isomers
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC
20
Sample, et al., 1996
BHC mixed isomers
2.25
Sample, et al., 1996
Methoxychlor
No TRV
Aroclor 1248^
1.8
Sample, et al., 1996
Aroclor 1254
1.8
Sample, et al., 1996
Aroclor 1260[2]
1.8
Sample, et al., 1996
[1] Mercury in the form of methyl mercury dicyandiamide
[2] NOAEL for Aroclor 1254 used as a surrogate
mg/kg-bw-day = milligrams per kilogram of body weight a day
Eco-SSL = Ecological Soil Screening Level
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
TRV = toxicity reference value
References
Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suter II, 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife, 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-86/R3.
EPA, 2005a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Arsenic. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-62. March.
EPA, 2005b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Cadmium Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-65. March.
EPA, 2005c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Lead. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-70. March.
EPA, 2006. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Silver. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-77. September.
EPA, 2007a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Copper. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-68. February.
EPA, 2007b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Nickel. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-76. March.
EPA, 2007c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Selenium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-72. July.
EPA, 2007d. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Zinc. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-73. June.
EPA, 2007e. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9278.7-78, June.
EPA, 2007f. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for DDT and Metabolites. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-57. April.
EPA, 2007g. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Dieldrin. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-56. April.
EPA, 2008. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Chromium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-66. April.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.6
Mammalian LOAELs
Aiiiilvlc
LOAEL[1]
(mg/kg-bw-day)
CiUition
Comment
Arsenic
1.66
EPA, 2005a
LOAEL associated with the NOAEL
Cadmium
7.7
EPA, 2005b
LOAEL associated with the NOAEL
Chromium (III)
2.82
EPA, 2008
Lowest LOAEL greater than the NOAEL;
bounded LOAELs not listed in Table 6.1 of
EPA, 2008
Copper
9.34
EPA, 2007a
LOAEL associated with the NOAEL
Lead
8.9
EPA, 2005c
LOAEL associated with the NOAEL
Mercury'11
0.269 (meadow vole)
0.352 (short-tailed shrew)
0.025 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Nickel
3.4
EPA, 2007b
LOAEL associated with the NOAEL
Selenium
0.215
EPA, 2007c
LOAEL associated with the NOAEL
Silver
60.2
EPA, 2006
Lowest LOAEL for reproduction, growth, and
survival
Zinc
75.9
EPA, 2007d
Lowest bounded LOAEL greater than the
NOAEL
Low Molecular Weight
PAHs
328
EPA, 2007e
LOAEL associated with the NOAEL
High Molecular Weight
3.07
EPA, 2007e
LOAEL associated with the NOAEL
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
NoTRV
1,3 -Dichlorobenzene
NoTRV
Aldrin
1.68 (meadow vole)
2.2 (short-tailed shrew)
0.769 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Chlordane
8.4 (meadow vole)
10.9 (short-tailed shrew)
3.8 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
DDT and Metabolites
0.735
EPA, 2007f
LOAEL associated with the NOAEL
Dieldrin
0.03
EPA, 2007g
LOAEL associated with the NOAEL
Endosulfan
NoTRV
Endrin
0.836 (meadow vole)
1.09 (short-tailed shrew)
0.383 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Heptachlor
2.18 (meadow vole)
2.86 (short-tailed shrew)
1 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Heptachlor Epoxide'21
2.18 (meadow vole)
2.86 (short-tailed shrew)
1 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
alpha-BHC
Use NOAEL for BHC mixed
isomers
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC
NoTRV
BHC Mixed Isomers
5.37 (meadow vole)
7.03 (short-tailed shrew)
0.14 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Methoxychlor
13.4 (meadow vole)
17.6 (short-tailed shrew)
6.2 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Aroclor 1248
0.33 (meadow vole)
0.43 (short-tailed shrew)
0.15 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table H.6
Mammalian LOAELs
Aiiiilvlc
LOAEL111
(mg/kg-bw-day)
CiUition
Comment
Aroclor 1254
0..51 (meadow vole)
0.67 (short-tailed shrew)
0.69 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
Aroclor 1260[31
0.51 (meadow vole)
0.67 (short-tailed shrew)
0.69 (mink)
Sample, et al., 1996
[1] Mercury in the form of methylmercury chloride
[2] NOAEL for heptachlor used as a surrogate
[3] NOAEL for Aroclor 1254 used as a surrogate
mg/kg-bw-day = milligrams per kilogram of body weight a day
Eco-SSL = Ecological Soil Screening Level
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level
TRV = toxicity reference value
References
Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suterll, 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife, 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-86/R3.
EPA, 2005a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Arsenic. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-62. March.
EPA, 2005b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Cadmium Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-65. March.
EPA, 2005c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Lead. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-70. March.
EPA, 2006. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Silver. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-77. September.
EPA, 2007a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Copper. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-68. February.
EPA, 2007b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Nickel. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-76. March.
EPA, 2007c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Selenium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-72. July.
EPA, 2007d. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Zinc. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-73. June.
EPA, 2007e. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-78. June.
EPA, 2007f. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for DDT and Metabolites. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-57. April.
EPA, 2007g. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Dieldrin. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-56. April.
EPA, 2008. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Chromium. Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-66. April.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table H.7
Floodplain Soil Earthworm Tissue Bioaccumulation Factors
Cheiniciil
liioiKTiiimi hit ion I'iiclor
1
R"
Site specific UAI-" ussihle in ecologicsil risk sissessmenl?
Arsenic
TW = 2.01(CS)
--
Yes. Very weak correlation coefficient. Average BAF calculated
Barium
Tw = 0.016(CS)
~
Yes. Weak correlation coefficient. Average BAF calculated
Cadmium
TW = 2.07(CS)
~
Yes. Weak correlation coefficient. Average BAF calculated
Chromium
log (Tw) = -1.731og(Cs) + 2.06
0.92
Yes. Few data points, but good correlation
Cobalt
log(Tw)= 0.6921og(Cs) - 0.867
0.39
Yes. Moderate correlation
Copper
Tw = 0.17(CS)
--
Yes. Weak correlation coefficient. Average BAF calculated
Iron
Tw = 0.0033(Csn) - 151
0.63
Yes. Good correlation
Lead
log(Tw) = 0.5581og(Cs) - 0.190
0.57
Yes. Moderate correlation
Manganese
Tw = 0.0064(Csn) - 5.08
0.60
Yes. Good correlation
Nickel
Tw = 0.041(CS)
~
Yes. Weak correlation coefficient. Average BAF calculated
Selenium
Tw = 0.136(Cs.n)-0.798
0.53
Yes. Moderate correlation
Silver
Tw = 0.26(CS)
--
No. Too few data points
Vanadium
l°g(Tw) = 1.771og(Cs) - 2.83
0.43
Yes. Moderate correlation
Zinc
Tw = 0.30(CS)
-
Yes. Weak correlation coefficient. Average BAF calculated
Notes:
Tw = Earthworm tissue concentration
Cs = Soil concentration
Cs n = Soil concentration normalized to total organic carbon content
— = not applicable
R2 = coefficient of determination
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.10
Initial Benchmark Screening for Terrestrial Receptors
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil and Sediment
Soil
Scriimcnl
1 co-SSI.
Oilier Screening l.c\cl ling/kg)
Aiiiihlc'1'
Plil lllS
Tcnvslrhil
ln\crk'l)r;ik's
Birds
Miiinniiils
Phi lllS
Tcrrcslrhil
1 n\erleh r;i los
Sou rcc
Screening
ISenchm;irk (nig/kg)
Sou rcc
Miixiiniiin
(nig/kg)
l.ociilion of
Miixiniiiin
Dclcclion
l"rC(|IICIIC>
Aluminum
Based on Soil EH and pH
—
-
-
58000
b; ARCS PEC Sediment
Screening Benchmark
23,100
NDCSD14
45/46
Antimony
NSV
78
NSV
() 2~
0.480
5
-
1995 Soil BTAG
Efroymson, et al, 1997a
a
11
NDCSD10
23/46
Arsenic
IS
NSV
43
4(>
--
(>0
Efroymson, et al, 1997b
l) s
a
174
NDCSD09
45/46
Barium
NSV
330
NSV
2000
440
5()()
-
1995 Soil BTAG
Efroymson, et al, 1997a
NSV
-
473
FLSB03
45/46
Beryllium
NSV
40
NSV
21
0 02
10
-
1995 Soil BTAG
Efroymson, et al, 1997a
NSV
-
2.3
NDCSD09
44/46
Cadmium
32
140
i)
i)
--
—
—
0 99
a
2.5
NDCSD17
37/46
Calcium
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
--
—
—
\SY
--
24,800
NDCSD11
45/46
Chromium
NSV
NSV
26
U
0.02
1
o.oo"5
04
1995 Soil BTAG
Efroymson, et al, 1997a
Efroymson, et al, 1997b
4^ 4
a
127
NDCSD10
45/46
Cobalt
1 ^
NSV
120
2M)
--
4o
CCME Agricultural
5o
a
70.8
FLSB01
45/46
Copper
"0
SI)
28
4<>
—
—
—
'1 (¦
a
341
NDCSD12
45/46
Cyanide
NSV
NSV
NSV
\SY
0.9
0 K)
CCME Agricultural
o I
a
22.2
NDCSO07
23/46
Iron
Based on Soil EH and pH
--
—
—
20.000
a
86,300
FLSB01
45/46
Lead
i:u
1. oil
1 1
5<>
--
—
—
"5 8
a
9,750
FLSB03
46/46
Magnesium
\SY
\SY
NSV
\SY
~
—
—
\SY
--
9,080
NDCSO01
45/46
Manganese
::u
450
4300
4<>0()
--
—
—
4<>o
a
2,280
NDCSO04
45/46
Mercury
No Eco SSLs Developed
0 ;
()5S
O.I
o58
Efroymson, et al, 1997a
1995 Soil BTAG
Efroymson, et al, 1997b
o. IX
a
0.39
NDCSD16
24/41
Nickel
^8
280
210
130
~
—
—
"1 "1 _
a
86.3
FLSB02
45/46
Potassium
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
--
—
—
\SY
--
1,440
NDCSD17
45/46
Selenium
(I 52
4.1
1.2
0 <>"
~
—
—
a
11.3
NDCSD13
44/46
Silver
560
NSV
4.2
14
—
20
CCME Agricultural
1
a
2.6
NDCSO08
9/46
Sodium
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
~
—
—
NSV
--
925
FLSB01
13/46
Tin
No Eco-SSLs Developed
0 S'J
50
O S<>
2.000
1995 Soil BTAG
Efroymson, et al, 1997a
Efroymson, et al, 1997b
NSV
-
142
FLSB01
39/46
Vanadium
NSV
NSV
7.8
280
o 5
130
58
1995 Soil BTAG
Efroymson, et al, 1997a
CCME Agricultural
NSV
-
57.9
NDCSD12
45/46
Zinc
l(>()
120
46
--
—
—
121
a
517
NDCSD17
45/46
Aroclor 1260
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.5
1995 Soil BTAG
CCME Agricultural
0.0598
a
0.033
FLSB01, FLSB02
6/42
4,4'-DDD
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.0066
NDCSD11
5/42
4,4'-DDE
Evaluated as sum of DDD, DDE, and DDT
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
Evaluated as sum of DDD, DDE, and DDT
0.0058
NDCSD17
10/42
4,4'-DDT
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.022
NDCSD17
14/42
DDT and Metabolites
NSV
NSV
0.093
0 021
"
—
—
0.00528
a
0.0344
~
--
Aldrin
NSV
NSV
NSV
\SY
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.002
a
0.00093
FLSB03
1/39
Chlordane-alpha
Evaluated as total chlordane
—
Evaluated as total chlordane
0.0075
NDCSD10
4/39
Chlordane-gamma
—
0.074
NDCSO08
25/42
Total Chlordane
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
o 00^24
a
0.0815
~
--
Alpha-BHC
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
100
100
1995 Soil BTAG
O OIKi
a
0.00042
NDCSD09
2/42
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
o.oo2
a
0.0047
NDCSO07
7/42
Endrin
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.00222
a
0.00057
FLSB01
1/42
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table H.10
Initial Benchmark Screening for Terrestrial Receptors
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil and Sediment
Soil
Scriimcnl
1 co-SSI.
Oilier Screening l.c\cl ling/kg)
Tcnvslrhil
Tcrrcslrhil
Screening
Miixiinuin
l.ociiliou of
Doled ion
Aiiiihlc'1'
Plil lllS
ln\crk'l)r;ik's
Birds
Miiinniiils
Phi lllS
ln\crlcl>riilcs
Sou rcc
IScnchm;irk (nig/kg)
Sou rcc
(nig/kg)
Miixiniuin
l"rC(|IICIIC>
b; SD EPA R5 ESL
Endrin aldehyde
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG2
0.48
Sediment Screening
Benchmark
0.0026
NDCSD17
9/42
Dieldrin
NSV
NSV
0.022
0 oi)4'j
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
() ()() |
a
0.0051
NDCSD10
8/42
Endosulfan I
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
—
Evaluated at total endosulfan
0.00043
BFASD01
3/42
Endosulfan II
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
—
0.0012
NDCSD17
11/42
Total Endosulfan
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
—
0.00324
a
0.00163
--
--
Endosulfan Sulfate
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
—
0.0054
a
0.0052
NDCSD12
9/42
Endrin Ketone
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG2
(I (10222
a2
0.0087
NDCSO07
8/42
Heptachlor
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG3
()(KiX
a
0.0051
NDCSO07
10/42
Heptachlor Epoxide
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0 oo24"
a
0.0058
NDCSD17
10/39
Methoxychlor
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.0187
a
0.0061
NDCSD17
11/42
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
—
0.127
a
0.073
FLSB01
1/42
2 -Methy lnaphthalene
--
—
—
o o2o2
a
0.098
FLSB01
2/44
Acenaphthene
--
—
—
IIIIOli"
a
0.17
FLSB01
3/44
Acenaphthylene
--
—
—
o oo5lJ
a
0.7
NDCSD17
5/44
Anthracene
Based on sum of low molecular weight PAHs
--
—
—
o o5"2
a
1.4
NDCSD09
10/44
Fluoranthene
--
—
—
o 42 '
a
11
NDCSD09
29/44
Fluorene
--
—
—
o.o 4
a
0.16
FLSB01
2/44
Naphthalene
--
—
—
O 1 "(¦
a
0.16
FLSB01
3/44
Phenanthrene
--
—
—
0.204
a
4.4
NDCSD09
23/44
Sum Low Molecular Weight P,
NSV
29
NSV
100
NSV
—
—
--
--
18.1
~
--
Benzo(a)anthracene
--
—
—
O. 108
a
7
NDCSD09
25/44
Benzo(a)pyrene
--
—
—
O 15
a
5.6
NDCSD09
24/44
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
--
—
—
Evaluated as benzo(b+k)fluoranthene
9.4
NDCSD10
25/44
B enzo (k)fluoranthene
--
—
—
3.3
NDCSD09
19/44
Benzo(b+k)fluoranthene
Based on sum of high molecular weight PAHs
--
—
—
o o2"2
a
12.7
--
--
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
--
—
—
o r
a
3.6
NDCSD09
21/44
Chrysene
--
—
—
o !(¦(¦
a
5.7
NDCSD09
25/44
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
--
—
—
0 0 V,
a
1
NDCSD09
4/39
Indeno( 1,2,3 ,-c,d)pyrene
--
—
—
o o I "
a
5.1
NDCSD09
23/44
Pyrene
--
—
—
o. |
a
8.1
NDCSD09
28/44
Sum High Molecular Weight P
NSV
IS
NSV
1 1
NSV
—
—
—
--
61.5
~
--
Dibenzofuran
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.415
a
0.083
FLSB01
1/44
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.0165
a
0.0041
NDCSD16
2/32
1,3 -Dichlorobenzene
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG4
4.43
a
0.0011
NDCSD16
1/32
4-Chloroaniline
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
—
o I4<>
b
2.1
NDCSD16
5/37
Benzaldehyde
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
—
NSV
--
0.21
NDCSO06
3/39
bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
—
o 18
a
4.2
NDCSD12
7/44
Cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.3
0.3
1995 Soil BTAG
NSV
--
0.041
FLSB01
5/40
Carbazole
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
—
NSV
--
0.16
FLSB01
2/44
di-n-butyl Phthalate
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
200
NSV
Efroymson, et al, 1997a
6.47
a
0.52
NDCSO07
1/22
b; SD EPA R5 ESL
2-Butanone
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
—
0 0424
Sediment Screening
Benchmark4
0.13
FLSB02
16/40
Acetone
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
—
O OO'J'J
b
0.19
FLSB03
11/37
Carbon Disulfide
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
—
IIIIIH1X5 1
a
0.014
FLSB02
10/40
Cyclohexane
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
—
NSV
--
0.0024
NDCSD11
4/37
Methyl Acetate
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
-
NSV
-
0.017
FLSB03
1/37
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table H.10
Initial Benchmark Screening for Terrestrial Receptors
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil and Sediment
Soil
Scriimcnl
1 co-SSI. (mii/kii)
Oilier Screening l.c\el img/kg)
Tcnvslrhil
Terreslrhil
Screening
Miixiinuin
l.ociiliou of
Doled ion
Aiiiihlc'1'
Plil lllS
ln\crk'l)r;ik's
Birds
Miiinniiils
Phi lllS
ln\crlcl>riilcs
Sou rcc
IScnchm;irk (nig/kg)
Sou rcc
(nig/kg)
Miixiniuin
l"rC(|IICIIC>
Methylene Chloride
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.3
CCME Agricultural
1995 Soil BTAG
0.159
b
0.006
NDCSD17
6/37
Tetrachloroethylene
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.3
0.3
1995 Soil BTAG
0.468
a
0.0012
FLSB01
1/37
Trichloroethylene
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.3
0.3
1995 Soil BTAG
0.0969
a
0.008
FLSB01
3/40
Trichlorofluoromethane
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
—
NSV
--
0.00042
NDCSD14
1/37
b; OSWER Ecotox
Toluene
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.67
Thresholds Sediment
Screening Benchmark
0.0064
FLSB01
14/40
m,p-Xylene
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
Evaluated as Total Xylenes
--
Evaluated as Total Xylenes
0.0014
NDCSD10
4/37
o-Xylene
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
--
0.00057
NDCSD10
1/37
Total Xylenes
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.0252
a
0.00197
--
--
b; SD EPA R5 ESL
Vinyl Chloride
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.3
0.3
1995 Soil BTAG
0.202
Sediment Screening
Benchmark
0.022
FLSB02
4/40
Notes:
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
Eco-SSL = ecological soil screening level
EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
NSV = no screening value
Eh = redox potential
BTAG = EPA Biological Technical Assistance Group
ARCS = Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediment
PEC = probable effect concentration
CCME = Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment
SD EPA R5 ESL = EPA Region 5 sediment ecological screening level
PAH = polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
Shaded cell indicates screening value exceeded by maximum detection
[1] Only detected analytes are shown.
[2] Use of value for endrin as a surrogate.
[3] Use of value for heptachlor epoxide as a surrogate.
[4] Use of value for 1,2-dichlorobenzene as a surrogate.
Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten. 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3.
Efroymson, R. A., M.E, Will, and G.W. Suter II. 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Processes: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines
1995 BTAG = Biological Technical Advisory Group screening values
Sediment screening benchmark sources:
a) Region 3 Freshwater Sediment Screening Benchmarks
b) Oak Ridge National Laboratory Screening Benchmarks
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table H.ll
Summary of Initial Screening
Terrestrial Receptors, Forested Wetland Habitat
Chi'miciil
Relumed :is
(opix ?
r.iidpoinl
Kiilimiiik'
Aluminum
No
Not applicable
Based on the pH range of the forested wetland (6.47 - 7.25),
aluminum in not bioavailable to ecological receptors.
Antimony
Yes
plants and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Arsenic
Yes
plants, soil invertebrates, birds, and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Barium
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Beryllium
Yes
plants
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Cadmium
Yes
birds and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Calcium
Yes
plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Chromium
Yes
plants, soil invertebrates, birds, and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Cobalt
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Copper
Yes
plants, soil invertebrates, birds, and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Cyanide
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Iron
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
Soil Eh is not known
Lead
Yes
plants, soil invertebrates, birds, and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Magnesium
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening values
Manganese
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Mercury
Yes
Plants, soil invertebrates, birds, and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks; initial food web
modeling.
Nickel
Yes
plants
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Potassium
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening values
Selenium
Yes
plants, soil invertebrates, birds, and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Sodium
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening values
Tin
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Vanadium
Yes
plants and birds
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Zinc
Yes
plants, soil invertebrates, birds, and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
DDT and Metabolites
Yes
mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Aroclor 1260
Yes
birds and mammals
initial food web modeling
Aldrin
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks and initial food web modeling
Chlordane, alpha and gamma
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks and initial food web modeling
alpha-BHC
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks and initial food web modeling
gamma-BHC
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks and initial food web modeling
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table H.ll
Summary of Initial Screening
Terrestrial Receptors, Forested Wetland Habitat
Chi'miciil
Relumed :is
(opix ?
r.iidpoinl
Kiilimiiik'
Dieldrin
Yes
mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Endosulfan I
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening value; initial food web modeling identified no
threat to upper trophic level receptors
Endosulfan II
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening value; initial food web modeling identified no
threat to upper trophic level receptors
Endosulfan Sulfate
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening value; initial food web modeling identified no
threat to upper trophic level receptors
Endrin
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks and initial food web modeling
Endrin aldehyde
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks and initial food web modeling
Endrin ketone
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks and initial food web modeling
Heptachlor
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks and initial food web modeling
Heptachlor epoxide
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks and initial food web modeling
Methoxychlor
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks and initial food web modeling
3,3' -Dichlorobenzidine
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening values
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
1,3 -Dichlorobenzene
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
Low molecular weight PAHs
Yes
plants and birds
No screening value for plants; initial food web analysis
identified no threat to birds
High molecular weight PAHs
Yes
plants, soil invertebrates, birds, and mammals
No screening value for plants; maximum detection exceeds soil
invertebrate and mammal Eco-SSL; initial food web analysis
identified potential risk for birds
Dibenzofuran
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening values
4-Chloroaniline
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening values
Benzaldehyde
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening values
Bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening values
Carbazole
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening values
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Yes
soil invertebrates
No screening values
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
2-Butanone
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening values
Acetone
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening values
Carbon Disulfide
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening values
Cyclohexane
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening values
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table H.ll
Summary of Initial Screening
Terrestrial Receptors, Forested Wetland Habitat
Chi'miciil
Kcliiini'ri :is
(OPIX ?
r.iidpoinl
Kiilimiiik'
Methyl Acetate
\ cs
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening values
Methylene chloride
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
T etrachloroethene
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
Trichloroethene
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
T richlorofluoro methane
Yes
plants and soil invertebrates
No screening values
Toluene
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
Xylenes
Yes
plants
No screening values
Vinyl chloride
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
Notes:
COPEC = chemical of potential ecological concern
PAH = polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
Eco-SSL = ecological soil screening level
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table H.12
Initial Benchmark Screening for Aquatic Receptors
Forested Wetland - Surface Water
Miiximiim DcUckd
Sc ivon i itu licnch niii i'k
Scivcninii
( uiiiTiili'iilinii
l.nciilion of Miiximiim
Dek'Clion
AnsilMe1'1
(HS/L)
UiTcmuv
(hk/l)
Doled ion
l'lV(|IK'IK\\
(Jiinlicnl
Aluminum
87
a
2440
FLSW01
5/5
:x
Arsenic
5
a
4.7
FLSW01
3/5
0
Barium
4
a
304
FLSW03
5/5
~
-------
Table H.13
Initial Benchmark Screening for Terrestrial Receptors
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
AiiiilMc1'1
Kcoloiiiciil Sciveninii l.o\cl (mii/kiit
Oilier Screcninii l.ocl (mg/kg)
Miixiiiiiini
(niii/kii)
l.nciilion of Miixiiiiiini
Dclcclion I'iv(|uoik'\
Plil lllS
lonvslriiil
ln\crk'l)r;ik's
Birds
Miiinniiils
PlillllS
I cnvslriiil Imcrlchriilcs
Sou ive
Aluminum
Based on Soil EH and pH
23000
WLSS45
103/103
Antimony
NSV
"S
NSV
0.27
0.480
5
1995 Soil BTAG
Efroymson, et al, 1997a
15.3
WLSS87
44/100
Arsenic
IX
NSV
43
46
60
Efroymson, et al, 1997b
57.1
WLSD14
103/103
Barium
NSV
330
NSV
2000
440
500
1995 Soil BTAG
Efroymson, et al, 1997a
391
WLSD14
103/103
Beryllium
NSV
40
NSY
21
10
0.02
Efroymson, et al, 1997a
1995 Soil BTAG
2.8
WLSD03
103/103
Cadmium
32
140
0
0.36
6.5
WLSS29
63/103
Calcium
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
13900
WLSD12
94/103
Chromium
NSV
NSV
26
34
0.02
1
7.5
0.4
1995 Soil BTAG
Efroymson, et al, 1997a
Efrovmsoa et al. 1997b
31.8
WLSS89
103/103
Cobalt
1 ^
NSV
120
230
40
CCME Agricultural
203
WLSD12
97/103
Copper
"0
80
28
49
164
TA-06
103/103
Cyanide
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.9
0.9
CCME Agricultural
2.2
TA-06
14/81
Iron
Based on Soil 1 !l 1 and pi 1
126000
WLSD14
103/103
Lead
i:u
1.700
11
56
6.417
Site-Specific NOEC for Lead
45713
TA-09
539/541
Magnesium
\SY
NSV
NSV
NSV
2290
WLSS71
102/103
Manganese
22(1
450
4300
4000
13400
WLSD12
103/103
Mercury
No Eco-SSI .s 1 )e\ eloped
0.3
.058
0.1
.058
Efroymson, et al, 1997a
1995 Soil BTAG
Efrovmsoa et al. 1997b
0.6
WLSS51, WLSS77
20/103
Nickel
280
210
130
62.6
WLSD03
103/103
Potassium
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
1910
WLSS39
103/103
Selenium
U.52
4.1
1.2
0.63
9.2
WLSD14
62/103
Silver
5(>(i
NSV
4.2
14
20
CCME Agricultural
5.3
WLSS87
45/103
Sodium
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
3400
WLSS29
37/103
Tin
No Eco-SSLs Developed
0.89
50
0.89
2000
1995 Soil BTAG
Efroymson, et al, 1997a
Efrovmsoa et al. 1997b
84.5
WLSS95
37/84
Vanadium
NSV
NSV
" s
280
(i 5
130
58
1995 Soil BTAG
Efroymson, et al, 1997a
CCME Agricultural
59.7
WLSS89
103/103
Zinc
!(>()
120
46
79
292
TA-13
103/103
Aroclor-1248
See Total PCBs
0.083
WLSS35
6/52
Aroclor 1254
0.2
WLSS57
10/52
Aroclor 1260
0.11
WLSS57
20/52
Total PCBs
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
i) 1
40
0.5
1995 Soil BTAG
Efroymson et al, 1997a
CCME Agricultural
0.393
-
--
4,4'-DDD
Evaluated as sum of DDD, DDE, and DDT
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.0076
WLSS38
19/52
4,4'-DDE
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.0075
WLSS38
27/52
4,4'-DDT
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.01
WLSS57
30/52
Total DDT
NSV
NSV
0.093
0 021
--
--
0.0251
~
--
Chlordane-alpha
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
Evaluated as total chlordane
1995 Soil BTAG
0.0026
TA-15
25/52
Chlordane-gamma
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
1995 Soil BTAG
0.0037
TA-13
28/52
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table H.13
Initial Benchmark Screening for Terrestrial Receptors
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
AiiiilMc1'1
Kcoloiiiciil Sciveninii l.o\cl (mii/kiit
Oilier Screcninii l.ocl (mg/kg)
Miixiiiiiini
(niii/kii)
l.nciilion of Miixiiiiiini
DcUdion I'iv(|uoik'\
Plil lllS
lonvslriiil
ln\crk'l)r;ik's
Birds
Miiinniiils
PlillllS
I cnvslriiil Imcrlchriilcs
Sou ive
Total chlordane
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.0063
--
~
Alpha-BHC
Evaluated as total BHC
0.0015
TA-09
3/52
Beta - BHC
0.0032
TA-13
8/52
Delta-BHC
0.0022
TA-12
8/52
Total BHC
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
100
1995 Soil BTAG
0.0069
-
--
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.0011
TA-03
7/52
Endrin aldehyde
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG2
0.0021
TA-14
12/52
Dieldrin
NSV
NSV
0.022
0.0049
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.0044
TA-06
22/52
Endosulfan I
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.0014
TA-15
12/52
Endosulfan II
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.002
TA-15
16/52
Endosulfan Sulfate
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.0067
TA-17
21/52
Endrin
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.00028
WLSD13
2/52
Endrin Ketone
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG2
0.0089
TA-16
18/52
Heptachlor
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG3
0.0022
TA-12
4/52
Heptachlor Epoxide
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.0021
TA-10
10/52
Methoxychlor
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.014
TA-14
20/52
2 -Me thy lnaphthalene
Based on sum of low molecular weight PAHs
0.19
TA-06
9/86
Acenaphthylene
0.026
WLSS95
2/86
Anthracene
0.022
WLSS95
3/86
Fluoranthene
0.74
TA-12
44/86
Naphthalene
0.086
TA-06
4/86
Phenanthrene
0.42
TA-06
28/86
Sum Low Molecular Weight PAHs
NSV 29 NSV 100
1.48
--
--
Benzo(a)anthracene
Based on sum of high molecular weight PAHs
0.32
TA-12
31/86
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.29
WLSD05
31/86
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.54
TA-12
42/86
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
0.17
TA-12, WLSS57
9/86
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.47
TA-12
27/86
Chrysene
0.57
TA-12
43/86
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
0.078
TA-15
3/85
Indeno( 1,2,3 ,-c,d)pyrene
0.23
TA-12
31/86
Pyrene
0.71
TA-12
30/86
Sum High Molecular Weight PAHs
NSV
18
NSV
I.I
3.38
--
--
4-Chloroaniline
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.56
WLSS57
1/67
4-Methylphenol
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.048
WLSS69
2/86
Acetophenone
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.018
WLSS90
1/86
Benzaldehyde
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
1
WLSS72
13/86
Benzyl Butyl Phthalate
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.031
WLSS69
5/86
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.06
WLSS83
1/86
bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
2.6
TA-18
19/86
Carbazole
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.015
WLSS72
2/86
Dibenzofuran
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.01
WLSS95
1/86
Di-n-octyl phthalate
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.25
TA-04
4/85
Phenol
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.1
WLSD03
3/86
2-Butanone
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.29
WLSD03
8/32
2-Hexanone
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.081
WLSD03
1/34
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table H.13
Initial Benchmark Screening for Terrestrial Receptors
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
AiiiilMc1'1
l-lculugiciil Screening l.e\ el (nig/kg)
Oilier Screening l.c\cl (mg/kg)
Miiximiim
(mg/kg)
l.nciilion of Miiximiim
Doled inn l-'rc(|iicnc>
Plil lllS
Terreslriiil
ln\crlel>r;iles
Birds
Miiinniiils
PlillllS
Terreslriiil Imcrlehriiles
Sou rcc
Acetone
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.91
WLSD03
11/34
Carbon Disulfide
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.004
WLSD04
1/34
Cyclohexane
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.0066
WLSD01
2/34
Ethylbenzene
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.0016
WLSD03
1/34
Methyl Acetate
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.053
WLSD03
1/34
Methylene Chloride
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
o 1
0.3
Plants - CCME Agricultural
Invertebrates - 1995 Soil BTAG
0.18
WLSS38
9/34
Toluene
NSV
NSV
NSV
NSV
0.1
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.007
WLSD13
7/34
Notes:
NOEC = no observed effects concentration
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
BTAG = EPA Biological Technical Assistance Group
Eh = redox potential
NSV = no screening value
CCME = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
Eco-SSL = ecological screening level
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
PAH = polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
Shaded cell indicates screening value exceeded by maximum detection
[1] Only detected analytes are shown
[2] Use of value for endrin as a surrogate
[3] Use of value for heptachlor epoxide as a surrogate.
[4] 95% UCL values calculated only for chemicals that exceed an associated benchmark value.
All values are from EPA's Eco-SSLs (EPA, 2003b, with updates) unless otherwise noted.
Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten. 1997a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3.
Efroymson, R.A., M.E, Will, and G.W. Suter II. 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Processes: 1997 Revision.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2.
1995 BTAG = Biological Technical Advisory Group screening values
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table H.14
Summary of Initial Screening
Terrestrial Receptors, Floodplain Habitat
C'heniiciil
Uetiiinocl its
( OIMX ?
Kiulpoinl
Uiilioiiiile
Aluminum
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
pH less than 5.5
Antimony
Yes
Plants and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Arsenic
Yes
Plants, birds, and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Barium
Yes
Terrestrial invertebrates
Maximum detection exceeds benchmark
Beryllium
Yes
Plants
Maximum detection exceeds benchmark
Calcium
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Cadmium
Yes
Birds and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmark
Chromium
Yes
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and birds
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Cobalt
Yes
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and birds
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Copper
Yes
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, birds, and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Cyanide
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
Maximum detection exceeds benchmark
Iron
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
pH less than 5.5; soil likely anaerobic
Lead
Yes
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, birds, and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Magnesium
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Manganese
Yes
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, birds, and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Mercury
Yes
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, birds, and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks, initial
food web modeling
Nickel
Yes
Plants
Maximum detection exceeds benchmark
Potassium
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Selenium
Yes
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, birds, and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Silver
Yes
Birds
Maximum detection exceeds benchmark
Sodium
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Tin
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Vanadium
Yes
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and birds
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Zinc
Yes
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, birds, and mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmarks
Low molecular weight PAHs
Yes
Plants
No screening value for plants; initial food web
analysis identified no threat to birds
High molecular weight PAHs
Yes
Plants and mammals
No screening value for plants; maximum detection
exceeds mammal Eco-SSL; initial food web
analysis identified no threat to birds
Total PCBs
Yes
Plants
Maximum detection exceeds benchmark
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table H.14
Summary of Initial Screening
Terrestrial Receptors, Floodplain Habitat
C'heniiciil
Uetiiinocl its
( OIMX ?
Kiulpoinl
Uiilioiiiile
Aroclor 1248
Yes
Avian and mammalian insectivores
Initial food web modeling
Aroclor 1254
Yes
Avian insectivores
Initial food web modeling
Aroclor 1260
Yes
Avian and mammalian insectivores
Initial food web modeling
DDT/DDD/DDE
Yes
Mammals
Maximum detection exceeds benchmark
Alpha-, beta-, and delta-BHC
Yes
Plants
No screening value
gamma-BHC
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
Dieldrin
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
Endrin
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
Endrin aldehyde
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
Endrin ketone
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
Endosulfan I
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening value; initial food web modeling
identified no threat to upper trophic level receptors
Endosulfan II
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening value; initial food web modeling
identified no threat to upper trophic level receptors
Endosulfan sulfate
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening value; initial food web modeling
identified no threat to upper trophic level receptors
Heptachlor
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
Heptachlor epoxide
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
Methoxychlor
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
4-Chloroaniline
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
4-Methylphenol
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
Acetophenone
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Benzaldehyde
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Benzyl butyl phthalate
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Carbazole
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Dibenzofuran
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Phenol
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
2-Butanone
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening value
2-Hexanone
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Acetone
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table H.14
Summary of Initial Screening
Terrestrial Receptors, Floodplain Habitat
C'heniiciil
Uetiiinocl its
( OIMX ?
Kiulpoinl
Uiilioiiiile
Carbon disulfide
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Cyclohexane
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Ethylbenzene
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
Methyl acetate
Yes
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
No screening values
Methylene chloride
Yes
Plants
Maximum detection exceeds benchmark
Toluene
No
Not applicable
Comparison to benchmarks
Notes:
COPEC = chemical of potential ecological concern
PAH = polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
Eco-SSL = ecological soil screening level
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table H.15
Initial Benchmark Screening for Benthic Invertebrates
Floodplain Habitat - Soil and Sediment
Miiximum
Sci veiling
Doled ion
l.ociilion of
lienohniiirk
Sereeniiiii
CoiHTIIII'fllioil
Miiximii in
Deleelion
AiiiilMi-
Reference
I nig/kg)
Doled ion
l'lV(|IK'IK'\
COIM'.C?
Aluminum
58000
b
23,000
WLSS45
109/109
No
Antimony
a
15.3
WLSS87
45/106
Yes
Arsenic
l) s
a
57.1
WLSD14
109/109
Yes
Barium
NSV
--
391
WLSD14
109/109
Yes
Beryllium
NSV
~
2.8
WLSD03
109/109
Yes
Cadmium
o
a
6.5
WLSS29
63/109
Yes
Calcium
NSV
~
13,900
WLSD12
100/109
Yes
Chromium
43.4
a
31.8
WLSS89
109/109
No
Cobalt
5o
a
203
WLSD12
103/109
Yes
Copper
'1 (¦
a
164
TA-06
109/109
Yes
Cyanide
u I
a
2.2
TA-06
18/87
Yes
Iron
2o.ooo
a
126,000
WLSD14
113/113
Yes
Lead
'5.S
a
45,713
TA-09
549/551
Yes
Magnesium
NSV
--
2,290
WLSS71
108/109
Yes
Manganese
4(>o
a
13,400
WLSD12
113/113
Yes
Mercury
o IS
a
0.6
WLSS51,
WLSS77
25/109
Yes
Nickel
a
62.6
WLSD03
109/109
Yes
Potassium
NSV
--
1,910
WLSS39
109/109
Yes
Selenium
a
9.2
WLSD14
68/109
Yes
Silver
1
a
5.3
WLSS87
47/109
Yes
Sodium
NSV
--
3,400
WLSS29
42/109
Yes
Tin
NSV
~
84.5
WLSS95
43/90
Yes
Vanadium
NSV
--
59.7
WLSS89
109/109
Yes
Zinc
121
a
292
TA-13
109/109
Yes
Aroclor-1248
0.083
WLSS35
6/58
--
Aroclor 1254
Evaluated as total PCBs
0.2
WLSS57
10/58
--
Aroclor 1260
0.11
WLSS57
22/58
--
Total PCBs
o o5'JX
a
0.393
~
—
Yes
4,4'-DDD
Evaluated as sum of DDD,
DDE, and DDT
0.0076
WLSS38
21/58
--
4,4'-DDE
0.0075
WLSS38
29/58
--
4,4'-DDT
0.01
WLSS57
32/58
--
DDT and Metabolites
o 0052X
a
0.0251
~
—
Yes
BHC-alpha
0.006
a
0.0015
TA-09
6/58
No
BHC-beta
0.005
a
0.0032
TA-13
9/58
No
BHC-delta
6.4
a
0.0022
TA-12
9/58
No
Chlordane-alpha
Evaluated as total chlordane
0.0026
TA-15
27/58
--
Chlordane-gamma
0.0037
TA-13
34/58
--
total chlordane
o 00^24
a
0.0063
~
—
Yes
Dieldrin
O
a
0.0044
TA-06
24/58
Yes
Endosulfan I
0.0014
TA-15
14/58
--
Endosulfan II
0.002
TA-15
18/58
--
Total Endosulfan
o 00^24
a
0.0034
~
—
Yes
Endosulfan sulfate
o oo54
a
0.0067
TA-17
23/58
Yes
Endrin
0.00222
a
0.00028
WLSD13
2/58
No
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table H.15
Initial Benchmark Screening for Benthic Invertebrates
Floodplain Habitat - Soil and Sediment
Miiximum
Sereeninii
Doled ion
l.ociilion of
liciK'hmiii'k
Scri'cninii
(oiKTIIII'illioil
Miiximii in
Doloolion
An;ilMe
(
UcTt'ivncc
I nig/kg)
Doled ion
l"lV(|IIOIIO>
COIM'.C?
Endrin aldehyde
0.48
b
0.0021
TA-14
14/58
No
Endrin ketone
o 00222
i
a
0.0089
TA-16
20/58
Yes
BHC-gamma
0.0023"
a
0.0011
TA-03
9/58
No
Heptachlor
0.068
a
0.0022
TA-12
7/58
No
Heptachlor epoxide
0.00247
a
0.0021
TA-10
11/58
No
Methoxychlor
0.0187
a
0.014
TA-14
22/58
No
2 -Methylnaphthalene
o o2o2
a
0.19
TA-06
10/92
Yes
Acenaphthylene
o oo5l>
a
0.026
WLSS95
2/92
Yes
Anthracene
o o5~2
a
0.022
WLSS95
3/92
No
Fluoranthene
o 42'
a
0.74
TA-12
49/92
Yes
Naphthalene
0 1 "(¦
a
0.086
TA-06
4/92
No
Phenanthrene
o 2o4
a
0.42
TA-06
32/92
Yes
Benzo(a)anthracene
0 IMS
a
0.32
TA-12
36/92
Yes
Benzo(a)pyrene
o 15
a
0.29
WLSD05
36/92
Yes
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
0.17
a
0.17
TA-12,
WLSS57
10/92
No
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Evaluated as
0.54
TA-12
48/92
—
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
benzo(h k (fluoranthene
0.47
TA-12
32/92
--
Benzo(b+k)fluoranthene
o o2~2
a
1.18
~
—
Yes
Chrysene
0 I (>(•
a
0.57
TA-12
48/92
Yes
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
0 Oil
a
0.078
TA-15
3/91
Yes
Indeno(l,2,3,-c,d)pyrene
o o 1 "
a
0.23
TA-12
32/92
Yes
Pyrene
o |'J5
a
0.71
TA-12
35/92
Yes
4-Chloroaniline
NSV
--
0.56
WLSS57
1/73
Yes
4-Methylphenol
0.67
a
0.048
WLSS69
2/92
No
Acetophenone
NSV
--
0.018
WLSS90
5/92
Yes
Benzaldehyde
NSV
--
1
WLSS72
17/92
Yes
Benzyl butyl phthalate
10.9
a
0.031
WLSS69
9/92
No
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
NSV
--
0.06
WLSS83
1/92
Yes
bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
0.18
a
2.6
TA-18
25/92
Yes
Carbazole
NSV
~
0.015
WLSS72
2/92
Yes
Dibenzofuran
0.415
a
0.01
WLSS95
1/92
No
Di-n-octyl phthalate
NSV
--
0.25
TA-04
4/91
Yes
Phenol
0.42
a
0.1
WLSD03
7/92
No
2-Butanone
0 0424
b
0.29
WLSD03
12/37
Yes
2-Hexanone
\SY
~
0.081
WLSD03
1/40
Yes
Acetone
0 OO'W
c
0.91
WLSD03
14/39
Yes
Carbon Disulfide
0.000851
a
0.004
WLSD04
1/40
Yes
Cyclohexane
NSV
--
0.0066
WLSD01
2/40
Yes
Ethylbenzene
1.1
a
0.0016
WLSD03
1/40
No
Methyl Acetate
NSV
~
0.053
WLSD03
1/40
Yes
Methylene Chloride
NSV
-
0.18
WLSS38
9/40
Yes
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table H.15
Initial Benchmark Screening for Benthic Invertebrates
Floodplain Habitat - Soil and Sediment
Miiximum
Sci veiling
Doled ion
l.ociilion of
lienohniiirk
Sereeniiiii
CoiHTIIII'fllioil
Miiximii in
Deleelion
AiiiilMi-
diiii/k")
Reference
I nig/kg)
Doled ion
l'lV(|IK'IK'\
COIM'.C?
Toluene
1.09
c
0.007
WLSD13
7/40
No
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
NSV
--
0.0011
SLSD04
1/40
Yes
Trichloroethene
0.0969
a
0.00054
SLSD04
1/40
No
Trichlorofluoromethane
NSV
-
0.00057
SLSD03
1/40
Yes
Notes:
mg/kg = milligram per kilogram
COPEC = chemical of potential ecological concern
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
Shaded cell indicates screening value exceeded by maximum detection
Only detected analytes are shown.
[1] Screening value for endrin used as a surrogate.
Sources:
a) Region 3 Freshwater Sediment Benchmark
b) Oak Ridge National Laboratory Benchmark
c) EPA Region 5 ecological screening level
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table H.20
Initial Food Web Modeling - American Woodcock
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil
Soil
I'liiiil Tissue
Worm Tissue
Miixiiniim
( UlllTIIII'illioil
Log
( niiiTiili'iiliuii
SuiTiico \\;Kcr
A\cr;iiie
NOAII.
IX'UTlion
l.oii kow
(mii/kii. (In
l.oii Kow
K««
K(l\\
Koc
Kd
Soil-lo-worm
(mji/kji. (In
< oiicon 1 r;il ion
l);iil\ Dose
NOAII.
r.coloiiic;il
Chcmiciil
(mii/kii)
(L/kjO1
Snil-lu-pliinl ISAI-"
\\eijihl)
(L/k«)'
(L/k»)
(L/kg)
(L/kjj)1
(L/kg)
IJAI-'
\\eijihl)
(iiig/Lj
(mii/k«i-d;i\)
(m»/kji-(l;i\ )4
(Jiinlicnf
Mercury5
0.39
NA
5
1.95
Not used
95% upper
predicted level
3.486
0.000094
0.41295
0.0064
65
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.098
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.45441n(Cs) - 1.3205
0.0929
Not used
3.04
0.298
0
0.03522
Evaluated as sum of low
Acenaphthene
0.17
Not used
ln(Cp) = -0.85561n(soil) - 5.562
0.0175
Not used
1.47
0.250
0
0.02993
molecular weight PAHs
Acenaphthylene
0.7
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.7911n(Cs) -1.144
0.2402
Not used
22.9
16.030
0
1.77936
Anthracene
1.4
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.77841n(Cs) - 0.9887
0.4835
Not used
2.42
3.388
0
0.39726
Fluoranthene
11
Not used
0.5
5.5
Not used
3.04
33.440
0
3.89395
Fluorene
0.16
Not used
ln(Cp) = -0.85561n(soil) - 5.562
0.0184
Not used
9.57
1.531
0
0.17110
Naphthalene
0.16
Not used
12.2
1.952
Not used
4.4
0.704
0
0.10334
Phenanthrene
4.4
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.62031n(Cs) - 0.1665
2.1224
Not used
1.72
7.568
0
0.91622
Total Low Molecular Weight PAHs
7.32637
1653
0.004
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Benzo [a] anthracene
7
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.2120
Not used
1.59
11.130
0.00017
1.31893
Bcnzo|a|pvrcnc
5.6
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.9751n(Cs) - 2.0615
0.6826
Not used
1.33
7.448
0
0.90081
Benzo [b]fluoranthene
9.4
Not used
0.31
2.914
Not used
2.6
24.440
0.00026
2.84987
Bcnzo|g.h.i|pcrylcne
3.6
Not used
ln(Cp) = 1.18291n(Cs) - 0.9313
1.7930
Not used
2.94
10.584
0
1.23460
Evaluated as sum of high
molecular weight PAHs
Benzo [kjfluoranthene
3.3
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.85951n(Cs) - 2.1579
0.3225
Not used
2.6
8.580
0
0.99198
Chrysene
5.7
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.1876
Not used
2.29
13.053
0
1.51411
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
1
Not used
0.13
0.13
Not used
2.31
2.310
0
0.26902
I nde no 11.2.3 -c. d | p v rc nc
5.1
Not used
0.11
0.561
Not used
2.86
14.586
0
1.68003
Pyrene
8.1
Not used
0.72
5.832
Not used
1.75
14.175
0
1.73682
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
12.49616
2
<>
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
0.0041
3.4
2.52127
0.01034
3.4
0.958
57
380
3.8
14.9
0.061
0
0.00691
Evaluated as sum of
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
0.0011
3.4
2.52127
0.00277
3.4
0.958
57
380
3.8
14.9
0.016
0
0.00185
dichlorobenzenes
Sum of Dichlorobenzenes
0.00877
NoTRV
NoTRV
Aroclor-1260
0.033
7.6
0.04985
0.00165
7.6
4.612
255788
349700
3497
73.1
2.412
0
0.26643
0.18
1
Aldrin
0.00093
6.5
0.13930
0.00013
6.5
3.655
28241
82020
820.2
34.4
0.032
0
0.00354
NoTRV
NoTRV
Alpha-BHC
0.00042
3.8
1.73516
0.00073
3.8
1.306
126
2807
28.07
4.5
0.002
0
0.00022
0.56
0.0004
Endosulfan I
0.00043
3.8
1.73516
0.00075
3.8
1.306
126
6761
67.61
1.9
0.001
0
0.00010
Evaluated as sum of
Endosulfan II
0.0012
3.8
1.73516
0.00208
3.8
1.306
126
6761
67.61
1.9
0.002
0
0.00029
endosulfan I, endosulfan II,
Endosulfan Sulfate
0.0052
3.66
1.97760
0.01028
3.66
1.1842
96
6761
67.61
1.4
0.007
0
0.00099
and endosulfan sulfate
Sum of Endosulfan I, Endosulfan II, and Endosulfan Sulfate
0.00139
10
0.0001
Endrin
0.00057
5.2
0.46920
0.00027
5.2
2.524
2089
20090
200.9
10.4
0.006
0
0.00066
Evaluated as sum of endrin,
Endrin Aldehyde
0.0026
4.8
0.68177
0.00177
4.8
2.176
937
20090
200.9
4.7
0.012
0
0.00140
endrin aldehyde, and endrin
Endrin Ketone
0.0087
4.8
0.68177
0.00593
4.8
2.176
937
20090
200.9
4.7
0.041
0
0.00469
ketone
Sum of Endrin, Endrin Aldehyde, and Endrin Ketone
0.00676
0.01
0.68
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0.0047
3.7
1.9051
0.0090
3.7
1.219
103
2807
28.07
3.7
0.017
0
0.00209
2
0.0010
Alpha-Chlordane
0.0075
6.3
0.1679
0.0013
6.3
3.481
18918
33780
337.8
56
0.420
0
0.04642
Evaluated at total chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
0.074
6.3
0.1679
0.0124
6.3
3.481
18918
33780
337.8
56
4.144
0
0.45803
Total Chlordane
0.50445
2.14
0.2
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table H.20
Initial Food Web Modeling - American Woodcock
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil
Soil
I'liiiil Tissue
Worm Tissue
Miixiiniim
( OlllTIIII'illioil
Log
( OllCCIIII'illioil
Surface \\;Kcr
A\cr;iiie
NOAII.
IX'UTlion
l.oii Kow
(mii/kii. (In
l.oii Kow
Kww
Kdw
Koc
Kd
Soil-lo-worm
(mji/kji. (In
(oiiiTiilriilion
l);iil\ Dose
\o\i:i.
l-lcolo^iciil
Chcmiciil
(mii/kii)
(L/kg)1
Soil-lo-pliinl l$.\I* "
weijihl)
(L/kjj)1
(L/k»)
(L/k«)
(L/kjj)1
(L/kg)
BAF3
weijihl)
(.inji/Lj
(m«.i/k«i-d;i\)
(m»/kji-d;i\ )4
Quotient
Heptachlor
0.0051
6.1
0.2024
0.0010
6.1
3.307
12673
41260
412.6
30.7
0.157
0
0.01734
Evaluated as sum of
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.0058
5
0.5656
0.0033
5
2.35
1399
10110
101.1
13.8
0.080
0
0.00894
heptachlor and heptachlor
epoxide
Sum of Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide
0.02628
No TRV
No TRV
Methoxychlor
0.0061
5.1
0.5151
0.0031
5.1
2.437
1710
26890
268.9
6.4
0.039
0
0.00442
No TRV
No TRV
Exposure Assumptions - American Woodcock (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day)
0.0127
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW
0.77
Moisture content of plants
0.85
Moisture content of worms
0.84
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW
0.012
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/
0.110
Surface water ingestion rate (L/kgB
0.1
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 10.5%
plants and 89.5% invertebrates.
Notes:
1. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
2. For chemicals without soil-to-plant BAFs listed in EPA, 2007, log BAF = -0.40571ogKow+ 1.781 (Figure 4, Panel B, EPA, 2007).
3. For chemicals without soil-to-worm BAFs listed in EPA (2007), BAFs calculated with Jager model as presented in EPA (2007).
log = 0.87*log - 2
Converted from wet weight to dry weight assuming 16% solids
Kd = foc *
foc = 0.01 (1%)
BAF = Kdw (L/kg worm dry weight)/]^ (L/kg soil dry weight)
4. NOAELs listed in Table H.3.
5. Mercury soil-to-plant BAF from Bechtel Jacobs (1998). Empirical Models for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by Plants. BJC/OR-133. September 1998.
Mercury soil-to-worm BAF from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ES/ER/TM-220, 1998.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
TRV = toxicity reference value
Kow = octanal-water partition coefficient
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
NA = not applicable
Cp = concentration in plant tissue
kgBW = kilograms body weight
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
Ce = concentration is earthworm tissue
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram per day
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
Cs = concentration in soil
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table H.21
Initial Food Web Modeling - Eastern Phoebe
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil
('hi'iniciil
Soil Miixiiniiin
DoU'Cliou
(mg/kg)
Log kow
(L/kg)'
Snil-lu-pliinl IJAI"
Pliinl Tissue
(n iktii trillion
(mg/kg.
(In weight)
Log knw
(L/kg)1
Log kww
(L/kg)
k(l\\
(L/kg)
koc
(L/kg)1
kd
(L/kg)
Soil-lo-
worm IJAI"'
\\ oriii Tissue
Co neon trillion
(nig/kg.
(In weight)
SiiiT;icc \\ hut
(oikvii trillion
(mg/L)
A\c r;i go
l);iil\ Dose
1 lllg/kg-(lil>)
NOAII.
(ing/kg-dii> )4
NOAII.
l-'.cologii'iil
Quotient
Mercury5
0.39
Not used
5
1.95
Not used
95% upper
predicted level
3.486
0.000094
0.87
0.0064
1 '5
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
Acenaphthene
0.17
Not used
ln(plant) = -0.85561n(soil) - 5.562
0.0175
Not used
1.47
0.250
0
0.06
Evaluated as sum of low
molecular weight PAHs
Acenaphthylene
0.7
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.7911n(Cs) - 1.144
0.2402
Not used
22.9
16.030
0
3.91
Anthracene
1.4
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.77841n(Cs) - 0.9887
0.4835
Not used
2.42
3.388
0
0.84
Fluoranthene
11
Not used
0.5
5.5
Not used
3.04
33.440
0
8.24
Fluorene
0.16
Not used
ln(plant) = -0.85561n(soil) - 5.562
0.0184
Not used
9.57
1.531
0
0.37
Phenanthrene
4.4
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.62031n(Cs) - 0.1665
2.1224
Not used
1.72
7.568
0
1.88
2 -Me thy lnaphthalene
0.098
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.45441n(Cs) - 1.3205
0.0929
Not used
3.04
0.298
0
0.07
Naphthalene
0.16
Not used
12.2
1.952
Not used
4.4
0.704
0
0.19
Total Low Molecular Weight PAHs
15.57
1653
0.01
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Benzo[a]anthracene
7
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.2120
Not used
1.59
11.130
0.00017
2.749
Evaluated as sum of high
molecular weight PAHs
Benzo[a]pyrene
5.6
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.9751n(Cs) - 2.0615
0.6826
Not used
1.33
7.448
0
1.848
Benzo [b]fluoranthene
9.4
Not used
0.31
2.914
Not used
2.6
24.440
0.00026
6.023
Benzo [g,h,i]perylene
3.6
Not used
ln(Cp) = 1.18291n(Cs) - 0.9313
1.7930
Not used
2.94
10.584
0
2.610
Benzo [k]fluoranthene
3.3
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.85951n(Cs) - 2.1579
0.3225
Not used
2.6
8.580
0
2.109
Chrysene
5.7
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.1876
Not used
2.29
13.053
0
3.210
Dibenz [a,h] anthracene
1
Not used
0.13
0.13
Not used
2.31
2.310
0
0.569
Indeno [ 1,2,3 -c,d]pyrene
5.1
Not used
0.11
0.561
Not used
2.86
14.586
0
3.584
Pyrene
8.1
Not used
0.72
5.832
Not used
1.75
14.175
0
3.536
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
26.24
2
1 ^
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
0.0041
3.4
2.521
0.0103
3.4
0.958
56.7388
380
3.8
14.9
0.061
0
0.015
Evaluated as sum of
dichlorobenzenes
1,3 -Dichlorobenzene
0.0011
3.4
2.521
0.0028
3.4
0.958
56.7388
380
3.8
14.9
0.016
0
0.004
Sum of Dichlorobenzenes
0.019
NoTRV
NoTRV
Aroclor-1260
0.033
7.6
0.050
0.00165
7.6
4.612
255788
349700
3497
73.1
2.412
0
0.588
0.18
3
Aldrin
0.00093
6.5
0.1393
0.00013
6.5
3.655
28241
82020
820.2
34.4
0.032
0
0.00780
NoTRV
NoTRV
Alpha-BHC
0.00042
3.8
1.735
0.00073
3.8
1.306
126
2807
28.07
4.5
0.002
0
0.00047
0.56
0.0008
Endosulfan I
0.00043
3.8
1.735
0.00075
3.8
1.306
126
6761
67.61
1.9
0.001
0
0.00021
Evaluated as sum of
endosulfan I, endosulfan II,
and endosulfan sulfate
Endosulfan II
0.0012
3.8
1.735
0.00208
3.8
1.306
126
6761
67.61
1.9
0.002
0
0.00058
Endosulfan Sulfate
0.0052
3.66
1.9776
0.01028
3.66
1.1842
96
6761
67.61
1.4
0.007
0
0.00187
Sum of Endosulfan I, Endosulfan II, and Endosulfan Sulfate
0.0027
10
0.0003
Endrin
0.00057
5.2
0.4692
0.00027
5.2
2.524
2088.7
20090
200.9
10.4
0.006
0
0.0014
Evaluated as sum of endrin
aldehyde, and endrin ketone
Endrin Aldehyde
0.0026
4.8
0.6818
0.00177
4.8
2.176
937.3
20090
200.9
4.7
0.012
0
0.0030
Endrin Ketone
0.0087
4.8
0.6818
0.00593
4.8
2.176
937.3
20090
200.9
4.7
0.041
0
0.0100
Sum of Endrin, Endrin Aldehyde, and Endrin Ketone
0.01450
0.01
1
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0.0047
3.7
1.9051
0.00895
3.7
1.219
103.5
2807
28.07
3.7
0.017
0
0.00432
2
0.002
Alpha-Chlordane
0.0075
6.3
0.168
0.00126
6.3
3.481
18918
33780
338
56
0.420
0
0.1024
Evaluated at total chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
0.074
6.3
0.168
0.01243
6.3
3.481
18918
33780
338
56
4.144
0
1.0102
Total Chlordane
1.1126
2.14 0.5
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table H.21
Initial Food Web Modeling - Eastern Phoebe
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil
('hi'iniciil
Soil Miixiiniiin
DoU'dion
(mg/kg)
Log Kow
(L/kg)'
Soi l-lo-phin 1 IJAI"
Pliinl Tissue
(o iktii trillion
(mg/kg.
(In weight)
Log Kow
(L/kg)1
Log Kww
(L/kg)
Kdw
(L/kg)
Koc
(L/kg)1
Kd
(L/kg)
Soil-lo-
wonn IJAI"'
\\ orin Tissue
Co neon I ml ion
(mg/kg.
(In weight)
Surfiicc \\ iilcr
('oillTIIII'illioil
(mg/L)
A\c r;i go
l);iil\ Dose
(mg/kg-d;i\)
NOAII.
(ing/kg-(lii> )4
NOAII.
l-'.cologii'iil
Quotient
Heptachlor
0.0051
6.1
0.2024
0.00103
6.1
3.307
12673.0
41260
412.6
30.7
0.157
0
0.0382
Evaluated as sum of
heptachlor and heptachlor
epoxide
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.0058
5
0.5656
0.00328
5
2.35
1399.2
10110
101.1
13.8
0.080
0
0.0196
Sum of Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide
0.0577
NoTRV
NoTRV
Methoxychlor 0.0061 5.1 0.5 0.0 5.1 2.4 1709.5 26890.0 268.9 6.4 0.0 0
0.0096
No TRY
NoTRV
Exposure Assumptions - Eastern Phoebe (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.00501458
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 1.57
Moisture content of plants 0.85
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.007065
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.243664
Surface water ingestion rate (IVkgBW-day) 0.209
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 3% plants and 97% invertebrates.
Notes:
1. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
2. For chemicals without BAFs listed in EPA, 2007, log BAF = -0.40571ogKow+ 1.781 (Figure 4, Panel B, EPA, 2007).
3. For chemicals without specific BAFs listed in EPA (2007), BAFs calculated with Jager model as presented in EPA (2007).
log Kw = 0.87*log K„w - 2
Converted from wet weight to dry weight assuming 16% solids
K^foc*!^
foc = 0.01 (1%)
BAF = K,jw (IVkg worm dry weight)/K,j (L/kg soil dry weight)
4. NOAELs listed in Table H.3.
5. Mercury soil-to-plant BAF from Bechtel Jacobs (1998). Empirical Models for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by Plants. BJC/OR-133. September 1998.
Mercury soil-to-worm BAF from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ES/ER/TM-220, 1998.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
TRY = toxicity reference value
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
NA = not applicable
Cp = concentration in plant tissue
Ce = concentration is earthworm tissue
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
Eco-SSL = Ecological Soil Screening Level
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram per day
SVOC = semi-volatile organic compound
Cs = concentration in soil
kgBW = kilograms body weight
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table H.22
Initial Food Web Modeling - Barred Owl
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil
C'lii'iiiiiiil
Soil
l)i-k-ilion
Siirliii'i' \\:iU-r
(iiiui'ii liiil ion
(m»/l.)
Lo«
Kow
(l./k»)'
l.i i»
(1 A»)
kih\
(l./k»)
Koc
(l./k»)'
Kd
d a»i
Si>il-l<>-
wurm
IJAI:
Worm Tissue
(iiiHviilniliiin
(m»/k»,
:iil\
Dose
(lll»/k»-il;i> )
NOAI.I.
(m»/k»-il;i> f
NOAI.I.
l'.t.olo^k;ll
Om >1 it-ill
Mercury6
0.39
0.000094
Not used
95% upper
predicted
level
3.486
0.192
0.075
1000
0.094
1000
0.094
0.001528
0.0064
0.2
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
2-Methylnaphthalene 0.098 0
Not used
3.04
0.298
0
0.000
Not detected in surface water
0.000063
Evaluated as sum of low
molecular weight PAHs
Acenaphthene
0.17
0
Not used
1.47
0.250
0
0.000
Not detected in surface water
0.000053
Acenaphthylene
0.7
0
Not used
22.9
16.030
0
0.000
Not detected in surface water
0.003398
Anthracene
1.4
0
Not used
2.42
3.388
0
0.000
Not detected in surface water
0.000718
Fluoranthene
11
0
Not used
3.04
33.440
0
0.000
Not detected in surface water
0.007089
Fluorene
0.16
0
Not used
9.57
1.531
0
0.000
Not detected in surface water
0.000325
Naphthalene 0.16
0
Not used
4.4
0.704
0
0.000
Not detected in surface water
0.000149
Phenanthrene
4.4
0
Not used
1.72
7.568
0
0.000
Not detected in surface water
0.001604
Total Low Molecular Weight PAHs
0.013337
1653
0.00001
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Benzo [a] anthracene
7
0.00017
Not used
1.59
11.130
0
0.000
260
0.0442
260
0.0442
0.002418
Evaluated as sum of high
molecular weight PAHs
Benzo[a]pyrene
5.6
0
Not used
1.33
7.448
0
0.000
Not detected in surface water
0.001579
Benzo [b] fluoranthene
9.4
0.00026
Not used
2.6
24.440
0
0.000
3020
0.7852
3020
0.7852
0.006222
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
3.6
0
Not used
2.94
10.584
0
0.000
Not detected in surface water
0.002244
Benzo [k] fluoranthene
3.3
0
Not used
2.6
8.580
0
0.000
Not detected in surface water
0.001819
Chrysene
5.7
0
Not used
2.29
13.053
0
0.000
Not detected in surface water
0.002767
Dibenz [a,h] anthracene
1
0
Not used
2.31
2.310
0
0.000
Not detected in surface water
0.000490
Indeno [ 1,2,3 -c ,d] pyrene
5.1
0
Not used
2.86
14.586
0
0.000
Not detected in surface water
0.003092
Pyrene
8.1
0
Not used
1.75
14.175
0
0.000
Not detected in surface water
0.003005
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
0.023636
2
0.01
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
0.0041
0
3.4
0.958
56.74
380
3.8
14.9
0.061
1
0.004
Not detected in surface water
0.030223
Evaluated as sum of
dichlorobenzenes
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
0.0011
0
3.4
0.958
56.74
380
3.8
14.9
0.016
1
0.001
Not detected in surface water
0.059956
Sum of Dichlorobenzenes
0.090179
NoTRV
NoTRV
Aroclor-1260
0.033
0
7.6
4.612
255788
349700
3497
73.1
2.412
1
0.033
Not detected in surface water
0.000749
0.18
0.004
Aldrin
0.00093
0
6.5
3.655
28241
82020
820.2
34.4
1
0.001
Not detected in surface water
6.703E-06
NoTRV
NoTRV
Alpha-BHC
0.00042
0
3.8
1.306
126
2807
28.07
4.5
0.002
1
0.00042
Not detected in surface water
3.428E-06
0.56
0.00001
Endosulfan I
0.00043
0
3.8
1.306
126
6761
67.61
1.9
0.001
1
0.00043
Not detected in surface water
3.273E-06
Evaluated as sum of
endosulfan I, endosulfan II,
and endosulfan sulfate
Endosulfan II
0.0012
0
3.8
1.306
126
6761
67.61
1.9
0.002
1
0.00120
Not detected in surface water
9.133E-06
Endosulfan Sulfate
0.0052
0
3.66
1.1842
96
6761
67.61
1.4
0.007
1
0.00520
Not detected in surface water
3.902E-05
Sum of Endosulfan I, Endosulfan II, and Endosulfan Sulfate
5.143E-05
10
0.000005
Endrin
0.00057
0
5.2
2.524
2088.72
20090
200.9
10.4
0.006
1
0.00057
Not detected in surface water
5.365E-06
Evaluated as sum of endrin,
endrin aldehyde, and endrin
ketone
Endrin Aldehyde
0.0026
0
4.8
2.176
937.30
20090
200.9
4.7
0.012
1
0.003
Not detected in surface water
2.133E-05
Endrin Ketone
0.0087
0
4.8
2.176
937.30
20090
200.9
4.7
0.041
1
0.009
Not detected in surface water
7.138E-05
Sum of Endrin, Endrin Aldehyde, and Endrin Ketone
9.808E-05
0.01
0.01
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0.0047
0
3.7
1.219
103.49
2807
28.07
3.7
0.017
1
0.00470
Not detected in surface water
3.756E-05
2
0.00002
Alpha-Chlordane
0.0075
0
6.3
3.481
18918.21
33780
337.8
56
0.420
1
0.008
Not detected in surface water
1.431E-04
Evaluated at total chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
0.074
0
6.3
3.481
18918.21
33780
337.8
56
4.144
1
0.074
Not detected in surface water
1.412E-03
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table H.22
Initial Food Web Modeling - Barred Owl
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil
C'lii'iiiiiiil
Soil
Di'k'i'liun
Siirliii'i' \\:iU-r
Com i-iil ml ion
(m»/l.)
Log
Kow
(l./k»)'
l.i i» K««
(1 A»)
Kih\
(l./k»)
Koc
(L/k»)'
Kd
(l./k»)
Soil-io-
wurm
IJAI:
Worm Tissue
('oiHvnlnilioii
(m»/k»,
i;in
'I'issik-
C'oiHvnlnilion
(lll»/k», «i-l
\M-i»hl)
l>:iil\
Dose
(lll»/k»-il;i> )
NOAI.I.
(m»/k»-il;i> )'"
NOAI.I.
l'.l'olo^ii;il
Qiiiiliini
Total Chlordane
0.001555
2.14
0.001
Heptachlor
0.0051
0
6.1
3.307
12673.02
41260
412.6
30.7
0.157
1
0.00510
Not detected in surface water
6.995E-05
Evaluated as sum of
heptachlor and heptachlor
epoxide
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.0058
0
5
2.35
1399.20
10110
101.1
13.8
0.080
1
0.00580
Not detected in surface water
5.877E-05
Sum of Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide
1.287E-04
NoTRV
NoTRV
Methoxychlor
0.0061
0
5.1
2.437
1709.54
26890
268.9
6.4
0.039
1
0.00610
Not detected in surface water
5.225E-05
NoTRV
NoTRV
Exposure Assumptions - Barred Owl (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Surface Water Ingestion Rate (g/g-day)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.0265
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Moisture content of mammals 0.68
Moisture content of fish 0.75
Moisture content of amphibian 0.755
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.000212
Small mammal ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-da; 0.007208
Fish ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.001325
Amphibian ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.001325
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 5% invertebrates, 85% small mammals, 5% amphibians, and 5% fish.
Notes:
1. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
2. For chemicals without soil-to-earthworm BAFs listed in EPA (2007), BAFs calculated with Jager model as presented in EPA (2007).
log Kw = 0.87*log K„w - 2
Converted from wet weight to dry weight assuming 16% solids
K^foc*!^
foc = 0.01 (1%)
BAF = K,jw (IVkg worm dry weight)/K,j (IVkg soil dry weight)
3. Fish BAFs from the Risk Assessment Information System, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: https://rais.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/tools/TOX_search?select=chem_spef
4. BAFs not available for amphibians; used values for fish.
5. NOAELs listed in Table H.3.
6. Mercury soil-to-worm BAF from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ES/ER/TM-220, 1998.
Mercury soil-to-mammal BAF from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Small Mammals. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ES/ER/TM-219, 1998.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level NA = not applicable
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient kg-DW = kilogram as dry weight
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient kg-WW = kilogram as wet weight
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table H.23
Initial Food Web Modeling - Meadow Vole
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil
Soil
Plsinl Tissue
Worm Tissue
Msiximiim
Concenlrsilion
( OlllTIIII'illioil
SuiTsice \\ silcr
A\crsiiic Dsiilj
NOAEL
Detection
Log Kow
Soil-lo-pliiiil
(mii/kii. tin
l.oii Kow
l.oii Kww
Kdw
Koc
Kd
Soil-lo-worm
(iiiii/k». dr\
Concenlrsilion
Dose
NOAII.
l-'.colo^icsil
(hemicsil
(mji/kii)
(L/k")1
IJAI"
weight)
(L/kjj)1
(L/kg)
(L/kg)
(1 ./k*i>'
(L/kg)
IJAI-'
weight)
(ni!i/k«i-dsi>)
(mji/k»-dsi> )4
Quotient
Mercury5
0.39
NA
5
1.95
Not used
95% upper
predicted level
3.486
0.000094
0.105
0.054
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
0.0041
3.4
2.52127
0.010337
3.4
0.958
56.7
380
3.8
14.9
0.061
0
0.000605
Evaluated as sum of dichlorobenzenes
1,3 -Dichlorobenzene
0.0011
3.4
2.52127
0.002773
3.4
0.958
56.7
380
3.8
14.9
0.016
0
0.000162
Sum of Dichlorobenzenes
0.000768
NoTRV
NoTRV
Aroclor-1260
0.033
7.6
0.04985
0.001645
7.6
4.612
255787.9
349700
3497
73.1
2.412
0
0.0028
0.051
0.06
Aldrin
0.00093
6.5
0.13930
0.000130
6.5
3.655
28241.0
82020
820.2
34.4
0.032
0
0.00004
0.336
0.0001
Alpha-BHC
0.00042
3.8
1.73516
0.000729
3.8
1.306
126.4
2807
28.07
4.5
0.002
0
0.00004
2.69
0.00001
Endosulfan I
0.00043
3.8
1.73516
0.000746
3.8
1.306
126.4
6761
67.61
1.9
0.001
0
0.00004
Evaluated as sum of endosulfan I,
endosulfan II and endosulfan sulfate
Endosulfan II
0.0012
3.8
1.73516
0.002082
3.8
1.306
126.4
6761
67.61
1.9
0.002
0
0.00011
Endosulfan Sulfate
0.0052
3.66
1.97760
0.010284
3.66
1.1842
95.5
6761
67.61
1.4
0.007
0
0.00054
Sum of Endosulfan I, Endosulfan II, and Endosulfan Sulfate
0.000695
0.25
0.003
Endrin
0.00057
5.2
0.469202
0.000267
5.2
2.524
2088.7
20090
200.9
10.4
0.006
0
0.00002
Evaluated as sum of endrin, endrin
aldehyde, and endrin ketone
Endrin Aldehyde
0.0026
4.8
0.681773
0.001773
4.8
2.176
937.3
20090
200.9
4.7
0.012
0
0.00011
Endrin Ketone
0.0087
4.8
0.681773
0.005931
4.8
2.176
937.3
20090
200.9
4.7
0.041
0
0.00036
Sum of Endrin, Endrin Aldehyde, and Endrin
Ketone
0.000491
0.084
0.01
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0.0047
3.7
1.905066
0.008954
3.7
1.219
103.5
2807
28.07
3.7
0.017
0
0.00049
13.4
0.00004
Alpha-Chlordane
0.0075
6.3
0.16792
0.00126
6.3
3.481
18918.2
33780
337.8
56
0.420
0
0.00054
Evaluated at total chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
0.074
6.3
0.16792
0.01243
6.3
3.481
18918.2
33780
337.8
56
4.144
0
0.00537
Total Chlordane
0.005919
4.2
0.001
Heptachlor
0.0051
6.1
0.20241
0.00103
6.1
3.307
12673.0
41260
412.6
30.7
0.157
0
0.00023
Evaluated as sum of heptachlor and
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.0058
5
0.56559
0.00328
5
2.35
1399.2
10110
101.1
13.8
0.080
0
0.00027
heptachlor e
poxide
Sum of Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide
0.000501
0.218
0.002
Methoxychlor
0.0061
5.1
0.51515
0.00314
5.1
2.437
1709.5
26890
268.9
6.4
0.039
0
0.000213
6.7
0.00003
Exposure Assumptions - Meadow Vole (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.00126168
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.35
Moisture content of plants 0.85
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.05145
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.00112
Surface water ingestion rate (L/kgBW-day) 0.21
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 98% plants and 2% invertebrates.
Notes:
1. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
2. For chemicals without soil-to-plant BAFs listed in EPA, 2007, log BAF = -0.40571ogKow + 1.781 (Figure 4, Panel B, EPA, 2007).
3. For chemicals without soil-to-worm BAFs listed in EPA (2007), BAFs calculated with Jager model as presented in EPA (2007).
log = 0.87*log Row " 2
Converted from wet weight to dry weight assuming 16% solids
Kd = foc *
foc = 0.01 (1%)
BAF = Kdw (L/kg worm dry weight)/!^ (L/kg soil dry weight)
4. NOAELs listed in Table H.4.
5. Mercury soil-to-plant BAF from Bechtel Jacobs (1998). Empirical Models for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by Plants. BJC/OR-133. September 1998.
Mercury soil-to-worm BAF from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ES/ER/TM-220, 1998.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
NA = not applicable
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors
and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs. OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.24
Initial Food Web Modeling - Short-Tailed Shrew
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil
( hemiesil
Soil Msiximiim
Doled ion
(mg/kg)
Log Kow
(Mi}*)1
Soil-lo-pliiiil
BAP
Plsinl Tissue
(oiieeiilrsilion
(mg/kg. (In
Log Kow
(L/kg)1
Log Kww
(1 ./kg)
K(lw
(L/kg)
Koc
(L/kg)1
Kd
(L/kg)
Soil-lo-worm
BAI-'
Worm Tissue
(oiieeiilrsilion
(mg/kg. dn
Surfsiee \\ silcr
(oiieeiilrsilion
(mg/L)
A\ersige Dsiilj
Dose
(mg/kg-(lsi>)
\ OA 1.1.
(mg/kg-dsi> )4
\o.\i:i.
I'.eologiesil
Quotient
Mercury5
0.39
NA
5
1.95
Not used
95% upper
predicted level
3.486
0.000094
0.3030
0.07
4
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
0.0041
3.4
2.5213
0.01034
3.4
0.958
56.7
380
3.8
14.9
0.061
0
0.0050
Evaluated as the sum of
1,3 -Dichlorobenzene
0.0011
3.4
2.5213
0.00277
3.4
0.958
56.7
380
3.8
14.9
0.016
0
0.0013
Dichlorobenzenes
Sum of Dichlorobenzenes
0.0063
NoTRV
\\. TRY
Aroclor-1260
0.033
7.6
0.0499
0.00165
7.6
4.612
255787.9
349700
3497
73.1
2.412
0
0.1901
0.067
•)
Aldrin
0.00093
6.5
0.139
0.00013
6.5
3.655
28241.0
82020
820.2
34.4
0.031992
0
0.0025
0.44
0.01
Alpha-BHC
0.00042
3.8
1.735
0.00073
3.8
1.306
126.4
2807
28.07
4.5
0.001890
0
0.0002
3.52
0.00005
Endosulfan I
0.00043
3.8
1.735
0.00075
3.8
1.306
126.4
6761
67.61
1.9
0.000817
0
0.0001
Evaluated as sum of
Endosulfan II
0.0012
3.8
1.735
0.00208
3.8
1.306
126.4
6761
67.61
1.9
0.002
0
0.0002
endosulfan II and endosulfan
Endosulfan Sulfate
0.0052
3.66
1.978
0.01028
3.66
1.1842
95.5
6761
67.61
1.4
0.007
0
0.0007
sulfate
Sum of Endosulfan I, Endosulfan II, and Endosulfan Sulfate
0.0010
0.33
0.003
Endrin
0.00057
5.2
0.469
0.00027
5.2
2.524
2088.72
20090
200.9
10.4
0.006
0
0.0005
Evaluated as sum of endrin,
Endrin Aldehyde
0.0026
4.8
0.682
0.00177
4.8
2.176
937.30
20090
200.9
4.7
0.012
0
0.0010
endrin aldehyde, and endrin
Endrin Ketone
0.0087
4.8
0.682
0.00593
4.8
2.176
937.30
20090
200.9
4.7
0.041
0
0.0033
ketone
Sum of Endrin, Endrin Aldehyde, and Endrin Ketone
0.0048
0.109
0.04
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0.0047
3.7
1.905
0.00895
3.7
1.219
103.49
2807
28.07
3.7
0.017
0
0.0015
17.6
0.0001
Alpha-Chlordane
0.0075
6.3
0.1679
0.00126
6.3
3.481
18918
33780
337.8
56
0.420
0
0.0331
Evaluated as sum of total
Gamma-Chlordane
0.074
6.3
0.1679
0.01243
6.3
3.481
18918
33780
337.8
56
4.144
0
0.3268
chlordane
Total Chlordane
0.35990
5.5
0.07
Heptachlor
0.0051
6.1
0.2024
0.00103
6.1
3.307
12673
41260
412.6
30.7
0.157
0
0.01236
Evaluated as sum of
heptachlor and heptachlor
epoxide
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.0058
5
0.5656
0.00328
5
2.35
1399
10110
101.1
13.8
0.080
0
0.00637
Sum of Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide
0.01873
0.286
0.07
Methoxychlor
0.0061
5.1
0.5151
0.0031
5.1
2.437
1710
26890
268.9
6.4
0.039
0
0.00314
00
00
0.0004
Exposure Assumptions - Short-Tailed Shrew (note
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day)
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day)
Moisture content of plants
Moisture content of worms
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day)
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day)
Surface water ingestion rate (L/kgBW-day)
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 15.1% plants and 79.4% invertebrates
exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
0.002784234
0.62
0.85
0.84
0.014043
0.0787648
0.223
Notes:
1. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
2. For chemicals without soil-to-plant BAFs listed in EPA, 2007, log BAF = -0.40571ogKow + 1.781 (Figure 4, Panel B, EPA, 2007).
3. For chemicals without soil-to-worm BAFs listed in EPA (2007), BAFs calculated with Jager model as presented in EPA (2007).
log Kw = 0.87*log - 2
Converted from wet weight to dry weight assuming 16% solids
TV" _ -p * TZ
1oc ^oc
foc = 0.01 (1%)
BAF = (L/kg worm dry weight)/Kd (L/kg soil dry weight)
4. NOAELs listed in Table H.4.
5. Mercury soil-to-plant BAF from Bechtel Jacobs (1998). Empirical Models for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by Plants. BJC/OR-133. September 1998.
Mercury soil-to-worm BAF from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ES/ER/TM-220, 1998.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
NA = not applicable
Cp = concentration in plant tissue
Ce = concentration is earthworm tissue
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram per day
SVOC = semi-volatile organic compound
Cs = concentration in soil
kgBW = kilograms body weight
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and
Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs. OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suter II (1996). Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ES/ER/TM-86/R3.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.25
Initial Food Web Modeling - Mink
Forested Wetland Habitat - Surface Water and Soil/Sediment
lieiilhic
Mammal
Maximum
Maximum
Imcrlchrale
Tissue
l-'isli Tissue
Surface \\ alcr
Soil/SedimeiH
Tissuc
(onccnlralion
Surface Waler-
(niicciilralinii
A\era tie l)ail\
NOAII.
Detection
Doled ion
( oncoiKralion
(niii/kji.
to-l ish IK 1
(mii/kii.
Dose
NOAII.
T.cnlngical
( hemieal
(m»/l.)
diiii/kii)
Scriimciil-ln-ISciilhic 1 n\erlehr;ilo I5SAI-"1
(mii/kii. dn
Soil-io-mammal IJAP
(In wcighl)
(L/kg)3
«e( \\eijihl)
(mii/k«i-(la>)
(mji/k»-(la> )4
Quotient
Metals
Arsenic
0.0047
174
log(tissue) = -0.572 + 0.8731og(sediment)
24.21026225
ln(mammal) =- 4.8471+0.81881n(soil)
0.536
300
1.41
0.537605204
1.04
0.5
Cadmium
0.007
2.5
log(tissue) = 0.191 + 0.6681og(sediment)
2.863016993
ln(mammal) = -1.2571+0.47231n(soil)
0.439
200
1.4
0.276763336
0.77
0.4
Chromium
0.003
127
log(tissue) = 0.2092 + 0.3651og(sediment)
9.486114407
ln(mammal) = -1.4599 +0.73381n(soil)
8.124
200
0.6
0.317029216
2.4
0.1
Copper
0.0138
341
log(tissue) = 1.037 + 0.3591og(sediment)
88.36063374
ln(mammal) = 2.042 + 0.14441n(soil)
17.888
200
2.76
1.263159306
5.6
0.2
Lead
2.5
9750
log(tissue) = -0.515 + 0.6531og(sediment)
122.9759013
ln(mammal) = 0.0761+0.4421n(soil)
62.545
300
750
151.7789208
4.7
Mercury
0.000094
0.39
log(tissue) = -0.67 + 0.3271og(sediment)
0.15713688
0.192
0.07488
1000
0.094
0.018860002
0.015
l
Nickel
0.0389
86.3
log(tissue) = -0.44 + 0.6951og(sediment)
8.045026945
ln(mammal) =- 0.2462+0.46581n(soil)
6.24
100
3.89
0.878705169
1.7
0.5
Selenium
0
11.3
1
11.3
ln(mammal) =- -0.4158+0.37641n(soil)
1.64
Not detected in surface water
0.057512826
0.143
0.4
Silver
0
2.6
1
2.6
0.004
0.0104
Not detected in surface water
0.011679554
6.02
0.002
Zinc
0.61
517
log(tissue) =1.77 + 0.2421og(sediment)
267.0943563
ln(mammal) = 4.3632+0.07061n(soil)
122.04
1,000
610
116.1128866
75.4
¦)
SVOCs
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
2 -Methy lnaphthalene
0
0.098
0.29
0.02842
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.000202836
Acenaphthene
0
0.17
0.29
0.0493
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.000351859
Acenaphthylene
0
0.7
0.29
0.203
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.001448832
Anthracene
0
1.4
0.29
0.406
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.002897664
Evaluated as sum of low
Fluoranthene
0
11
0.29
3.19
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.02276736
molecular weight PAHs
Fluorene
0
0.16
0.29
0.0464
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.000331162
Phenanthrene
0
4.4
0.29
1.276
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.009106944
Naphthalene
0
0.16
0.29
0.0464
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.000331162
Total Low Molecular Weight PAHs
0.037437819
65.6
0.001
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Benzo[a]anthracene
0.00017
7
0.29
2.03
0
0
260
0.0442
0.02277055
Bcnzo|a|pvrcnc
0
5.6
0.29
1.624
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.011590656
Benzo [b]fluoranthene
0.00026
9.4
0.29
2.726
0
0
3020
0.7852
0.166313884
Bcnzo|g.h.i|pcrylcne
0
3.6
0.29
1.044
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.007451136
Evaluated as sum of high
molecular weight PAHs
B enzo [k] fluoranthene
0
3.3
0.29
0.957
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.006830208
Chrysene
0
5.7
0.29
1.653
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.011797632
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
0
1
0.29
0.29
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.00206976
I nde no 11.2.3 -c. d | p v rc nc
0
5.1
0.29
1.479
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.010555776
Pyrene
0
8.1
0.29
2.349
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.016765056
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
0.256144658
0.615
0.4
VOCs
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
0
0.0041
1
0.0041
1
0.0041
Not detected in surface water
3.56669E-05
Evaluated as sum of
1,3 -Dichlorobenzene
0
0.0011
1
0.0011
1
0.0011
Not detected in surface water
9.56916E-06
dichlorobenzenes
Sum of Dichlorobenzenes
4.5236E-05
No TRY
No TRY
Pesticides/PCBs
Aroclor-12605
0
0.033
log(tissue) = 1.6 +0.9391og(sediment)
0.270
1
0.033
Not detected in surface water
0.001088837
0.14
0.01
4,4'-DDD
0
0.0066
0.28
0.001848
1
0.0066
Not detected in surface water
4.13152E-05
Evaluated as the Sum of
DDD/DDE/DDT
4,4'-DDE
0
0.0058
7.7
0.04466
1
0.0058
Not detected in surface water
0.000182113
4,4'-DDT
0
0.022
1.67
0.03674
1
0.022
Not detected in surface water
0.000241322
Sum of DDD/DDE/DDT
0.000464751
0.147
0.003
Aldrin
0
0.00093
1.8
0.001674
1
0.00093
Not detected in surface water
1.0611E-05
0.154
0.0001
Alpha-BHC
0
0.00042
1.8
0.000756
1
0.00042
Not detected in surface water
4.79205E-06
0.014
0.0003
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0
0.0047
1.8
0.00846
1
0.0047
Not detected in surface water
5.36253E-05
6.15
0.00001
Dieldrin
0
0.0051
1.8
0.00918
1
0.0051
Not detected in surface water
5.81892E-05
0.015
0.004
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table H.25
Initial Food Web Modeling - Mink
Forested Wetland Habitat - Surface Water and Soil/Sediment
lieu I hie
Miimuiiil
Miiximum
Miiximum
IllM'llohlillC
Tissue
l-'isli Tissue
Surf sice \\ siler
Soil/Sedimeul
Tissue
C "(•iicenl rill if tn
Surfiiee Wsiler-
(niicenli'iilinii
\\er.ige l);iil\
NOAII.
Deleelinu
Doled ion
( DlllTllll'illioil
(mg/kg.
to-l ish IK 1
(mg/kg.
Dose
NOAII.
T.enlngiei'iile I5SAI-"1
(nig/kg. dn
Soil-io-iiiiimiiiiil l$.\I-"
(In weigh I)
(L/kg)3
we( weigh 1)
(mg/kg-d;i>)
(mg/kg-d;i> )4
Quo lien I
Endosulfan I
0
0.00043
1.8
0.000774
1
0.00043
Not detected in surface water
4.90615E-06
Evaluated as sum of
Endosulfan II
0
0.0012
1.8
0.00216
1
0.0012
Not detected in surface water
1.36916E-05
endosulfan I, endosulfan II,
Endosulfan Sulfate
0
0.0052
1.8
0.00936
1
0.0052
Not detected in surface water
5.93301E-05
and endosulfan sulfate
Sum of Endosulfan I, Endosulfan II, and Endosulfan Sulfate
7.79278E-05
0.12
0.001
Endrin
0
0.00057
1.8
0.001026
1
0.00057
Not detected in surface water
6.50349E-06
Evaluated as sum of endrin
aldehyde, and endrin ketone
Endrin Aldehyde
0
0.0026
1.8
0.00468
1
0.0026
Not detected in surface water
2.96651E-05
Endrin Ketone
0
0.0087
1.8
0.01566
1
0.0087
Not detected in surface water
9.92639E-05
Sum of Endrin Aldehyde, and Endrin Ketone, and Endrin
0.00027269
0.038
0.01
Alpha-Chlordane
0
0.0075
4.77
0.035775
1
0.0075
Not detected in surface water
0.00016104
Evaluated at total chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
0
0.074
2.22
0.16428
1
0.074
Not detected in surface water
0.000949612
Total Chlordane
0.001110652
1.9
0.001
Heptachlor
0
0.0051
1.8
0.00918
1
0.0051
Not detected in surface water
5.81892E-05
Evaluated as sum of
heptachlor and heptachlor
0.0058
1.8
0.01044
Heptachlor Epoxide
0
1
0.0058
Not detected in surface water
6.61759E-05
epoxide
Sum of Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide
0.000124365
0.1
0.001
Methoxychlor
0
0.0061
1.8
0.01098
1
0.0061
Not detected in surface water
6.95988E-05
3.1
0.00002
Exposure Assumptions - Mink (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Sediment ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.00109
Surface Water Ingestion Rate (L/kgBW-day) 0.099
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.22
Moisture content of benthic invertebrates 0.78
Benthic invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.003388
Moisture content of mammals 0.68
Mammal ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.004224
Moisture content of fish 0.75
Fish ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.187
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 7% benthic invertebrates, 6% small mammals, and 85% fish.
Notes:
1. For metals and Aroclor-1260, BSAF is equation with the highest R-square value, Table 3, Bechtel Jacobs, 1998.
For remaining chemicals, BSAFs obtained from Table C-l of EPA, 2004.
Default value of 1 for chemicals without BSAFs listed in the literature.
2. Soil-to-mammal BAFs from EPA, 2007, except for mercury.
Mercury soil-to-mammal BAF from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Small Mammals. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ES/ER/TM-219, 1998.
3. Fish BCFs from the Risk Assessment Information System, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: https://rais.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/tools/TOX_search?select=chem_spef
4. NOAELs listed in Table H.4.
5. BSAF normalized to organic carbon and lipid content. Used average total organic carbon concentration of the two locations with maximum Aroclor-1260 detections. Used lipid fraction of 0.03 (https://www.epa.gOv/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/kabam-version-10-users-guide-and-technical-6#C3).
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
NA = not applicable
BSAF = biota sediment accumulation factor
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
BCF = bioconcentration factor
kgBW = kilograms body weight
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
References:
Bechtel-Jacobs, 1998. Biota Sediment Accumulation Factors for Invertebrates: Review and Recommendations for the Oak Ridge Reservation. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. BJC/OR-112, August.
EPA, 2004. The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in the Surface Waters of the United States, National Sediment Quality Survey: Second Edition. EPA-823-R-04-007.
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table H.26
Initial Food Web Modeling - Green Heron
Forested Wetland Habitat - Surface Water and Soil/Sediment
liciilhic
Soil/
ln\cik'l)i;ik'
Sii rfacc
Amphibian
Maximum
Scriimcnl
Tissue
Plain Tissue
Sii rl'acc
l-'isli Tissue
\\ aU'Mo-
Tissue
Surface Waler
Maximum
(oiuvnlralion
C onceiilralion
\\ alcr-lo-
(onccnlralion
Amphihian
(onccnlralion
Average
NOAKI.
Doled ion
Doled ion
Sedi men i-io- lien l h ic
l.oji ko\\
Snil-ln-Planl IJAI '
(m»/k».
1 isli IK I
(mji/kii. wc'l
BCF
(m»/k».
l)ail\ Dose
\o\i:i.
l-'.coloiiical
( hi-mical
(mjf/L)
(m»/kii)
ln\crk'br;ik' IJSAI"1
(In Ni'iiihl)
(L/kg)2
(In weiijil)
(L/k»)4
weiiihl)
(L/k<;)"
Nl'l NOililll I
(m»/k^-(la>)
(m«.i/k»-(la\)"
Quotient
Metals
Arsenic
0.0047
174
log(tissue) = -0.572 +
0.873log(sediment)
24.21026225
Not used
0.03752
6.52848
300
1.41
300
1.41
0.74
2.24
0.3
Cadmium
0.007
2.5
log(tissue) = 0.191 +
0.6681og(sediment)
2.863016993
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.5461n(Cs) - 0.475
1.025617366
200
1.4
200
1.4
0.25
1.47
0.2
Chromium
0.003
127
log(tissue) = 0.2092 +
0.3651og(sediment)
9.486114407
Not used
0.041
5.207
200
0.6
200
0.6
0.44
2.66
0.2
Copper
0.0138
341
log(tissue) = 1.037 +
0.3591og(sediment)
88.36063374
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.3941n(Cs) + 0.668
19.40948174
200
2.76
200
2.76
1.63
4.05
0.4
Lead
2.5
9750
log(tissue) = -0.515 +
0.6531og(sediment)
122.9759013
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.56 lln(Cs)-1.328
45.82352742
300
750
300
750
147.28
1.63
<)()
Mercury7
0.000094
0.39
log(tissue) = -0.67 +
0.3271og(sediment)
0.15713688
Not used
5
1.95
1000
0.094
1000
0.094
0.02
0.0064
Nickel
0.0389
86.3
log(tissue) = -0.44 +
0.6951og(sediment)
8.045026945
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.7481n(Cs) - 2.223
3.038781277
100
3.89
100
3.89
0.88
6.71
0.1
Selenium
0
11.3
1
11.3
Not used
ln(Cp) = 1.1041n(Cs)-0.677
7.388924643
Not detected in surface water
0.08
0.29
0.3
Silver
0
2.6
1
2.6
Not used
0.014
0.0364
Not detected in surface water
0.02
2.02
0.008
Zinc
0.61
517
log(tissue) =1.77 +
0,2421og( sediment)
267.0943563
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.5541n(Cs) + 1.575
153.9173473
1,000
610
1,000
610
103.3
66.1
SVOCs
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
2-Methylnaphthalene
0
0.098
0.29
0.02842
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.45441n(Cs) - 1.3205
0.092923865
Not detected in surface water
0.000
Acenaphthene
0
0.17
0.29
0.0493
Not used
ln(plant) = -0.8556*ln(soil) - 5.562
0.017493713
Not detected in surface water
0.001
Acenaphthylene
0
0.7
0.29
0.203
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.79 lln(Cs)-1.144
0.240236871
Not detected in surface water
0.003
Anthracene
0
1.4
0.29
0.406
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.77841n(Cs) - 0.9887
0.483458398
Not detected in surface water
0.005
Evaluated as Total Low
Fluoranthene
0
11
0.29
3.19
Not used
0.5
5.5
Not detected in surface water
0.043
Molecular Weight PAHs
Fluorene
0
0.16
0.29
0.0464
Not used
ln(plant) = -0.8556*ln(soil) - 5.562
0.018425065
Not detected in surface water
0.001
Phenanthrene
0
4.4
0.29
1.276
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.62031n(Cs) - 0.1665
2.122382539
Not detected in surface water
0.017
Naphthalene
0
0.16
0.29
0.0464
Not used
12.2
1.952
Not detected in surface water
0.002
Total Low Molecular Weight PAHs
0.1
1653
0.00004
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Benzo [a] anthracene
0.00017
7
0.29
2.03
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.212003815
260
0.0442
260
0.0442
0.03
Bcnzo|a|pvrcnc
0
5.6
0.29
1.624
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.9751n(Cs) - 2.0615
0.682629813
Not detected in surface water
0.02
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
0.00026
9.4
0.29
2.726
Not used
0.31
2.914
3020
0.7852
3020
0.7852
0.17
Bcnzo|g.h.i|pcrylcne
0
3.6
0.29
1.044
Not used
ln(Cp) = 1.18291n(Cs) - 0.9313
1.793047428
Not detected in surface water
0.01
Evaluated as Total High
Molecular Weight PAHs
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
0
3.3
0.29
0.957
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.85951n(Cs) - 2.1579
0.322476943
Not detected in surface water
0.01
Chrysene
0
5.7
0.29
1.653
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.187633084
Not detected in surface water
0.02
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
0
1
0.29
0.29
Not used
0.13
0.13
Not detected in surface water
0.00
Indeno 11,2,3 -c,dlpyrene
0
5.1
0.29
1.479
Not used
0.11
0.561
Not detected in surface water
0.02
Pyrene
0
8.1
0.29
2.349
Not used
0.72
5.832
Not detected in surface water
0.03
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
0.3
2
0.2
VOCs
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
0
0.0041
1
0.0041
3.4
2.521
0.010337222
Not detected in surface water
0.00004
Evaluated as sum of
1,3 -Dichlorobenzene
0
0.0011
1
0.0011
3.4
2.521
0.002773401
Not detected in surface water
0.00001
dichlorobenzenes
Sum of Dichlorobenzenes
0.00004
No TRY
No TRY
Pesticides/PCBs
Aroclor-1260
0
0.033
log(tissue) =1.6
+0.93 9loaf sediment)
0.270
7.6
0.050
0.001645106
Not detected in surface water
0.0012
0.18
0.01
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table H.26
Initial Food Web Modeling - Green Heron
Forested Wetland Habitat - Surface Water and Soil/Sediment
( hcmiciil
Maximum
Surface Waler
Dclccliou
(mjf/L)
0
Soil/
Scriimcul
Maximum
Dclcclinu
0.0066
Scdi men l-lo- lieu l h ic
ln\crlehi'iilc IJSAI"1
0.28
liculhic
lu\crlehi'iilc
Tissue
Coucculralioii
(uiii/k».
(In wciiilK)
0.001848
l.oji Kow
(L/kg)2
Not used
Soil-lo-Phiul IJAI '
ln(Cp) = 0.75241n(Cs) - 2.5119
Phiul Tissue
Coucculraliou
(ui»/k».
(In wciijil)
0.001855755
Su rl'iicc
\\ alcr-lo-
1 isli IK I
(L/k»)4
l-'isli Tissue
( oucciilraliou
(in»/k!i. \\cl
wciiihl)
Su rl'iicc
\\ iilcr-lo-
Ampliihiau
BCF
(L/k»)?
Amphibian
Tissue
( ouccii I l it I iou
(ui»/k».
\\cl woiiilH I
Average
l)ail\ Dose
(iiiii/k;i-(la\)
0.000025
\o\i:i.
(m«.i/k»-(la\)"
NOAKI.
T'.colo^iciil
Quotient
4,4'-DDD
Not detected in surface water
Evaluated as sum of
DDD/DDE/DDT
4,4'-DDE
0
0.0058
7.7
0.04466
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.75241n(Cs) - 2.5119
0.001683833
Not detected in surface water
0.000202
4,4'-DDT
0
0.022
1.67
0.03674
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.75241n(Cs) - 2.5119
0.004591288
Not detected in surface water
0.000208
Sum of DDD/DDE/DDT
0.000434
0.227
0.002
Aldrin
0
0.00093
1.8
0.001674
6.5
0.139299642
0.00023
Not detected in surface water
0.000009
NoTRV
NoTRV
Alpha-BHC
0
0.00042
1.8
0.000756
3.8
1.735161888
0.000728768
Not detected in surface water
0.000005
0.56
0.00001
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0
0.0047
1.8
0.00846
3.7
1.905065885
0.00895381
Not detected in surface water
0.000054
2
0.00003
Dieldrin
0
0.0051
1.8
0.00918
Not used
0.41
0.002091
Not detected in surface water
0.000052
0.0709
0.001
Endosulfan I
0
0.00043
1.8
0.000774
3.8
1.735161888
0.00074612
Not detected in surface water
0.000005
Evaluated as sum of
endosulfan I, endosulfan II,
and endosulfan sulfate
Endosulfan II
0
0.0012
1.8
0.00216
3.8
1.735161888
0.002082194
Not detected in surface water
0.000014
Endosulfan Sulfate
0
0.0052
1.8
0.00936
3.66
1.977597935
0.010283509
Not detected in surface water
0.000060
Sum of Endosulfan I and Endosulfan II
0.000078
10 0.00001
Endrin
0
0.00057
1.8
0.001026
5.2
0.469202157
0.000267445
Not detected in surface water
0.000006
Evaluated as sum of endrin
aldehyde, and endrin ketone
Endrin Aldehyde
0
0.0026
1.8
0.00468
4.8
0.681773317
0.001772611
Not detected in surface water
0.000027
Endrin Ketone
0
0.0087
1.8
0.01566
4.8
0.681773317
0.005931428
Not detected in surface water
0.000091
Sum of Endrin Aldehyde, and Endrin Ketone, and Endrin
0.000124
0.01 0.01
Alpha-Chlordane
0
0.0075
4.77
0.035775
6.3
0.167915196
0.001259364
Not detected in surface water
0.0002
Evaluated as total chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
0
0.074
2.22
0.16428
6.3
0.167915196
0.012425724
Not detected in surface water
0.0009
Total Chlordane
0.0010
2.14 0.0005
Heptachlor
0
0.0051
1.8
0.00918
6.1
0.202409084
0.001032286
Not detected in surface water
0.00005
Evaluated as sum of
heptachlor and heptachlor
epoxide
Heptachlor Epoxide
0
0.0058
1.8
0.01044
5
0.565587757
0.003280409
Not detected in surface water
0.00006
Sum of Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide
0.00011
NoTRV
NoTRV
Methoxychlor | 0 | 0.0061 | 1-8 | 0.01098 I 5.1 | 0.MM45606 | 0.003142388 | Not detected in surface water
0.00006
No TKV
No TKV
Exposure Assumptions - Green Heron (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil/Sediment ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.0023085
Surface Water Ingestion Rate (L/kgBW-day) 0.098
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.19
Moisture content of benthic invertebrates 0.78
Benthic invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.00418
Moisture content of Plants 0.85
Plants ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.000855
Moisture content of amphibians 0.755
Amphibians ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.038
Moisture content of Fish 0.75
Fish ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.1273
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 3% plants, 10% benthic invertebrates, 20% amphibians, and 67% fish.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
NA = not applicable
BCF = bioconcentration factor
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
BSAF = biota sediment accumulation factor
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
kgBW = kilogram body weight
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
References:
Bechtel-Jacobs, 1998. Biota Sediment Accumulation Factors for Invertebrates: Review and Recommendations for the Oak Ridge Reservation. Prepared for
U.S. Department of Energy. BJC/OR-112, August.
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Notes:
1. For metals and Aroclor-1260, BSAF is equation with the highest R-square value, Table 3, Bechtel Jacobs, 1998.
For remaining chemicals, BS AFs obtained from Table C-1 of EPA, 2004.
Default value of 1 for chemicals without BSAFs listed in the literature.
Aroclor-1260 BSAF normalized to organic carbon and lipid content. Used average total organic carbon concentration of the two locations with maximum Aroclor-1260 detections. Used lipid fraction of 0.03
(https://www.epa.gOv/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/kabam-version-10-users-guide-and-technical-6#C3).
2. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
3. For chemicals without soil-to-plant BAFs listed in EPA, 2007, log BAF = -0.40571ogKow + 1.781 (Figure 4, Panel B, EPA, 2007).
4. Fish BAFs from the Risk Assessment Information System, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: https://rais.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/tools/TOX_search?select=chem_spef
5. BCFs not available for amphibians; used values for fish.
6. NOAELs listed in Table H.3.
7. Mercury soil-to-plant BAF from Bechtel Jacobs (1998). Empirical Models for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by Plants. BJC/OR-133. September 1998.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table H.27
Initial Food Web Modeling - American Woodcock
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
ClK-miciil
Miixiiniiin
Ik-k-i'linn
(
Log knw
(L/k")1
Soil-lo-phiill BAP
Pliinl Tissue
('oniTnli'iilinn
(niii/kji. (In
Mcijihl)
Log knw
(l./kii)1
l.o*i Kww
(L/k«)
k(l\\
(l./k»)
koc
(L/k^)1
kd (1 ./kii)
Soil-lo-Morm
BAF3
Worm Tissue
( UIHTIIII'illioil
(nig/kg. (In
weijihl)
SuiTiicc Wilier
('niiiTiilriilinn
(mjf/L)
.\\er;iiii' l);iil>
Dose
(m*i/k»-(lii>)
NOAI'.I.
(m )4
NOAEL
l.coloiiicnl
Quotient
Mercury5
0.6
NA
5
3
Not used
95% upper
predicted level
3.961
0.00037
0.48077501
0.0064
75
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.19
Not used
1.3205
0.12553932
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
3.04
0.5776
0.0002
0
0
0
0.0014
0.00016
0.067649421
Evaluated as sum of low
molecular weight PAHs
Acenaphthylene
0.026
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.7911n(Cs) - 1.144
0.017758694
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
22.9
0.5954
0.066197501
Anthracene
0.022
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.77841n(Cs) - 0.9887
0.019070183
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.42
0.05324
0.006381761
Fluoranthene
0.74
Not used
0.5
0.37
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
3.04
2.2496
0.261956319
Naphthalene
0.086
Not used
12.2
1.0492
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
4.4
0.3784
0.05568274
Phenanthrene
0.42
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.62031n(Cs) - 0.1665
0.494301017
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
1.72
0.7224
0.09101141
Total Low Molecular Weight PAHs
0.548879151
1653
0.0003
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Benzo [A] Anthracene
0.32
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.033874941
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
1.59
0.5088
0
0.060586331
Evaluated as sum of high
molecular weight PAHs
Benzo[A]Pyrene
0.29
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.9751n(Cs) - 2.0615
0.038066239
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
1.33
0.3857
0
0.046681801
Benzo[B]Fluoranthene
0.54
Not used
0.31
0.1674
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.6
1.404
0
0.163714306
Benzo[G,H,I]Perylene
0.17
Not used
ln(Cp) = 1.18291n(Cs) - 0.9313
0.048443953
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.94
0.4998
0
0.057861333
B enzo [K] Fluoranthene
0.47
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.85951n(Cs) - 2.1579
0.060395426
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.6
1.222
0
0.14145755
Chrysene
0.57
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.047742968
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.29
1.3053
0
0.15176197
Dibenz[A,H] Anthracene
0.078
Not used
0.13
0.01014
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.31
0.18018
0
0.02098318
Indeno [ 1,2,3 -Cd]Pyrene
0.23
Not used
0.11
0.0253
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.86
0.6578
0
0.07576609
Pyrene
0.71
Not used
0.72
0.5112
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
1.75
1.2425
0
0.152239986
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
0.871052547
2
0.4
Aroclor-1248
0.083
6.2
0.1844
0.0153
6.2
3.394
15483.9
76530
765.3
20.2
1.6766
0
0.186110677
0.18
1
Aroclor-1254
0.2
6.5
0.1393
0.0279
6.5
3.655
28241.0
130500
1305
21.6
4.320
0
0.479224094
0.18
Aroclor-1260
0.11
7.6
0.0499
0.0055
7.6
4.612
255787.9
349700
3497
73.1
8.041
0
0.888099486
0.18
5
Endosulfan II
0.0015
Evaluated as mixed isomers
0.0000061
Evaluated as mixed isomers
Endosulfan Sulfate
0.0032
0
Delta-BHC
0.0022
0.0000051
BHC - mixed isomers
0.0069
3.8
1.7352
0.0120
3.8
1.306
126.4
2807
28.07
4.5
0.03105
0.0000112
0.003657843
0.56
0.01
Endosulfan I
0.0014
3.8
1.7352
0.0024
3.83
1.3321
134.3
6761
67.61
2
0.0028
0
0.00035602
Evaluated as sum of
endosulfan II and endosulfan
sulfate
Endosulfan II
0.002
3.8
1.7352
0.0035
3.83
1.3321
134.3
6761
67.61
2
0.004
0.0000018
0.00050878
Endosulfan Sulfate
0.0067
3.66
1.9776
0.0132
3.66
1.1842
95.5
6761
67.61
1.4
0.00938
0
0.001280247
Sum of Endosulfan II and Endosulfan Sulfate
0.00215
10 0.0002
Endrin
0.00028
5.2
0.4692
0.0001
5.2
2.524
2088.7
20090
200.9
10.4
0.002912
0
0.000326246
Evaluated as sum of endrin,
endrin aldehyde, and endrin
ketone
Endrin Ketone
0.0089
4.8
0.6818
0.0061
4.8
2.176
937.3
20090
200.9
4.7
0.04183
0
0.004799216
Sum of Endrin and Endrin Ketone
0.00513
0.01
0.5
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0.0011
3.7
1.9051
0.0021
3.72
1.2364
107.7
2807
28.07
3.8
0.00418
0
0.000500319
2
0.0003
Alpha-Chlordane
0.0026
Evaluated at total chlordane
0.0000045
Evaluated as total chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
0.0037
0.0000094
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table H.27
Initial Food Web Modeling - American Woodcock
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
ClK-miciil
Miixiiniiin
Ik-k-i'linn
(mji/kii)
Log Kow
(L/k")1
Soil-lo-phiill BAP
Pliinl Tissue
('oniTnli'iilinn
(niii/kji. (In
Mcijihl)
Log Kow
(l./kii)1
l.o*i Kww
(L/k«)
Kdw
(l./k»)
Koc
(L/k<;)1
Kd (1 ./kii)
Soil-lo-worm
BAF3
Worm Tissue
( niHTiili'iilion
(nig/kg. (In
weijihl)
SuiTiicc Wilier
('niiiTiilriilinn
(niii/l.)
.\\er;iiii' l);iil>
Dose
(m*i/k»-(lii>)
NOAI'.I.
(m )4
NOAEL
r.cnlouii'iil
Quotient
Total Chlordane
0.0063
6.3
0.168
0.00106
6.3
3.481
18918
33780
337.8
56
0.353
0.0000139
u.u38yy554y
2.14
U.U2
Heptachlor
0.0022
6.1
0.202
0.000445
6.1
3.307
12673
41260
412.6
30.7
0.06754
0
0.007480634
Evaluated as sum of
heptachlor and heptachlor
epoxide
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.0021
5
0.566
0.00119
4.98
2.33
1344
10110
101.1
13.3
0.02793
0
0.003120808
Sum of Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide
0.0106
NoTRV
NoTRV
Methoxychlor 0.014 5.1 0.52 0.00721
5.08 2.42
1642.40 26890 268.9 6.1 0.0854 0
0.009682212
No TRY
NoTRV
Exposure Assumptions - American Woodcock (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.012728716
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.77
Moisture content of plants 0.85
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Moisture content of mammals 0.68
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.0121275
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.110264
Surface water ingestion rate (L/kgBW-day) 0.1
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 10.5% plants and 89.5% invertebrates.
Notes:
1. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
2. For chemicals without soil-to-plant BAFs listed in EPA, 2007, log BAF = -0.40571ogKow + 1.781 (Figure 4, Panel B, EPA, 2007).
3. For chemicals without soil-to-worm BAFs listed in EPA (2007), BAFs calculated with Jager model as presented in EPA (2007).
log Kw = 0.87*log K™ - 2
Converted from wet weight to dry weight assuming 16% solids
Kd = foc * Koc
foc = 0.01 (1%)
BAF = KdW (L/kg worm dry weight)/^ (L/kg soil dry weight)
4. NOAELs listed in Table H.3.
5. Mercury soil-to-plant BAF from Bechtel Jacobs (1998). Empirical Models for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by Plants. BJC/OR-133. September 1998.
Mercury soil-to-worm BAF from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ES/ER/TM-220, 1998.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
NA = not applicable
kgBW = kilograms body weight
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram per day
TRY = toxicity reference value
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table H.28
Initial Food Web Modeling - Eastern Phoebe
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
( hi'iiiiciil
Msiximum
Doled ion
(nig/kg)
l.oii knw
(L/k«j)'
Soil-lo-phnil ISAI-"
Plsinl Tissue
( onconlriilion
cln
tu'ighl)
l.oii knw
(L/kg)1
Log Kww
(l./k»)
k(l\\
(L/k«)
koc
(L/k«)'
kd
(l./k»)
Soil-lo-
woriii
BAF3
Worm Tissue
(nnccnlrsilinn
(mii/kii. dr\
tu'ighl)
Siirfsice \\ silcr
('niiiTiilrsilion
\\crsiiie l);iil\
Dose
(mii/k»-(lsi>)
\ OA F.I.
(lll!i/k»-(lsi> )
NOAI.I.
I.coloiiicnl
Quotient
Mercury5
0.6
NA
5
3
Not used
95" o upper
predicted
level
3.961
0.00037
0.989351483
0.0064
155
Low Molecular Weight Pahs
2 -Methylnaphthalene
0.19
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.45441n(Cs) - 1.3205
0.12553932
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
3.04
0.5776
0.0002
0
0
0
0.0014
0.00016
0.142621832
Evaluated as sum of low
molecular weight PAHs
Acenaphthylene
0.026
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.7911n(Cs) - 1.144
0.017758694
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
22.9
0.5954
0.14533339
Anthracene
0.022
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.77841n(Cs) - 0.9887
0.019070183
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.42
0.05324
0.013217723
Fluoranthene
0.74
Not used
0.5
0.37
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
3.04
2.2496
0.554471374
Naphthalene
0.086
Not used
12.2
1.0492
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
4.4
0.3784
0.100338909
Phenanthrene
0.42
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.62031n(Cs) - 0.1665
0.494301017
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
1.72
0.7224
0.181654674
Total Low Molecular Weight PAHs
1.137637902
1653
0.001
High Molecular Weight PAHs
B enzo [A] Anthracene
0.32
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.033874941
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
1.59
0.5088
0
0.125820235
Evaluated as sum of high
molecular weight PAHs
Benzo[A]Pyrene
0.29
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.9751n(Cs) - 2.0615
0.038066239
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
1.33
0.3857
0
0.095704371
Benzo [BJFluoranthene
0.54
Not used
0.31
0.1674
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.6
1.404
0
0.34599481
Benzo[G,H,I]Perylene
0.17
Not used
ln(Cp) = 1.18291n(Cs) - 0.9313
0.048443953
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.94
0.4998
0
0.122978002
B enzo [K] Fluoranthene
0.47
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.85951n(Cs) - 2.1579
0.060395426
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.6
1.222
0
0.300540954
Chrysene
0.57
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.047742968
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.29
1.3053
0
0.321250234
Dibenz[A,H] Anthracene
0.078
Not used
0.13
0.01014
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.31
0.18018
0
0.044366156
Indeno [ 1,2,3 -Cd]Pyrene
0.23
Not used
0.11
0.0253
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.86
0.6578
0
0.161614277
Pyrene
0.71
Not used
0.72
0.5112
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
1.75
1.2425
0
0.3099245
Total high molecular weight PAHs
1.82819354
2
0.9
Aroclor-1248
0.083
6.2
0.1844
0.0153
6.2
3.394
15484
76530
765.3
20.2
1.6766
0
0.409051379
0.18
¦)
Aroclor-1254
0.2
6.5
0.1393
0.0279
6.5
3.655
28241
130500
1305
21.6
4.320
0
1.053828226
0.18
()
Aroclor-1260
0.11
7.6
0.0499
0.0055
7.6
4.612
255788
349700
3497
73.1
8.041
0
1.95989257
0.18
1 1
Alpha-BHC
0.0015
Evaluated as mixed isomers
0.0000061
Evaluated as mixed isomers
Beta-BHC
0.0032
0
Delta-BHC
0.0022
0.0000051
BHC - mixed isomers
0.0069
3.8
1.7352
0.012
3.800
1.306
126.4
2807
28.07
4.5
0.03105
0.0000112
0.007687295
0.56
0.01
Endosulfan I
0.0014
3.8
1.7352
0.002
3.830
1.332
134.3
6761
67.61
2
0.0028
0
0.000706442
Evaluated as sum of
endosulfan II and endosulfan
sulfate
Endosulfan II
0.002
3.8
1.7352
0.003
3.830
1.332
134.3
6761
67.61
2
0.004
0.0000018
0.001009579
Endosulfan Sulfate
0.0067
3.66
1.9776
0.013
3.660
1.184
95.5
6761
67.61
1.4
0.00938
0
0.002412777
Sum of Endosulfan II and Endosulfan Sulfate
0.00413
10
0.0004
Endrin
0.00028
5.2
0.4692
0.0001314
5.2
2.524
2088.7
20090
200.9
10.4
0.002912
0
0.000711882
Evaluated as sum of endrin,
endrin aldehyde, and endrin
ketone
Endrin Ketone
0.0089
4.8
0.6818
0.0060678
4.8
2.176
937.3
20090
200.9
4.7
0.04183
0
0.010279964
Sum of Endrin and Endrin Ketone
0.01099
0.01
1
Gamma-Bhc (Lindane)
0.0011
3.7
1.9051
0.0020956
3.72
1.2364
108
2807
28.07
3.8
0.00418
0
0.001038837
2
0.0005
Alpha-Chlordane
0.0026
Evaluated at total chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
0.0037
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table H.28
Initial Food Web Modeling - Eastern Phoebe
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
Pliinl Tissue
Worm Tissue
Msiximum
( n ihtii Irsi linn
Soil-lo-
(nnccnlrsilinn
Siirfsice \\ siicr
A\crsige l)siil\
NOAII.
Doled ion
Log Kow
(mg/kg. (In
Log Kow
Log Kww
Kdw
Koc
Kd
woriii
(mg/kg. (In
('niiiTiilrsilion
Dose
\ OA 1.1.
Lcolngicsil
( hi'iiiiciil
(mg/kg)
(L/kg)1
Snil-lu-plsinl ISAI-"
wcighu
(L/kg)1
(L/kg)
(L/kg)
(L/kg)1
(L/kg)
BAF3
wcigho
(mg/l.)
(mg/kg-(lsi>)
(mg/kg-(lsi>)
Qiinlicnl
Total Chlordane
0.0063
6.3
0.1679
0.001058
6.3
3.481
18918
33780
337.8
56
0.353
0.0000139
0.08600663
2.14
0.04
Heptachlor
0.0022
6.1
0.2024
0.000445
6.1
3.307
12673
41260
412.6
30.7
0.06754
0
0.016471245
Evaluated as sum of
heptachlor and heptachlor
epoxide
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.0021
5
0.5656
0.001188
4.98
2.3326
1344
10110
101.1
13.3
0.02793
0
0.006824457
Sum of Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide
0.0233
NoTRV
NoTRV
Methoxychlor
0.014
5.1
0.5151
0.007212
5.08
2.4196
1642
26890
268.9
6.1
0.0854
0
0.0209
No TRY
NoTRV
Exposure Assumptions - Eastern Phoebe (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.00501
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 1.57
Moisture content of plants 0.85
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Moisture content of mammals 0.68
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.007065
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.243664
Surface water ingestion rate (L/kgBW-day) 0.209
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 3% plants and 97% invertebrates.
Notes:
1. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
2. For chemicals without soil-to-plant BAFs listed in EPA, 2007, log BAF = -0.40571ogKow + 1.781 (Figure 4, Panel B, EPA, 2007).
3. For chemicals without soil-to-worm BAFs listed in EPA (2007), BAFs calculated with Jager model as presented in EPA (2007).
log Kw = 0.87*log Kow - 2
Converted from wet weight to dry weight assuming 16% solids
TV" _ -p * TZ
1oc ^oc
foc = 0.01 (1%)
BAF = (L/kg worm dry weight)/!^ (L/kg soil dry weight)
4. NOAELs listed in Table H.3.
5. Mercury soil-to-plant BAF from Bechtel Jacobs (1998). Empirical Models for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by Plants. BJC/OR-133. September 1998.
Mercury soil-to-worm BAF from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ES/ER/TM-220, 1998.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
NA = not applicable
kgBW = kilograms body weight
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram per day
TRY = toxicity reference value
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table H.29
Initial Food Web Modeling - Barred Owl
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
(hcnik'iil
M ;i \ i iiiu in
Soil
Detection
(mg/kg)
Surfiicc
\\ aler
Do lot* linn
(mg/L)
1 .«»ii ko\t
(L/kg)1
Log Kw«
(L/kg)
ktlw
(L/kg)
Koc
(L/kg)1
ktl
(l./kg)
Soil-io-
worm
IJ\I:
\\ orm Tissue
Coiieen trillion
(mg/kg. »ln
weight)
Soil-io-
niiininiiil
li\l
Miininiiil Tissue
Coiicen trillion
(mg/kg. dn
weight)
Surfsicc
\\ iiler-lo-
Amphihiiin
BCF (L/kg)3
Amphihiiin
Tissue
(oiieenlriilion
(mg/kg. \\ el
weight)
Surf.ice
\\ iiler-lo-
l isli ISC 1
(l./kg)4
l-'isli Tissue
(oneenlriilion
(mg/kg. «el
weight)
Atersige
Dili It Dose
(mg/kg-(l;i>)
\o\i:i.
(nig/kg-il;i\)~
\o\i:i.
I'A'ologk'ill
Quotient
Mercury6
0.6
0.00037
Not used
95% upper
predicted
level
3.961
0.192
0.115
1000
0.37
1000
0.37
0.00265052
0.0064
0.4
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.19
0.0002
Not used
3.04
0.5776
0
0
74.7
0.01494
74.7
0.01494
0.00016204
Evaluated as sum of low
molecular weight PAHs
Acenaphthylene
0.026
0
Not used
22.9
0.5954
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.00012622
Anthracene
0.022
0
Not used
2.42
0.05324
0
0
Not detected in surface water
1.1287E-05
Fluoranthene
0.74
0
Not used
3.04
2.2496
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.00047692
Naphthalene
0.086
0.0014
Not used
4.4
0.3784
0
0
84.5
0.1183
84.5
0.1183
0.00039372
Phenanthrene
0.42
0.00016
Not used
1.72
0.7224
0
0
2510
0.4016
2510
0.4016
0.00121739
Total Low Molecular Weight PAHs
0.00238757
1653
0.000001
High Molecular Weight PAHs
B enzo [A] Anthracene
0.32
0
Not used
1.59
0.5088
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.00010787
Evaluated as sum of high
molecular weight PAHs
Benzo[A]Pyrene
0.29
0
Not used
1.33
0.3857
0
0
Not detected in surface water
8.1768E-05
B enzo [B ] F luoranthene
0.54
0
Not used
2.6
1.404
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.00029765
Benzo[G,H,I]Perylene
0.17
0
Not used
2.94
0.4998
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.00010596
Benzo[K]Fluoranthene
0.47
0
Not used
2.6
1.222
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.00025906
Chrysene
0.57
0
Not used
2.29
1.3053
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.00027672
Dibenz[A,H] Anthracene
0.078
0
Not used
2.31
0.18018
0
0
Not detected in surface water
3.8198E-05
Indeno [ 1,2,3 - C d] Pyrene
0.23
0
Not used
2.86
0.6578
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.00013945
Pyrene
0.71
0
Not used
1.75
1.2425
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.00026341
Total high molecular weight PAHs
0.00157009
2
0.0008
Aroclor-1248
0.083
0
6.2
3.394
15484
76530
765.3
20.2
1.6766
1
0.083
Not detected in surface water
0.0009537
0.18
0.005
Aroclor-1254
0.2
0
6.5
3.655
28241
130500
1305
21.6
4.320
1
0.2
Not detected in surface water
0.00235744
0.18
0.01
Aroclor-1260
0.11
0
7.6
4.612
255788
349700
3497
73.1
8.041
1
0.11
Not detected in surface water
0.00249757
0.18
0.01
Alpha-BHC
0.0015
0.0000061
Beta-BHC
0.0032
0
Delta-BHC
0.0022
0.0000051
BHC - mixed isomers
0.0069
0.0000112
3.8
1.306
126
2807
28.07
4.5
0.03105
1
0.0069
372
0.00417
372
0.0041664
6.7359E-05
0.56
0.0001
Endosulfan I
0.0014
0
3.83
1.33
134
6761
67.61
2
0.0028
1
0.0014
Not detected in surface water
1.0685E-05
Evaluated as sum of
endosulfan II and endosulfan
sulfate
Endosulfan II
0.002
0.0000018
3.83
1.33
134
6761
67.61
2
0.004
1
0.002
156
0.00028
156
0.0002808
1.6008E-05
Endosulfan Sulfate
0.0067
0
3.66
1.1842
96
6761
67.61
1.4
0.00938
1
0.0067
Not detected in surface water
5.0282E-05
Sum of Endosulfan II and Endosulfan Sulfate
0.0000770
10
0.000008
Endrin
0.00028
0
5.2
2.524
2089
20090
200.9
10.4
0.002912
1
0.00028
Not detected in surface water
2.6356E-06
Evaluated as sum of endrin,
endrin aldehyde, and endrin
ketone
Endrin Ketone
0.0089
0
4.8
2.176
937
20090
200.9
4.7
0.04183
1
0.0089
Not detected in surface water
7.3019E-05
Sum of Endrin and Endrin Ketone
0.0000757
0.01
0.008
Gamma-Bhc (Lindane)
0.0011
0
3.72
1.2364
107.716
2807
28.07
3.8
0.00418
1
0.001
Not detected in surface water
8.815E-06
2
0.000004
Alpha-Chlordane
0.0026
0.0000045
Gamma-Chlordane
0.0037
0.0000094
Total Chlordane
0.0063
0.0000139
6.3
3.481 18918
33780
337.8 56 0.353 1 0.0063 26,800
0.37252
26,800 0.37252 0.00110738 2.14 0.0005
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table H.29
Initial Food Web Modeling - Barred Owl
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
(llelllk'ill
M ;i \ i iiiu in
Soil
Detection
(nig/kg)
Surfiice
\\ iiler
Do lot* linn
(mg/L)
Log Kow
(L/kg)'
Log Kw«
(L/kg)
Ktlw
(L/kg)
Koc
(L/kg)1
Kd
(l./kg)
Soil-io-
worm
IJ\I:
\\ orm Tissue
Coiieen trillion
(nig/kg. »ln
weight)
Soil-lo-
niiininiiil
li\l
Miininiiil Tissue
(once n Inilion
(mg/kg. dn
weight)
Surfsicc
\\ illlT-lo-
Aniphihiiin
BCF (L/kg)3
Amphihiiin
Tissue
(onci'iilriilion
(mg/kg. \\ el
weight)
Surl'iK'e
\\ iiler-lo-
l isli ISC 1
(L/kg)4
l-'isli Tissue
(oiu'enlriilion
(mg/kg. «el
weight)
Atenige
Dili It Dose
(mg/kg-dii>)
\oai:i.
(nig/kg-dii\)"
NO A LI.
I'A'ologil'ill
Quotient
Heptachlor
0.0022
0
6.1
3.307
12673
41260
412.6
30.7
0.06754
1
0.0022
Not detected in surface water
3.0176E-05
Evaluated as sum of
heptachlor and heptachlor
epoxide
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.0021
0
4.98
2.3326
1344
10110
101.1
13.3
0.02793
1
0.0021
Not detected in surface water
2.1058E-05
Sum of Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide
0.0000512
NoTRV
NoTRV
Methoxychlor
0.014
0
5.08
2.4196
1642
26890
268.9
6.1
0.0854
1
0.014
Not detected in surface water
0.000119
NoTRV
NoTRV
Exposure Assumptions - Barred Owl (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.0265
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Moisture content of mammals 0.68
Moisture content of amphibians 0.755
Moisture content of fish 0.75
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.000212
Mammal ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.007208
Amphibian ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.001325
Fish ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.001325
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 5% invertebrates, 85% small mammals, 5% amphibians, and 5% fish.
Notes:
1. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
2. For chemicals without soil-to-earthworm BAFs listed in EPA (2007), BAFs calculated with Jager model as presented in EPA (2007).
log = 0.87*log K„w - 2
Converted from wet weight to dry weight assuming 16% solids
Kd = foc * K«
foc = 0.01 (1%)
BAF = K,jw (L/kg worm dry weight)/K,j (L/kg soil dry weight)
3. BAFs not available for amphibians; used values for fish.
4. Fish BAFs from the Risk Assessment Information System, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: https://rais.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/tools/TOX_search?select=chem_spef
5. NOAELs listed in Table H.3.
6. Mercury soil-to-worm BAF from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ES/ER/TM-220, 1998.
Mercury soil-to-mammal BAF from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Small Mammals. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ES/ER/TM-219, 1998.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
BCF - bioconcentration factor
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
NA = not applicable
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram per day
kgBW = kilograms body weight
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table H.30
Initial Food Web Modeling - Meadow Vole
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
Miixiinum
Worm Tissue
M ;i\imii in
Sii rfiicc \\ siUt
Soil-lo-
Pliinl Tissue
(oneen(r;ilion
A\emge
NOAKI.
Deleelion
Deled ion
l.oii Kow
pliinl
(oneen(r;ilion
Log Kow
Log Kww
Kdw
Koc
Kd
Soil-lo-worm
(mg/kg. dr\
l);iil\ Dose
NOAII.
Lcologicid
(hemiciil
(mii/kii)
(m«j/L)
(L/kjj)1
li\\-
(mii/kii. (In weigh 1I
(L/kg)1
(L/kg)
(L/kg)
(L/kg)1
(L/kg)
BAF3
weiglil)
(mg/kg-d;i>)
(mii/kii-(lii> )4
Quotient
Mercury5
0.6
0.00037
NA
5
3
Not used
95% upper
predicted level
3.961
0.1596
0.054
Aroclor-1248
0.083
0
6.2
0.1844
0.0153
6.2
3.394
15484
76530
765.3
20.2
1.6766
0.002770
0.033
0.1
Aroclor-1254
0.2
0
6.5
0.1393
0.0279
6.5
3.655
28241
130500
1305
21.6
4.320
0.006524
0.051
0.1
Aroclor-1260
0.11
0
7.6
0.0499
0.0055
7.6
4.612
255788
349700
3497
73.1
8.041
0.009427
0.051
0.2
Alpha-BHC
0.0015
0.0000061
Beta-BHC
0.0032
0
Evaluated as mixed isomers
Delta-BHC
0.0022
0.0000051
BHC - mixed isomers
0.0069
0.0000112
3.8
1.735
0.0120
3.8
1.31
126
2807
28.07
4.5
0.03105
0.000662
2.69
0.0002
Endosulfan I
0.0014
0
3.8
1.735
0.0024
3.83
1.33
134
6761
67.61
2
0.0028
0.000130
Evaluated as sum of endosulfan II
and endosulfan sulfate
Endosulfan II
0.002
0.0000018
3.8
1.735
0.0035
3.83
1.33
134
6761
67.61
2
0.004
0.000186
Endosulfan Sulfate
0.0067
0
3.66
1.978
0.0132
3.66
1.18
95.5
6761
67.61
1.4
0.00938
0.000701
Sum of Endosulfan II and Endosulfan Sulfate
0.001016
0.25
0.004
Endrin
0.00028
0
5.2
0.469
0.000131
5.2
2.52
2089
20090
200.9
10.4
0.002912
0.000010
Evaluated as sum of endrin, endrin
Endrin Ketone
0.0089
0
4.8
0.682
0.006068
4.8
2.18
937
20090
200.9
4.7
0.04183
0.000370
aldehyde, and endrin ketone
Sum of Endrin and Endrin Ketone
0.000381
0.084
0.005
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0.0011
0
3.7
1.91
0.0021
3.72
1.24
108
2807
28.07
3.8
0.00418
0.000114
13.4
0.00001
Alpha-Chlordane
0.0026
0.0000045
Evaluated at total chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
0.0037
0.0000094
Total Chlordane
0.0063
0.0000139
6.3
0.168
0.0011
6.3
3.48
18918
33780
337.8
56
0.353
0.000460
4.2
0.0001
Heptachlor
0.0022
0
6.1
0.202
0.0004
6.1
3.31
12673
41260
412.6
30.7
0.06754
0.000101
Evaluated as sum of heptachlor and
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.0021
0
5
0.566
0.0012
4.98
2.33
1344
10110
101.1
13.3
0.02793
0.000095
heptachlor epoxide
Sum of Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide
0.000196
0.218
0.001
Methoxychlor
0.014
0
5.1
0.515
0.0072
5.08
2.42
1642
26890
268.9
6.1
0.0854
0.000484
6.7
0.0001
Exposure Assumptions - Meadow Vole (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.00126168
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.35
Moi sture content of plants 0.85
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Moisture content of mammals 0.68
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.05145
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.00112
Surface water ingestion rate (IVkgBW-day) 0.21
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 98% plants and 2% invertebrates.
Notes:
1. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
2. For chemicals without soil-to-plant BAFs listed in EPA, 2007, log BAF = -0.40571ogKow+ 1.781 (Figure 4, Panel B, EPA, 2007).
3. For chemicals without soil-to-worm BAFs listed in EPA (2007), BAFs calculated with Jager model as presented in EPA (2007).
log Kw = 0.87*log K„w - 2
Converted from wet weight to dry weight assuming 16% solids
K^foc*!^
foc = 0.01 (1%)
BAF = K,jw (IVkg worm dry weight)/K,j (L/kg soil dry weight)
4. NOAELs listed in Table H.4.
5. Mercury soil-to-plant BAF from Bechtel Jacobs (1998). Empirical Models for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by Plants. BJC/OR-133. September 1998.
Mercury soil-to-worm BAF from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ES/ER/TM-220, 1998.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
NA = not applicable
Cp = concentration in plant tissue
Ce = concentration is earthworm tissue
Cm = concentration in mammal tissue
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
Eco-SSL = Ecological Soil Screening Level
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram per day
SVOC = semi-volatile organic compound
Cs = concentration in soil
kgBW = kilograms body weight
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and
Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs. OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.31
Initial Food Web Modeling - Short-Tailed Shrew
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
Msiximum
Msiximum
Surl'siee \\ siler
Plsinl Tissue
Soil-lo-
Worm Tissue
A\ersige
NOAEL
Deleelion
Deleelion
Log Kow
Soil-lo-plsinl
('oiieenlrsilion
Log Kow
Log Kww
Kdw
Kd
worm
(oiieenlrsilion
l);iil\ Dose
NOAII.
I'.eologiesil
Chemiesil
(nig/kg)
(mg/L)
(L/kg)1
KM'
(mg/kg.(In weight)
(L/kg)1
(L/kg)
(L/kg)
Koc (L/kg)1
(L/kg)
IJAI '
(nig/kg. dr> weight)
(mg/kg-dsi>)
(mg/kg-dsi> )4
Quotient
Mercui'}
o.o
0.00037
NA
5
j
\ol us>ed
l>5"., upper
predicted
3.961
0.355842091
0.0"
5
level
Aroclor-1248
0.083
0
6.2
0.1844
0.0153
6.2
3.394
15484
76530
765.3
20.2
1.6766
0.132503036
0.043
3
Aroclor-1254
0.2
0
6.5
0.1393
0.0279
6.5
3.655
28241
130500
1305
21.6
4.320
0.34121202
0.067
5
Aroclor-1260
0.11
0
7.6
0.0499
0.0055
7.6
4.612
255788
349700
3497
73.1
8.041
0.63373103
0.067
K>
Alpha-BHC
0.0015
0.0000061
Beta-BHC
0.0032
0
Evaluated as mixed isomers
Delta-BHC
0.0022
0.0000051
BHC - mixed isomers
0.0069
0.0000112
3.8
1.7352
0.0120
3.8
1.31
126.44
2807
28.07
4.5
0.03105
0.002635487
3.52
0.001
Endosulfan I
0.0014
0
3.8
1.7352
0.0024
3.83
1.33
134.27
6761
67.61
2
0.0028
0.000258553
Evaluated as sum of endosulfan II
and endosulfan sulfate
Endosulfan II
0.002
0.0000018
3.8
1.7352
0.0035
3.83
1.33
134.27
6761
67.61
2
0.004
0.000369763
Endosulfan Sulfate
0.0067
0
3.66
1.9776
0.0132
3.66
1.18
95.52
6761
67.61
1.4
0.00938
0.000943537
Sum of Endosulfan II and Endosulfan Sulfate
0.001572
0.33
0.005
Endrin
0.00028
0
5.2
0.4692
0.0001
5.2
2.52
2088.72
20090
200.9
10.4
0.002912
0.000231988
Evaluated as sum of endrin,
endrin aldehyde, and endrin
ketone
Endrin Ketone
0.0089
0
4.8
0.6818
0.0061
4.8
2.18
937.30
20090
200.9
4.7
0.04183
0.003404721
Sum of Endrin and Endrin Ketone
0.003637
0.109
0.03
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0.0011
0
3.7
1.90507
0.00210
3.72
1.24
107.72
2807
28.07
3.8
0.00418
0.000361728
17.6
0.00002
Alpha-Chlordane
0.0026
0.0000045
Evaluated at total chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
0.0037
0.0000094
Total Chlordane
0.0063
0.0000139
6.3
0.16792
0.00106
6.3
3.48
18918.21
33780
337.8
56
0.353
0.027823717
5.5
0.005
Heptachlor
0.0022
0
6.1
0.20241
0.00045
6.1
3.31
12673.02
41260
412.6
30.7
0.06754
0.005332153
Evaluated as sum of heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.0021
0
5
0.56559
0.00119
4.98
2.33
1344.25
10110
101.1
13.3
0.02793
0.002222427
and heptachlor epoxide
Sum of Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide
0.00755
0.286
0.03
Methoxychlor
0.014
0
5.1
0.51515
0.00721
5.08
2.42
1642.40
26890
268.9
6.1
0.0854
0.00687
00
00
0.001
Exposure Assumptions - Short-Tailed Shrew (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.002784234
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.62
Moisture content of plants 0.85
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Moisture content of mammals 0.68
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.014043
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.0787648
Surface water ingestion rate (L/kgBW-day) 0.223
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 15.1% plants and 79.4% invertebrates.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
NA = not applicable
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram per day
kgBW = kilograms body weight
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Notes:
1. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
2. For chemicals without soil-to-plant BAFs listed in EPA, 2007, log BAF = -0.40571ogKow + 1.781 (Figure 4, Panel B, EPA, 2007).
3. For chemicals without soil-to-worm BAFs listed in EPA (2007), BAFs calculated with Jager model as presented in EPA (2007).
log Kw = 0.87*log Kow - 2
Converted from wet weight to dry weight assuming 16% solids
TS _ -p * TZ
1oc ^oc
foe = 0.01 (1%)
BAF = (L/kg worm dry weight)/Kd (L/kg soil dry weight)
4. NOAELs listed in Table H.4.
5. Mercury soil-to-plant BAF from Bechtel Jacobs (1998). Empirical Models for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by Plants. BJC/OR-133. September 1998.
Mercury soil-to-worm BAF from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ES/ER/TM-220, 1998.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.32
Initial Food Web Modeling - Mink
Floodplain Habitat - Surface Water and Soil/Sediment
lien 111ic
ln\crlcl>ralc
Mammal
M ;i\iiiin in
Maximum
Tissue
lissue
l-'isli Tissue
Surface Walcr
Soil/Scriimcnl
Scdimcnl-lo-
( onccnlralion
('onccnlralion
Surface \\ alcr-
( onccnlralion
A\era lie
NOAII.
Deled ion
Detection
licnlhic
(mii/kii. dn
Soil-lo-mammal
(nig/kg.
lo-l ish H( 1
(mii/kji. \\ el
l);iil\ Dose
\OAI.I.
l-'.colo^ical
( hcmical
(m«j/L)
(m»/k«.i)
ln\crlcl>ralc IJSAI"1
\\cijihl)
HAP
dr> wciijil)
(L/k«)3
wcijihl)
(niii/k»-(la>)
(m )4
Quotient
Metals
Arsenic
0.0111
57.1
log(tissue) = -0.572 +
0.8731og(sediment)
9.15
ln(mammal) =-
4.8471+0.81881n(soil)
0.215
300
3.33
0.71780912
1.04
0.7
Cadmium
0.0368
6.5
log(tissue) = 0.191 +
0.6681og(sediment)
5.42
ln(mammal) = -
1.2571+0.47231n(soil)
0.689
200
7.36
1.408303138
0.77
Chromium
0.0124
31.8
log(tissue) = 0.2092 +
0.3651og(sediment)
5.72
ln(mammal) = -1.4599
+0.73381n(soil)
2.941
200
2.48
0.531371291
2.40
0.2
Copper
0.0826
164
log(tissue) = 1.037 +
0.3591og(sediment)
67.94
ln(mammal) = 2.042 +
0.14441n(soil)
16.094
200
16.52
3.573886582
5.6
0.6
Lead
3.17
45713
log(tissue) = -0.515 +
0.6531og(sediment)
337.29
ln(mammal) =
0.076 l+0.4421n(soil)
123.819
300
951
229.5175887
4.7
4<>
Mercury
0.00037
0.6
log(tissue) = -0.67 +
0.3271og(sediment)
0.18
0.192
0.1152
1000
0.37
0.070978492
0.015
5
Nickel
0.0994
63
log(tissue) = -0.44 +
0.6951og(sediment)
6.44
ln(mammal) =-
0.2462+0.46581n(soil)
5.37
100
9.94
1.981167247
1.7
i
Selenium
0.002
9.2
1
9.2
ln(mammal) =- -
0.4158+0.37641n(soil)
1.52
200
0.4
0.122595813
0.143
0.9
Silver
0.0092
5.3
1
5.3
0.004
0.0212
5
0.046
0.033321121
6.02
0.006
Zinc
0.97
292
log(tissue) =1.77 +
0.2421og(sediment)
232.61
ln(mammal) =
4.3632+0.07061n(soil)
117.21
1,000
970
183.0866772
75.4
SVOCs
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
2 -Methylnaphthalene
0.0002
0.19
0.29
0.0551
0
0
74.7
0.01494
0.003206834
Acenaphthylene
0
0.026
0.29
0.00754
0
0
Not detected in surface water
5.38138E-05
Anthracene
0
0.022
0.29
0.00638
0
0
Not detected in surface water
4.55347E-05
Evaluated as sum of low
Fluoranthene
0
0.74
0.29
0.2146
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.001531622
molecular weight PAHs
Phenanthrene
0.00016
0.42
0.29
0.1218
0
0
84.5
0.01352
0.003413379
Naphthalene
0.0014
0.086
0.29
0.02494
0
0
2510
3.514
0.657434599
Total Low Molecular Weight PAHs
0.665685784
65.6
0.01
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Benzo [a] anthracene
0
0.320
0.29
0.0928
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.000662323
Bcnzo|a|pvrcnc
0
0.29
0.29
0.0841
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.00060023
Benzo [b]fluoranthene
0
0.54
0.29
0.1566
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.00111767
Bcnzo|g.h.i|pcrylcne
0
0.17
0.29
0.0493
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.000351859
Evaluated as sum of high
molecular weight PAHs
Benzo [kjfluoranthene
0
0.47
0.29
0.1363
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.000972787
Chrysene
0
0.57
0.29
0.1653
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.001179763
Dibenz [a,h] anthracene
0
0.078
0.29
0.02262
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.000161441
I nde no 11.2.3 -c. d | p v rc nc
0
0.23
0.29
0.0667
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.000476045
Pyrene
0
0.71
0.29
0.2059
0
0
Not detected in surface water
0.00146953
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
0.006991649
0.62
0.01
Pesticides/PCBs
0.083
log(tissue) =1.6
1
AROCLOR-1248
0
+0.9391og(sediment)
5.44
1
0.083
Not detected in surface water
0.018875665
0.015
0.2
log(tissue) =1.6
0.1
AROCLOR-1254
0
+0.9391og(sediment)
4.01
1
0.2
Not detected in surface water
0.014662008
0.14
Aroclor-1260
0
0.11
log(tissue) =1.6
+0.9391og(sediment)
2.29
1
0.11
Not detected in surface water
0.008341916
0.14
0.06
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table H.32
Initial Food Web Modeling - Mink
Floodplain Habitat - Surface Water and Soil/Sediment
lien 111ie
ln\crlcl)r;ilc
Miimiiiiil
M ;i\iiiin in
Miiximiiin
Tissue
Tissue
l-'isli Tissue
Snrfiiee \\;iUt
Soil/Sediment
Sedimenl-lo-
(onccn(r;ilion
(onccnlnilion
Snrfiiee \\ ;i(er-
( onccn(r;ilion
A\er;iiie
NOAII.
Delect ion
Detection
licnlhic
(mii/kii. (In
Soi l-l <>-iii :¦ in m;i 1
(nig/kg.
lo-l ish H( 1
(mii/kji. \\ el
l);iil\ Dose
NOAII.
l-'.enlouieiil
( hemie;il
(m«j/L)
ln\cr(cl)r;Uc IJSAI"1
Mcijihl)
HAP
(In weight)
(L/kjj)3
weijihl)
(m;i/k
-------
Table H.33
Initial Food Web Modeling - Green Heron
Floodplain Habitat - Surface Water and Soil/Sediment
C'heniiciil
Miixiniiini
Surfsice
Wilier
Detection
(mg/1,)
Miixiniiini
Soil /
Sediment
Detection
(nig/kg)
Lo» kow
(L/kg)1
Soil-to-phint
liAl 2
Phint Tissue
Concentnition
(nig/kg,
dry weight)
Sedimcnl-lo-
lienthic
ln\erlcbr:ile
liSAI '
IJeniliic
Imcrlehriilc
Tissue
('oncentnition
(dry weight,
mg/kg)
W:iler-lo-
Amphihiiin
IK 1 4
Amphihiiin
Tissue
Concent nit ion
(wet weight,
nig/kg)
\Y:ilcr-lo-
lisli
IK 1 5
Tisli Tissue
C'oncentmlion
(wet weight,
mg/kg)
A\crsige
Daily Dose
(mg/kg-diiy)
\oat:i.
(nig/kg-diiy)'1
NOAEL
Kcologiciil
Quotient
Metals
Arsenic
0.0111
57.1
NA
0.03752
2.14
log(tissue) = -0.572 +
0.873log( sediment)
9.15
300
3.33
300
3.33
0.72
2.24
0.3
Cadmium
0.0368
6.5
NA
ln(Cp) =
0.5461n(Cs) - 0.475
1.73
log(tissue) = 0.191 +
0.6681og(sediment)
5.42
200
7.36
200
7.36
1.26
1.47
0.9
Chromium
0.0124
31.8
NA
0.041
1.30
log(tissue) = 0.2092 +
0.3651og(sediment)
5.72
200
2.48
200
2.48
0.51
2.66
0.2
Copper
0.0826
164.0
NA
ln(Cp) =
0.3941n(Cs) + 0.668
14.55
log(tissue) = 1.037 +
0.3 591og( sediment)
67.94
200
16.52
200
16.52
3.41
4.05
0.8
Lead
3.17
45713.0
NA
ln(Cp) =
0.5611n(Cs) -1.328
109
log(tissue) = -0.515 +
0.6531og(sediment)
337.29
300
951
300
951
264.54
1.63
i(.:
Mercury7
0.00037
0.6
NA
5
3.00
log(tissue) = -0.67 +
0.3271og(sediment)
0.18
1000
0.37
1000
0.37
0.07
0.0064
II)
Nickel
0.0994
63
NA
ln(Cp) =
0.7481n(Cs) - 2.223
2.39
log(tissue) = -0.44 +
0.6951og(sediment)
6.44
100
9.94
100
9.94
1.83
6.71
0.3
Selenium
0.002
9.2
NA
ln(Cp) =
1.1041n(Cs)-0.677
5.89
1
9.2
200
0.4
200
0.4
0.13
0.29
0.5
Silver
0.0092
5.3
NA
0.014
0.0742
1
5.3
5
0.046
5
0.046
0.043
2.02
0.02
Zinc
0.97
292.0
NA
ln(Cp) =
0.5541n(Cs)+ 1.575
112.16
log(tissue) =1.77 +
0.2421og(sediment)
232.61
1,000
970
1,000
970
162.18
66.1
SVOCs
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
2 -Methylnaphthalene
0.20
0.19
Not used
ln(Cp) =
0.45441n(Cs) -
1.3205
0.1255
0.29
0.0551
74.7
14.94
74.7
14.94
2.490
Evaluated as sum of low
molecular weight PAHs
Acenaphthylene
0
0.026
Not used
ln(Cp) =
0.7911n(Cs)-1.144
0.0178
0.29
0.00754
Not detected in surface water
0.000107
Anthracene
0
0.022
Not used
ln(Cp) =
0.77841n(Cs) -
0.9887
0.0191
0.29
0.00638
Not detected in surface water
0.00009
Fluoranthene
0
0.74
Not used
0.5
0.3700
0.29
0.2146
Not detected in surface water
0.003
Naphthalene
0.0014
0.086
Not used
12.2
1.0492
0.29
0.02494
2510
3.514
2510
3.514
0.582
Phenanthrene
0.16
0.42
Not used
ln(Cp) =
0.62031n(Cs) -
0.1665
0.4943
0.29
0.1218
84.5
13.52
84.5
13.52
2.252
Total Low Molecular Weight PAHs
2.8378
1653
0.002
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table H.33
Initial Food Web Modeling - Green Heron
Floodplain Habitat - Surface Water and Soil/Sediment
C'heniiciil
Miixiniiini
Surl'sice
Wilier
Detection
(mg/L)
Miixiniiini
Soil /
Sediment
Detection
(nig/kg)
Lo» kow
(L/kg)1
Soil-to-phint
liAl 2
Pliint Tissue
Concentnition
(nig/kg,
dry weight)
Sedimcnl-lo-
lienthic
ln\erlcbr:ile
liSAI '
IJeniliic
linertehnite
Tissue
('oncentnition
(dry weight,
mg/kg)
W:iler-lo-
Amphihiiin
IK 1 4
Amphihiiin
Tissue
Concent nit ion
(wet weight,
nig/kg)
\Y:ilcr-lo-
lisli
IK 1 5
Tisli Tissue
C'oncentriition
(wet weight,
mg/kg)
A\crsige
Daily Dose
(mg/kg-diiy)
\oat:i.
(nig/kg-diiy)'1
NOAEL
Kcologiciil
Quotient
Benzo [a] anthracene
0
0.320
Not used
ln(Cp) =
0.59441n(Cs) -
2.7078
0.0339
0.29
0.0928
Not detected in surface water
0.001
Evaluated as sum of high
molecular weight PAHs
Benzo[a]pyrene
0
0.29
Not used
ln(Cp) =
0.9751n(Cs) -
2.0615
0.0381
0.29
0.0841
Not detected in surface water
0.001
Benzo [blfluoranthene
0
0.54
Not used
0.31
0.1674
0.29
0.1566
Not detected in surface water
0.002
Benzo [g,h,i]perylene
0
0.17
Not used
ln(Cp) =
1.18291n(Cs) -
0.9313
0.0484
0.29
0.0493
Not detected in surface water
0.001
Benzo [kjfluoranthene
0
0.47
Not used
ln(Cp) =
0.85951n(Cs) -
2.1579
0.0604
0.29
0.1363
Not detected in surface water
0.002
Chrysene
0
0.57
Not used
ln(Cp) =
0.59441n(Cs) -
2.7078
0.0477
0.29
0.1653
Not detected in surface water
0.002
Dibenz | a.h| anthracene
0
0.078
Not used
0.13
0.01014
0.29
0.02262
Not detected in surface water
0.000
Indeno 11,2,3 -c,d]pyrene
0
0.23
Not used
0.11
0.0253
0.29
0.0667
Not detected in surface water
0.001
Pvrcnc
0
0.71
Not used
0.72
0.5112
0.29
0.2059
Not detected in surface water
0.003
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
0.0127
2
0.01
Pesticides/PCBs
Aroclor-1248
0
0.083
6.2
0.1844
0.0153
log(tissue) =1.6
+0.93 91og(sediment)
5.44
Not detected in surface water
0.023
0.18
0.1
Aroclor-1254
0
0.2
6.5
0.1393
0.0279
log(tissue) =1.6
+0.93 91og(sediment)
4.01
Not detected in surface water
0.017
0.18
0.1
Aroclor-1260
0
0.11
7.6
0.0499
0.0055
log(tissue) =1.6
+0.93 91og(sediment)
2.29
Not detected in surface water
0.010
0.18
0.05
4,4'-DDD
0
0.0076
ln(Cp) =
0.75241n(Cs) -
2.5119
0.0021
0.28
0.002128
Not detected in surface water
0.00003
Evaluated as sum of
DDD/DDE/DDT
4,4'-DDE
0
0.0075
ln(Cp) =
0.75241n(Cs) -
2.5119
0.0020
7.7
0.05775
Not detected in surface water
0.00026
4,4'-DDT
0
0.01
ln(Cp) =
0.75241n(Cs) -
2.5119
0.0025
1.67
0.0167
Not detected in surface water
0.00010
Sum of DDD/DDE/DDT
0.000384
0.227 0.002
Alpha-BHC
0.0000061
0.0015
3.8
1.7352
0.0026
1.8
0.0027
372
0.0022692
372
0.0022692
0.00039
Evaluated as sum of BHC -
mixed isomers
Beta-BHC
0
0.0032
3.8
1.7352
0.0056
1.8
0.00576
Not detected in surface water
0.00004
Delta-BHC
0.0000051
0.0022
3.8
1.7352
0.0038
1.8
0.00396
372
0.0018972
372
0.0018972
0.00034
BHC - mixed isomers
0.000768
0.56
0.001
Dieldrin
0
0.0044
Not used
0.4100
0.0018
1.8
0.00792
Not detected in surface water
0.00004
0.0709
0.001
Endosulfan I
0
0.0014
3.8
1.7352
0.0024
1.8
0.00252
Not detected in surface water
0.00002
Evaluated as sum of endosulfan
II and endosulfan sulfate
Endosulfan II
0.0000018
0.002
3.8
1.7352
0.0035
1.8
0.0036
156
0.0002808
156 0.0002808
0.00007
Endosulfan Sulfate
0
0.0067
3.66
1.9776
0.0132
1.8
0.01206
Not detected in surface water
0.00008
Sum of Endosulfan II and Endosulfan Sulfate
0.000146
10 0.00001
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table H.33
Initial Food Web Modeling - Green Heron
Floodplain Habitat - Surface Water and Soil/Sediment
lienihic
Miixiniiini
Maximum
Imerlchrale
Amphibian
Surface
Soil /
Plant Tissue
Sedinienl-lo-
Tissue
Tissue
Tisli Tissue
Water
Sediment
Concentration
lienthic
Concentration
Water-to-
Concent nit ion
Water-to-
Concentration
Average
NOAEL
Detection
Detection
Lo» Kow
Soil-to-plant
(nig/kg.
ln\erlcbr:ile
(dry weight.
Amphihian
(wet weight.
lisli
(wet weight.
Daily Dose
\oat:i.
Ecological
Chemical
(mg/1,)
(nig/kg)
(L/kg)1
liAl "
dry weight)
liSAI '
mg/kg)
IK 1 4
nig/kg)
IK 1°
mg/kg)
(mg/kg-day)
(mg/kg-day)'1
Quotient
Endrin
0
0.00028
5.2
0.4692
0.00013
1.8
0.000504
Not detected in surface water
0.00000
Evaluated as sum of endrin,
Endrin Aldehyde
0
0.0021
4.8
0.6818
0.0014
1.8
0.00378
Not detected in surface water
0.00002
endrin aldehyde, and endrin
Endrin Ketone
0
0.0089
4.8
0.6818
0.0061
1.8
0.01602
Not detected in surface water
0.00009
ketone
Sum of Endrin, Endrin Aldehyde, and Endrin Ketone
0.000117
0.01
0.01
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0
0.0011
3.7
1.9051
0.00210
1.8
0.00198
Not detected in surface water
0.00001
2
0.00001
Alpha-Chlordane
0.0000045
0.0026
6.3
0.1679
0.00044
4.77
0.012402
26,800
0.12060
26,800
0.12060
0.020
Evaluated as total chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
0.0000094
0.0037
6.3
0.1679
0.00062
2.22
0.008214
26,800
0.25192
26,800
0.25192
0.042
Total Chlordane
0.061681
2.14
0.03
Heptachlor
0
0.0022
6.1
0.2024
0.00045
1.8
0.00396
Not detected in surface water
0.00002
Evaluated as sum of heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
0
0.0021
5
0.5656
0.00119
1.8
0.00378
Not detected in surface water
0.00002
and heptachlor epoxide
Sum of Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide
0.000044
NoTRV
NoTRV
Methoxychlor
0
0.014
5.1
0.5151
0.00721
1.8
0.0252
Not detected in surface water
0.000144
No TRY
NoTRV
Exposure Assumptions - Green Heron (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil/sediment ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.0023085
Water ingestion rate (g/gBW-day) 0.098
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.19
Moisture content of plants 0.85
Moisture content of benthic invertebrates 0.78
Moisture content of amphibians 0.755
Moisture content of fish 0.75
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.000855
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.00418
Amphibian ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.038
Fish ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.1273
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 3% plants, 10% benthic invertebrates, 20% amphibians and 67% fish.
Notes:
1. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
2. For chemicals without soil-to-plant BAFs listed in EPA, 2007, log BAF = -0.40571ogKow + 1.781 (Figure 4, Panel B, EPA, 2007).
3. For metals and Aroclor-1260, BSAF is equation with the highest R-square value, Table 3, Bechtel Jacobs, 1998.
For remaining chemicals, BSAFs obtained from Table C-l of EPA, 2004.
Default value of 1 for chemicals without BSAFs listed in the literature.
Aroclor BSAF normalized to organic carbon and lipid content. Used total organic carbon concentration for maximum Aroclor-1248 detection and average total organic carbon concentration for other two Aroclors (location of maximum detections not analyzed for organic carbon).
Used lipid fraction of 0.03 (https://www.epa.gOv/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/kabam-version-10-users-guide-and-technical-6#C3).
4. BCFs not available for amphibians; used values for fish.
5. Fish BCFs from the Risk Assessment Information System, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: https://rais.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/tools/TOX_search?select=chem_spef
6. NOAELs listed in Table H.3.
7. Mercury soil-to-plant BAF from Bechtel Jacobs (1998). Empirical Models for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by Plants. BJC/OR-133. September 1998.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level BAF = bioaccumulation factor
kg-DW = kilogram as dry weight BSAF = biota sediment accumulation factor
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
NA = not applicable kgBW = kilogram body weight
BCF = bioconcentration factor kg-WW = kilogram as wet weight
References:
Bechtel-Jacobs, 1998. Biota Sediment Accumulation Factors for Invertebrates: Review and Recommendations for the Oak Ridge Reservation. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. BJC/OR-112, August.
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table H.34
Refined Comparison to Plant Benchmarks
Terrestrial Open Field Habitat - Soil
An.ilMc
Pliinl Bi'iichniiirk (
95% UCL
Qiinlieul
Value
Sou itc
Antimony
0.48
1995 Soil BTAG
1.619
5
Efroymson, et al., 1997
0.3
Arsenic
18
Eco-SSL
12.04
0.7
Beryllium
0.02
1995 Soil BTAG
0.985
4'J
10
Efroymson, et al., 1997
o 1
Chromium
0.02
1995 Soil BTAG
15.7
"X5
1
Efroymson, et al., 1997
l(>
Cobalt
13
Eco-SSL
14.9
1 1
Lead
120
Eco-SSL
38.51
o ;
Manganese
220
Eco-SSL
874.4
4
Mercury
0.058
1995 Soil BTAG
0.1
0.3
Efroymson, et al., 1997
0.3
Nickel
38
Eco-SSL
19.49
0.5
Selenium
0.52
Eco-SSL
2.48
5
Thallium
0.001
1995 Soil BTAG
3.49
1
Efroymson, et al., 1997
Tin
0.89
1995 Soil BTAG
1.591
50
Efroymson, et al., 1997
urn
Vanadium
0.5
1995 Soil BTAG
21.5
4'
2
Efroymson, et al., 1997
1 1
Zinc
160
Eco-SSL
88.01
u.t>
Shaded cell indicates quotient greater than 1.
BTAG = Biological Technical Advisory Group
Eco-SSL = Ecological Soil Screening Level
UCL = upper confidence limit
Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for
Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.35
Refined Comparison to Soil Invertebrate Benchmarks
Terrestrial Open Field Habitat - Soil
An.ilMc
Soil ln\i'rk'br;iU' Ifrni'liniiirk
95% UCL
(Juolieul
Value
Sou ree
Arsenic
60
Efroymson, et al, 1997
12.04
0.2
Chromium
7.5
1995 Soil BTAG
15.7
0.4
Efroymson, et al, 1997
39
Manganese
450
Eco-SSL
874.4
Mercury
0.058
1995 Soil BTAG
0.1
0.1
Efroymson, et al, 1997
i
Tin
0.89
1995 Soil BTAG
1.591
2000
Efroymson, et al, 1997
0.001
Zinc
120
Eco-SSL
88.01
0.7
Shaded cell indicates quotient greater than 1.
UCL = upper confidence limit
BTAG = Biological Technical Advisory Group
Eco-SSL = Ecological Soil Screening Level
Efroymson, R.A., M.E, Will, and G.W. Suter II. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and
Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Processes: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.38
Refined Comparison to Plant Benchmarks
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil and Sediment
( hi'iiiiciil
Pliinl Bi'iichniiirk
95% UCL
(Junlicul
Value
Source
Antimony
0.48
1995 Soil BTAG
2.305
5
5
Efroymson, et al, 1997
0.5
Arsenic
18
Eco-SSL
34.7
Barium
440
1995 Soil BTAG
185
04
500
Efroymson, et al, 1997
04
Beryllium
0.02
1995 Soil BTAG
0.984
4'J
10
Efroymson, et al, 1997
0.1
Chromium
0.02
1995 Soil BTAG
30.5
1525
1
Efroymson, et al, 1997
'1
Cobalt
13
Eco-SSL
24.8
Copper
70
Eco-SSL
92.4
1 ^
Cyanide
0.9
CCME Agricultural
2.309
Lead
120
Eco-SSL
2220
l<>
Manganese
220
Eco-SSL
949
4
Mercury
0.058
1995 Soil BTAG
0.166
0.3
Efroymson, et al, 1997
0.6
Nickel
38
Eco-SSL
31.1
0.8
Selenium
0.52
Eco-SSL
5.961
1 1
Tin
0.89
1995 Soil BTAG
31.9
i(l
50
Efroymson, et al, 1997
O (>
Vanadium
0.5
1995 Soil BTAG
28.6
5"
2
Efroymson, et al, 1997
14
Zinc
160
Eco-SSL
220
1 4
Eco-SSL = ecological soil screening level
UCL = upper confidence limit
BTAG = EPA Biological Technical Assistance Group
CCME = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
Shaded cell indicates quotient greater than 1.
Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential
Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines
1995 BTAG = Biological Technical Advisory Group screening values
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.39
Refined Comparison to Terrestrial Invertebrate Benchmarks
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil and Sediment
Tenvslr
i:il Imerlehi'iile lieiiehuiiirk
An.ilMc
Value
Sou ree
95% UCL
Quotient
Arsenic
60
Eco-SSL
34.7
0.6
Barium
330
Eco-SSL
185
0.6
Chromium
0.0075
1995 Soil BTAG
30.5
4<)
-------
Table H.40
Refined Food Web Modeling - American Woodcock
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil
Chemie;il
Soil 95%
LCL
(mg/kg)
Log Kow
(L/kg)1
Soil-lo-pliiiil ISAI- "
Pliinl Tissue
( oik\ (mg/kg.
(In weighl)
Log
Kow
(L/kg)1
Log
Km n
(L/kg)
Kdw
(L/kg)
Koc
(L/kg)1
Kd
(L/kg)
Soil-lo-Morm
BAF3
Worm Tissue
Cone, (mg/kg.
(In weighl)
Miiximiim
SuiTiiee \\;iler
Cone, (ing/l.)
A\er;ige
l);iil\ Dose
(mg/kg-d;i\)
\o\ii.
(mg/kg-d;i> )4
I.OAI.I.
(mg/kg-d;i\ )4
NOAEL
lleologieiil
Quotient
I.OAII.
l-'.eologieiil
Quotient
Arsenic
34.7
NA
0.03752
1.302
Not used
ln(worm) =
0.7061n(soil) - 1.421
2.9535
0.0047
0.783612876
2.24
3.55
0.3
0.2
Cadmium
1.19
NA
ln(Cp) = 0.5461n(Cs) -
0.475
0.684
Not used
ln(worm) =
0.7951n(soil) + 2.114
9.5095
0.007
1.072697688
1.47
2.37
0.7
0.5
Chromium
30.5
NA
0.041
1.251
Not used
0.306
9.3330
0.003
1.432785189
2.66
2.78
0.5
0.5
Copper
92.4
NA
ln(Cp) = 0.3941n(Cs) +
0.668
11.603
Not used
0.515
47.5860
0.0138
6.565255715
4.05
12.1
0 ^
Lead
2220
NA
ln(Cp) = 0.5611n(Cs) -
1.328
19.978
Not used
ln(worm) =
0.8071n(soil)-0.218
403.4880
2.5
73.24024164
1.63
3.26
45
Mercury5
0.166
NA
5
0.830
Not used
95% upper predicted
level
2.6405
0.30333222
0.0064
0.064
47
>
Selenium
5.96
NA
ln(Cp) = 1.1041n(Cs) -
0.677
3.646
Not used
ln(worm) =
0.7331n(soil) - 0.075
3.4331
0
0.498628561
0.29
0.579
0.9
Vanadium5
28.6
NA
0.00485
0.139
Not used
0.042
1.2012
0.0043
0.4986026
0.344
0.413
1
1.2
Zinc
220
NA
ln(Cp) = 0.5541n(Cs) +
1.575
95.877
Not used
ln(worm) =
0.3281n(soil) +4.449
501.7539
0.61
59.34946612
66.1
86.6
0.9
0.7
High Molecular Weight PAHs
B enz o [ a] anthracene
1.31
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) -
2.7078
0.078
Not used
1.59
2.083
0.00017
0.247310003
Evaluated as sum of high molecular weight PAHs
Benzo[a]pyrene
1.17
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.9751n(Cs) -
2.0615
0.148
Not used
1.33
1.556
0
0.18827309
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
1.84
Not used
0.31
0.570
Not used
2.6
4.784
0.00026
0.557867339
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
0.596
Not used
ln(Cp) = 1.18291n(Cs) -
0.9313
0.214
Not used
2.94
1.752
0
0.203386212
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
0.519
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.85951n(Cs) -
2.1579
0.066
Not used
2.6
1.349
0
0.156194061
Chrysene
1.33
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) -
2.7078
0.079
Not used
2.29
3.046
0
0.353718347
Dibenz [a,h] anthracene
1
Not used
0.13
0.13
Not used
2.31
2.310
0
0.269015131
[ndeno [ 1,2,3 -c ,d] py rene
0.994
Not used
0.11
0.109
Not used
2.86
2.843
0
0.327441274
Pyrene
1.8
Not used
0.72
1.295
Not used
1.75
3.148
0
0.385746106
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
2.688951564
2 20 1 | 0.1
exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
0.0127
0.77
0.85
0.84
0.0121
0.110
0.1
Exposure Assumptions - American Woodcock (note
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day)
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day)
Moisture content of plants
Moisture content of worms
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day)
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day)
Surface water ingestion rate (L/kgBW-day)
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 10.5% plants and 89.5% invertebrates.
Notes:
1. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
2. For chemicals without soil-to-plant BAFs listed in EPA, 2007, log BAF = -0.40571ogKow + 1.781 (Figure 4, Panel B, EPA, 2007).
3. For chemicals without soil-to-worm BAFs listed in EPA (2007), BAFs calculated with Jager model as presented in EPA (2007).
log = 0.87*log K„w - 2
Converted from wet weight to dry weight assuming 16% solids
Kd = foc * K«
foc = 0.01 (1%)
BAF = K,jw (L/kg worm dry weight)/K,j (L/kg soil dry weight)
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram per day
kgBW = kilograms body weight
Cs = concentration in soil
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
NA = not applicable
Cp = concentration in plant tissue
Ce = concentration is earthworm tissue
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
4. NOAELs listed in Table H.3 and LOAELs listed in Table H.5.
5. Vanadium NOAEL from Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Vanadium, Interim Final, OSWER Directive 9285.7-75, April 2005.
Vanadium LOAEL is geometric mean of the LOAELs for growth, reproduction, and survival.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.41
Refined Food Web Modeling - Eastern Phoebe
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil
I'liiiil Tissue
Worm Tissue
Miiximum
Soil 95%
( oiKTiili'iilion
Log
Log
('oiii'i'iili'iilion
Surface \\ siicr
A\cr;igc
\OAF.I.
I.OAKI.
NOAII.
1.OA F.I.
UCL
Log Kow
(mg/kg. (In
Kow
Kw w
Kdw
Koc
Kd
(mg/kg. (In
('oiiiTiilrsilion
l);iil\ Dose
(mg/kg-
(mg/kg-
F.cologiciil
Fcologicnl
ClK-miciil
(nig/kg)
(L/kg)1
Soil-lo-pliiiil ISAF"
weighu
(L/kg)'
(L/kg)
(L/kg)
(L/kg)1
(L/kg)
Soil-lo-woi'in IJAI- '
weigliu
(mg/L)
(mg/kg-(l;i\)
d;i\ )4
(l;i\ )4
Quotient
Quotient
Arsenic
34.7
NA
0.03752
1.30
Not used
ln(worm) = 0.7061n(soil) - 1.421
2.953521594
0.0047
0.9
2.24
3.55
0.4
0.3
Cadmium
1.19
NA
ln(Cp) = 0.5461n(Cs) - 0.475
0.68
Not used
ln(worm) = 0.7951n(soil) + 2.114
9.509515027
0.007
2.3
1.47
2.37
1
Chromium
30.5
NA
0.041
1.25
Not used
0.306
9.333
0.003
2.4
2.66
2.78
1
0.9
Copper
92.4
NA
ln(Cp) = 0.3941n(Cs) + 0.668
11.60
Not used
0.515
47.586
0.0138
12.1
4.05
12.1
1
Lead
2220
NA
ln(Cp) = 0.5611n(Cs) - 1.328
19.98
Not used
ln(worm) = 0.8071n(soil) - 0.218
403.4880281
2.5
110.1
1.63
3.26
(.S
U
Mercury5
0.166
NA
5
0.83
Not used
95% upper predicted level
2.641
0.000094
0.7
0.0064
0.064
K)2
10
Selenium
5.96
NA
ln(Cp) = 1.1041n(Cs)-0.677
3.65
Not used
ln(worm) = 0.7331n(soil) - 0.075
3.433076035
0
0.9
0.29
0.579
Vanadium0
28.6
NA
0.00485
0.14
Not used
0.042
1.2012
0.0043
0.4
0.344
0.413
1
1
Zinc
220
NA
ln(Cp) = 0.5541n(Cs) + 1.575
95.88
Not used
ln(worm) = 0.3281n(soil) + 4.449
501.7539375
0.61
124.2
66.1
86.6
1
High Molecular Weight PAHs
B enzo [a] anthracene
1.31
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.08
Not used
1.59
2.083
0.00017
0.5
Bcnzo|a|pvrcnc
1.17
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.9751n(Cs) - 2.0615
0.15
Not used
1.33
1.556
0
0.4
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
1.84
Not used
0.31
0.57
Not used
2.6
4.784
0.00026
1.2
Bcnzo|g.h.i Ipcnlcnc
0.596
Not used
ln(Cp) = 1.18291n(Cs)-0.9313
0.21
Not used
2.94
1.752
0
0.4
Evaluated as sum of high molecular weight
DAtTc
B enzo [k] fluoranthene
0.519
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.85951n(Cs) - 2.1579
0.07
Not used
2.6
1.349
0
0.3
Chrysene
1.33
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.08
Not used
2.29
3.046
0
0.7
Dibenz [a,h] anthracene
1
Not used
0.13
0.13
Not used
2.31
2.310
0
0.6
I ndc no 11.2.3 -c. d | p v rc nc
0.994
Not used
0.11
0.11
Not used
2.86
2.843
0
0.7
Pyrene
1.8
Not used
0.72
1.30
Not used
1.75
3.148
0
0.8
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
5.64
2
20
3
0.3
Aroclor-1260
0.0277
7.6
0.050
0.00138
7.6
4.612
255788
349700
3497
73.1
2.025
0
0.5
0.18
1.8
3
0.3
Exposure Assumptions - Eastern Phoebe (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.00501458
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 1.57
Moisture content of plants 0.85
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.007065
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.243664
Surface water ingestion rate (L/kgBW-day) 0.209
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 3% plants and 97% invertebrates.
Notes:
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
NA = not applicable
Cp = concentration in plant tissue
Ce = concentration is earthworm tissue
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram per day
kgBW = kilograms body weight
Cs = concentration in soil
Cm = concentration in mammal tissue
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
1. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
2. For chemicals without soil-to-plant BAFs listed in EPA, 2007, log BAF = -0.40571ogKow + 1.781 (Figure 4, Panel B, EPA, 2007).
3. For chemicals without soil-to-worm BAFs listed in EPA (2007), BAFs calculated with Jager model as presented in EPA (2007).
log Kw = 0.87*log Kow - 2
Converted from wet weight to dry weight assuming 16% solids
TV" _ -p * TZ
1oc ^oc
foe = 0.01 (1%)
BAF = (L/kg worm dry weight)/!^ (L/kg soil dry weight)
4. NOAELs listed in Table H.3 mid LOAELs listed in Table H.5.
5. Mercury soil-to-plant BAF from Bechtel Jacobs (1998). Empirical Models for the Uptake of Inorganic Chemicals from Soil by Plants. BJC/OR-133. September 1998.
Mercury soil-to-worm BAF from Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ES/ER/TM-220, 1998.
6. Vanadium NOAEL from Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Vanadium, Interim Final, OSWER Directive 9285.7-75, April 2005.
Vanadium LOAEL is geometric mean of the LOAELs for growth, reproduction, and survival.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.42
Refined Food Web Modeling - Barred Owl
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil
Surl'.K'i'
Amphihiiin
At er;i»e
Miixiniuiii
\\ orm Tissue
Miimniiil Tissue
\\ n
(mii/kii. ilr\
(mii/kii. dn
BCF
(mii/kii.«el
Aniphihiiin
(m<>/k;>. wel
(niii/kii-
(in»/k»-
i inj»/k«-
l!i'olo»ii';il
Ia'oIo<>h';iI
Chemk'iil
(m<>/k<>)
(mjj/L)
Soil-io-\\ orni BAF1
\\ei<>lil)
Soil-Io-Iiiiiiniiiiil li.\I-"'
\\ei<>lil)
(L/kg)2
wi'iiihl)
BCF (L/k«)3
wi'iiihl)
d;i\)
(l;i> )4
il;i\ )4
Quolienl
Quolienl
Arsenic
34.7
0.0047
ln(worm) = 0.7061n(soil) - 1.421
2.953521594
ln(mammal) = 0.81181n(soil) - 4.8471
0.139756072
300
1.41
300
1.41
0.0054
2.24
3.55
0.002
0.002
Cadmium
1.19
0.007
ln(worm) = 0.7951n(soil) + 2.114
9.509515027
ln(mammal) = 0.47231n(soil) - 1.2571
0.308836937
200
1.4
200
1.4
0.0080
1.47
2.37
0.01
0.003
Chromium
30.5
0.003
0.306
9.333
ln(mammal) = 0.73381n(soil) - 1.4599
2.852020928
200
0.6
200
0.6
0.0241
2.66
2.78
0.01
0.009
Copper
92.4
0.0138
0.515
47.586
ln(mammal) = 0.14441n(soil) + 2.042
14.81400083
200
2.76
200
2.76
0.1242
4.05
12.1
0.03
0.01
Lead
2220
2.5
ln(worm) = 0.8071n(soil) - 0.218
403.4880281
ln(mammal) = 0.44221n(soil) + 0.0761
32.56920032
300
750
300
750
2.3078
1.63
3.26
1
0.7
Selenium
5.96
0
ln(worm) = 0.7331n(soil) - 0.075
3.433076035
ln(mammal) = 0.37641n(soil) - 0.4158
1.291882593
Not detected
in surface water
0.0100
0.29
0.579
0.03
0.02
Vanadium5
28.6
0.0043
0.042
1.2012
0.0123
0.35178
1
0.0043
1
0.0043
0.0028
0.344
0.413
0.01
0.007
Zinc
220
0.61
ln(worm) = 0.3281n(soil) + 4.449
501.7539375
ln(mammal) = 0.07061n(soil) + 4.3632
114.8917183
1,000
610
1000
610
2.5510
66.1
86.6
0.04
0.03
Exposure Assumptions - Barred Owl (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.0265
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Moisture content of mammals 0.68
Moisture content of fish 0.75
Moisture content of amphibian 0.755
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.000212
Small mammal ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.007208
Surface Water Ingestion Rate (g/g-day) 0
Fish ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.001325
Amphibian ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.001325
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 5% invertebrates, 85% small mammals, 5% amphibians, and 5% fish.
Notes:
1. Soil-to-worm and soil-to-mammal BAFs from EPA (2007).
2. Fish BCFs from the Risk Assessment Information System, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: https://rais.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/tools/TOX_search?select=chem_spef
3. BCFs not available for amphibians; used values for fish.
4. NOAELs listed in Table H.3 and LOAELs listed in Table H.5.
5. Vanadium NOAEL from Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Vanadium, Interim Final, OSWER Directive 9285.7-75, April 2005.
Vanadium LOAEL is geometric mean of the LOAELs for growth, reproduction, and survival.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level
BCF = bioconcentration factor
mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram per day
kgBW = kilograms body weight
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.43
Refined Food Web Modeling - Meadow Vole
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil
I'liinl Tissue
Worm Tissue
Miixiiiiiiin
Soil
( oneenli'iilion
(oneenli'iilion
Surface Wiilcr
A\criiiic l);iil\
NOAI'.I.
1.OA 1.1.
1 CI.
(niu/k^. (In
(niii/k». (In
('oneenli'iilion
Dose
NOAKI.
1.OA 1.1.
l-'.eolo^iciil
l-'.eoloiiiciil
( hemie;il
(nig/kg)
Soil-lo-pkinl l$.\I-1
weiiihl)
Soil-lo-worm IJAI"1
weiiihl)
(m)
(illli/kii-(l;i\ f
(mg/kg-(l:i> )"
Quotient
Quotient
Antimony
2.305
ln(Cp) = 0.9381n(Cs) - 3.233
0.09
1
2.305
0
0.010
0.059
0.59
0.2
0.02
Arsenic
34.7
0.03752
1.30
ln(worm) = 0.7061n(soil) - 1.421
2.954
0.0047
0.115
1.04
1.66
0.1
0.07
Cadmium
1.19
ln(Cp) = 0.5461n(Cs) - 0.475
0.68
ln(worm) = 0.7951n(soil) + 2.114
9.510
0.007
0.049
0.77
7.7
0.06
0.006
Chromium
30.5
0.041
1.25
0.306
9.333
0.003
0.114
2.4
2.82
0.05
0.04
Copper
92.4
ln(Cp) = 0.3941n(Cs) + 0.668
11.60
0.515
47.586
0.0138
0.770
5.6
9.34
0.1
0.08
Lead
2220
ln(Cp) = 0.5611n(Cs) - 1.328
19.98
ln(worm) = 0.8071n(soil) - 0.218
403.488
2.5
4.806
4.7
8.9
1
0.5
Mercury
0.166
5
0.83
95% upper predicted level
2.641
0.000094
0.046
0.054
0.269
0.8
0.2
Selenium
5.96
ln(Cp) = 1.1041n(Cs)-0.677
3.65
ln(worm) = 0.7331n(soil) - 0.075
3.433
0
0.199
0.143
0.215
1
0.9
Zinc
220
ln(Cp) = 0.5541n(Cs) + 1.575
95.88
ln(worm) = 0.3281n(soil) + 4.449
501.754
0.610
5.901
75.4
75.9
0.08
0.08
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Benzo [a] anthracene
1.31
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.08
1.59
2.083
0.00017
0.00805
Bcnzo|a|pvrcnc
1.17
ln(Cp) = 0.9751n(Cs) - 2.0615
0.15
1.33
1.556
0
0.011
Benzo [b]fluoranthene
1.84
0.31
0.57
2.6
4.784
0.00026
0.037
B enzo |g, h,il perylene
0.596
ln(Cp) = 1.18291n(Cs) - 0.9313
0.21
2.94
1.752
0
0.014
Benzo [kjfluoranthene
0.519
ln(Cp) = 0.85951n(Cs) - 2.1579
0.07
2.6
1.349
0
0.00555
Evaluated as sum of high molecular weight PAHs
Chrysene
1.33
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.08
2.29
3.046
0
0.00915
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
1
0.13
0.13
2.31
2.310
0
0.011
Indeno [ 1,2,3-c,dlpyrene
0.994
0.11
0.11
2.86
2.843
0
0.010
Pyrene
1.8
0.72
1.30
1.75
3.148
0
0.072
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
0.177
0.615
3.07
0.3
0.06
Dieldrin
0.00107
0.41
0.000439
14.7
0.016
0
0.0000415
0.015
0.03
0.003
0.001
4,4'-DDD
0.0066
ln(Cp) = 0.75241n(Cs) - 2.5119
0.001856
11.2
0.074
0
0.000187
4,4'-DDE
0.00245
ln(Cp) = 0.75241n(Cs) - 2.5119
0.000880
11.2
0.027
0
0.0000791
See sum of DDD, DDE, and DDT
4,4'-DDT
0.00498
ln(Cp) = 0.75241n(Cs) - 2.5119
0.001501
11.2
0.056
0
0.000146
Sum of DDD/DDE/DDT
0.000412
0.147
0.735
0.003
0.0006
Exposure Assumptions - Meadow Vole (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table X.2)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.00126168
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.35
Moisture content of plants 0.85
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.05145
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.00112
Surface water ingestion rate (L/kgBW-day) 0.21
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 98% plants and 2% invertebrates.
Notes:
1. Soil-to-worm and soil-to-plant BAFs from EPA (2007).
2. NOAELs listed in Table H.4 mid LOAELs listed in Table H.6.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram per day
Cs = concentration in soil
kgBW = kilograms body weight
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
Cp = concentration in plant tissue
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.44
Refined Food Web Modeling - Short-Tailed Shrew
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil
Worm Tissue
Miixiiiiiiin
Soil 95%
I'liiiil Tissue
( oneenlr;ilion
Sii rl'iiee \\ ;Mer
A\er«i}»e l);iil\
NOAI'.I.
I.OAI.I.
LCL
(oiK'CIIII'illioil
(mii/kii. (In
('oiieeiili'iilion
Dose
\ OA 1.1.
1.OA 1.1.
I.coloiiiciil
I.coloiiiciil
( hemie;il
(mii/kii)
Soil-lo-pliinl IJAI"1
I nig/kg. (In \\eijih()
Soil-lo-worm IJAI"1
wciiihl)
(m^/L)
(m»/kii-(l;i\)
(m»/kii-(l;i\ )"
()"
Quotient
Quotient
Antimony
2.305
ln(Cp) = 0.9381n(Cs) - 3.233
0.09
1
2.305
0
0.18918
0.059
0.59
3
o ;
Arsenic
34.67
0.03752
1.301
ln(worm) = 0.7061n(soil) -1.421
2.95171861
0.0047
0.34834
1.04
1.66
0.3
0.2
Cadmium
1.188
ln(Cp) = 0.5461n(Cs) - 0.475
0.683
ln(worm) = 0.7951n(soil) + 2.114
9.496806846
0.007
0.76248
0.77
7.7
1
0.1
Chromium
30.48
0.041
1.250
0.306
9.32688
0.003
0.83771
2.4
2.82
0.3
0.3
Copper
92.4
ln(Cp) = 0.3941n(Cs) + 0.668
11.603
0.515
47.586
0.0138
4.17139
5.6
9.34
0.7
0.4
Lead
2220
ln(Cp) = 0.5611n(Cs) -1.328
19.978
ln(worm) = 0.8071n(soil) - 0.218
403.4880281
2.5
38.79971
4.7
8.9
S
4
Mercury
0.166
5
0.830
95% upper predicted level
2.641
0.000094
0.22012
0.07
0.352
J)
() (>
Selenium
5.961
ln(Cp) = 1.1041n(Cs)-0.677
3.647
ln(worm) = 0.7331n(soil) - 0.075
3.433498248
0.000
0.33825
0.143
0.215
¦)
Zinc
219.7
ln(Cp) = 0.5541n(Cs) + 1.575
95.805
ln(worm) = 0.3281n(soil) + 4.449
501.5294138
0.610
41.59598
75.4
75.9
0.6
0.5
High Molecular Weight PAHs
B enzo [a] anthracene
1.312
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.078
1.59
2.086
0.00017
0.16910
Evaluated as sum of high molecular weight PAHs
Bcnzo|a|pvrcnc
1.165
ln(Cp) = 0.9751n(Cs) - 2.0615
0.148
1.33
1.549
0
0.12736
Benzo [b]fluoranthene
1.84
0.31
0.570
2.6
4.784
0.00026
0.39000
Bcnzo|g.h.i Ipcrvlcnc
0.5957
ln(Cp) = 1.18291n(Cs) - 0.9313
0.214
2.94
1.751
0
0.14260
Benzo [kjfluoranthene
0.5186
ln(Cp) = 0.85951n(Cs) - 2.1579
0.066
2.6
1.348
0
0.10857
Chrysene
1.331
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.079
2.29
3.048
0
0.24489
Dibenz[a,h] anthracene
1
0.13
0.130
2.31
2.310
0
0.18656
I ndc no 11.2.3 -c. d | p v rc nc
0.9941
0.11
0.109
2.86
2.843
0
0.22824
Pyrene
1.8
0.72
1.295
1.75
3.148
0
0.27117
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
1.86849
0.615
3.07
0.6
Aroclor-1260
0.0277
0.05
0.00138
73.1
2.025
0
0.15958
0.067
0.67
0.2
Dieldrin
0.001068
0.41
0.00044
14.7
0.016
0
0.00125
0.015
0.03
0.08
0.04
4,4'-DDD
0.0066
ln(Cp) = 0.75241n(Cs) - 2.5119
0.00186
11.2
0.074
0
0.00587
See sum of DDD, DDE, and DDT
4,4'-DDE
0.002446
ln(Cp) = 0.75241n(Cs) - 2.5119
0.00088
11.2
0.027
0
0.00218
4,4'-DDT
0.004978
ln(Cp) = 0.75241n(Cs) - 2.5119
0.00150
11.2
0.056
0
0.00443
Sum of DDD/DDE/DDT
0.01247
0.147
0.735
0.08
0.02
Exposure Assumptions - Short-Tailed Shrew (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table X.2)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.002784234
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.62
Moisture content of plants 0.85
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.014043
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.0787648
Surface water ingestion rate (L/kgBW-day) 0.223
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 15.1% plants and 79.4% invertebrates.
Notes:
1. Soil-to-worm and soil-to-plant BAFs from EPA (2007).
2. NOAELs listed in Table H.4 and LOAELs listed in Table H.6.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
mg/kg-day = milligrams per kilogram per day
Cs = concentration in soil
kgBW = kilograms body weight
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
Cp = concentration in plant tissue
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.45
Refined Comparison to Sediment Benchmarks
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil and Sediment
AiiiilMi-1'1
Soil i men 1 licncli m;i rk
95% UCL5
(Jiinlienl
Value
Sou ree
Aiuiiuoiin
¦J
a
2.305
1.2
Arsenic
9.8
a
34.7
4
Cadmium
0.99
a
1.19
i:
Chromium
43.4
a
30.5
0.7
Cobalt
50
a
24.8
0.5
Copper
31.6
a
92.4
Cyanide
0.1
a
2.31
Iron
20,000
a
39,800
Lead
35.8
a
2220
<>:
Manganese
460
a
949
Mercury
0.18
a
0.166
0
Nickel
22.7
a
31.1
1 4
Selenium
2
a
5.96
Silver
1
a
0.864
o.<>
Zinc
121
a
220
2
4,4'-DDD
Evaluated as sum of DDD, DDE, and
DDT
0.0066
4,4'-DDE
0.00245
4,4'-DDT
0.00498
DDT and Metabolites
0.00528
a
0.0140
Total Chlordane
0.00324
a
0.00846
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0.00237
a
0.000843
0.4
Dieldrin
0.0019
a
0.00107
0.6
Endrin Ketone
0.00222
a2
0.002855
1 ^
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.00247
a
0.001495
0.6
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.0202
a
NC
NC
Acenaphthene
0.0067
a
NC
NC
Acenaphthylene
0.0059
a
NC
NT
Anthracene
0.0572
a
0.266
5
Fluoranthene
0.423
a
2.27
5
Fluorene
0.0774
a
NC
\(
Phenanthrene
0.204
a
0.961
5
Benzo(a)anthracene
0.108
a
1.31
i:
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.15
a
1.17
s
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Evaluated as benzo(b+k)fluoranthene
1.84
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.519
Benzo(b+k)fluoranthene
0.0272
a
0.812
.<)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
0.17
a
0.596
4
Chrysene
0.166
a
1.33
S
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
0.033
a
NC
\(
Indeno( 1,2,3 ,-c,d)pyrene
0.017
a
0.994
58
Pyrene
0.195
a
1.8
<)
4-Chloro aniline
0.146
b
NC
\(
bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
0.18
a
0.530
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table H.45
Refined Comparison to Sediment Benchmarks
Forested Wetland Habitat - Soil and Sediment
Soil i men 1 licncli m;i rk
AiiiilMi-1'1
Value
Sou ree
95% UCL5
(Jiinlienl
2-Butanone
0.0424
b; SD EPA R5 ESL
Sediment Screening
Benchmark4
0.02657
0.6
Acetone
0.0099
b
0.03305
Carbon Disulfide
0.000851
a
0.003965
5
NC = not calculated; insufficient number of detections to calculate a 95% UCL
SD EPA R5 ESL = EPA Region 5 sediment ecological screening levels
UCL = upper confidence limit
Shaded cell indicates a quotient greater than 1.
Sediment screening benchmark sources:
a) Region 3 Freshwater Sediment Screening Benchmarks
b) Oak Ridge National Laboratory Screening Benchmarks
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table H.46
Refined Food Web Modeling - Mink
Forested Wetland Habitat - Surface Water and Soil/Sediment
Chemieal
Maximum Surl'aee
Waler Doled ion
(mjj/L)
Soil/
Seriimenl
95% UCL
(mii/kii)
Seriimenl-lo-lienlhie
ln\erlel>rale IJSAI"1
lien I hie
ln\erlel>rale
Tissue
( oiieenlralion
(mii/kii. (In
weiiihl)
Soil-lo-mammal ISAI"~
Mammal Tissue
(oiieenlralion
(nig/kg. (In
weiiihl)
Sii rfaee
\\ aler-lo-
l isli IK I
(L/k«)3
l-'isli Tissue
(oiieenlralion
(niii/k». \\el
weiiihl)
A\era lie
Dail\ Dose
(m;i/k;i-(la\)
\OAI.I.
(m;i/kii-(la.\ )4
I.OAKI.
(niii/k^-(la> )4
NOAII.
l-'.eoloiiieal
Quolienl
I.OAKI.
l-leolo
-------
Table H.47
Refined Food Web Modeling - Green Heron
Forested Wetland Habitat - Surface Water and Soil/Sediment
Maximum Surface
Soil/Scdimcnl
Bcnlhic 1 n\erlehi*;ilo Tissue
Plaul Tissue
l-'isli Tissue
Surface \\ alcr
Amphibian 1 issue
NOAI.I.
I.OAI.I.
\\ alcr Dclcclion
95% UCL
Conccnlralion
( onccnlralion
Surface \\ alcr-lo-
( onccnlralion
lo-Anipliihian
( onccnlralion
A\craiic l)ail\ Dose
\ OA 1.1.
LOAEL
I'.colo^ical
l-'.colo^ical
( hcmical
(m)
(mvi/kvi-(la>f
(m«.i/k!i-(la\ f
Quolienl
Quolienl
Metals
Lead
2.5
2220
log(tissue) = -0.515 + 0.653 log(sediment)
46.79166427
ln(Cp) = 0.5611n(Cs) -1.328
19.97841116
300
750
300
750
129.6
1.63
3.26
79
40
Mercury
0.000094
0.166
log(tissue) = -0.67 + 0.3271og(sediment)
0.118843476
5
0.83
1000
0.094
1000
0.094
0.0171
0.0064
0.064
0.3
Zinc
0.61
220
log(tissue) =1.77 + 0.2421og(sediment)
217.2032347
ln(Cp) = 0.5541n(Cs) + 1.575
95.87733947
1,000
610
1,000
610
102.4
66.1
86.6
J
1
Exposure Assumptions - Green Heron (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil/Sediment ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.0023085
(g/g-day) 0.098
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.19
Moisture content of benthic invertebrates 0.78
Benthic invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.00418
Moisture content of Plants 0.85
Plants ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.000855
Moisture content of amphibians 0.755
Amphibians ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.038
Moisture content of Fish 0.75
Fish ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.1273
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 3% plants, 10% benthic invertebrates, 20% amphibians, and 67% fish.
Notes:
1. BSAF is equation with the highest R-square value, Table 3, Bechtel Jacobs, 1998.
2. Soil-to-plant BAFs from EPA, 2007.
3. Fish BAFs from the Risk Assessment Information System, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: https://rais.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/tools/TOX_search?select=chem_spef
4. BCFs not available for amphibians; used values for fish.
5. NOAELs listed in Table H.3 and LOAELs listed in Table H.5.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level
Cm = concentration in mammal tissue
Cp = concentration in plant tissue
Cs = concentration in soil
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
BCF = bioconcentration factor
BSAF = biota sediment accumulation factor
kgBW = kilograms body weight
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
References:
Bechtel-Jacobs, 1998. Biota Sediment Accumulation Factors for Invertebrates: Review and Recommendations for the Oak Ridge Reservation. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. BJC/OR-112, August.
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.48
Summary of Ecological Risk Drivers
Forested Wetland Habitat
Kcolo^iciil Risk
Drixei
Medium
.\ITcclcil Rcccplor(s)
Comments
Aluminum
Surface water
Aquatic community
Antimony
Soil/sediment
Plants and benthic
invertebrates
Background constituent;
benthic invertebrate
quotient is 1 to one
significant figure
Arsenic
Soil/sediment
Plants and benthic
invertebrates
Barium
Surface water
Aquatic community
Beryllium
Soil/sediment
Plants and benthic
invertebrates
Limited presence of
contamination; no
screening value for
benthic invertebrates
Cadmium
Soil/sediment
Avian insectivores and
benthic invertebrates
Benthic invertebrate
quotient is 1 to one
significant figure
Surface water
Aquatic community
Calcium
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, benthic
invertebrates
No screening values
Surface water
Aquatic community
Chromium
Soil
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates
Cobalt
Soil
Plants
Copper
Soil
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, avian
insectivores, and benthic
invertebrates
To one significant figure,
the 95% UCL results in a
quotient of 1 for plants
and invertebrates
Cyanide
Soil/sediment
Plants and benthic
invertebrates
Iron
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, and benthic
invertebrates
Background constituent
Surface water
Aquatic community
Lead
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, benthic
invertebrates, insectivores,
and piscivores
To one significant figure,
the 95% UCL results in a
quotient of 1 for
terrestrial invertebrates
Surface water
Aquatic community
Magnesium
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, benthic
invertebrates
No screening values
Manganese
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, benthic
invertebrates
Surface water
Aquatic community
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table H.48
Summary of Ecological Risk Drivers
Forested Wetland Habitat
Kcol(>!>ic;il Risk
Dmer
Medium
Affected Kcccplor(s)
Comments
Mercury
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, avian
insectivores
Used methyl mercury
TRVs for food web
modeling
Surface water
Aquatic community
Background constituent
Nickel
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Benthic invertebrate
quotient is 1 to one
significant figure
Potassium
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, benthic
invertebrates
Background constituent
Selenium
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, insectivores,
and benthic invertebrates
Sodium
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, benthic
invertebrates
No screening values
Tin
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, benthic
invertebrates
No screening value for
benthic invertebrates
Vanadium
Soil/sediment
Plants, avian insectivores,
and benthic invertebrates
Limited presence of
contamination; no
sediment benchmark
Zinc
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, avian
insectivores, benthic
invertebrates, and piscivores
Surface water
Aquatic community
2-Methylnaphthalene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Low detection frequency
but reporting limits
greater than benchmark
4-Chloroaniline
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Low detection frequency
but reporting limits
greater than benchmark
Acenaphthene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Low detection frequency
but reporting limits
greater than benchmark
Acenaphthylene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Low detection frequency
but reporting limits
greater than benchmark
Anthracene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Benzo(a)anthracene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Surface water
Aquatic community
Upstream influence
Benzo(a)pyrene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Benzo(b+k)fluoranthene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Chrysene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Low detection frequency
but reporting limits
greater than benchmark
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table H.48
Summary of Ecological Risk Drivers
Forested Wetland Habitat
Kcol(>!>ic;il Risk
Dmer
Medium
Affected Kcccplor(s)
Comments
Fluoranthene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Fluorene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Low detection frequency
but reporting limits
greater than benchmark
Indeno( 1,2,3 -c,d)pyrene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Phenanthrene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Pyrene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
DDD/DDE/DDT
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Chlordane, total
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Endrin ketone
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Benthic invertebrate
quotient is 1 to one
significant figure
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Acetone
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Carbon disulfide
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Acetophenone
Surface water
Aquatic community
No screening value;
upstream influence
Benzaldehyde
Surface water
Aquatic community
No screening value;
upstream influence
Caprolactam
Surface water
Aquatic community
No screening value;
upstream influence
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table H.49
Refined Benchmark Comparison for Plants
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
An.ilMc
Pliinl Ifrni'liiiiiirk
95% UCL
Quotient
Y.ilui' (mg/kg)
Sou itc
Antimony
0.48
1995 Soil BTAG
2.52
5
5
Efroymson, et al, 1997
0.5
Arsenic
18
Eco-SSL
12
0.7
Beryllium
0.02
1995 Soil BTAG
1.07
54
10
Efroymson, et al, 1997
o 1
Chromium
0.02
1995 Soil BTAG
16.3
S 1 5
1
Efroymson, et al, 1997
l(>
Cobalt
13
Eco-SSL
20.8
Copper
70
Eco-SSL
24.1
0.3
Cyanide
0.9
CCME Agricultural
0.451
0.5
Lead
120
Eco-SSL
3425
Manganese
220
Eco-SSL
1484
Mercury
0.058
1995 Soil BTAG
0.133
0.3
Efroymson, et al, 1997
04
Nickel
38
Eco-SSL
21.5
() (>
Selenium
0.52
Eco-SSL
3.36
(>
Tin
0.89
1995 Soil BTAG
8.19
K)
50
Efroymson, et al, 1997
u:
Vanadium
0.5
1995 Soil BTAG
22.7
45
2
Efroymson, et al, 1997
1 1
Zinc
160
Eco-SSL
102
U.t>
Aroclor-1248
See Total PCBs
0.036
See Total PCBS
Aroclor 1254
0.0409
Aroclor 1260
0.0194
Total PCBs
0.1
1995 Soil BTAG
0.0963
1.0
40
Efroymson, et al, 1997
0.002
Methylene Chloride
0.1
CCME Agricultural
0.0244
0.2
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
UCL = upper confidence limit
BTAG = EPA Biological Technical Assistance Group
CCME = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
Eco-SSL = ecological soil screening level
Shaded cell indicates a quotient greater than 1.
All values are from EPA's Eco-SSLs (EPA, 2003b, with updates) unless otherwise noted.
Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for
Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3.
1995 BTAG = Biological Technical Advisory Group screening values
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.50
Refined Comparison to Terrestrial Invertebrate Benchmarks
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
An.ilMc
Icnvslriiil ln\cru-l>i'iiU- IfriK-hniiirk
95% UCL
Quotient
\ iiluc (mii/kii)
Sou ivc
Barium
330
Eco-SSL
147
0.4
Chromium
0.0075
1995 Soil BTAG
16.3
:\~i
0.4
Efroymson, et al, 1997
41
Cobalt
40
CCME Agricultural
20.8
0.5
Copper
80
Eco-SSL
24.1
0.3
Cyanide
0.9
CCME Agricultural
0.451
0.5
Lead
6,417
Site-Specific NOEC for Lead
3425
0.5
Manganese
450
Eco-SSL
1484
Mercury
0.058
1995 Soil BTAG
0.133
0.1
Efroymson, et al, 1997
1 ^
Selenium
4.1
Eco-SSL
3.36
0 S
Tin
0.89
1995 Soil BTAG
8.19
<)
2000
Efroymson, et al, 1997
0.004
Vanadium
58
1995 Soil BTAG
22.7
0.4
130
CCME Agricultural
0.2
Zinc
120
Eco-SSL
102
0.9
NOEC = no observed effects concentration
mg/kg = milligram per kilogram
Eco-SSL = ecological soil screening level
CCME = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
BTAG = EPA Biological Technical Assistance Group
UCL = upper confidence limit
Shaded cell indicates a quotient greater than 1.
All values are from EPA's Eco-SSLs (EPA, 2003b, with updates) unless otherwise noted.
Efroymson, R.A., M.E, Will, and G.W. Suter II. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants
of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Processes:
1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2.
1995 BTAG = Biological Technical Advisory Group screening values
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.51
Refined Food Web Modeling - American Woodcock
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
Sii rf;icc
Pliinl Tissue
\\ onil Tissue
Wilier
Soil 95%
(oiK'cnli'iilioii
Log
Log
('oiKTiilr;ilion
95%
A\ oi'iigo
\ OA 1.1.
I.OAII.
\ OA 1.1.
I.OAII.
UCL
Log Kow
(mg/kg. dn
Kow
Kw w
Kdw
Koc
Kd
(mg/kg. dn
UCL
l);iil\ Dose
(nig/kg-
(mg/kg-
l-'.i'ologii'iil
l-'.cologiciil
( homiciil
(mg/kg)
(L/kg)2
Soil-lo-pliiiil ISAI"'
weigh!)
(L/kg)2
(L/kg)
(L/kg)
(L/kg)2
(L/kg)
Soil-lo-worm IJAI-"4
weiglil)
(mg/L)'
(mg/kg-(lii>)
dii\)"
¦ \6
(l;i\)
Qiiolk-nl
Qiiolk-nl
Arsenic
12.04
Not used
0.03752
0.452
Not Used
2.01
24.20
0.0021
2.827
2.24
3.55
1
0.8
Cadmium
0.904
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.5461n(Cs) - 0.475
0.589
Not Used
2.07
1.87
0.00475
0.225
1.47
2.37
0.2
0.1
Chromium
16.27
Not used
0.041
0.667
Not Used
log(Ce) = -1.731og(Cs) + 2.06
0.92
0.0032
0.317
2.66
2.78
0.1
0.1
Cobalt
20.84
Not used
0.0075
0.156
Not Used
log(Ce) = 0.6921og(Cs) - 0.867
1.11
0.018
0.391
7.61
7.8
0.1
0.05
Copper
24.12
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.3941n(Cs) + 0.668
6.835
Not Used
0.17
4.10
0.012
0.843
4.05
12.1
0.2
0.07
Lead
3425
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.5611n(Cs) -1.328
25.480
Not Used
log(Ce) = 0.5581og(Cs) - 0.190
60.58
1.35
50.720
1.63
3.26
'1
16
Manganese7
1484
Not used
0.079
117.236
Not Used
Ce = 0.0064(Cs,n) - 5.08
76.59
2.25
28.981
179
348
u:
0.1
Mercury
0.133
Not used
5
0.665
Not Used
95% upper predicted level
2.44
0.00037
0.279
0.0064
0.064
44
4
Selenium
3.355
Not used
ln(Cp) = 1.1041n(Cs) -0.677
1.934
Not Used
Ce = 0.136(Cs,n)- 0.798
3.84
0.002
0.490
0.29
0.579
0.8
Silver
1.002
Not used
0.014
0.014
Not Used
0.26
0.26
0.0092
0.043
2.02
20.2
0.02
0.002
Vanadium8
22.71
Not used
0.00485
0.110
Not Used
log(Ce) = 1.771og(Cs) - 2.83
0.37
0.0088
0.332
0.344
0.413
1
0.8
Zinc
102.4
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.5541n(Cs) + 1.575
62.8
Not Used
0.3
30.72
0.266
5.479
66.1
86.6
0.1
0.06
Aroclor-1254
0.04092
6.5
0.1393
0.00570
6.5
3.66
28241
130500
1305
21.6
0.884
0
0.098
0.18
1.8
0.5
0.05
Aroclor-1260
0.01943
7.6
0.0499
0.00097
7.6
4.61
255788
349700
3497
73.1
1.420
0
0.157
0.18
1.8
0.9
0.09
Exposure Assumptions - American Woodcock (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.012728716
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.77
Moisture content of plants 0.85
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.0121275
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.110264
Surface water ingestion rate (L/kgBW-day) 0.1
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 10.5% plants and 89.5% invertebrates.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
Cp = concentration in plant tissue
Cs = concentration in soil
Ce = concentration is earthworm tissue
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
Cs,n = concentration in soil, normalized to total organic carbon, where average total organic carbon content is 11.6%.
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
Koc = organic carbon partition coefficient
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
kgBW = kilograms body weight
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
Notes:
1. Maximum detection used if insufficient number of detections (more than 5) to calculate a 95% UCL.
2. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
3. Soil-to-plant BAFs from EPA (2007). For chemicals with no BAFs listed in EPA, 2007, log BAF = -0.40571ogKow + 1.781 (Figure 4, Panel B, EPA, 2007).
4. Site specific soil-to-earthworm BAFs were used where available (see Table H.7). If no site-specific BAFs available, soil-to-worm BAFs obtained from EPA (2007)
For chemicals not listed in EPA (2007), soil-to-worm BAFs calculated with Jager model as presented in EPA (2007) and below.
log = 0.87*log Row " 2
Converted from wet weight to dry weight assuming 16% solids
K, = foc * Koc
foc = 0.01 (1%)
BAF = KdW (L/kg worm dry weight)/^ (L/kg soil dry weight)
5. Maximum detection used if insufficient number of detections (more than 5) to calculate a 95% UCL.
6. NOAELs and LOAELs listed in Tables H.3 and H.5, respectively.
7. Manganese NOAEL from Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Manganese Interim Final, OSWER Directive 9285.7-71, April 2007.
Manganese LOAEL is geometric mean of the LOAELs for growth, reproduction, and survival.
8. Vanadium NOAEL from Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Vanadium, Interim Final, OSWER Directive 9285.7-75, April 2005.
Vanadium LOAEL is geometric mean of the LOAELs for growth, reproduction, and survival.
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.52
Refined Food Web Modeling - Eastern Phoebe
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
Pliinl Tissue
\\ onil Tissue
Surface
Soil 95%
CoiKTIIII'illioil
Log
Log
( oniTiili'iilion
Wilier
A\cr;ige
\ OA 1.1.
i.oaki.
NOAI'.I.
1.OA 1.1.
UCL
Log Kow
(mg/kg. dn
Kow
Kw w
Kdw
Koc
Kd
(mg/kg. dn
95% UCL
l);iil\ Dose
(mg/kg-
(mg/kg-
I'.cologiciil
Kcologic;il
( hern ic;il
(mg/kg)1
(L/kg)2
Soil-lo-pliinl ISAI"'
weigh!)
(L/kg)2
(L/kg)
(L/kg)
(L/kg)2
(L/kg)
Soil-lo-woi'in IJAI"4
weigh!)
(ing/l./
(mg/kg-dii>)
¦ \6
d;i\)
¦ \6
d;i\)
Quotient
Quotient
Arsenic
12.04
\ol u;>ed
0.03752
0.452
\ol L !>cd
2.01
24.2004
0.0021
5.901
2.24
3.55
¦J
Cadmium
0.904
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.5461n(Cs) - 0.475
0.589
Not Used
2.07
1.87128
0.00475
0.466
1.47
2.37
0.3
0.2
Chromium
16.27
Not used
0.041
0.667
Not Used
log(Ce) = -1.731og(Cs) + 2.06
0.92
0.0032
0.311
2.66
2.78
0.1
0.1
Cobalt
20.84
Not used
0.0075
0.156
Not Used
log(Ce) = 0.6921og(Cs) - 0.867
1.11
0.018
0.380
7.61
7.8
0.05
0.05
Copper
24.12
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.3941n(Cs) + 0.668
6.84
Not Used
0.17
4.1004
0.012
1.171
4.05
12.1
0.3
0.1
Lead
3425
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.5611n(Cs) - 1.328
25.48
Not Used
log(Ce) = 0.5581og(Cs) - 0.190
60.58
1.35
32.399
1.63
3.26
:u
10
Manganese7
1484
Not used
0.079
117.2
Not Used
Ce = 0.0064(Cs,n) - 5.08
76.59168286
2.25
27.403
179
348
u:
0.1
Mercury
0.133
Not used
5
0.665
Not Used
95% upper predicted level
2.44
0.00037
0.600
0.0064
0.064
9
Selenium
3.355
Not used
ln(Cp) = 1.1041n(Cs) - 0.677
1.93
Not Used
Ce = 0.136(Cs,n)- 0.798
3.843839178
0.002
0.968
0.29
0.579
¦J
Silver
1.002
Not used
0.014
0.01403
Not Used
0.26
0.26052
0.0092
0.071
2.02
20.2
0.03
0.003
Vanadium8
22.71
Not used
0.00485
0.110
Not Used
log(Ce) = 1.771og(Cs) - 2.83
0.37
0.0088
0.207
0.344
0.413
0.6
0.5
Zinc
102.4
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.5541n(Cs) + 1.575
62.77
Not Used
0.3
30.72
0.266
8.498
66.1
86.6
0.1
0.1
Aroclor-1248
0.03604
6.2
0.184
0.00664
6.2
3.394
15484
76530
765.3
20.2
0.728008
0
0.178
0.18
1.8
1
0.1
Aroclor-1254
0.04092
6.5
0.139
0.00570
6.5
3.655
28241
130500
1305
21.6
0.884
0
0.216
0.18
1.8
1
0.1
Aroclor-1260
0.01943
7.6
0.050
0.00097
7.6
4.612
255788
349700
3497
73.1
1.420
0
0.346
0.18
1.8
0.2
Exposure Assumptions - Eastern Phoebe (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.00501458
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 1.57
Moisture content of plants 0.85
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.007065
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.243664
Surface water ingestion rate (L/kgBW-day) 0.209
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 3% plants and 97% invertebrates.
Notes:
1. Maximum detection used if insufficient number of detections (more than 5) to calculate a 95% UCL.
2. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
3. Soil-to-plant BAFs from EPA (2007). For chemicals with no BAFs listed in EPA, 2007, log BAF = -0.40571ogKow + 1.781 (Figure 4, Panel B, EPA, 2007).
4. Site specific soil-to-earthworm BAFs were used where available (see Table H.7). If no site-specific BAFs available, soil-to-worm BAFs obtained from EPA (2007).
For chemicals not listed in EPA (2007), soil-to-worm BAFs calculated with Jager model as presented in EPA (2007) and below.
log = 0.87*log Row " 2
Converted from wet weight to dry weight assuming 16% solids
Kd = foc * K„c
foc = 0.01 (1%)
BAF = Kdw (L/kg worm dry weight)/!^ (L/kg soil dry weight)
5. Maximum detection used if insufficient number of detections (more than 5) to calculate a 95% UCL.
6. NOAELs and LOAELs listed in Tables H.3 and H.5, respectively.
7. Manganese NOAELfrom Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Manganese Interim Final, OSWER Directive 9285.7-71, April 2007.
Manganese LOAEL is geometric mean of the LOAELs for growth, reproduction, and survival.
8. Vanadium NOAEL from Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Vanadium, Interim Final, OSWER Directive 9285.7-75, April 2005.
Vanadium LOAEL is geometric mean of the LOAELs for growth, reproduction, and survival.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
Cp = concentration in plant tissue
Cs = concentration in soil
Ce = concentration is earthworm tissue
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
Cs,n = concentration in soil, normalized to total organic carbon, where average total organic carbon content is 11.6%.
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
Koc = organic carbon partition coefficient
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
kgBW = kilograms body weight
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.53
Refined Food Web Modeling - Barred Owl
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
Chemieal
Soil «)5%
I CI.
(msi/km'
Sii rl'aee
Wilier
95% UCL
(m^/L)1
Soil-lo-worm UAI-"
a
1)
Worm Tissue
Coneeiilralion
(niii/k«i. (In
weiiihl)
Soil-lo-inaiiimal
IJAI
Mammal
Tissue
Coneeiilralion
(mii/kii. dn
weiiihl)
Su rfaee
W aler-lo-
Amphihian
IJ( 1 '
Amphibian
Tissue
Coneeiilralion
(niii/k;i. wel
weiiihl)
Sn rl'aee
W aler-lo-
lisli IKT'4
l-'isli Tissue
Coneeiilralion
(niii/kii. wel
weiiihl)
A\era lie
l)ail\
Dose
(msi/kii-
d;i\)
NOAI'.I.
(mii/kii-
(l;i\ I""
I.OAT.I.
(niii/k»-
(l;i\
NOAT.I.
T.eoloiiieal
Quotient
I.OAT.I.
T.eolo*iieal
Quotient
Metals
Arsenic
12.04
0.0021
2.01
0.71
-1.42
24.200
ln(Cm) =
0.81881n(Cs)-4.8471
0.0602
300
0.6300
300
0.630
0.0072
2.24
3.55
0.003
0.002
Cadmium
0.904
0.00475
2.07
0.8
2.11
1.871
ln(Cm) =
0.47231n(Cs) - 1.2571
0.27
200
0.9500
200
0.950
0.0049
1.47
2.37
0.003
0.002
Chromium
16.27
0.0032
log(Ce) = -1.731og(Cs)
+ 2.06
-1.73
2.06
0.921
ln(Cm) =
0.73381n(Cs) - 1.4599
1.80
200
0.6400
200
0.6400
0.0149
2.66
2.78
0.006
0.005
Cobalt
20.84
0.018
log(Ce) = 0.6921og(Cs)
- 0.867
0.69
-0.87
1.111
ln(Cm) = 1.3071n(Cs)
- 4.4669
0.61
300
5.4
300
5.4
0.0189
7.61
7.8
0.002
0.002
Copper
24.12
0.012
0.17
4.100
ln(Cm) =
0.14441n(Cs)+2.042
12.20
200
2.4
200
2.4
0.0952
4.05
12.1
0.02
0.008
Lead
3425
1.35
log(Ce) = 0.5581og(Cs)
-0.190
0.56
-0.19
60.582
ln(Cm) =
0.44221n(Cs) +
0.0761
39.5
300
405
300
405
1.3705
1.63
3.26
0.8
0.4
Manganese6
1484
2.25
Ce = 0.0064(Cs,n) -
5.08
0.01
-5.08
76.592
0.0205
30.4
400
900
400
900
2.6205
179
348
0.01
0.008
Selenium
3.355
0.002
Ce = 0.136(Cs,n)
- 0.798
0.14
-0.08
3.844
ln(Cm) =
0.37641n(Cs) - 0.4158
1.04
200
0.4
200
0.4
0.0094
0.29
0.579
0.03
0.02
Silver
1.002
0.0092
0.26
0.261
0.004
0.00401
5
0.046
5
0.046
0.0002
2.02
20.2
0.0001
0.00001
Vanadium7
22.71
0.0088
log(Ce) = 1.771og(Cs)
-2.83
1.77
-2.83
0.372
0.0123
0.28
1
0.0088
1
0.0088
0.0021
0.344
0.413
0.006
0.005
Zinc
102.4
0.266
0.3
30.720
ln(Cm) =
0.07061n(Cs) +
4.3632
108.85
1000
266
1000
266
1.4960
66.1
86.6
0.02
0.02
Exposure Assumptions - Barred Owl (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
Cp = concentration in plant tissue
Cs = concentration in soil
Ce = concentration is earthworm tissue
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.0265
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Moisture content of mammals 0.68
Moisture content of amphibians 0.755
Moisture content of fish 0.75
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.000212
Mammal ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.007208
Amphibian ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.001325
Fish ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.001325
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 5% invertebrates, 85% small mammals, 5% amphibians, and 5% fish.
Notes:
1. Maximum detection used if insufficient number of detections (more than 5) to calculate a 95% UCL.
2. Site-specific soil-to-worm BAFs listed in Table H.7.
3. BCFs not available for amphibians; used values for fish.
4. Fish BCFs from the Risk Assessment Information System, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: https://rais.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/tools/TOX_search?select=chem_spef
5. NOAELs and LOAELs listed in Tables H.3 and H.5, respectively.
6. Manganese NOAEL from Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Manganese Interim Final, OSWER Directive 9285.7-71, April 2007.
Manganese LOAEL is geometric mean of the LOAELs for growth, reproduction, and survival.
7. Vanadium NOAEL from Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Vanadium, Interim Final, OSWER Directive 9285.7-75, April 2005.
Vanadium LOAEL is geometric mean of the LOAELs for growth, reproduction, and survival.
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
Koc = organic carbon partition coefficient
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
kgBW = kilograms body weight
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
BCF = bioconcentration factor
Cs,n = concentration in soil, normalized to total organic carbon, where average total organic carbon content is 11.6%.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.54
Refined Food Web Modeling - Meadow Vole
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
I'liiiil Tissue
Worm Tissue
Sll I'l'iKT
95% UCL
CoiKTiilriilion
CoiKTiilriilion
\\ iilcr «)5%
A\er;ige
N OA 1.1.
LOAII.
or Soil
lnig/kg. (In
(mji/kii. dn
UCL
l);iil\ Dose
NOAI'.I.
1.OA 1.1.
l-'.eologieiil
Keologie;il
( hcmiciil
(iiiii/kfi)1
Soil-lo-pliinl ISAI-"
neigh I)
Soil-lo-worm HAI-"'
weigh 1)
(mg/L)1
(mg/kg-(lii> )
(mg/kg-(l;i\ )4
(mg/kg-(l;i> )4
Quotient
Quotient
Antimony
2.522
ln(Cp) = 0.9381n(Cs) - 3.233
0.094
1
2.522
0.0017
0.011
0.059
0.59
0.2
0.02
Arsenic
12.04
0.03752
0.452
2.01
24.2004
0.0021
0.066
1.04
1.66
0.06
0.04
Cadmium
0.904
ln(Cp) = 0.5461n(Cs) - 0.475
0.589
2.07
1.87128
0.00475
0.035
0.77
7.7
0.04
0.004
Copper
24.12
ln(Cp) = 0.3941n(Cs) + 0.668
6.835
0.17
4.1004
0.012
0.389
5.6
9.34
0.07
0.04
Lead
3425
ln(Cp)= 0.561 ln(Cs)- 1.328
25.480
log(Ce) = 0.5581og(Cs) - 0.190
60.582
1.35
5.984
4.7
8.9
1
0.7
Manganese
1484
0.079
117.2
Ce = 0.0064(Cs,n) - 5.08
76.592
2.25
8.462
51.5
65
0.2
0.1
Mercury
0.133
5
0.665
95% upper predicted level
2.44
0.00037
0.037
0.054
0.269
0.7
0.1
Selenium
3.355
ln(Cp) = 1.1041n(Cs)-0.677
1.934
Ce = 0.136(Cs,n)-0.798
3.844
0.002
0.108
0.143
0.215
0.8
0.5
Zinc
102.4
ln(Cp) = 0.5541n(Cs) + 1.575
62.765
0.3
30.72
0.266
3.449
75.4
75.9
0.05
0.05
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Benzo [a] anthracene
0.08362
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.0153
1.59
0.1330
0
0.00104
Bcnzo|a|pvrcnc
0.09203
ln(Cp) = 0.9751n(Cs) - 2.0615
0.0124
1.33
0.1224
0
0.00089
Benzo [b]fluoranthene
0.1382
0.31
0.0428
2.6
0.3593
0
0.00278
B enzo |g.h.i|pcrylcne
0.1263
ln(Cp) = 1.18291n(Cs)-0.9313
0.0341
2.94
0.3713
0
0.00233
Evaluated as sum of high molecular weight PAHs
Benzo [kjfluoranthene
0.08888
ln(Cp) = 0.85951n(Cs) - 2.1579
0.0144
2.6
0.2311
0
0.00111
Chrysene
0.1141
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.0184
2.29
0.2613
0
0.00138
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
0.08431
0.13
0.0110
2.31
0.1948
0
0.00089
Indeno 11.2.3-c.d|pvrcnc
0.08494
0.11
0.0093
2.86
0.2429
0
0.00086
Pyrene
0.1311
0.72
0.0944
1.75
0.2294
0
0.00528
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
0.01656
0.615
3.07
0.03
0.005
4,4'-DDD
0.001641
4,4'-DDE
0.002074
4,4'-DDT
0.003042
Sum of DDD/DDE/DDT
0.006757
ln(Cp) = 0.75241n(Cs) - 2.5119
0.00189
11.2
0.076
0
0.000190
0.147
0.735
0.001
0.0003
Exposure Assumptions - Meadow Vole (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.00126168
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.35
Moisture content of plants 0.85
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.05145
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.00112
Surface water ingestion rate (L/kgBW-day) 0.21
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 98% plants and 2% invertebrates.
Notes:
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level
Kow = octanal-water partition coefficient
NA = not applicable
Cs = concentration in soil
Cm = concentration in mammal tissue
Cp = concentration in plant tissue
Ce = concentration is earthworm tissue
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
Eco-SSL = Ecological Soil Screening Level
IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
kgBW = kilograms body weight
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
1. Maximum detection used if insufficient number of detections (more than 5) to calculate a 95% UCL.
2. Soil-to-plant BAFs from EPA (2007).
3. Site specific soil-to-earthworm BAFs were used where available (see Table H.7). If no site-specific BAFs available, soil-to-worm BAFs obtained from EPA (2007).
4. NOAELs are listed in Table H.4 and LOAELs are listed in Table H.6.
5. NOAEL from Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Antimony, Interim Final, OSWER Directive 9285.7-61, February 2005.
LOAEL is the geometric mean of the LOAELs for reproduction, growth, and survival listed in OSWER Directive 9825.7-61.
Cs,n = concentration in soil, normalized to TOC, where average site TOC is 11.629%
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.55
Refined Food Web Modeling - Short-Tailed Shrew
Floodplain Habitat - Soil
( hcmical
95% UCL
(mg/kg)1
Log Kow
(L/kg)2
Soil-lo-planl IJAI"'
Planl Tissue
Concentration
(mg/kg. (In
weigh!)
Log Kow
(L/kg)2
Log
Km w
(L/kg)
Kdw
(L/kg)
Koc
ii./kgr
Kd (l./kg)
Soil-lo-worm IJAI"4
Worm Tissue
( OlllTllll'illioil
(mg/kg. (In
weigh!)
Sii rl'acc
Wilier
95%
UCL
(mg/L)1
A\cragc
l)ail\
Dose
(mg/kg-
(l;i\)
NOAEL
(mg/kg-
day)"
1.OA 1.1.
(mg/kg-
(la\
\o\i:i.
1-lcological
Quotient
1 .OA 111.
l-'.eo logical
Quotient
Antimony"
2.522
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.9381n(Cs) - 3.233
0.09
Not Used
1
2.52
0.0017
0.207
0.059
0.59
4
0.4
Arsenic
12.04
Not used
0.03752
0.45
Not Used
2.01
24.2
0.0021
1.946
1.04
1.66
1
Cadmium
0.904
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.5461n(Cs) - 0.475
0.59
Not Used
2.07
1.87
0.00475
0.159
0.77
7.7
u:
0.02
Copper
24.12
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.3941n(Cs) + 0.668
6.84
Not Used
0.17
4.10
0.012
0.489
5.6
9.34
uu'j
0.05
Lead
3425
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.5611n(Cs) - 1.328
25.48
Not Used
log(Ce) = 0.5581og(Cs) - 0.190
60.6
1.35
14.967
4.7
8.9
¦)
Manganese
1484
Not used
0.079
117.24
Not Used
Ce = 0.0064(Cs,n) - 5.08
76.6
2.25
12.313
51.5
65
u:
0.2
Mercury
0.133
Not used
5
0.665
Not Used
95% upper predicted level
2.44
0.00037
0.202
0.07
0.352
0.6
Selenium
3.355
Not used
ln(Cp) = 1.1041n(Cs)- 0.677
1.93
Not Used
Ce = 0.136(Cs,n)-0.798
3.8
0.002
0.340
0.143
0.215
¦>
Zinc
102.4
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.5541n(Cs) + 1.575
62.77
Not Used
0.3
30.72
0.266
3.645
75.4
75.9
I) OS
0.05
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Benzo [a] anthracene
0.08362
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.0153
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
1.59
0.133
0
0.011
Evaluated as sum of high molecular weight
PAHs
Bcnzo|a|pvrcnc
0.09203
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.9751n(Cs) - 2.0615
0.0124
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
1.33
0.122
0
0.010
Benzo [b]fluoranthene
0.1382
Not used
0.31
0.0428
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.6
0.359
0
0.029
Benzo | g,h,ilperylene
0.1263
Not used
ln(Cp) = 1.18291n(Cs)- 0.9313
0.0341
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.94
0.371
0
0.030
Benzo [kjfluoranthene
0.08888
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.85951n(Cs) - 2.1579
0.0144
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.6
0.231
0
0.019
Chrysene
0.1141
Not used
ln(Cp) = 0.59441n(Cs) - 2.7078
0.0184
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.29
0.261
0
0.021
Dibenz [a,h] anthracene
0.08431
Not used
0.13
0.0110
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.31
0.195
0
0.016
I ndc no 11.2.3 -c. d | p v rc nc
0.08494
Not used
0.11
0.0093
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
2.86
0.243
0
0.020
Pyrene
0.1311
Not used
0.72
0.0944
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
Not used
1.75
0.229
0
0.020
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
0.175
0.615
3.07
0.3
0.06
Aroclor-1248
0.03604
6.2
0.18436
0.00664
6.2
3.39
15483.9
76530
765.3
20.2
0.728
0
0.058
0.043
0.43
1
0.1
Aroclor-1254
0.04092
6.5
0.13930
0.00570
6.5
3.66
28241.0
130500
1305
21.6
0.884
0
0.070
0.067
0.67
1
0.1
Aroclor-1260
0.01943
7.6
0.04985
0.00097
7.6
4.61
255787.9
349700
3497
73.1
1.420
0
0.112
0.067
0.67
0.2
4,4'-DDD
0.001641
See sum of DDD, DDE, and DDT
4,4'-DDE
0.002074
4,4'-DDT
0.003042
Sum of DDD/DDE/DDT
0.006757
Not used |ln(Cp) = 0.75241n(Cs)-2.5119| 0.00189 | Not Used | 11.2 | 0.076 | 0 | 0.00601 | U.147 | 0.735 | 0.04 | 0.008
Exposure Assumptions - Short-Tailed Shrew (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.002784234
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.62
Moisture content of plants 0.85
Moisture content of worms 0.84
Plant ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.014043
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.0787648
Surface water ingestion rate (IVkgBW-day) 0.223
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 15.1% plants and 79.4% invertebrates.
Notes:
1. Maximum detection used if insufficient number of detections (more than 5) to calculate a 95% UCL.
2. Chemical-specific parameters obtained from November 2015 Regional Screening Level Parameters table.
3. Soil-to-plant BAFs from EPA (2007). For chemicals with no BAFs listed in EPA, 2007, log BAF = -0.40571ogKow + 1.781 (Figure 4, Panel B, EPA, 2007).
4. Site specific soil-to-earthworm BAFs were used where available (see Table F1.7). If no site-specific BAFs available, soil-to-worm BAFs obtained from EPA (2007).
For chemicals not listed in EPA (2007), soil-to-worm BAFs calculated with Jager model as presented in EPA (2007) and below.
log = 0.87*log K„w - 2
Converted from wet weight to dry weight assuming 16% solids
Kd = foe * K«
foc = 0.01 (1%)
BAF = K,jw (L/kg worm dry weight)/K,j (L/kg soil dry weight)
5. NOAELs are listed in Table H.4 and LOAELs are listed in Table H.6.
6. NOAEL from Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Antimony, Interim Final, OSWER Directive 9285.7-61, February 2005.
LOAEL is the geometric mean of the LOAELs for reproduction, growth, and survival listed in OSWER Directive 9825.7-61.
BAF = bioaccumulation factor
Koc = organic carbon partition coefficient
Kww = biota to soil water partitioning coefficient
Kd = soil to water partitioning coefficient
kgBW = kilograms body weight
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
Cp = concentration in plant tissue
Cs = concentration in soil
Ce = concentration is earthworm tissue
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight
Cs,n = concentration in soil, normalized to total organic carbon, where average total organic carbon content is 11.6%.
References:
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.56
Refined Comparison to Benthic Invertebrate Benchmarks
Floodplain Habitat - Soil and Sediment
Chcmiciil
Sciveniiiii
liciK'hniiii'k
(nig/kg)
Sci veiling
UcTt'iviu'o
95% IJCL121
(Jiinlicnl
Antimony
2
a
2.292
1 1
Arsenic
9.8
a
11.67
i:
Cadmium
0.99
a
0.857
0.9
Cobalt
50
a
19.77
0.4
Copper
31.6
a
23.62
0.7
Cyanide
0.1
a
0.487
5
Iron
20,000
a
34294
Lead
35.8
a
3365
•u
Manganese
460
a
1380
J)
Mercury
0.18
a
0.133
0.7
Nickel
22.7
a
21
0.9
Selenium
2
a
3.172
Silver
1
a
0.945
0.9
Zinc
121
a
100.2
0.8
Aroclor-1248
Evaluated as total PCBs
--
Aroclor 1254
—
Aroclor 1260
—
Total PCBs
0.0598 a
0.02431
0.4
4,4'-DDD
Evaluated as sum of DDD, DDE, and
DDT
--
4,4'-DDE
--
4,4'-DDT
—
DDT and Metabolites
0.00528 a
0.001953
0.4
Chlordane-alpha
Evaluated as total chlordane
—
Chlordane-gamma
—
total chlordane
0.00324
a
0.000983
0.3
Dieldrin
0.0019
a
0.00188
1.0
Endosulfan I
Evaluated at total endosulfan
--
Endosulfan II
—
Total Endosulfan
0.00324
a
0.000633
0.2
Endosulfan sulfate
0.0054
a
0.002625
0.5
Endrin ketone
0.00222
i
a
0.001776
0.8
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.0202
a
0.07546
4
Acenaphthylene
0.0059
a
NC
Fluoranthene
0.423
a
0.1308
0.3
Phenanthrene
0.204
a
0.08102
0.4
Benzo(a)anthracene
0.108
a
0.07667
0.7
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.15
a
0.08412
0.6
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Evaluated as benzo(b+k)fluoranthene
—
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
—
Benzo(b+k)fluoranthene
0.0272
a
0.1026
4
Chrysene
0.166
a
0.1068
() (>
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
0.033
a
NC
\(
Indeno(l,2,3,-c,d)pyrene
0.017
a
0.08317
s
Pyrene
0.195
a
0.1223
() (>
bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
0.18
a
0.217
i:
2-Butanone
0.0424
b
0.04639
i i
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table H.56
Refined Comparison to Benthic Invertebrate Benchmarks
Floodplain Habitat - Soil and Sediment
Chcmiciil
Sciveniiiii
liciK'hniiii'k
(niii/kii)
Sci veiling
UcTt'iviu'o
95% UCL121
(Jiinlicnl
Acetone
0.0099
c
0.2262
23
Carbon Disulfide
0.000851
a
NC
UCL = upper confidence limit
mg/kg = milligram per kilogram
UCL = upper confidence limit
COPEC = chemical of potential ecological concern
Shaded cell indicates quotient greater than 1.
Analytes with quotients equal to or less than 1 were not retained as COPECs.
NC = 95% UCL not calculated due to insufficient number of detections (5 or fewer).
Sources:
a) Region 3 Freshwater Sediment Screening Benchmarks
b) Oak Ridge National Laboratory Screening Benchmarks
c) EPA Region 5 ecological screening level
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table H.58
Refined Food Web Modeling - Mink
Floodplain Habitat - Surface Water and Soil/Sediment
('hi'iniciil
Surl'iico Wilier')?";.
UCL
(m»/l.)
Soil 95%
UCL
(m»/k«i)
Soil/
Si'riiiiK'iil
1(1.
(mji/kti)
Soil-lo-niiiinniiil I5.\I-"1
Miiinniiil Tissue
( oik'cii trillion
(mii/kji. (In
weiiihl)
ScriiiiK'nl-lo-lh'iilhic
ln\crk'br;ik' IJSAI"
Ik-nlhic
ln\crk'l)i;ik'
Tissue
Co iktii trillion
(dn tu'ighl.
m»/k»)
\\ ilUT-IO-
1 isli IK I
(L/k«)3
l-'isli Tissue
Coni'i'iilriilion
(«d weiiihl.
niii/kii)
A\cr;iiio
l);iil\ Dose
(m^/k^-dii\)
\ OA 1.1.
(niii/kji-diij )4
1.OA 1.1.
(ni'a/k'a-diiv)
NOAI.I.
r.colo^ii'iil
Quotient
I.OAKI.
l-lcolouiciil
Quolk-nl
Cadmium
0.00475
0.915
0.857
ln(Cm) = 0.47231n(Cs) - 1.2571
0.272789462
log(tissue) = 0.191 +
0.6681og(sediment)
1.400332567
200
0.95
0.184948604
0.77
7.7
0.2
0.02
Lead
1.35
3425
3365
ln(Cm) = 0.44221n(Cs) + 0.0761
39.45269878
log(tissue) = -0.515 +
0.6531og(sediment)
61.3933384
300
405
79.90186143
4.7
8.9
r
9
Mercury
0.00037
0.133
0.104
0.192
0.025536
log(tissue) = -0.67 +
0.3271og(sediment)
0.101992891
1000
0.37
0.069793119
0.015
0.025
5
Zinc
0.266
102.4
100
ln(mammal) =
4.3632+0.07061n(soilN)
108.8531147
log(tissue) =1.77 +
0.2421os(scdimcnt)
179.4733627
1000
266
50.94490931
75.4
75.9
0.7
0.7
Exposure Assumptions - Mink (note - exposure assumptions obtained from Table H.2)
Soil/sediment ingestion rate (kg/kgBW-day) 0.00108724
Water ingestion rate (g/gBW-day) 0.099
Food ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.22
Moisture content of benthic invertebrates 0.78
Moisture content of mammals 0.68
Moisture content of fish 0.75
Invertebrate ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.003388
Mammal ingestion rate (kg-DW/kgBW-day) 0.004224
Fish ingestion rate (kg-WW/kgBW-day) 0.187
No area use factor applied.
Assume that diet consists of 7% benthic invertebrates, 6% small mammals, and 85% fish.
Notes:
1. Soil-to-mammal BAFs from EPA, 2007.
2. BSAF is equation with the highest R-square value, Table 3, Bechtel Jacobs, 1998.
3. Fish BCFs from the Risk Assessment Information System, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: https://rais.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/tools/TOX_search?select=chem_spef
4. NOAELs listed in Table H.4 and LOAELs listed in Table H.6.
NOAEL = no observed adverse effects level BAF = bioaccumulation factor
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effects level BCF = bioconcentration factor
kg-WW = kilograms as wet weight BSAF = biota sediment accumulation factor
kg-DW = kilograms as dry weight kgBW = kilograms body weight
mg/L = milligram per liter mg/kg = milligram per kilogram
References:
Bechtel-Jacobs, 1998. Biota Sediment Accumulation Factors for Invertebrates: Review and Recommendations for the Oak Ridge Reservation. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. BJC/OR-112, August.
EPA, 2007. Attachment 4-1, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs): Exposure Factors and Bioaccumulation Models for Wildlife Eco-SSLs.
OSWER Directive 9285.7-55, revised April 2007.
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table H.59
Refined Food Web Modeling - Green Heron
Floodplain Habitat - Surface Water and Soil/Sediment
ln\crk'br;ik'
Ainphihiiin
Sii rl';icc
Soil
Soil/
Pliinl Tissue
Tissue
\\ iilcr-lo-
Tissue
l-'isli Tissue
\\ ;ilcr ')5"n
95%
Si-riiim-nl
('oiK'cnli'iilion
(oiiiTiili'iilion
Ainphihiiiii
( oiicculriiliou
\\ illei-IO-
( oiieeiilriilinu
A\er;ige
\ OA 1.1.
I.OAKI.
NOAI.I.
I.OAKI.
UCL
UCL
95% UCL
(mii/kii.
-------
Table H.60
Summary of Ecological Risk Drivers
Floodplain Habitat
Kcolo^iciil Risk l)ri\cr
Medium
AITeclcd Rcceplor(s)
( UlllllK-lll
Aluiiiiiiuiii
Suilacc water
Aquatic coiiuiiuiiily L J
Soil
Plants and terrestrial
invertebrates
Antimony
Soil/sediment
Plants and benthic
invertebrates
At one significant figure,
benthic invertebrate
quotient is 1
Arsenic
Soil/sediment
Insectivores and benthic
invertebrates
At one significant figure,
benthic invertebrate
quotient is 1
Barium
Surface water
Aquatic community [1]
Beryllium
Soil/sediment
Plants and benthic
invertebrates
Contamination limited to
one outlier
Cadmium
Surface water
Aquatic community [1]
Calcium
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, and benthic
invertebrates
No screening values
Chromium
Soil
Plants and terrestrial
invertebrates
Cobalt
Soil
Plants
Copper
Surface water
Aquatic community [1]
At one significant figure,
aquatic community [1]
quotient is 1
Cyanide
Surface water
Aquatic community [1]
COPEC only for vernal
pool at WLVP01
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Iron
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, and benthic
invertebrates
Surface water
Aquatic community [1]
Lead
Soil/sediment
Plants, soil invertebrates,
benthic invertebrates,
insectivores, and piscivores
Surface water
Aquatic community [1]
Manganese
Soil/sediment
Plants, soil invertebrates,
and benthic invertebrates
Surface water
Aquatic community [1]
Magnesium
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, and benthic
invertebrates
No screening values
Mercury
Surface water
Aquatic community [1]
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, avian
insectivores, and piscivores
Background constituent
Potassium
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, and benthic
invertebrates
No screening values
Selenium
Soil/sediment
Plants, insectivores, and
benthic invertebrates
Page 1 of 2
-------
Table H.60
Summary of Ecological Risk Drivers
Floodplain Habitat
l-'.colo^iciil Risk 1)ri\ or
Medium
AITecU'd Receplor(s)
('ommciil
Sodium
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, and benthic
invertebrates
No screening values
Tin
Soil/sediment
Plants, soil invertebrates,
and benthic invertebrates
Vanadium
Soil/sediment
Plants and benthic
invertebrates
Contamination in hot
spots
Zinc
Surface water
Aquatic community [1]
Acetophenone
Surface water
Aquatic community [1]
No screening values
Benzaldehyde
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, and benthic
invertebrates
No screening values
Surface water
Aquatic community [1]
No screening values
2-Methylnaphthalene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Acenaphthylene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Low detection
frequency, but elevated
reporting limits relative
to benchmark
Benzo(b+k)fluoranthene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Low detection
frequency, but elevated
reporting limits relative
to benchmark
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Acetone
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Carbon disulfide
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Low detection
frequency, but elevated
reporting limits relative
to benchmark
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
At one significant figure,
benthic invertebrate
quotient is 1
2-Butanone
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
At one significant figure,
benthic invertebrate
quotient is 1
Notes:
Aquatic community consists offish, amphibians, aquatic plants, and aquatic invertebrates.
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table H.67
Summary of All Ecological Risk Drivers
l-'.colo^iciil Risk l)ri\cr
AITcclcd Km'i)lor(s)
Ici'ivsliiil Open Field
lliihiliil
Flnndpliiin lliihiliil
l-o its led Wclliind lliihiliil
Aluminum
-
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, aquatic
community, and transition zone
community
Aquatic community and transition zone
community
Antimony
Plants
Plants and benthic invertebrates
Plants and benthic invertebrates 12
Arsenic
-
Insectivores and benthic invertebrates
-
Barium
-
Aquatic community and transition zone
community
Aquatic community and transition zone
community
Beryllium
Plants
Plants and benthic invertebrates
Plants and benthic invertebrates
Cadmium
-
Aquatic community and transition zone
community
Insectivorous birds, benthic invertebrates,
aquatic community, and transition zone
community
Chromium
Plants and terrestrial
invertebrates 12
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
Plants and terrestrial invertebrates
Cobalt
Plants 12
Plants and transition zone community
Plants and transition zone community
Calcium
Plants and terrestrial
invertebrates
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and
benthic invertebrates
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, benthic
invertebrates, aquatic community, and
transition zone community
Copper
-
Aquatic community
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, avian
insectivores, and benthic invertebrates
Cyanide
-
Aquatic community and benthic
invertebrates
Plants and benthic invertebrates
Iron
-
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, benthic
invertebrates, aquatic community, and
transition zone community
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, benthic
invertebrates, aquatic community, and
transition zone community
Lead
Insectivorous birds
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, benthic
invertebrates, insectivores, piscivores,
aquatic community, and transition zone
community
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, benthic
invertebrates, insectivores, piscivores,
aquatic community, and transition zone
community
Page 1 of 4
-------
Table H.67
Summary of All Ecological Risk Drivers
l-'.colo^iciil Risk l)ri\cr
AITcclcd Km'i)lor(s)
Ici'ivsliiil Open Field
lliihiliil
Flnndpliiin lliihiliil
l-o its led Wclliind lliihiliil
Magnesium
Plants and terrestrial
invertebrates
Planb, terrestrial invertebrates, and
benthic invertebrates
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and
benthic invertebrates
Manganese
Plants and terrestrial
invertebrates
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, benthic
invertebrates, aquatic community, and
transition zone community
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, benthic
invertebrates, aquatic community, and
transition zone community
Mercury
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, and
insectivorous birds
Plants |2'. terrestrial invertebrates |2'. avian
insectivores |2'. piscivores |2'. aquatic
community, and transition zone
community
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates,
insectivorous birds, aquatic community,
and transition zone community.
Nickel
—
—
Benthic invertebrates
Potassium
Plants and terrestrial
invertebrates 12
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and
benthic invertebrates
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, benthic
invertebrates 12
Selenium
Plants 12
Plants, insectivores, benthic invertebrates,
and transition zone community
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates,
insectivores, benthic invertebrates, and
transition zone community
Sodium
-
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and
benthic invertebrates
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and
benthic invertebrates
Thallium
Plants and terrestrial
invertebrates 12
-
-
Tin
Plants and terrestrial
invertebrates
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and
benthic invertebrates
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and
benthic invertebrates
Vanadium
Plants and insectivorous
birds 12
Plants and benthic invertebrates
Plants, insectivorous birds, and benthic
invertebrates
Zinc
Insectivorous birds
Aquatic community
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, avian
insectivores, benthic invertebrates,
piscivores, and aquatic community
4-Chloroaniline
—
—
Benthic invertebrates
2-Methylnaphthalene
—
Benthic invertebrates
Benthic invertebrates
Acenaphthene
-
-
Benthic invertebrates
Page 2 of 4
-------
Table H.67
Summary of All Ecological Risk Drivers
l-'.colo^iciil Risk l)ri\cr
AITcclcd Km'i)lor(s)
Ici'ivsliiil Open Field
lliihiliil
Flnndpliiin lliihiliil
Foivslcd Wclliind lliihiliil
Aeellapllthy Icllc
—
Bellllue invertebrates
Belllllle invertebrates
Anthracene
—
—
Benthic invertebrates
Benzo(a)anthracene
-
-
Benthic invertebrates and aquatic
community
Benzo(a)pyrene
—
—
Benthic invertebrates
B enzo (b+k)fluoranthene
—
Benthic invertebrates
Benthic invertebrates
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
—
—
Benthic invertebrates
Chrysene
—
—
Benthic invertebrates
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
—
Benthic invertebrates
Benthic invertebrates
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Terrestrial invertebrates
—
--
Fluoranthene
—
—
Benthic invertebrates
Fluorene
—
—
Benthic invertebrates
Indeno( 1,2,3 -c,d)pyrene
—
Benthic invertebrates
Benthic invertebrates
Phenanthrene
—
—
Benthic invertebrates
Pvrcne
—
—
Benthic invertebrates
DDD/DDE/DDT
--
--
Benthic invertebrates
Chlordane, total
—
—
Benthic invertebrates
Endrin ketone
—
—
Benthic invertebrates
bis(2-ethylhexly)phthalate
—
Benthic invertebrates
Benthic invertebrates
2-Butanone
—
Benthic invertebrates
--
Acetone
—
Benthic invertebrates
Benthic invertebrates
Carbon disulfide
—
Benthic invertebrates
Benthic invertebrates
Acetophenone
—
Aquatic community
Aquatic community
Benzaldehyde
-
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and
benthic invertebrates
Aquatic community
Caprolactam
—
—
Aquatic community
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
—
Transition zone community
Transition zone community
m/p-Xylene
—
Transition zone community
Transition zone community
Trichloroethene
—
Transition zone community
Transition zone community
Tetrachloroethene
-
Transition zone community
Transition zone community
Page 3 of 4
-------
Table H.67
Summary of All Ecological Risk Drivers
l-'.colo^iciil Risk l)ri\cr
AITcclcd Km'i)lor(s)
Ici'ivsliiil Open Field
lliihiliil
Flnndpliiin lliihiliil
Foivslcd Wclliind lliihiliil
Toluene
—
Transition zone community
Transition zone community
Nitrite
—
Transition zone community
Transition zone community
Ethene
—
Transition zone community
Transition zone community
Ethane
—
Transition zone community
Transition zone community
Methane
-
Transition zone community
Transition zone community
— Not an ecological risk driver for the habitat
[1] Aquatic community includes fish, amphibians, aquatic plants, and aquatic invertebrates. Not all surface water bodies on site can support fish populations.
[2] Background constituent
Page 4 of 4
-------
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
56
-------
APPENDIX C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
-------
Table B.l
Cost Summary
OU-2 Focused Feasibility Study, Jackson Ceramix Site
Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
lull-rim Ol -2 Alernalixe
l)escri|>lion
l)ii ralion.
Years
Tolal Present
Value of'( a|>ilal
( osls
Tolal Present
Value of'Annual
Costs
Tolal Present
Value ol' Periodic
( osls
Tolal Present
Value ol'
Allernalixe
Alternative 1: No Action
N/A
$
$
$
$
Alternative 2: Excavation of Source
Material, Dredging of Sediments, Off-Site
Disposal, and Wetland Restoration
Lateral target excavation 1,000 mg
lead/kg of soil/sediment
1
$ 19,656,579
$
$
$ 19,656,579
Alternative 3 assumptions are the same as
for Alternative 2 with respect to excavation
of source material, vacuum-dredging of
sediment, and wetland restoration.
Lateral target excavation 1,000 mg
lead/kg of soil/sediment
1
$ 48,368,731
$
$
$ 48,368,731
Notes:
mg lead/kg = milligrams lead per kilogram
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
N/A = not applicable
OU = operable unit
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table B.2
Remedial Alternatives Assumptions
OU-2 Focused Feasibility Study, Jackson Ceramix Site
Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Location
1 l:iz;ir(lous/
Non-1 lii/iirdoiis
Arcii
(sqiiiti e lecl)
Aivsi
(iUTC)
Depth
Intcrx ill
(Icel hi»s)
Volume
(cubic I'eel)
Volume
(IK'Y)
Ceramic Waste
Hazardous Waste
361,112
8.29
0 to 2
722,225
26,800
Lead-contaminated soil greater than 1,000 mg/kg
Hazardous Waste
229,287
5.26
0 to 2
458,574
17,000
Lead-contaminated soil greater than 1,000 mg/kg
Non-Hazardous Waste
229,287
5.26
0 to 2
458,574
17,000
Lead-contaminated soil greater than 1,000 mg/kg
Non-Hazardous Waste
3,028
0.07
2 to 4
6,056
300
Lead-contaminated soil less than 1,000 mg/kg and
greater than 100 mg/kg
Non-Hazardous Waste
74,928
1.72
2 to 4
149,856
5,600
Ceramic Waste/Lead-contaminated sediment
greater than 1,000 mg/kg
Hazardous Waste
10,454
0.24
0 to 2
20,909
780
Lead-contaminated sediment greater than 1,000
mg/kg
Non-Hazardous Waste
-
-
0 to 2
-
-
Lead-contaminated sediment less than 1,000 mg/kg
and greater than 69 mg/kg
Non-Hazardous Waste
4,107
0.09
0 to 2
8,214
310
Notes:
Source material is identified as ceramic waste and soil/sediment with lead concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg.
BCY = bank cubic yards
bgs = below ground surface
FFS = Focused Feasibility Study
ft = feet / foot
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table B.2
Remedial Alternatives Assumptions
OU-2 Focused Feasibility Study, Jackson Ceramix Site
Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Alternative 2: Excavation of Source Material. Dredging of Sediments. Off-Site Disposal, and Wetland Restoration
Source material removal assumptions:
- Perform work during "dry" season.
- Install cofferdam to divert water and pump surface water around work area. Cofferdam costs assume use of Aquabarriers , which are filled with water and reusable. Assume 20 barriers of 6 ft
x 13.5 fix 100 ft.
- Install transport/haul route through OU-2 and access path over railroad. Assume all permits are obtained and approved.
- Source material is potentially characterized as hazardous with lead exceeding the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) limit of 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Collect in situ waste
characterization samples from planned excavation areas at a rate of 1 per 250 BCY, and submit to disposal facility for approval.
- Clear and grub areas designated for excavation in scrub shrub wetland. Limit tree clearing in forested wetland, but clear/grub smaller
- Excavate source material and contaminated soil using standard excavation equipment down to 2 ft bgs. Source material is anticipated to be characterized as hazardous waste.
- After removing source material, continue excavating lead-contaminated soil until lead-human health remedial goals for soil are achieved. Assume that soil from 2 ft to 4 ft is nonhazardous.
- Collect confirmation samples from floor of excavated areas to achieve 100 mg/kg of lead.
Sediment removal assumptions:
- Sediment to be removed using vacuum dredging from OU-2 surface water bodies and submerged drainage channels.
- Assume vacuum dredging production rate of 5 cubic yards per hour (CY/hr) to account for maneuvering slowly along surface water feature ,drainage channels, and dragging
hoses through dense vegetation.
- Assume that dredged sediment is transported to a constructed dewatering containment area of 10,000 square feet (100 feet by 100 feet by 3 feet deep) constructed within
OU-2. Time required to dewater the spoils depends on weather conditions and the thickness of the spoil pile. Typical construction would be building a temporary berm
around the dewatering area with a gentle slope away from the point where spoils are introduced. Water will collect in the far side of the area away from the introduction
point.
- Assume the dredge slurry has a solids content of 40 percent when introduced to the dewatering basin. Assume in situ water content of 30 percent. Assume 10 percent
moisture content after dewatering is complete.
- Transport and disposal unit costs for dredged sediment after dewatering.
- No confirmation samples will be collected because contamination is vertically delineated.
- Channels will not be backfilled.
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table B.2
Remedial Alternatives Assumptions
OU-2 Focused Feasibility Study, Jackson Ceramix Site
Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Disposal assumptions:
- Load removed material into 12-CY dump trucks. Trucks shall be lined and covered. Transport to nearest Subtitle D (non-haz) Landfill for disposal.
- Assume nonhazardous landfill is 1 hr round trip to site; 8 round trips per day per truck.
- Load source material into 12-CY dump trucks. Trucks shall be lined and covered. Transport source material as hazardous waste to nearest RCRA Subtitle C Landfill for treatment and disposal.
- Assume 4 hr round trip to site from RCRA C landfill; 2 round trips per day per truck.
Wetland restoration assumptions:
- Assume appropriate backfill source is available within 15 miles of Site. Amend backfill as needed for wetland environment and vegetation.
- Backfill half of excavated area, depending on depth and elevation with respect to the 100-yr floodplain.
- Revegetate disturbed areas with native wetland vegetation at 2,000 square yards (SY) per day
- Perform preliminary and post remedial action topographic surveys to 2 ft contours over disturbed 16 acres.
Alternative 3: Excavation of Source Material. Dredging of Sediments. Soil Stabilization of Hazardous Waste. Off-site Disposal, and Wetland Restoration
Alternative 3 assumptions are the same as for Alternative 2 with respect to excavation of source material, vacuum-dredging of sediment, and wetland restoration.
Treatment and disposal assumptions:
- Material determined to be characterized as hazardous waste, failing TCLP threshold limit, shall be treated with stabilization amendment to occur on tarped or bermed area within OU-2 in 250
CY batches using backhoe.
- Stabilization amendment assumed to be Metafix applied at 5 percent by weight.
- Confirmation samples will be collected at 1 per 250 CY. Turnaround time for treatment samples is assumed to be 5 days. If treatment confirmation sample fails TCLP, additional amendment
will be mixed into material. After material is treated and rendered non-hazardous, material shall be loaded onto lined 12-CY dump truck and transported to Subtitle D landfill for disposal.
- Assume nonhazardous landfill is 1 hr round trip; 8 round trips per day per truck.
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table B.3
Alternative 2 - Present Value Analysis
OU-2 Focused Feasibility Study, Jackson Ceramix Site
Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Alteniiitne 2: K\c;t\ntion of Source M:iteri:il, Dredging of Sediments, Off-Site Disposiil. unci Wet hind Restoration
Capital Costs
Present Value of
Capital Costs
Annual
Costs
Present Value of
Annual Costs
Periodic
Costs
Present Value of
Periodic Costs
Cumulative
Present Value
$ 19,698,630
$ 19,656,579
$
$
$
$
$ 19,656,579
Notes:
Discount rate of 7% from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive 9355.0-75 (A Guide to Developing and
OU = operable unit
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table B.4
Alternative 3 - Present Value Analysis
OU-2 Focused Feasibility Study, Jackson Ceramix Site
Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Allern:ili\e 3: K\c;i\nlion of Source Material. Dredging of Sediments, Soil St:ihili/:ition of 1 la/ardous Waste, Off-site
Disposiil, and Wetland Restoration
Capital Costs
Present Value of
Capital Costs
Annual
Costs
Present Value of
Annual Costs
Periodic
Costs
Present Value of
Periodic Costs
Cumulative
Present Value
$ 48,472,207
$ 48,368,731
$
$
$
$
$ 48,368,731
Notes:
Discount rate of 7% from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive 9355.0-75 (A Guide to Developing
and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study) dated July 2000.
OU = operable unit
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table B.5
Summary of Capital Costs Alternative 2
Jackson Ceramix Site
Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Jackson Ceramix - OU-2 FFS for Source Material
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Description:
Alternative 2: Excavation of Source Material, Dredging of Sediments, Off-Site Disposal, and Wetland Restoration
Site: Jackson Ceramix
Scenario B - target excavation of 1,000 mg lead/kg soil/sediment
Location: OU-2
Locality Factor:
1.07
(Regional Average for Pennsylvania)
Phase: Focused Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2023
Includes:
- Excavation of source material (excavation limit of 1,000 mg/kg lead) and off site disposal of source material.
Date: April 2022
- Hazardous waste transported and disposed at hazardous waste landfill. Nonhazardous waste disposed at nonhazardous landfill.
- Low-impact vacuum dredging of lead-contaminated sediments within surface water/drainage channels.
- Off-site disposal of excavated/dredged source material and lead-contaminated soils/sediments.
- Wetland restoration.
CAPITAL COSTS (Base Year)
I nil ol'
1 nil
Locali(\
1 ii ri:ili<»n
l)i:S( Kll'l ION
Qu ;i ii I it \
Measure
C osl
l-'aclor
l-'aclor
Project ( osls
Subtotal NOTKS
1. Pre-Field Activities
Prepare Planning Documents (to include RA Work Plan,
1
LS
$ 70,000
1.00
1.00 $
70,000
Assume Draft, Draft Final, and Final
Site Safety and Flealth Plan/Accident Prevention Plan,
UFP-QAPP, Quality Control Plan, Waste Management
Plan)
$ 70,000
2. Mobilization / Site Preparation
Survey (2-person crew) and Staking
10
DY
$ 1,300.00
1.00
1.00 $
13,000
Engineering Estimate (1.5 acres per day)
Decontamination Pad Construction/Removal
2
LS
$ 2,500.00
1.00
1.00 $
5,000
Engineering Estimate
Utility Location and Clearance
8
HR
$ 472.80
1.00
1.27 $
4,791
RACER 33022609
Clearing and Grubbing
21
AC
$ 8,300.00
1.07
1.19 $
218,525
RS Means, 31 13 13.10 0020
Brush disposal
1
LS
$ 500.00
1.00
1.00 $
500
Engineering Estimate
Office trailer, rent
10.0
MO
$ 1,205
1.07
1.19 $
15,396
Vendor Quote, includes steps, furniture, and insurance
Office trailer, delivery and pickup
1
LS
$ 5,585
1.07
1.19 $
7,136
Vendor Quote, includes setup and teardown costs
Portable Toilet Rental
10.0
MO
$ 300
1.07
1.00 $
3,210
Vendor Quote on 2/24/22
Generator for office trailer, 5-KW
10.0
MO
$ 6,329.00
1.07
1.19 $
80,862
RS Means, 01 54 33 2200
Field office equipment
10.0
MO
$ 226.00
1.07
1.19 $
2,887
RS Means, 01 52 13.40 0100
Field office supplies
10.0
MO
$ 90.00
1.07
1.19 $
1,150
RS Means, 01 52 13.40 0120
Storage (Conex) Rental
10.0
MO
$ 93.00
1.07
1.19 $
1,188
RS Means, 01 52 13.20 1250
Temporary Fencing Rental
9,000
LF
$ 5.70
1.07
1.19 $
65,543
RS Means 01 56 26.50 0200
Install Construction Entrance and Exit
1
LS
$ 4,000
1.00
1.00 $
4,000
Engineering Estimate
Perimeter Air Monitoring Equipment Rental
10.0
MO
$ 5,976
1.00
1.27 $
75,705
RACER 33020315, assume 5 units
Dust Monitoring Equipment Rental
10.0
MO
$ 3,500
1.00
1.27 $
44,337
RACER 33020312, assume 5 units
Multi-Gas / Photoionization Detector Rental
10.0
MO
$ 3,480
1.00
1.27 $
44,084
RACER 33020344, assume 5 units
Temporary Access/Haul Route
1
LS
$ 20,000
1.00
1.00 $
20,000
Engineering Estimate, includes delivery and placement of 1-inch gravel, 10-inches
thick over heavy-woven geotextile
Soil Berm - 2ft tall, temporary erosion control
300
CY
$ 18.12
1.00
1.27 $
6,886
RACER 17039911
Straw Bales, temporary erosion control
900
LF
$ 5.95
1.07
1.19 $
6,842
RS Means 31 25 14.16 1250
Silt fence
9,000
LF
$ 1.88
1.07
1.00 $
18,104
RS Means 31 25 14.16 1000
Inspection/Maintenance of Erosion Controls
1.0
LS
$ 3,183.23
1.00
1.00 $
3,183
Assume 10% of erosion control installation costs
Dust Control - Water Truck Rental/Operation
10.0
MO
$ 5,150
1.00
1.00 $
51,500
Vendor Quote for rental, add $1,200 for labor and fuel
$ 693,829
Page 1 of 4
-------
Table B.5 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs for Alternative 2
Jackson Ceramix Site
Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Jackson Ceramix - OU-2 FFS for Source Material
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
3. Excavation of Source Material and Disposal
Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization
1
LS 3
10,000
1.00
1.00 $
10,000
Engineering Estimate, includes all eqpt and labor, and RR flaggers
Pump and Operation (including hoses)
123
DY 3
257
1.07
1.19 $
40,453
RS Means 31 23 19.20 0650, attended 2 hrs/day and 1 week prior to excavation
Water Storage Tank - 4,000 gal Polyethylene,
6
MO 3
3,000
1.00
1.27 $
22,802
Vendor estimate, April 2022
Trailer Mounted
GAC Vessel
2
EA 3
2,234
1.00
1.27 $
5,660
RACER 33132007 - 330 lb fill, portable
Aqueous Waste Characterization Sampling (Pre
49
EA 3
250
1.00
1.27 $
15,607
RACER, 2 samples/wk, VOCs, metals
and Post Treatment)
Cofferdam, inflatable barriers
20
EA 3
22,500
1.00
1.00 $
450,000
Vendor Quote April 2022; 6 ft x 13.5 ft x 100 ft, reusable
2CY Excavator, load on truck
66,700
BCY 3
1.35
1.07
1.27 $
122,051
RACER 17039917
Equipment Operator, Excavator
1,008
HR 3
52.58
1.07
1.27 $
71,839
RACER 33221004
Backhoe w/Front End Loader
504
HR 3
28.66
1.07
1.27 $
19,579
RACER 17030443, assume loader operated at 50% time of excavator
Equipment Operator, Backhoe
504
HR 3
52.58
1.07
1.27 $
35,920
RACER 33221004
Waste Characterization Analysis
267
EA 3
1,600
1.00
1.00 $
427,200
Vendor Estimate, 1 sample per 250 CY
Confirmation Sample Analysis
898
EA 3
50
1.00
1.00 $
44,882
Vendor Estimate, Total Metals at 1 sample per 1,000 SF
Dispose of Non Hazardous Soil at Landfill
29,770
TON 3
30
1.00
1.00 $
893,100
Vendor Estimate, disposal only (Greentree Landfill)
12 CY Lined Dump Truck , Haul (Non Haz)
29,770
TON 3
20
1.00
1.00 $
595,400
Vendor Estimate ($18-20), April 2022
Dispose of Hazardous Soil at Landfill
56,940
TON 3
100
1.00
1.00 $
5,694,000
Vendor estimate, April 2022
12 CY Lined Dump Truck , Haul (Haz)
52,560
TON 3
30
1.00
1.00 $
1,576,800
Vendor estimate, April 2022
Street Sweeping
10.0
MO 3
905
1.00
1.06 $
9,601
Vendor Quote, March 2022
Diesel fuel
10,805
GAL 3
5.50
1.07
1.00 $
63,590
Engineering Estimate
$ 10,098,484
Page 2 of 4
-------
Table B.5 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs for Alternative 2
Jackson Ceramix Site
Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Jackson Ceramix - OU-2 FFS for Source Material
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CAPITAL COSTS (Base Year)
I nil
Locality
In Hal ion
l)i:s( RlP 1 ION
(JuanliU
I nil of Measure
( OSl
I'aelor
I'aelor
Projeel Cosls
Sultlolal NOII.S
4. Sediment Vacuum Dredging and Disposal
Mobilization/Demobilization
1
LS
2,500
1.00
1.00
$ 2,500
Engineering Estimate
Dredge pump, hoses, and dredge intake (rental)
27
DY
2,000
1.00
1.00
$ 54,000
Engineering Estimate
Equipment Operator, Dredging (2)
27
DY
1,530
1.00
1.00
$ 41,310
Engineering Estimate
Construct Dewatering Basin
1
LS
7,440
1.00
1.00
$ 7,440
Engineering Estimate
Silt fence
5,000
LF
1.36
1.07
1.27
$ 9,217
RACER 18050206
Pump
27
DY
305.20
1.07
1.19
$ 10,528
2018 RS Means, 01 54 33 4400
Frac tank (5,000 gallon)
6
WK
3,955
1.00
1.13
$ 26,708
Vendor Estimate (March 2019)
Water Storage Tank - 4,000 gal Polyethylene,
2
MO
1,960
1.00
1.27
$ 3,724
RACER 19040404, assume 2 tanks
Trailer Mounted
GAC Vessel
2
EA
2,618
1.00
1.27
$ 6,632
RACER 33132007 - 330 lb fill, portable
Waste Characterization Analysis (dewatered sediment)
5
EA
1,600
1.00
1.00
$ 8,000
Vendor Estimate, 1 sample per 250 CY
Aqueous Pre- and Post-Treatment Analysis (dewatering w
64
EA
1,000
1.00
1.00
$ 64,000
Vendor Estimate (1 sample per 2000 gallons)
2CY Excavator, load on truck
1,090
BCY
1.35
1.07
1.27
$ 1,995
RACER 17039917
Equipment Operator, Excavator
161
HR
52.58
1.07
1.27
$ 11,459
RACER 33221004
Dispose of Non Hazardous Sediment at Landfill
161
TON
30
1.00
1.00
$ 4,836
Vendor Estimate (Greentree Landfill)
12 CY Lined Dump Truck , Haul (Non Haz)
161
TON
20
1.07
1.27
$ 4,370
Vendor Estimate ($18-20), April 2022
Dispose of Hazardous Sediment at Landfill
406
TON
100
1.00
1.00
$ 40,560
Vendor estimate, April 2022
12 CY Lined Dump Truck , Haul (Haz)
406
TON
30
1.00
1.00
$ 12,168
Vendor estimate, April 2022
Diesel fuel
627
GAL
5.50
1.07
1.00
$ 3,692
Engineering Estimate
<
S 313,139
5. Site Restoration
Off-Site Select Fill
22,900.00
BCY
15.00
1.00
1.00
$ 343,500
Engineering estimate, assume only replacement of soil removed from 2 to 4 ft bgs.
Load and Haul
27,480
LCY
9.17
1.07
1.00
$ 269,631
Vendor Quote, 12 CY trucks
Amend Backfill for Wetland Env.
27,480
LCY
5.00
1.00
1.00
$ 137,400
Engineering Estimate
Place and Grade Backfill in select locations
27,480
LCY
2.55
1.07
1.19
$ 89,529
RS Means 31 23 23.13 1900
Soil Testing (includes chemical, moisture, proctor)
55
EA
S 2,071.50
1.07
1.27
$ 154,317
RACER 33021114, assume 1 test per 500 CY
Seed Wetland w/ Bionutrients
359
LB
135.00
1.07
1.00
$ 51,866
Vendor quote, apply 1 lb per 2500 SF
Topographical Survey (2-person crew)
21
AC
305.72
1.07
1.19
$ 8,049
RS Means 02 21 13.09 0020, includes $5,000 for deliverable
Remove/Repair Temporary Driveway and Haul Roads
1
LS
10,000
1.00
1.00
$ 10,000
Engineering Estimate
Diesel fuel
2,780
GAL
5.50
1.07
1.00
$ 16,360
Engineering Estimate
1,080,652
Page 3 of 4
-------
Table B.5 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs for Alternative 2
Jackson Ceramix Site
Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Jackson Ceramix - OU-2 FFS for Source Material
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CAPITAL COSTS (Base Year)
DESCRIPTION
Quantity
Unit of Measure
Unit
Cost
Locality
Factor
Inflation
Factor
Project Costs
Subtotal
NOTES
6. Contractor Field Oversight
Site Safety and Health Officer
Fuel
Truck Rental
7. Remedial Action Completion
Prepare Remedial Action Completion Report
2,180
2,180
44
1
HR $
GAL $
WK $
LS $
70.00
4.00
92.00
50,000
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
$ 152,600
$ 8,720
$ 4,011
$ 50,000
$ 165,331
$ 50,000
Engineering Estimate
Engineering Estimate, Usage of 50 gallons per week
Engineering Estimate
Assume Draft, Draft Final, and Final
Total Capital Costs
<
8 12,471,434
Bid Contingency
Scope Contingency
10%
25%
8 1,247,143
8 3,117,859
Middle of range listed in EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
Mid-range of scope contingency for soil excavation, Exhibit 5-6, EPA's Feasibility
Study Cost Guidance
Total Capital with Contingency
<
8 16,836,436
Professional Services
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
5%
6%
6%
8 841,822
8 1,010,186
8 1,010,186
Exhibit 5-8, EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
Exhibit 5-8, EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
Exhibit 5-8, EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
Total Base Year Costs
<
8 19,698,630
2018 RS Means Building Construction
RACER Software, Version 11.5, 2016
Vendor Quotes, as noted in cost spreadsheet
Costs adjusted for inflation assuming 3% per year (original cost x 1.03Ayears)
Locality factor of 1.07 applied for Pennsylvania for all unit rates from RS Means and RACER Cost Database.
Notes:
AC = acre FL = Former Lagoon; sludge settling lagoon
BCY = bank cubic yard GAL = gallon
bgs = below ground surface HR = hour
CY = cubic yard KW = kilowatt
DY = day LB = pound
EA = each LCY = loose cubic yards
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency LF = linear foot
FFS = Focused Feasibility Study LS = lump sum
mg lead/kg = milligrams lead per kilogram
MO = month
NDC = northern drainage channel
OU = operable unit
QA = quality assurance
QC = quality control
RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements
RR = railroad
SF = square foot
TCLP = toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
T AL = target analyte list
TON = ton
WK = week
Page 4 of 4
-------
Table B.6
Summary of Capital Costs for Alternative 3
Jackson Ceramix Site
Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Jackson Ceramix - OU-2 FFS for Source Material
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Description: Alternative 3: Excavation of Source Material, Dredging of Sediments, Soil Stabilization of Hazardous Waste, Off-site Disposal, and Wetland Restoration
Site: Jackson Ceramix
Scenario B -
target excavation of 1,000 mg lead/kg soil/sediment
Location: OU-2
Locality Factor:
1.07
(Regional Average for Pennsylvania)
Phase: Focused Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2024
Includes:
- Excavation, soil stabilization treatment of source material within OU-2, and disposal of treated material at a landfill.
Date: April 2022
- Low-impact
vacuum dredging of lead-contaminated sediments within OU-2 surface water/drainage channels.
- Off-site disposal of excavated/dredged source material and lead-contaminated soils/sediments.
- Wetland restoration
CAPITAL COSTS (Base Year)
DESCRIPTION
Quantity
I nit of
Measure
I nil
Cost
Locality
Factor
In Nation
Factor
Project Costs „
Subtotal NOILS
1. Pre-Field Activities
Prepare Planning Documents (to include RA Work Plan,
Site Safety and Health Plan/Accident Prevention Plan, UFP-
1.00
LS
$ 70,000
1.00
1.00
$ 70,000.00
Assume Draft, Draft Final, and Final
QAPP, Quality Control Plan, Waste Management Plan)
$
70.000
2. Mobilization / Site Preparation
Survey (2-person crew) and Staking
10
DY
$ 1,300.00
1.00
1.00
$ 13,000.00
Engineering Estimate (1.5 acres per day)
Decontamination Pad Construction/Removal
2
LS
$ 2,500.00
1.00
1.00
$ 5,000.00
Engineering Estimate
Utility Location and Clearance
8
HR
$ 472.80
1.00
1.27
$ 4,791.43
RACER 33022609
Clearing and Grubbing
21
AC
$ 8,300.00
1.07
1.19
$ 218,524.73
RS Means, 31 13 13.10 0020
Brush disposal
1
LS
$ 500.00
1.00
1.00
$ 500.00
Engineering Estimate
Office trailer, rent
13
MO
$ 1,205
1.07
1.19
$ 20,014.17
Vendor Quote, includes steps, furniture, and insurance
Office trailer, delivery and pickup
1
LS
$ 5,585
1.07
1.19
$ 7,135.60
Vendor Quote, includes setup and teardown costs
Portable Toilet Rental
13
MO
$ 300
1.07
1.00
$ 4,173.00
Vendor Quote on 2/24/22
Generator for office trailer, 5-KW
13
MO
$ 6,329.00
1.07
1.19
$ 105,120.05
RS Means, 01 54 33 2200
Field office equipment
13
MO
$ 226.00
1.07
1.19
$ 3,753.69
RS Means, 01 52 13.40 0100
Field office supplies
13
MO
$ 90.00
1.07
1.19
$ 1,494.83
RS Means, 01 52 13.40 0120
Storage (Conex) Rental
13
MO
$ 93.00
1.07
1.19
$ 1,544.66
RS Means, 01 52 13.20 1250
Temporary Fencing Rental
9,000
LF
$ 5.70
1.07
1.19
$ 65,542.72
RS Means 01 56 26.50 0200
Install Construction Entrance and Exit
1
LS
$ 4,000
1.00
1.00
$ 4,000.00
Engineering Estimate
Perimeter Air Monitoring Equipment Rental
13
MO
$ 5,976
1.00
1.27
$ 98,416.95
RACER 33020315, assume 5 units
Dust Monitoring Equipment Rental
13
MO
$ 3,500
1.00
1.27
$ 57,638.04
RACER 33020312, assume 5 units
Multi-Gas / Photoionization Detector Rental
13
MO
$ 3,480
1.00
1.27
$ 57,308.68
RACER 33020344, assume 5 units
Temporary Access/Haul Route
1
LS
$ 20,000
1.00
1.00
$ 20,000.00
Engineering Estimate, includes delivery and placement of 1-inch gravel, 10-
inches thick over heavy-woven geotextile
Soil Berm - 2ft tall, temporary erosion control
300
CY
$ 18.12
1.00
1.27
$ 6,886.16
RACER 17039911
Straw Bales, temporary erosion control
900
LF
$ 5.95
1.07
1.19
$ 6,841.74
RS Means 31 25 14.16 1250
Silt fence
9,000
LF
$ 1.88
1.07
1.00
$ 18,104.40
RS Means 31 25 14.16 1000
Inspection/Maintenance of Erosion Controls
1.0
LS
$ 3,183.23
1.00
1.00
$ 3,183.23
Assume 10% of erosion control installation costs
Dust Control - Water Truck Rental/Operation
13
MO
$ 5,150
1.00
1.00
$ 66,950.00
$
Vendor Quote for rental, add $1,200 for labor and fuel
789.924
Page 1 of 4
-------
Table B.6 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs for Alternative 3
Jackson Ceramix Site
Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Jackson Ceramix - OU-2 FFS for Source Material
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CAPITAL COSTS (Base Year)
DESCRIPTION
Quantity
I nit of
Measure
I nil
Cost
.ocalily
Factor
In Nation
Factor
Project Costs
Subtotal
NOTES
3. Excavation of Source Material, Soil Stabilization Treatment of Haz Material (C
eramic W aste, Soil, and Sediment), and Disposal
Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization
1
LS
$ 10,000
1.00
1.00
$ 10,000
Engineering Estimate, includes all eqpt and labor, and RR flaggers
Pump and Operation (including hoses)
123
DY
$ 257
1.07
1.19
$ 40,453.02
RS Means 31 23 19.20 0650, attended 2 hrs/day and 1 week prior to excavati
Water Storage Tank - 4,000 gal Polyethylene, Trailer
Mounted
6
MO
$ 3,000
1.00
1.27
$ 22,802
Vendor estimate, April 2022
GAC Vessel
2
EA
$ 2,234
1.00
1.27
$ 5,660.26
RACER 33132007 - 330 lb fill, portable
Aqueous Waste Characterization Sampling (Pre and Post
Treatment)
49
EA
$ 250
1.00
1.27
$ 15,606.61
RACER, 2 samples/wk, VOCs, metals
Cofferdam, inflatable barriers
20
EA
$ 22,500
1.00
1.00
$ 450,000.00
Vendor Quote April 2022; 6 ft x 13.5 ft x 100 ft, reusable
2CY Excavator, load on truck
66,700
BCY
$ 1.35
1.07
1.27
$ 122,050.95
RACER 17039917
Equipment Operator, Excavator
1,008
HR
$ 52.58
1.07
1.27
$ 71,839.40
RACER 33221004
Backhoe w/Front End Loader
504
HR
$ 28.66
1.07
1.27
$ 19,578.90
RACER 17030443, assume loader operated at 50% time of excavator
Equipment Operator, Backhoe
504
HR
$ 52.58
1.07
1.27
$ 35,919.70
RACER 33221004
1.25 CY wheel loader
212
HR
$ 102.78
1.07
1.27
$ 29,464.60
2016 RACER 17030220, use 8 hrs per day 50% of total treatment time
15 C Y waste mixer
212
HR
$ 104.72
1.07
1.27
$ 30,020.75
2016 RACER 33150434
Equipment Operator
212
HR
$ 52.58
1.07
1.27
$ 15,073.45
2016 RACER 33221004
Soil stabilization amendment
5,736,000
LBS
$ 2.75
1.07
1.27
$ 21,380,773.45
Metafix Vendor Quote, April 2022, Applied at 5% by wt
Ancillary equipment for treatment
1
LS
$ 856.00
1.07
1.27
$ 1,160.26
2016 RACER 33150435
Waste Characterization Analysis
185
EA
$ 1,600
1.00
1.00
$ 296,436.18
Vendor Estimate, 1 sample per 250 C Y
Dispose of Nonhazardous Soil at Landfill
89,984
TONS
$ 30
1.00
1.00
$ 2,699,508.00
Vendor Estimate, disposal only (Greentree Landfill)
12CY Lined Dump Trucks, Haul (Non Haz)
89,984
TONS
$ 20
1.00
1.00
$ 1,799,672.00
Vendor Estimate ($18-20), April 2022
Street Sweeping
13
MO
$ 905
1.00
1.06
$ 12,481.49
Vendor Quote, March 2022
Diesel fuel
11,275
GAL
$ 5.50
1.07
1.00
$ 66,355.83
<
6 27.124.857
Engineering Estimate
Page 2 of 4
-------
Table B.6 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs for Alternative 3
Jackson Ceramix Site
Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Jackson Ceramix - OU-2 FFS for Source Material
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CAPITAL COSTS (Base Year)
DESCRIPTION
4. Sediment Vacuum Dredging and Disposal
Mobilization/Demobilization
Dredge pump, hoses, and dredge intake (rental)
Equipment Operator, Dredging (2)
Construct Dewatering Basin
Silt fence
Pump
Frac tank (5,000 gallon)
Water Storage Tank - 4,000 gal Polyethylene, Trailer
Mounted
GAC Vessel
Waste Characterization Analysis (dewatered sediment)
Aqueous Pre- and Post-Treatment Analysis (dewatering water)
2CY Excavator, load on truck
Equipment Operator, Excavator
Dispose of Nonhazardous Sediment at Landfill
12CY Lined Dump Trucks, Haul (Non Haz)
Diesel fuel
, Site Restoration
Off-Site Select Fill
Load and Haul
Amend Backfill for Wetland Env.
Place and Grade Backfill in select locations
Soil Testing (includes chemical, moisture, proctor)
Seed Wetland w/ Bionutrients
Topographical Survey (2-person crew)
Remove/Repair Temporary Driveway and Haul Roads
Diesel fuel
Quantity
1
27
27
1
5,000
27
6
2
5
64
1,090
161
161
161
627
22,900.00
27,480
27,480
27,480
55
359
21
1
2,780
I nil of
Measure
LS
DY
DY
LS
LF
DY
WK
MO
EA
EA
EA
BCY
HR
TON
TON
GAL
BCY
LCY
LCY
LCY
EA
LB
AC
LS
GAL
I nil
Cost
2,500
2,000
1,530
7,440
1.36
305.20
3,955
1,960
2,618
1,600
1,000
1.35
52.58
30
20
5.50
15.00
9.17
5.00
2.55
2,071.50
135.00
305.72
10,000
5.50
Locality
I'aclor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.07
1.07
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.07
1.07
1.00
1.07
1.07
1.00
1.07
1.00
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.00
1.07
In Nation
I'aclor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.27
1.19
1.13
1.27
1.27
1.00
1.00
1.27
1.27
1.00
1.27
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.19
1.27
1.00
1.19
1.00
1.00
Project Costs
$ 2,500.00
$ 54,000.00
$ 41,310
$ 7,440
$ 9,217.02
$ 10,528.23
$ 26,708.32
$ 3,724.30
$ 6,631.89
$ 8,000.00
$ 64,000.00
$ 1,994.54
$ 11,458.76
$ 4,836.00
$ 4,369.95
$ 3,691.61
343.500.00
269.631.01
137,400.00
89,529.06
154,316.81
51,865.77
8,049.11
10,000.00
16,360.30
Subtotal
260.411
NO I KS
Engineering Estimate
Engineering Estimate
Engineering Estimate
Engineering Estimate
RACER 18050206
2018 RS Means, 01 54 33 4400
Vendor Estimate (March 2019)
RACER 19040404, assume 2 tanks
RACER 33132007 - 330 lb fill, portable
Vendor Estimate, 1 sample per 250 C Y
Vendor Estimate (1 sample per 2000 gallons)
RACER 17039917
RACER 33221004
Vendor Estimate (Greentree Landfill)
Vendor Estimate ($18-20), April 2022
Engineering Estimate
Engineering estimate, assume only replacement of soil removed from 2 to 4 fl
Vendor Quote, 12 CY trucks
Engineering Estimate
RS Means 31 23 23.13 1900
RACER 33021114, assume 1 test per 500 CY
Vendor quote, apply 1 lb per 2500 SF
RS Means 02 21 13.09 0020, includes $5,000 for deliverable
Engineering Estimate
Engineering Estimate
1.080.652
Page 3 of 4
-------
Table B.6 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs for Alternative 3
Jackson Ceramix Site
Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Jackson Ceramix - OU-2 FFS for Source Material
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CAPITAL COSTS (Base Year)
DESCRIPTION
Quantity
Unit of
Measure
Unit
Cost
Locality
Factor
Inflation
Factor
Project Costs
Subtotal
NOTES
6. Contractor Field Oversight
Site Safety and Health Officer
Fuel
Truck Rental
2,860
2,786
56
HR
GAL
WK
$ 70.00
$ 4.00
$ 92.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
$ 200,200
$ 11,143
$ 5,126
$ 216.469
Engineering Estimate
Engineering Estimate, Usage of 50 gallons per week
Engineering Estimate
7. Remedial Action Completion
Prepare Remedial Action Completion Report
1
LS
$ 50,000
1.00
1.00
$ 50,000
$ 50.000
Total Capital Costs
<
29,592,312
Bid Contingency
Scope Contingency
10%
30%
2,959,231
8,877,694
Middle of range listed in EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
Mid-range ot scope contingency tor soil excavation, Exhibit 5-6, EPA's
Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
Total Capital with Contingency
<
41,429,237
Professional Services
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
5%
6%
6%
2,071,462
2,485,754
2,485,754
Exhibit 5-8, EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
Exhibit 5-8, EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
Exhibit 5-8, EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
Total Base Year Costs
<
48,472,207
2018 RS Means Building Construction
RACER Software, Version 11.5, 2016
Vendor Quotes, as noted in cost spreadsheet
Costs adjusted for inflation assuming 3% per year (original cost x 1.03Ayears)
Locality factor of 1.07 applied for Pennsylvania for all unit rates from RS Means and RACER Cost Database
Notes:
AC = acre
BCY = bank cubic yard
bgs = below ground surface
CY = cubic yard
DY = day
EA = each
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FFS = Focused Feasibility Study
FL = Former Lagoon; sludge settling lagoon
GAL = gallon
HR = hour
KW = kilowatt
LB = pound
LCY = loose cubic yards
LF = linear foot
LS = lump sum
mg lead/kg = milligrams lead per kilogram
MO = month
NDC = northern drainage channel
OU = operable unit
QA = quality assurance
QC = quality control
RACER = Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements
RR = railroad
SF = square foot
TCLP = toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TAL = target analyte list
TON = ton
WK = week
Page 4 of 4
-------
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
58
-------
APPENDIX D
ARARS
59
-------
Jackson Ceramix Superfund Site, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Record of Decision OU-2
Appendix D - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Requirement
Lcgiil C'itiilion
ARARC hiss/ To
lie Considered
(TIM )
Requirement Synopsis
Rehilion to Remedy
C hemiciil-Speeilie ARARs
Penns\ 1\ ama Water
Quality Standards
(WQS) issued under
Sections 5(b)(1) and 402
of the Clean Streams
Law, Act of June 22,
1937, P L. 1987, as
amended, 35 P.S. §§
691.5(b)(1) and 691.402
(Clean Streams Law)
25 Pa. Code §§ 93.4a
(Antidegradation
requirements);
25 Pa. Code §§93.6; 93.7;
93.8a(a)-(e); 93.8c including
Table5 (WQS for Toxic
Substances); and 93.9.
Rele\ an I and
Appropriate
25 Pa. Code Chapter 93 sets for WQS for surface waters of
Pennsylvania, including wetlands. WQS define water quality goals of a
water body by designating the use(s) to be made of the water and by
setting criteria the protect the designated uses. WQS are numeric
concentrations, levels, or surface water conditions that need to be
maintained or attained to protect existing and designated uses.
Risk based site-specific criteria are de\ eloped and the
Pennsylvania WQS will only be applicable in case a
remedy is selected that includes dewatering and
discharge to a surface water body. For remedies
requiring dewatering, the removed water would likely
require treatment prior to discharge. The discharged
treated water would be required to meet the substantive
guidelines established for protection of human health and
aquatic life and will not be inimical or harmful to the
water uses to be protected or to human, animal, plant or
aquatic life.
PA wastewater treatment
standards promulgated under
Section 5 of the Clean Streams
Law, 35 P.S. §691.5
25 Pa. Code §§ 95.2(l)(i) and
95.2(2)
Applicable
Establish effluent standards for discharges of industrial waste.
Any remedy that involves the discharge of industrial
waste must comply with the substantive requirements of
these discharge standards.
Loe:ition-Speeille ARARs
Wetland Protection and
Mitigation
40 C.F.R. §230.10
Applicable
No discharge of dredged or fill material into an aquatic ecosystem is
permitted if there is a practicable alternative that would have less adverse
impact on the aquatic ecosystem; causes or contributes to violations of
State WQS; violates any applicable toxic effluent standard; jeopardizes
continued existence of a species; violates any requirement to protect a
marine sanctuary; or if it will cause or contribute to significant
degradation of the waters of the U.S. No discharge of dredge or fill
material shall occur unless appropriate and practicable steps have been
taken to minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the
aquatic ecosystem.
These regulations will be triggered since excavation of
contaminated soil and sediment from the wetlands will
be part of any remedial alternative. Actions will be
needed to address and avoid any potential short-term and
long-term adverse effects to the wetlands (e.g., a
"discharge of fill material" occurs within the meaning of
40 C.F.R. § 230.2). On-Site activities conducted that fall
within the scope of these regulations will comply with
the substantive requirements of these regulations.
Appropriate and practicable steps may be required to
minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on
the aquatic ecosystem. Restoration activities will take
place once all contaminated material is treated.
-------
Jackson Ceramix Superfund Site, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Record of Decision OU-2
Appendix D - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Requirement
Legit 1 Citation
ARAR Class/To
lie Considered
(TIM )
Requirement Synopsis
Relation to Remedy
Dam Safety and Waterway
Management regulations
promulgated under the Clean
Streams Law and the Dam Safety
and Encroachments Act, Act of
Nov. 26, 1978, P.L. 1375, No.
325, 32 P.S. §§ 693.1 etseq., as
amended
Substantive requirements of 25
Pa. Code §§ 105.15, 105.17,
105.18a, and 105.20a
Relevant and
Appropriate
Establishes criteria for placing structures and conducting activities in
wetlands.
Disruption to wetlands may occur during the
implementation of any remedial alternative. On-Site
activities conducted that fall within the scope of these
regulations will comply with the substantive requirements
of these regulations.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16
U.SC. § 703
50 C.F.R. § 10.13
Applicable
Prohibits the unlawful taking, possession or sale of any migratory bird,
including any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, native to the U.S. or its
territories.
Remediation activities might be performed while
migratory birds are present. Appropriate actions will be
taken during the remedial action to ensure that no on-
Site migratory birds, listed at 50 C.F.R. § 10.13, or their
nests are adversely affected.
Regulations under the
Endangered Species Act, 16
U.S.C. §§ 1531 etseq.
50 C.F.R. § 402
Applicable
Requires federal agencies to consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and/or National Marine Fisheries Service on any action likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed endangered/
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat for listed species.
No federally listed endangered/threatened species
have been found on-Site. However, if any such species
are found on-Site during the remedial action, EPA will
coordinate with FWS and/or NMFS in accordance
with these regulations.
Regulations under Section 106
of the National Historical
Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. §
306108
36 C.F.R. Part 800
Applicable
Section 106 of NHPA requires any Federal undertaking to consider the
effect the activity may have on any historic property, and the Federal
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation must be given a reasonable
opportunity to comment on the undertaking. The regulations codified at
36 C.F.R. Part 800 describe the actions a Federal agency must take to
meet its statutory responsibilities under NHPA.
The remedial action meets the definition of an undertaking
under 36 C.F.R. § 800(16)(y). Accordingly, EPA will
substantively comply with Section of NHPA and the
regulations implementing it.
Compensatory Mitigation for
Loss of Aquatic Resources
Substantive requirements of
40 C.F.R. § 230.93
Relevant and
Appropriate
Describes the standards and criteria for establishing compensatory
mitigation of wetlands.
Disruption to wetlands may occur during the
implementation of any remedial alternative.
Floodplain management
regulations promulgated under the
Clean Streams Law and the Flood
Plain Management Act, 32
P.S. §§ 679.101 et seq.
Substantive requirements of
25 Pa. Code §§ 106.31 - .33,
106.42, 106.46, 106.47(b),
106.51 - .53
Relevant and
Appropriate
These provisions regulate an obstruction constructed or maintained in a
floodplain.
Any remedial activity that will occur within the Sandy
Lick Creek Floodplain. Any obstruction constructed in an
on-Site area which is determined to be a floodplain will
meet the substantive requirements of these regulations.
2
-------
Jackson Ceramix Superfund Site, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Record of Decision OU-2
Appendix D - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Requirement
Legal Citation
ARAR Class/To
lie Considered
(1 IK )
Requirement Synopsis
Relation to Remedy
h e sidenlial \ lemorandum
Creating a Federal Strategy to
Promote the Health of Honey
Bees and Other Pollinators (June
20, 2014)
TBC
Describes llie pohc) for maintaining hubilul for hone) bees and oilier
pollinators.
Disruption lo habilal (such as wetlands) ma) occur during
the implementation of any remedial alternative. Actions
will be needed to provide suitable habitat during site
restoration activities.
Executive Order 13112
(February 3, 1999), amended by
Executive Order 13751
(December 5, 2016) -
Safeguarding the Nation from
the Impacts of Invasive
Species
TBC
Describes the policy to prevent the introduction of invasive species and
provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and
human health impacts that invasive species cause.
May occur during the implementation of remedial
alternatives and during site restoration activities.
Presidential Memorandum -
Incorporating Natural
Infrastructure and Ecosystem
Services in
Federal Decision-Making
(October 7, 2015)
TBC
Provides guidance for integrating benefits and tradeoffs among
ecosystem services associated with potential Federal actions, including
benefits and costs that may not be recognized in private markets because
of the public- good nature of some ecosystem services.
Applies to projects where ecosystems (such as wetlands)
are disrupted and restored.
Action-Specific ARARs
A. Water
Regulations promulgated under
Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law,
35 P.S. § 691.1
Pennsylvania Water Quality
Toxics Management Strategy
25 Pa. Code §§ 16.1, 16.24,
16.31-16.33, 16.41, 16.51
and 16.101-102
25 Pa. Code § 16 Appendix A
Table 1A
Applicable
The objective of this statute is to reclaim and restore polluted streams.
The law provides for the protection of streams, human health, aquatic
life, and water quality control in Pennsylvania waters. This statute may be
applicable to remedial alternatives that require the discharge of
water/waste, and/or the cleanup of contaminated streams.
Any treatment alternative that involves the discharge of
treated water will be required to comply with the
substantive requirements of these discharge standards.
3
-------
Jackson Ceramix Superfund Site, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Record of Decision OU-2
Appendix D - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Requirement
Legsil Citation
ARAR Class/ To
lie Considered
(1 IK )
Requirement Synopsis
Relation to Remedy
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
Requirements under the Clean
Water Act of 1972, as amended,
33 U.S.C. §1342
40 C.F.R. §§ 122.41(a)(1), (d),
(e), (h), (i), (j)(l- 4), (k)(l),
1(1), (4), (6), (7), and (9), and
(m)(2), (3), 122.44(a), (d), (e),
and (i), 122.48, 40 C.F.R.
Part 423, App. A
25 Pa. Code §§ 92a. 3
and 92a.41, which
incorporate by reference
the permit conditions
specified in 40 C.F.R. §
122.41
Applicable
The NPDES program regulates point sources that discharge pollutants
to waters of the U.S. The site contaminants of concern (COCs) are
identified as pollutants by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Establishes effluent limitations for discharges to Pennsylvania
and U.S. waters.
No NPDES permit is required for on-Site response
actions. However, any discharges of pollutants from
point sources into waters of the United States will
comply with the substantive provisions of these
requirements.
Storm water regulations
promulgated under the Clean
Water Act of 1972, as amended
(CWA), 33 U.S C. §§ 1251 et
seq.
40 C.F.R. § 122.22(c)(l)(ii)
Applicable
This regulation requires the operator of a new storm water discharge
associated with small construction activity, as defined by 40 C.F.R §
122.26(b)(15), to maintain certain information about the nature of the
site, the nature of on-site activities, propose best management practices
to control pollutants in stormwater during and after construction
activities, an estimate of the runoff coefficient of the site, and the
name(s) of the receiving water (s).
Best management practices to control COCs in
stormwater during and after the Remedial Action will be
implemented at the site.
B. Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control
requirements promulgated under
the Clean Streams Law
25 Pa. Code §§ 102.2,
102.4(b)(l)-(5), 102.8(b)-(f) and
(n), 102.11, and
102.22
Applicable
Identifies erosion and sediment control requirements and criteria for
activities involving land clearing, grading and other earth disturbances
and establishes erosion and sediment control criteria.
These regulations apply to any remedy with excavation or
construction activities at the Site that disturb the ground
surface. Would be applicable if capping, excavation, or
well installation is required.
PA Bureau of Waste
Management,
Management of Fill Policy
(January 16, 2021)
Document No. 258-2182-773
TBC
This policy provides procedures for determining whether fill is clean fill
or regulated fill and describes how each category may be managed after a
fill determination has been performed.
This policy pertains to material imported to the site for
use as fill.
4
-------
Jackson Ceramix Superfund Site, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Record of Decision OU-2
Appendix D - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Requirement
Legal Citation
ARAIU lass/To
lie C onsidered
(TBC)
Requirement Synopsis
Relation to Remedy
C. Wastes
Corrective Action Management
Unit (CAMU) Regulations
40 C.F.R. §§264.552-
264.555
Applicable
CAMUs are special units created under RCRA to facilitate treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes managed for implementing
cleanup, and to remove the disincentives to cleanup
that the application of RCRA to these wastes can sometimes impose.
A CAMU is used only for managing CAMU-eligible
wastes for implementing corrective action or cleanup
at the facility. These regulations apply to any remedy
that may include ex situ treatment and placement back
on-Site.
Management of Remediation
Waste Under RCRA
U.S. EPA 530-F-98-026,
Octoberl4, 1998
TBC
Identifies regulations and policies that apply to remediation waste.
To be considered when developing remediation
alternatives and in evaluating implementability.
Area of Contamination Concept
(first presented in National
Contingency Plan)
55 Federal Register (FR) 8758,
March 8, 1990.
TBC
Describes a land-based unit in which consolidation and in situ treatment
of hazardous waste does not create a new point of hazardous waste
generation.
To be considered when developing and implementing
alternatives that may include waste consolidation or in
situ treatment.
Determining When Land
Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs)Are Applicable to
CERCLA Response Actions
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(OSWER) Directive: 9347.3-
05FS, July 1989.
TBC
LDRs place specific restrictions (e.g., treatment of waste to
concentration levels) on RCRA hazardous wastes prior to their
placement in land disposal units.
To be considered when developing and implementing
alternatives that may include on-site treatment of
characteristically hazardous wastes before disposal.
5
-------
Jackson Ceramix Superfund Site, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Record of Decision OU-2
Appendix D - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Requirement
Legiil Citation
ARAR Class/To
lie C onsidered
(1 IK )
Requirement Synopsis
Relation to Remedy
Regulations governing the
identification and listing of
hazardous waste, as promulgated
under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976, as
amended (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. §§
6901, etseq. and the PA SWDA.
40 C.F.R. § 261.24 (Toxicity
characteristic)
25 Pa. Code §§261a.l,
261a.2, 261a.3(b), 261a.7
(25 Pa. Code 261a.l
incorporates by reference
40 C.F.R. Part 261, except
as expressly provided in 25
Pa. Code Chapter 261a.)
Applicable
40 C.F.R. § 261.24 establishes the procedure by which a solid waste is
determined to be hazardous waste based on the concentration of a
contaminant listed in 40 C.F.R. § 261.24(b), Table 1.
These provisions of 25 Pa. Code § 261a set forth criteria for the
identification and management of hazardous waste.
Solid waste generated on-Site during the remedial action
will be analyzed in accordance with 40 C.F.R.
§ 261.24 to determine if it should be managed as
hazardous waste.
Waste generated on-Site during the remedial action will
be managed in accordance with 25 Pa. Code §§ 261a. 1;
261a.2;261a.3(b);261a.7.
Standards applicable to generators
of hazardous waste under RCRA
and the SWDA
40 C.F.R. §§262.16,262.20-
.27, 262.30-.33,
and 262.40 and .44
25 Pa. Code § 262a. 10
(which incorporates 40
C.F.R. Part 262 by reference,
except as expressly
provided), 262a. 11,
262a. 14(a), 262a. 16, 262a.21
Applicable
These regulations establish standards for generators of hazardous waste.
Any on-Site generation of a hazardous waste during the
remedial action will comply with the substantive parts
of these standards.
6
-------
Jackson Ceramix Superfund Site, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Record of Decision OU-2
Appendix D - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Requirement
Legal Citation
ARAR Class/ To
lie C onsidered
(1 IK )
Requirement Synopsis
Relation to Remedy
Requirements under RCRA uiid
SWDA applicable to owners and
operators of facilities that treat,
store, or dispose of hazardous
waste in containers
40 C.F.R. §§264.171-175
(25 Pa. Code § 264a. 1
incorporates 40 C.F.R. Part
264 by reference, except as
expressly provided)
25 Pa. Code § 264a. 173
Applicable-
These regulations set forth requirements for the condition,
management, and inspection of containers used to store hazardous
waste.
An\ containers used to store hazardous waste oil-Site
will be managed in accordance with these regulations.
PA regulations concerning
residual waste, promulgated under
the Solid Waste Management Act,
Act 97 of July 7, 1980, P.L. 380,
No. 97, 35 P.S. §§ 6018.101 et
seq. (SWMA)
25 Pa. Code §§ 287.2(a) and
(c), 287.54(a)(l)-(2), (c),
and (d), 287.56, 299.111,
299.112(a)-(c), 299.113(c),
299.114(a) and (b),
299.115(a)(l)-(2) and (b),
299.116, 299.121(a), (b), (d),
and (e), 299.131(a)-(d),
299.159, 299.161(a) and (b)
Applicable
These regulations set forth the requirements for persons who generate,
manage, or handle residual waste.
During the remedial action, sampling for residual waste
will be conducted to ensure proper classification and on-
Site handling.
7
-------
Jackson Ceramix Superfund Site, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Record of Decision OU-2
Appendix D - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Requirement
Legit 1 C'iliilion
ARAR
(hiss/ To lie
Considered
(UK)
Requirement Synopsis
Rehition to Remedy
D. Air
Standards for Contaminant
Emissions, promulgated under the
Air Pollution Control Act, Act
of Jan 8, (1960) 1959, PL. 2119,
No. 787, as amended, 35 P.S. §§
4001
et seq. (ACPA)
25 Pa. Code §§ 123.1(a) and
(c), 123.2,
123.31, and 123.41
Applicable
These regulations prohibit fugitive emissions, fugitive particulate
matter emissions, visible emissions, and emissions of malodorous air
contaminants.
Emissions occurring during construction of the remedial
action will be addressed in accordance with the
substantive provisions of these requirements.
National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart
GGGGG
Relevant
and
Appropri
ate
This subpart establishes national emissions limitations and Maximum
Achievable Control Technology standards for hazardous air pollutants
emitted from site remediation sources. This subpart also establishes
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the
emissions limitations and work practice standards.
Any air emissions from response activities during the
remedial action will be controlled and monitored in
accordance with the substantive provisions of these
regulations.
Construction, Modification,
Reactivation, and Operation
of Sources
25 Pa. Code §§
127.411(a)(6) (emissions
of new sources are
minimum attainable using
best available technology,
and 127.411(a)(7)
(emissions should not
affect attainment or
maintenance of ambient
air measures)
Applicable
Establishes the requirements for the use of best available
technology on new air pollutant emissions sources.
Any construction and/or excavation activities as well as
any treatment alternative that would result in the
emission of site contaminants to the air will comply
with the substantive requirements of these regulations.
8
-------
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
60
------- |