RECORD OF DECISION (RODS) · health for trespassing recreational fishermen. This increased risk is demonstrated in a supplemental Human Health Risk Assessment (Attachment 1) completed

Final

RECORD OF DECISION Brown’s Lake Site

Installation Restoration Program

Fort Eustis, Virginia

U. S. Army Transportation Center

Fort Eustis, Virginia

and

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Baltimore District

September 2007

2118-107

FINAL

RECORD OF DECISION

BROWN’S LAKE SITE FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA

PREPARED FOR:

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BALTIMORE DISTRICT BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

and

U.S. ARMY TRANSPORTATION CENTER FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA

W912DR-05-D-0004, Delivery Order 38

September 2007

MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. 701 Town Center Drive, Suite 600

Newport News, Virginia 23606

2118-107

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Final RECORD OF DECISION

Page

PART 1 - DECLARATION 1.1 Site Name and Location........................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose .......................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Assessment of the Site ......................................................................................... 1-1

1.4 Description of Selected Remedy .......................................................................... 1-3

1.5 Statutory Determinations ...................................................................................... 1-4

1.6 ROD Data Certification Checklist.......................................................................... 1-5

Authorizing Signatures.......................................................................................... 1-5

PART 2 – DECISION SUMMARY 2.1 Site Name, Location, and Description ...................................................................2-1

2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities.................................................................2-1

2.2.1 Site History.................................................................................................2-1

2.2.2 Previous Investigations ..............................................................................2-2

2.3 Community Participation ..................................................................................... 2-13

2.4 Scope and Role of Response Action.................................................................. 2-14

2.5 Site Characteristics ............................................................................................. 2-15

2.5.1 Physical Site Characteristics................................................................... 2-15

2.5.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination/Quantity of Waste ........................ 2-17

2.5.3 Fate and Transport of Constituents of Potential Concern...................... 2-17

2.6 Current and Potential Future Land Uses ............................................................ 2-18

2.6.1 Current Situation ..................................................................................... 2-19

2.6.2 Future Land Use ..................................................................................... 2-19

2.7 Summary of Site Risks........................................................................................ 2-20

2.7.1 Human Health Risk ................................................................................. 2-20

2.7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment................................................................... 2-26

2.8 Remedial Action Objectives................................................................................ 2-30

2.8.1 Remediation Goals ................................................................................. 2-31

2.9 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................. 2-35

2.9.1 Remedy Components ............................................................................. 2-38

2.9.2 Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of Each Alternative ... 2-38

2.10 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ................................................................. 2-40

2.10.1 Evaluation of Alternatives ....................................................................... 2-41

2.10.2 Comparative Analysis Summary............................................................. 2-49

2.11 Principal Threat Wastes...................................................................................... 2-52

2.12 Selected Remedy................................................................................................ 2-52

2.12.1 Summary of the Rationale for the Selected Remedy ............................. 2-52

2.12.2 Description of the Selected Remedy ...................................................... 2-53

2.12.3 Summary of the Estimated Remedy Costs............................................. 2-54

2.12.4 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy........................................ 2-54

Page i Brown’s Lake Site

2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

2.13 Statutory Determinations .................................................................................... 2-55

2.13.1 Protection of Human Health and Environment ....................................... 2-55

2.13.2 Compliance with ARARs......................................................................... 2-56

2.13.3 Cost Effectiveness .................................................................................. 2-56

2.13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment............... 2-57

2.13.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element .................................. 2-57

2.13.6 Five-Year Review Requirements ............................................................ 2-57

2.14 Documentation of Significant Changes .............................................................. 2-58

PART 3 – RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

PART 4 - ACRONYMS

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

No. Description

1-1 Site Location Map

2-1a Conceptual Site Model – Human Health

2-1b Conceptual Site Model – Ecological Health

2-2 Sample Locations – Upper Ditch

2-3 Sample Locations – Lake

2-4 Sample Locations – Lower Ditch

2-5 Institutional Controls Boundary

Page ii Brown’s Lake Site


TABLE OF CONTENTS


LIST OF TABLES

Table

No. Description

2-1 Summary of Field Investigations

2-2 Summary of Analytical Results Surficial Sediment Samples

2-3 Summary of Analytical Results Surface Water Samples

2-4a Summary of Detected Analytes for Fish Tissue Samples (Catfish)

2-4b Summary of Detected Analytes for Fish Tissue Samples (Bass)

2-5 Hazard Assessment for Surficial Sediment – Upper Ditch

2-6 Hazard Assessment for Surficial Sediment – Main Lake

2-7 Hazard Assessment for Surficial Sediment – Lower Ditch

2-8 Hazard Assessment for Surface Water – Upper Ditch

2-9 Hazard Assessment for Surface Water – Main Lake

2-10 Hazard Assessment for Surface Water – Lower Ditch

2-11 Raccoon Hazard Quotients for CPOCs

2-12 Great Blue Heron Hazard Quotients for CPOCs

2-13 American Robin Hazard Quotients for CPOCs

2-14 Short-tail Shrew Hazard Quotients for CPOCs

2-15 Grey Fox Hazard Quotients for CPOCs

2-16 Benthic Hazard Quotients for CPOCs

2-17 Individual Evaluation of Considered Alternative

2-18 Capital Costs of Remedial Action Selected Alternative

2-19 Operating and Maintenance Costs of Remedial Action Selected Alternative

2-20 Present Net Worth Calculation of Remedial Action Selected Alternative

2-21 Chemical-Specific ARARs

2-22 Location-Specific ARARs

2-23 Action-Specific ARARs

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment

No. Description

A1-1 Supplemental Human Health Risk Assessment

Page iii Brown’s Lake Site


PART 1 - DECLARATION


1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION

The site is known as Brown’s Lake (Operable Unit–2, FTEUST-29) located near the intersection

of Meyer Road and Wilson Avenue within the bounds of the U.S. Army installation designated as

Fort Eustis, Virginia (EPA CERCLIS ID # VA6210020321).

1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the Selected Remedy for the Brown’s Lake Site on Fort

Eustis, Virginia. Fort Eustis was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) on December 16,

1994. The Selected Remedy was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the Administrative Record for the

Site.

The U.S. Army, as owner/operator and the “Lead Agency” (terms that are defined in the NCP),

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region III, jointly issue this decision based

upon the Administrative Record for the site. The Commonwealth of Virginia, represented by the

Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), acting in a support role, concurs with the Selected

Remedy.

1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

Brown's Lake is a manmade freshwater lake in the southern portion of the Fort Eustis Main Post

Area (Figure 1-1). The Lake was formed in the 1950s by constructing an earthen dam across a

small stream flowing south towards the Warwick River. The Lake is roughly triangular in shape,

with the earthen dam forming the base of the triangle at the Lake's southern end. The Lake is

very shallow at the northern end and becomes progressively deeper as it approaches the dam.

The Lake is fed by a drainage ditch (Upper Ditch) and discharges through an outfall into a

downstream drainage ditch (Lower Ditch) that discharges into a tidal wetland.

During a 1982 water quality study, the US Army Environmental Health Agency (USAEHA)

observed fish with lesions in Brown's Lake and recommended that the Lake remain off-limits to

fishing; however, no sources of contamination were identified for the Lake at the time. As a

result, Brown's Lake has remained off-limits to fishing since that time. Signs posted along the

shoreline of Brown's Lake prohibit fishing and swimming/wading.

Page 1-1 Brown’s Lake Site




Subsequent investigations through the 1980’s and 1990’s found that sediment in Brown’s Lake

and Upper Ditch was impacted by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and Polynuclear Aromatic

Hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, base-neutral acid extractable compounds (BNAs), total fuel

hydrocarbons (TFH), heavy (TFH-H) and light (TFH-L) fractions, and metals. The investigations

also found that the benthic population of Brown’s Lake and the drainage ditches consisted of few

individuals divided into only two species. This is an indicator that the biota of Brown’s Lake was

stressed by contamination, as the two species present were identified as resilient to

contamination. The investigations led to an Interim Removal Action (IRA) in late 1999, which

involved the removal of sediment from the Upper Ditch, draining the Lake, capping the Lake

bottom, and removal of excess sediment from the southeastern corner of the Lake. The Lake

was refilled and a monitoring program was conducted from 2000 to 2004.

Post-IRA monitoring analyzed sediment and surface water for PCBs, PAHs, pesticides, and

metals in the Lake, Upper Ditch, and Lower Ditch. In 2004, fish tissue was also collected and

analyzed for the above listed constituents. Additionally, the monitoring program contained a

biotic indicator element via the collection and identification of benthic organisms.

After completion of five years of post-IRA monitoring, the 2004 Monitoring Report concluded that

surface water quality in the Lake and the drainage ditches had generally been stable since the

IRA. The post-IRA monitoring, however, found that a number of constituents continued to exceed

US EPA Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) screening values. The 2004 Monitoring

Report concluded that though pesticide levels in the Lake sediment have not changed significantly

for the five years after the IRA, the pesticide levels in Upper Ditch sediment have demonstrated a

notable increase in concentration. In addition, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), which

include PAHs, have been increasing primarily in the Upper Ditch, but to a lesser extent in the

Lake, for the previous five years. Metals, including cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and

mercury, have also been detected above BTAG screening values in the Upper Ditch and Lake.

As an additional part of the post-IRA monitoring program, surveys of fish and benthic organisms

have been performed. Benthic surveys of the Lake and drainage ditches have found that the

number of organisms and species diversity has increased during the post-IRA monitoring from

2000 to 2004. Fish tissue collection and analysis was performed in 2004, five years after the

restocking of Brown’s Lake, which occurred immediately following the IRA. The samples of fish

tissue collected in 2004 had 12 pesticide compounds and a single PCB compound detected.

Most of these constituents detected in the fish tissue were detected at levels above USEPA

Region III Risk-Based Concentration (RBC) values. In addition, ten metals were detected in the

fish tissues samples at concentrations exceeding RBCs. The presence of these constituents in

fish tissue at concentrations exceeding their RBCs contributes to an increased risk to human

health for trespassing recreational fishermen. This increased risk is demonstrated in a

supplemental Human Health Risk Assessment (Attachment 1) completed specifically for this

ROD that evaluates this potential exposure pathway.





Overall, the post-IRA monitoring indicated the Lake had improved with respect to pre-IRA

conditions. Increasing levels of a number of constituents, however, indicate the potential for on

going impacts, degradation, and increased risk to human receptors. These increasing levels of

constituents of potential concern have been attributed to impacted sediment in the lower half of

the Upper Ditch. While this sediment was capped in place during the IRA, it is now believed to

be migrating from beneath the cap.

The response action selected in this Record of Decision is necessary to protect the public health

or welfare or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into

the environment.

1.4 DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY

There are, at present, eight sites, or Operable Units (OUs), on Fort Eustis that are being

investigated and cleaned up under CERCLA. In general, the OUs within the installation

boundaries are not inter-related, but have been ranked by the Army through a process known as

Relative Risk Site Evaluation as either high, medium, or low risk. The Brown’s Lake Site is one

of three sites on Fort Eustis ranked as a high risk site by the Army. As such, clean up of this site

is an important aspect of the Installation’s overall clean up strategy.

The Selected Remedy for the Brown’s Lake site consists of excavation and off-site disposal of

sediment from the Upper Ditch, the construction of a storm water retention pond (or other

technology to enable storm water sediment control) within the Upper Ditch, and institutional

controls regarding Lake use. Components of the Selected Remedy include the following:

• The excavation or dredging of sediment in the Upper Ditch. The portion of the Upper

Ditch to be excavated will be between Wilson Avenue and the railroad track (during the

IRA, only limited sediment was removed from this area due to cost constraints, the rest

was capped). Sediment will be excavated until native clay is encountered. The

excavated sediment will be disposed in an off-site landfill.

• In addition to excavation, on-site activities will include dewatering of excavated sediment

(if necessary), erosion controls, dust controls (if necessary), backfilling with clean soil as

needed, and ground cover restoration.

• After the impacted sediment has been removed, a lined storm water settling basin (or

other technology to enable storm water sediment control) will be constructed along the

reach that was excavated.

• Long-term site monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with a Long-Term Monitoring

Plan that has been reviewed and approved by USEPA and VDEQ.





• Institutional controls to (1) ensure that a soil cap, which covers contaminated sediment on

the lake bottom, remains undisturbed, (2) prevent consumption of potentially

contaminated fish from the Lake and (3) prevent wading or swimming in the Lake. These

controls will be implemented as detailed in Section 2.12 of the Decision Summary.

The Selected Remedy at Brown’s Lake will focus on historical sediment impacts resulting from

operations within the Brown’s Lake watershed area. No specific sources have been identified at

the site. Aside from sediment transport during storm water flow, no other current transport

pathways have been noted.

The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for Brown’s Lake include the following:

• Minimize the potential for exposure of possible ecological receptors and higher order

predators to constituents of concern in sediment at the site.

• Reduce risks to human health from fish consumption.

• Meet Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements of federal, state and local

environmental and facility siting laws (ARARs).

1.5 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The Selected Remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal

and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, is

cost-effective, and uses permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the

maximum extent practicable. The remedy for Brown’s Lake does not satisfy the statutory

preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy for the following reason:

• The relatively small volume of impacted media and existing low concentrations of target

constituents make treatment costly, difficult to implement, and provides little risk

reduction.

Because this remedy will result in hazardous contaminants remaining on-site above levels that

would allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review will be conducted

within five years after the initiation of remedial action to ensure that the remedy is, or will be,

protective of human health and the environment.



Part 2 – Decision Summary


2.1 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION

This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the U.S. Army’s selected remedy for impacted sediment

at Brown’s Lake (FTEUST-29), at Fort Eustis, Virginia (EPA CERCLIS ID # VA6210020321).

Fort Eustis was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) on December 16, 1994. The U.S.

Army, as owner/operator of the Post, has assumed the role of lead agency, and jointly issues

this ROD with the USEPA Region III. The VDEQ has assumed the role of support agency.

Additionally, the USEPA has designated this site as Operable Unit - 02 (OU-02). The remedial

action at Brown’s Lake is funded via the Department of Army’s Installation Restoration Program

transfer action known as Environmental Restoration, Army (ER,A).

Fort Eustis is located in southeastern Virginia, and borders the city of Newport News, Virginia.

Fort Eustis is an 8,228-acre military training facility that hosts a number of specialized US Army

schools, plus garrisoned troops and support activities to manage the installation. The installation

is not a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitted facility.

Brown's Lake is a man-made freshwater lake in the southern portion of the Fort Eustis Main Post



with the earthen dam forming the base of the triangle at the Lake's southern end. Brown's Lake

has an approximate length of 650 feet, a maximum width of about 300 feet, and an approximate

total surface area of 121,000 square feet. The Lake is very shallow at the northern end, and

becomes progressively deeper as it approaches the dam. The maximum water depth in the

Lake is approximately 10 feet.

2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

This section summarizes the site history and site investigations. No federal or state enforcement

activities have been undertaken at Brown’s Lake.

2.2.1 Site History

Brown's Lake is a manmade freshwater lake in the southern portion of the Fort Eustis Main Post



with the earthen dam forming the base of the triangle at the Lake's southern end. The Lake is

very shallow at the northern end and becomes progressively deeper as it approaches the dam.

Page 2-1 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia



The Lake’s source is generally storm water runoff from various land use areas including vehicle

maintenance facilities, a locomotive maintenance shop, and residential areas. The Lake is

primarily fed by a stream emptying into the northern end of the Lake, the Upper Ditch, and

discharges into a stream at the southern end of the Lake, to the Lower Ditch. The discharge

stream flows into a tidal wetland and then into the Warwick River, which is located approximately

1,800 feet south of the Lake. At present, impacts to sediment in the Upper Ditch and Brown’s

Lake are lingering results of historical operations associated with the activities described above.

During a 1982 water quality study, the US Army Environmental Health Agency (USAEHA)

observed fish with lesions in Brown's Lake and recommended that the Lake be off-limits to

fishing; however, no sources of contamination were identified for the Lake at the time. As a

result, Brown's Lake has remained off-limits to fishing since that time. Signs posted along the

shoreline of Brown's Lake prohibit fishing and swimming.

During site investigations of Brown's Lake conducted since 1982, sediment, water, and fish

tissue samples have been collected, and monitoring of the benthic community has been

conducted. Pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

(PAHs), metals, and petroleum hydrocarbons have been detected in the sediment of the Lake

and drainage ditches.

2.2.2 Previous Investigations

Six site investigations have been conducted at the site. The first, a water quality study, was

performed in three phases by the USAEHA (1982, 1985, and 1987). Subsequent investigations

included: a Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation (1990), a Remedial Investigation (RI)

(1993-1994), and an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) (1997), which were all

incorporated into the RI. In addition, sampling was performed during the IRA and on a yearly

basis for a five year period after completion of the IRA. Data from the post-IRA Confirmation

Sampling and Analysis (1999) and the 2000-2004 post-IRA monitoring program was not

available at the time the RI was finalized in February 1997.

The field investigations for this site are summarized in Table 2-1. Figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4

provide the sediment and surface water sampling locations for this site in the Upper Ditch, the

Lake, and Lower Ditch, respectively. A brief discussion of sampling events and results is

provided below.

USAEHA Studies 1982-1987

In 1982, the USAEHA conducted a water quality/fish study at Fort Eustis. At the time, the Fort

Eustis Environmental Coordinator requested that USAEHA examine water quality and fish

populations in Brown's Lake. USAEHA found that fish in Brown's Lake were visibly diseased

and that the sediments in Brown's Lake were 'greasy' and unsuitable for benthic organisms.




Three benthic samples collected from Brown's Lake contained only two species of

macroinvertebrates and over 99 percent of the individuals were from one insect species,

Chaoborus punctipennis, which is a pollution tolerant species, and thus, an indication that the

site was impacted. During this study oil and grease were visually identified within the sediment

collected; however, no sediment or surface water samples were collected for chemical analysis.

Brown's Lake was examined again during a follow-up USAEHA study in 1985. The benthic

community still consisted only of two species; again with over 99 percent of the individuals from

Chaoborus punctipennis. One sediment sample was collected during the 1985 study and

analyzed for oil/grease, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), base-neutral acid extractable

compounds (BNAs), and PCBs. The sample contained 1.25 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of

trichloroethylene (TCE), but no other compounds were detected. In addition, one surface water

sample was collected and contained 7 milligrams per liter (mg/l) oil and grease, but the sample

did not contain VOCs, BNAs, or PCBs.

A third USAEHA study in 1987 found that the benthic population still consisted primarily of the

planktonic insect Chaoborus punctipennis. Water, sediment, and fish tissue samples were

collected and analyzed during this study.

• USAEHA collected three sediment samples, and reported that a distinct oily sheen was

produced by the disturbed sediment samples at the Lake surface. The pesticide

compounds cis- and trans-chlordane, as well as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT),

and its metabolites (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane [DDD] and

dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene [DDE]), were detected in all three sediment samples.

Aroclor 1260, a PCB, was detected in one sample. Various BNA compounds were

detected in the sediment sample collected in the Lake near the Upper Ditch discharge.

• USAEHA collected seven water samples as part of the 1987 study; one sample at the

discharge point of the Upper Ditch to the Lake, two samples from the surface of the Lake,

and four from the bottom of the Lake. VOCs, BNAs, pesticides, and PCBs were not

detected in any of the water samples analyzed. Oil & grease was detected in one bottom

and one surface water sample at concentrations of 1.5 mg/l and 2.6 mg/l, respectively.

Several metals were detected in the water samples at concentrations near the detection

limit. Cyanide was detected in one surface water sample at a concentration of 0.43 mg/l.

Preliminary Assessment - 1990

In 1990, the Army conducted a Preliminary Assessment of Brown's Lake. During the field

investigations, six surface water samples and 10 sediment samples were collected. Three

sediment samples were collected in the Upper Ditch, six samples were collected in the Lake, and

one was collected at the head of Lower Ditch. Sediment samples were analyzed for VOCs,




BNAs, pesticides, PCBs, total fuel hydrocarbons-light fraction (TFH-L), Extraction Procedure

(EP) Toxicity metals, and cyanide.

Lake sediments were collected as 10-foot vibracore samples. The core was screened with a

photoionization detector (PID), and the portion of the core with the highest PID reading was

selected for VOC analysis. The core was then homogenized prior to collecting samples for all

other laboratory analyses.

Toluene, detected in only one sample, was the only VOC compound detected in sediments at

the Brown's Lake site. No BNA compounds were detected in the sediment samples. At least

one PCB compound was detected in four different sediment samples. The highest total PCB

concentration in a sediment sample (2.62 mg/kg) was detected in a sample from the Upper

Ditch. No spatial trend in PCB concentrations; however, was identified in the sediment samples.

Chlordane, DDD, DDE, and DDT were detected in sediments from the Lake and the Upper

Drainage Ditch. Chlordane was detected at four sample locations, at concentrations ranging

from 0.16 to 1.30 mg/kg. DDT, DDD, and/or DDE were detected at seven locations; and the sum

of these three constituent concentrations per sample was less than 1 mg/kg in all cases. DDT

and its metabolites were also detected in sediments within the Lower Ditch.

TFH-L was detected in two of the three sediment samples from the Upper Ditch and five of the

six sediment samples collected from the Lake. The TFH-L concentrations detected ranged from

0.89 to 48 mg/kg. TFH-L compounds were not detected in the Lower Ditch sample.

Nine sediment samples were submitted for EP Toxicity analyses. Selenium, lead, cadmium, and

barium were detected in at least one of the sample extracts. The concentrations detected in the

extracts did not exceed the regulatory limits for characteristic hazardous waste under 40 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) 261. No single value was greater than 10 percent of the respective

regulatory limit. Cyanide was detected in all of the sediment samples collected from the Upper

and Lower Ditches; however, cyanide was not detected in the Lake sediments.

Surface water samples from Brown's Lake were analyzed for VOCs, BNAs, pesticides, PCBs,

TFH-L, total metals, water quality parameters, and cyanide. Pesticides, PCBs, BNAs, TFH-L,

and cyanide were not detected in any of the samples analyzed. Lead was the only metal

detected, at a maximum concentration of 0.003 mg/l out of two samples. The VOCs, chloroform

and dichlorobromomethane, were detected in all six surface water samples and the tap water

used during decontamination. The presence of these common water disinfection byproducts

was attributed to a sampling artifact, namely tap water, being introduced during the sampling

process.




Remedial Investigation – 1993/1994

During 1993 and 1994, the Army conducted an RI at Brown's Lake. During the RI field

investigation, sediment samples were collected from 11 locations; five from the Upper Ditch and

six from the Lake. The sediment samples were analyzed for chemical parameters and acid

volatile sulfide (AVS). An ecological inventory conducted during the RI collected fish specimens

for chemical analysis, observed biological conditions in the Lake, and identified benthic

invertebrates in sediment samples. Water samples were not collected during the RI, as previous

investigations did not indicate that the water quality of Brown's Lake was significantly impaired.

Field personnel again observed and smelled evidence of sediment (oily sheen) during the

sampling event. Sediment samples collected in the middle of the Lake were dark black, sludge-

like in texture, and had a strong petroleum odor. Samples collected closer to the Lake shores

were dark black, sandy sludge, and had a less intense petroleum odor than the samples

obtained from the middle of the Lake. Samples collected in the Upper Ditch decreased in visible

black staining and petroleum odor with distance from the Lake.

VOCs (carbon disulfide, acetone, and 2-butanone) were detected in two of the sediment samples

from the Lake at concentrations less than 2.0 mg/kg. Chlordane, DDT, and DDT metabolites

were again widespread in the sediment samples, and were detected in all sediment samples.

The pesticides appeared to be widely distributed with no apparent spatial trend in concentration.

While the maximum chlordane concentrations were detected in the Lake; the maximum

concentrations of DDT and DDT metabolites were detected in the Upper Ditch.

Aroclor 1260 was found at two locations near the middle of the Lake, at concentrations of 0.42

and 0.43 mg/kg. No PCBs were detected in the Upper Ditch sediment samples.

BNA compounds were detected in three of five Upper Ditch sediment samples, and in three of

six Lake sediment samples. In the Upper Ditch, BNA concentrations generally decreased with

distance from the Lake. PAH (a subset of BNAs) concentrations in Lake sediment samples

ranged from 0.69 mg/kg (chrysene) to 3.1 mg/kg (fluoranthene).

The RI sediment samples were analyzed for the total fuel hydrocarbons-heavy fraction (TFH-H).

The highest concentrations for TFH-H as fuel (2,300 mg/kg) and TFH-H as oil (2,300 mg/kg)

were detected in the approximate midpoint of the Lake. The average concentration detected in

Lake sediments was 1,190 mg/kg TFH-H as Fuel and 1,560 mg/kg TFH-H as oil. TFH-H values

were approximately 50% lower at the edges of the Lake compared to the center.

Based upon the findings of the field investigation, as well as previous studies, the RI concluded

the following:




• The diversity of macroinvertebrates had been impacted by impacts to the Lake, primarily

in the sediment.

• The potential for significant risk existed to aquatic receptors in the Lake (fish and

amphibians) due to pesticide and PCB impacted sediment.

• The PAHs posed a low to moderate potential risk to aquatic receptors.

• Lastly, a high potential risk existed for higher order predators due to the accumulation of

pollutants in the fatty tissue of aquatic prey species.

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) - 1997

The Army conducted an EE/CA for the Brown’s Lake site with subsequent issuance of the Draft

Final EE/CA Report in May 1997. Remedial action objectives (RAOs) were established in the

EE/CA and were as follows:

• Restore the ecological health of the Lake;

• Reduce potential risk to higher order predators;

• Reduce potential human health risk from fishing to acceptable levels; and,

• Provide storm water detention for the Brown’s Lake watershed.

Four remedial alternatives were identified in the EE/CA, and are described as follows:

Alternative 1 - Natural Attenuation and Institutional Controls

• Continued prohibition of fishing, swimming and wading in the Lake; and,

• Regular sampling and analysis of sediment and fish.

Alternative 2 - Sediment Removal with On-Site Capping

• Lower Lake level to expose inlet area;

• Dredge sediments from Brown’s Lake;

• Dewater sediments and place in upper portion of inlet area;

• Cap sediments placed in upper portion of inlet area; and,

• Sample the fish in Brown’s Lake, as necessary.

Alternative 3 - In Situ Capping of Sediment

• Drain the Lake;

• Excavate sediment from the Upper Ditch and place in the Lake;

• Consolidate sediment in Lake bed;

• Prepare a sub-base for the liner;

• Install the liner and anchor system;




• Allow the Lake to refill; and,

• Restock the Lake with fish.

Alternative 4 - Sediment Capping and Wetlands Creation

• Drain the Lake;

• Excavate sediment from the Upper Ditch;

• Excavate two feet of sediment from upper two-thirds of the Lake;

• Consolidate sediment in the southern third of the Lake bed;

• Place clean soil on dredged material in southern third of Lake;

• Build marsh wetlands in lower one-third of Lake area; and,

• Lower elevation of the reinforced concrete pipe outlet to control water level.

The EE/CA recommended implementation of Alternative 1: Natural Attenuation and Institutional

Controls, which did not rely on active remediation. This recommendation was based on the

ecological health of the Lake, which was stated to be improving. The EE/CA stated that

sedimentation and biodegradation of fuel hydrocarbons were expected to further improve the

health of the Lake.

1999 Interim Removal Action

The EE/CA study indicated that natural attenuation, rather than aggressive remediation, was

warranted as the level of potential ecological risk did not justify the funding required to implement

an aggressive remedial action. Fort Eustis considered an aggressive removal action more

appropriate; however, as it wished to reopen the Lake to recreational use (fishing). Fort Eustis,

therefore, decided to perform an IRA.

The IRA was conducted during the period of January through October 1999, and consisted of the

following primary components:

• Drainage of the Lake;

• Excavation of sediment from the Upper Ditch with placement of sediment in the

lower end of the Lake;

• Placement of a soil cap throughout the entire Lake, as well as in the Upper Ditch;

• Removal and disposal of sediments that were displaced during cap construction;

• Walkway and outlook construction;

• Spillway reconstruction;

• Site Restoration; and,

• Fish restocking.

On January 11, 1999, excavation of sediment from the upper end (above the railroad tracks) of

the Upper Ditch began. While sediments were removed in the upper 830 feet of the Upper Ditch,




this reach of the ditch was not capped. As the ditch is very narrow in this area, all accumulated

sediment could be removed until the natural gray/green clay underlying the area was

encountered. Thus, no residual sediments were present in this area that would have required a

cap.

On average, the sediment thickness was less than 6 inches in the upper 830 feet of the Upper

Ditch. Sediment was also removed from areas on the cut banks, and from areas outside of the

ditch where high water levels during sustained rain events may have deposited sediment.

Stone breaks were constructed for erosion control within the upper end of the Upper Ditch, with

the breaks installed approximately every 50 to 100 feet along the ditch.

In the lower reach of the Upper Ditch (i.e., below the railroad tracks), sediment was greater than

two feet thick, as the water surface elevation of the Lake typically creates submergent conditions

in the area; thereby, enhancing sediment deposition. Given the increased sediment thickness

with respect to budgetary and space constraints, only approximately two feet of sediments were

excavated from the lower portion of the Upper Ditch; thus, leaving residual sediments in place.

The residual sediments left in place were, therefore, capped in place with a geotextile fabric and

approximately two feet of soil cap. Riprap breaks were installed in the lower end of the Upper

Ditch to prevent erosion and protect the cap.

Overall, it was estimated that approximately 400 cubic yards of sediment were excavated from

the Upper Ditch and relocated in the lower end of the Lake.

Cap construction within the Lake consisted of the placement of the geotextile fabric over the

Lake sediments followed with two feet of soil cap. The thickness of the soil cap was verified by

using a hand auger at various locations. In most cases, the cap was measured at a thickness of

2 to 3 feet.

Initially, excavation of Lake sediments was not planned; however, during the course of cap

construction, a substantial quantity of the sediment was displaced. This displaced sediment

material created instability beneath the liner system; and therefore, it was decided to excavate

the unstable sediment, and dispose of it in a local Subtitle D landfill. An estimated 1,400 cubic

yards of material were removed from the Lake, and disposed in the landfill.

As part of the IRA, a sampling and analysis program was instituted that included the following

components:

• Post-excavation Confirmation Sampling and Analysis. Sediment and soil

samples were collected and analyzed to document residual constituents left on

site, and to establish baseline constituent concentrations in the soils of the newly

constructed Upper Ditch and Lake cap.




• Fish Tissue Analysis. Fish samples (whole body analysis) were collected during

the fish stocking activities to document baseline conditions for the fish in support

of the post-IRA monitoring program.

A summary of the results from the IRA sampling is presented below.

Upper Ditch Sediment Results

Following sediment excavation, but prior to capping, sediment samples were collected within the

Upper Ditch to document residual levels of constituents of concern at the site. Twenty-two

sediment samples were collected from the Upper Ditch.

Pesticides were detected in 21 of the 22 sediment samples collected in the Upper Ditch with the

concentrations of DDD, DDE, or DDT exceeding USEPA Region III Biological Technical

Assistance Group (BTAG) levels in 16 of the samples. Concentrations of these compounds in

sediments in this area as discussed in the RI Report ranged up to 1,490 µg/kg. PAHs were

detected in only one of the sediment samples collected in the Upper Ditch area, with

concentrations exceeding BTAG levels in this sample. Various metals were detected in all

sediment samples collected within the Upper Ditch, with chromium concentrations exceeding

BTAG levels in all samples collected. Arsenic was detected above BTAG levels in one sample.

No PCBs were detected in the confirmation samples in this area.

Lake Sediment Results

Samples were collected from within Lake sediments prior to capping activities to document the

residual concentrations of the Constituents of Potential Concern (COPCs). Twelve surficial

sediment samples were collected throughout the Lake and analyzed for target compound list

(TCL) PAHs, TCL pesticides, TCL PCBs, and target analyte list (TAL) metals. Concentrations of

PAHs, pesticides, and metals were consistently above BTAG levels throughout the Lake. Only

two PCBs (Aroclor 1260 at 120 and 290 µg/kg) were noted.

Lake Cap Material Results

Three samples were collected from the soil cap material (after placement of the fill) to document

the concentration of compounds in the newly constructed Lake bottom prior to refilling. Samples

were analyzed for TCL VOCs, TCL semi-volatile organic chemicals (SVOCs), TCL

pesticides/PCBs, and TAL metals.

Organic constituents detected in the soil cap material included tetrachloroethene (14 to 22

µg/kg), di-n-butylphthalate (440 to 710 µg/kg), butylbenzylphthalate (120 to 240 µg/kg), delta-

BHC (0.054 µg/kg), heptachlor epoxide (0.15 µg/kg), dieldrin (0.096 to 0.27 µg/kg), DDE (0.15 to

0.17 µg/kg), endosulfan sulfate (0.10 to 0.13 µg/kg), DDT (0.059 to 0.13 µg/kg), endrin ketone




(0.12 to 0.26 µg/kg), and gamma-chlordane (0.065 to 0.08 µg/kg). Butylbenzylphthalate was the

only organic constituent detected that exceeded BTAG levels.

Various metals were detected in all soil samples. As was the case for the confirmation samples

within the ditch, chromium concentrations exceeded BTAG levels in all samples collected.

Fish Analysis

Six fish samples (three bass and three catfish) were collected in October 1999 for whole body

analysis to document constituent concentrations in the fingerlings. The data was used as a

baseline for future analysis and evaluation.

A summary of constituents detected in the whole body analysis included the following:

• Only phthalates were detected in the SVOC analysis including: diethylphthalate

(one detect at 43 ug/kg), di-n-butylphthalate (two detects at 59 and 230 ug/kg), and

bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (five detects at range of 61 to 360 ug/kg). One detection

of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (360 ug/kg) in catfish exceeded the USEPA Risk

Based Concentration (RBC) of 230 g/kg for fish consumption. However, this

compound was detected in the two method blanks at concentrations of 35 and 40

ug/kg. As discussed in the USEPA Region III Modifications to the National

Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review, “Positive sample results should be

reported unless the concentration of the compound in the sample is less than or

equal to 10 times the amount in any blank for the common phthalate contaminants.”

• Pesticides detected in the whole body analysis included Endosulfan I (two detects

at 3.9 and 4.5 ug/kg) and DDE (five detects at range of 3.4 to 16 ug/kg). Three of

the DDE detects were equal to or greater than the USEPA Region III RBC of 9.3

ug/kg.

• No Aroclors were detected in the whole body analysis.

Numerous metals were detected in the whole body analysis including aluminum, barium,

beryllium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury,

potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, vanadium, and zinc. None of the concentrations exceeded

the USEPA Region III RBC values.

2000 - 2004 Post-IRA Monitoring

Post-IRA monitoring was conducted on an annual basis for a period of five years from the

completion of IRA activities. Annual Post-IRA monitoring activities consisted of surface water,

sediment, and benthic sampling, with fish tissue sampling conducted during year Five. The




Post-IRA Sampling Program is described in detail in the Post-IRA Monitoring Program, Year

2004 Data, Brown’s Lake Monitoring Program, dated March 2005.

The 2004 monitoring event included surface water, sediment, and benthic organism sampling

from the three areas of the site. These areas include: (1) the Upper Ditch, (Figure 2-2), (2)

Brown’s Lake (Figure 2-3), and (3) the Lower Ditch (Figure 2-4). The 2004 monitoring data for

sediment, surface water, and fish tissue samples are summarized in Tables 2-2 to 2-4.

A summary of the sampling and the analytical data is provided in the following sections.

Surface Water

• Surface water at the site has generally not shown significant impacts over the history of

the site. No significant changes in the analytical data for the surface water have been

noted since completion of the IRA.

• While several pesticide and metal concentrations in surface water have shown some

variation over the past five monitoring events (with five pesticides and six metals

exceeding BTAG screening levels in 2004) since the IRA was completed, the data does

not indicate strong trends.

Sediment

• A number of pesticide constituents were detected during the 2004 monitoring event, with

three of these constituents (DDT, DDD, and DDE) exceeding BTAG screening levels.

While no spatial trends were noted in the ditch areas, it appears that the higher

concentrations of pesticides were confined to the upper portion of Brown’s Lake near

where the Upper Ditch discharges to the Lake. With respect to temporal trends, it

appears that pesticide concentrations are increasing in the Upper Ditch area.

• Numerous SVOC constituents were detected during the 2004 monitoring event, with 15

constituents (mostly PAHs, and to a lesser extent phthalates) exceeding BTAG screening

levels. Spatially among each of the three areas, the higher SVOC concentrations were

noted in the middle reach of the Upper Ditch Area and the upper portion of the Lake;

however, the Lower Ditch area had no discernable spatial trend. With respect to temporal

trends, it appears that PAH concentrations are increasing (and have been over the five

year monitoring period) in the Upper Ditch area, while an increasing trend in the Lake is

more recent. However, the Lower Ditch Area currently reflects a decreasing PAH trend.

• A number of metal constituents were detected during the 2004 monitoring event, with five

of these constituents (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and mercury) exceeding BTAG

screening levels. Among these five constituents chromium, copper, and lead had the




greatest frequency of exceedances, and as such, were chosen for trend analysis.

Spatially among the three areas, it appears that metal concentrations are slightly greater

in the lower reach of the Upper Ditch area, in the northern portion of the Lake, and in the

upper reach of the Lower Ditch area. With respect to temporal trends, while copper

exhibits an upward concentration trend for all three areas, lead and chromium generally

do not.

Fish Tissue

• Pesticide/PCBs: During the initial monitoring event in 2000, two pesticides were detected

in juvenile bass and catfish, with one exceeding the RBC in the three catfish samples.

During the 2004 monitoring event 12 pesticides and one PCB were detected in the fish

tissue samples, with most of these constituents exceeding their RBCs. Thus,

pesticide/PCB constituents overall have increased in concentration and number of

constituents since the fish were re-introduced into Brown’s Lake following the IRA.

• SVOCs: During the initial monitoring event in 2000, three SVOCs were detected in

juvenile bass and catfish, with one constituent exceeding the RBC in one catfish sample.

During the 2004 monitoring event, four SVOCs were detected in fish tissue samples,

again with only one constituent exceeding the RBC (one catfish and one bass sample).

While the two SVOC detections exceeding the RBC were higher than initial

concentrations, other detections of this constituent were generally equivalent with the

initial concentrations. In addition, while three new constituents were detected (at near

detection level concentrations) in 2004, two of the constituents detected in 2000 were not

subsequently detected in 2004. Thus, there does not appear to be a readily apparent

upward trend with respect to SVOCs.

• Metals: With respect to the bass samples, a direct comparison of the 2004 Monitoring

data to the initial 2000 data indicates that generally the bass population has not seen

significant accumulation from most of the metal constituents as the range and magnitude

are similar for both data sets, with the exception of mercury and antimony (which appear

to have increased moderately by a factor of two or three). With respect to catfish

samples, however, it appears that there has been a slight moderate increase in metals

accumulation as nine metal constituents were noted to increase (aluminum, antimony,

arsenic, barium, cadmium, cobalt, iron, manganese, and nickel generally increased by a

factor of two to four), while eight metals maintained similar levels, and four metals

generally decreased (beryllium, mercury, selenium, and zinc).

Benthic

• A total of 708 benthic organisms containing representatives from 3 phyla, 6 classes, 8+

orders and 17+ families were collected during the 2004 macroinvertebrates sampling.




Arthropods (insects (31%) and crustaceans (5%)) and mollusk (bivalves (26%), and

gastropods (24%)) comprised 86% of the organisms sampled. Annelids comprised the

remaining 14% of the sampled organisms.

• Insects were not only the most plentiful organisms sampled, they were the most diverse.

Ten families of insect were identified in this years sampling including: Dytiscidae,

Haliplidae, Chironomidae, Culicidae, Tipulidae, Corixidae, Nepidae, Corduliidae and

Lestidae. Two families of bivalves (Corbiculidiae and Pisidiidae) and three families of

gastropods (Lymnaeidae, Physidae and Planoridae) were identified. In addition to the

insects and mollusk, two families of Malacostraca (Cambaridae and Gammaridae) and

two classes of annelid (Hirudinea and Oligochaeta) were collected during this year’s

sampling.

• The 2004 Monitoring report for benthic organisms indicated a significant improvement of

macroinvertibrate diversity and number for the site.

2005 Feasibility Study

A Feasibility Study (FS) was completed in May 2005 for the Brown’s Lake Site. In order to

address post-IRA site conditions, the FS included revised Human Health and Ecological Risk

Assessments. The updated risk assessments were incorporated in the decision making process

for selection of an appropriate remedial alternative. The updated risk assessments, as well as

the remedial alternative selection process and outcome are discussed at length in the following

sections.

2.3 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The RI report, dated February 1997, the FS report, dated May 2005, and the Proposed Plan for

the Brown’s Lake Site at Fort Eustis, Virginia, dated July 2005, were made available to the public

on August 1, 2005. They can be found in the Administrative Record file and the information

repository maintained at the Grissom Library, 366 DeShazor Drive, Newport News, VA; the

Christopher Newport University Library, 1 University Place, Newport News, VA; and the

Groninger Library on Fort Eustis. The notice of availability of these three documents was

published in the Daily Press on August 3, 2005 and in the Wheel (Fort Eustis’ on-post

newspaper) on August 4, 2005. A public comment period was held from August 1 to August 31,

2005. In addition, a public meeting was held on August 17, 2005, to present the Proposed Plan

to a broader community audience beyond those that had already been involved at the site. At

this meeting, representatives of the US Army, the USEPA, and the VDEQ were available to

answer questions about problems at the site and the remedial alternatives. The Army also used

this meeting to solicit a wider cross-section of community input on the reasonably anticipated

future land use.




The Army mailed notices to those on its mailing list indicating the availability of the documents

for review. The mailing list was established during the development of Fort Eustis’ Community

Relations Plan (CRP) (1995) and improved through the second edition of the CRP (2000).

Individuals have also been added to the mailing list after interested responses were received

following the notices placed in the local papers and requested additional information. In addition,

the notices were mailed to individuals on the Technical Review Committee mailing list, which is

comprised of individuals that have attended at least one Committee meeting. Notices were

mailed August 1, 2005. Furthermore, the Brown’s Lake site activities have been discussed in

detail at semi-annual Technical Review Committee meetings, which are open to the public. As

noted in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this Record of Decision, no public

comments were receive.

2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION

As a Federal Facility, Fort Eustis is on the NPL as a ‘fence-line to fence-line’ installation, with

individual sites listed as separate OUs. In general, the OUs within the installation boundaries are

not inter-related, but have been ranked by the Army through a process known as Relative Risk

Site Evaluation as either high, medium, or low risk. The Brown’s Lake Site (OU-02), the subject

of this ROD, is one of three sites on Fort Eustis ranked as a high relative risk site by the Army.

As such, clean up of this site is an important aspect of the Installation’s overall clean up strategy.

In addition to Brown’s Lake - OU-02, Fort Eustis has seven other individual OUs. Each OU is

generally considered separately from the others, as they have no common physical links;

however, investigative and remedial approached may be comparable, as some OUs have similar

characteristics. A brief description of each OU and its current status is provided as follows:

• OU 01 - Bailey Creek: This OU contains sediment impacted by historic release of PCBs.

The RI for this OU was completed in 1997. An IRA was completed for this OU in 2000, It

is currently in the FS stage. This OU is listed as a high risk site by the Army.

• OU 03 - Milstead Island Creek: This OU contains sediment impacted by PAHs,

pesticides, metals, and PCBs. The RI for this OU was completed in 1997. This OU is

currently in the FS stage.

• OU 04 - Eustis Lake: The RI for Eustis Lake found unacceptable levels of PCBs in fish

tissue samples and sediment. As a result, a catch and release fishing restriction is

currently imposed at the Lake. This OU is currently in the FS stage. This OU is listed as

a high risk site by the Army.

• OU 05 - DOL Storage Yard: The soil and sediment of this OU was impacted by a historic




pesticide (DDT) spill. A ROD was issued in 2001 and RA involving excavation and

disposal of impacted media was completed in 2003. The OU is currently in post-RA long-

term monitoring.

• OU 06 - Fire Training Area: Groundwater beneath the fire training area has been

impacted by chlorinated solvents. The RI for this OU was completed in 1997. This OU

is currently in the FS stage.

• OU 07 - Oil/Sludge Holding Pond: Sewage sludge mixed with heating oil was buried at

this site in the late 1970’s. The RI for this OU was completed in 1997. In 2002, a ROD

was issued for the Oil/Sludge Holding Pond site. This ROD included the excavation and

disposal of oil/sludge material, as well as underlying soil that retained residual impacts.

The RA was completed in 2004. This OU is currently in post-RA long-term monitoring.

• OU 08 - Felker Fuel Farm: This OU is an active tank farm servicing the adjacent Felker

Airfield. Soil and groundwater associated with this site are impacted by petroleum

hydrocarbons. An IRA was completed in 1994, during which 3,800 cubic yards of

petroleum-contaminated soil were removed and treated at a bioremediation cell on Fort

Eustis. The site is currently in the RI stage.

2.5 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The following section provides an overview of the site’s physical characteristics and describes

the nature and extent of site contamination. In addition, based upon the information presented

below, a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) was prepared. Figure 2-1a presents a conceptual site

model that demonstrates the current and potential future uses of the site and shows the

complete human exposure pathways. Figure 2-1b presents a conceptual site model that

demonstrates the ecological pathways and receptors.

2.5.1 Physical Site Characteristics

The site consists of a lake that is roughly triangular in shape, with an earthen dam forming the

base of the triangle at the Lake's southern end. Brown's Lake has an approximate length of 650

feet, a maximum width of about 300 feet, and an approximate total surface area of 121,000

square feet. The Lake is very shallow at the northern end, and becomes progressively deeper

as it approaches the dam. The maximum water depth in the Lake is approximately 10 feet.

The Lake is supplied by a drainage ditch, referred to as the Upper Ditch, which enters at the

northern end of the Lake. The Lake discharges to a second drainage ditch, referred to as the




Lower Ditch, at the southern end of the Lake. The Lower Ditch empties into a tidal marsh and

then into the Warwick River.

Surface Topography and Hydrology

Brown's Lake is situated in a topographically low area sloping upwards on its western and

northern sides. The upward sloping is less pronounced on its eastern side in the immediate

vicinity of the Lake; outside of this area the terrain is generally flat with a slight downward grade

towards the Warwick River. The land surface slopes gently away from the Lake on the south

side, opposite the dam location. The Lake is shallow in the upper end with depths ranging from

1 to 3 feet and deeper in the lower end with a maximum depth of approximately 10 feet.

The watershed of Brown's Lake covers over 75 acres. The Upper Ditch (the primary source of

water in Brown's Lake) discharges into the north end of the Lake, and receives storm water

runoff from vehicle maintenance facilities, a locomotive shop, residential and open areas. A

pesticide mixing area was formerly located in the drainage area, on the site of the present

Directorate of Public Works.

The northern, western and, to a lesser extent, immediate area of the eastern banks drain into the

Lake via overland flow. Two storm water drains located within the Helicopter Maintenance Area

(HMA) Site discharge along the western slope of Brown's Lake. At the southern end of the Lake,

water flows over a weir and into a culvert that crosses under Meyer Road. The culvert

discharges into the Lower Ditch (which is the former path of a stream), and the water flows to a

tidal wetland approximately 350 feet south of the dam. Eventually, the water discharges to the

Warwick River, which is approximately 1,800 feet south of the Lake. The area south of Meyer

Road is located within 50- and 100-year floodplains.

Geology and Hydrogeology

Groundwater measurements obtained during investigations at the HMA site indicate that

groundwater flow on the west side of Brown's Lake is in a southeasterly direction. Based on

groundwater and Lake surface elevations, it appears that groundwater is discharging to Brown's

Lake along the upper and middle sections of its western shore. No groundwater elevation data

have been generated for the eastern shore area. If, however, groundwater flow from the west

discharges into parts of Brown’s Lake in a southeasterly direction (as topography and site

investigations indicate), then groundwater would naturally flow away from the eastern portion of

the Lake towards the southeast. However, overland flow, based on the immediate sloping

surface will enter the Lake from the east.

The Lake water level is at a higher elevation than the groundwater table along the southern and

southwestern sections of the Lake. Thus, Brown's Lake may be recharging the aquifer at its

southern end. A "flowing" monitoring well (subsequently abandoned) was located at the base of




the dam, which supports this concept. Shallow, unconfined aquifer systems, such as that

underlying the site, fluctuate seasonally; and thus, this area could be a groundwater discharge

zone at times.

2.5.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination / Quantity of Waste

Based on the data from prior investigations, constituents of potential concern are present

primarily in the sediment of Upper Ditch and Brown’s Lake. The Ditch and Lake sediments have

been impacted by PAHs, pesticides, PCBs, and metals. While no specific source has been

identified for the impacts; it is suspected that the constituents of concern entered the Upper Ditch

by overland flow during rainfall events.

Surface water has not appeared to be significantly impacted by constituents. In addition, the

following can be concluded based upon the investigations performed to date at Site 16 – Brown’s

Lake:

• Constituent concentrations began increasing sooner, and with greater magnitude, in

Upper Ditch than the Lake proper.

• Fish populations are bioaccumulating the constituents of concern.

• The benthic population may be recovering in numbers and diversity since the IRA.

In addition, based upon observations made during the IRA, the following presents estimates of

areal extent of sediment evaluated during the Feasibility Study:

• The surface area of the affected sediment in the Lake is approximately one-half of the

water surface area, or approximately 60,000 square feet.

• Approximately 350 lineal feet (by 20 feet wide) of the Upper Ditch contains affected

media that could be an on-going source of constituents of concern. This portion of the

Upper Ditch includes the area between Wilson Avenue and the railroad track; all

sediment upstream of this area was removed during the IRA.

• The volume of sediment in question is an estimated 1,000 cubic yards of sediment in the

Upper Ditch and 11,000 cubic yards of sediment within the bounds of Brown’s Lake.

2.5.3 Fate and Transport of Constituents of Potential Concern

Types of COPCs (as further discussed in Section 2.7) include various PAHs, metals, pesticides,

and PCBs that have been found in the sediment of Brown’s Lake and Upper Ditch, of which,

individual constituents exhibit carcinogenic or toxic properties. These constituents have been




found to a lesser extent in fish tissue. Surface water has not appeared to be significantly

impacted by constituents. The concentrations of constituents detected in various media at the

site are presented in Tables 2-2 through 2-4.

Those constituent types detected within the sediment of the site have been identified as

environmentally persistent. It is unlikely that natural attenuation will significantly reduce the

concentrations observed in the Upper Ditch, which has higher values than those observed in the

Lake. They are slow to biodegrade and adsorb strongly to the fine-grained sediment/soil. While

the constituents themselves are not particularly mobile, storm water flow can transport the fine-

grained soil/sediment to which the constituents have been bound.

Historic storm water run-off and undocumented historic releases from the Brown’s Lake urban-

like watershed is believed to be the initial source of the constituents within the Lake and drainage

ditches; however, no point sources of contamination have been identified. The Brown’s Lake

watershed contains a number of industrial sites, including locomotive repair yard, a historic

pesticide mixing and storage area and a number of vehicle and equipment storage yards and

parking lots.

Given the storm water pollution prevention efforts at the installation, and supported by surface

water quality data, storm water runoff into the Upper Ditch is not believed to be a significant

cause for on-going impacts. At present, increasing trends of constituents of concern are

believed to be migrating from sediments capped in the Upper Ditch, and liberated by high storm

water flows.

There are no subsurface transport pathways for constituents at the site due to the low

permeability clay underlying the site. Additionally, the constituents’ affinity for the fine-grained

sediment will tend to preclude downward migration. Potential transport pathways that are

considered significant for this site are:

• Transport of constituents via suspension of sediment into the water column and fluid

transport into Lower Ditch.

• Bioaccumulation into the food chain via invertebrates, fish, and potentially higher order

predators.

2.6 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND USES

This section provides a characterization of current and future site uses, and identifies the

potentially exposed populations at or near the site with regard to the current situation and

potential future conditions.




2.6.1 Current Situation

Approximately 10,067 military and 6,269 Department of Defense (DOD) and contractor civilians

are assigned or working at Fort Eustis. Also, approximately 3,545 military personnel and their

dependents reside on Fort Eustis. While no residences are situated immediately adjacent to the

Brown’s Lake site, some are within a short walk. Furthermore, the best description of current

land use would be green-space (i.e., the area around the pond) and undeveloped (area around

the drainage ditches).

Sediment

At present, no residences surround (i.e., are immediately adjacent to) the Lake or drainage

ditches, and the land is not used for commercial or industrial uses. While the Lake does have a

potential for limited recreational uses (e.g. swimming, wading, and fishing), warning signs have

been posted prohibiting these activities.

In addition, the drainage ditches offer little recreational opportunity due to topography, but could

be susceptible to trespasser traffic.

Thus, there are no receptors to the sediment in the Lake at this time; however, trespassers are

potential receptors of sediments in the drainage ditch.

Surface Water

Fort Eustis worker personnel or residential population exposures to the surface water through

water consumption would not be expected, as the Lake, due to its small size, would not be a

reliable supply of water. It would be expected that Newport News Waterworks would continue to

supply drinking water to Fort Eustis. In addition, swimming, wading and fishing in the Lake are

prohibited, and signage is posted. Furthermore, as there are no COPCs for surface water, this

pathway will not be evaluated further.

2.6.2 Future Land Use

Based on master planning issues for Fort Eustis, the facility is expected to remain government

property. The potential for future development of the Lake and drainage ditches is minimal due

to extremes in topography, as well as poor soils for building (i.e., Lake sediments would be

unsuitable for any form of construction for habitation). Therefore, it can reasonably be expected

that the land use of the pond and drainage ditches would remain similar to current use. Thus,

future land use and potential receptors mimic current conditions, with the following exception:




• If homes are built closer to the drainage ditches, it could be reasonably expected that

there is a greater opportunity for trespasser activities. As the area is not intended for

recreational activities, adults and children that enter the area would be considered

trespassers.

2.7 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

The baseline risk assessment estimates what potential risks the site poses if no action were

taken. It provides the basis for taking action and identifies the contaminants and exposure

pathways that need to be addressed by the remedial action. This section of the ROD

summarizes the results of the baseline risk assessment for this site.

2.7.1 Human Health Risk

Two human health risk assessments were performed for this site. The initial risk assessment

was conducted as part of the RI and described the potential human health risks prior to the IRA.

As the site conditions changed significantly as a result of the IRA, a new human health risk

assessment was completed for the FS. The updated risk assessment incorporated post-IRA

monitoring data and conclusions to assess human health risks after the completion of the IRA.

As such, the human health risk assessment from the FS is more reflective of current site risks,

and is presented below.

However, since the Final Proposed Plan for the Brown’s Lake site was issued, a supplemental

Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, which focused solely on fish consumption by

trespassing recreational fishermen, was completed specifically for this ROD in order to establish

a baseline condition in accordance with CERCLA and more completely identify and quantify

potential health risk to potential human receptors. As this is a newly completed component of

the overall human health risk assessment, it is presented in its entirety as Attachment 1.

Further, given that this is newly provided information and would be lengthy to summarize in the

text below, the discussion regarding selection of Chemicals of Concern and Exposure

Assessment is confined to Attachment 1; however, a summary of the findings of the

assessment for trespassing recreational fishermen is provided below.

The CSM (Figure 2-1a) describes the basis of the human health risk assessment for Brown’s

Lake after IRA.

Identification of Chemicals of Concern

Tables 2-5 through 2-10, as well as Table A1-2 in Attachment 1, summarize the selection of

the chemicals of concern. Presented in the tables are the frequency of detection and the range

of detected concentrations for each chemical, selected ARARs (e.g., Virginia Surface Water




Quality Standards), "to be considered" (TBC) criteria (e.g., USEPA Region III RBCs) and the

USEPA weight-of-evidence classification for known or suspected human carcinogens. The

collection of ARARs and TBCs presented in the table are, in general, collectively referred to as

‘risk screening criteria’.

The detection frequency, concentration range, and ARARs and TBC criteria are used to select

COPCs for evaluation in the exposure assessment and risk characterization. Recognizing that

the list of chemicals detected at the site is quite lengthy, the COPCs represent a manageable

subset of chemicals at the site that are used to characterize exposure and potential risk.

Specifically, constituents with concentrations that are greater than the risk screening criteria (i.e,

RBCs, etc.) are retained as COPCs.

A direct comparison of risk screening criteria to the detected constituent concentrations indicates

that only arsenic and vanadium concentrations in sediment exceed their respective screening

criteria. Arsenic and vanadium are not representative of site impacts, however, as their

concentrations are similar to background levels (based upon the 95% UCL comparisons). Thus,

arsenic and vanadium were not retained as COPCs. Therefore, no detected constituents were

identified as COPCs.

For the fish tissue samples, detected constituents were compared to the USEPA Region III

RBCs for fish tissue. Twenty constituents exceeded their respective RBC, and thus classified as

COPCs, and these consisted primarily of pesticides and metals. Approximately two-thirds of the

constituents identified as COPCs were detected in 85-100% of the samples. Aroclor 1260, a

PCB, was detected in twelve of the thirteen fish samples, and the only SVOC detected was

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate, which was found in six of the tissue samples.

Exposure Assessment Summary

This section describes the complete exposure pathways by which the potential receptors may be

exposed to the COPCs in the sediment and surface water via a specific exposure route.

The current and future land use of a site determines whether there will be anticipated changes in

the potential receptors.

Conceptual Site Model

A conceptual site model was prepared for the site to assess reasonable exposure scenarios and

pathways of exposure. Figure 2-1a presents the conceptual site model that demonstrates the

potential exposure pathways for the site post-IRA. While there is currently a prohibition on

fishing in the Lake, the baseline conditions outlined in the supplemental human health risk

assessment assumes that a small group of trespassing recreational fishermen (adult and child)

catch and eat limited amounts of fish from the Lake.




Potential Receptors and Exposure Pathways Summary

For the current situation, the following potentially exposed populations to the impacted media at

the site have been identified:

• Trespasser exposure (adults only) to sediment contained in the drainage ditches, and

• Adult and child consumption of fish recreationally caught in Brown’s Lake by trespassing

fishermen.

For the future situation, the following potentially exposed populations to the impacted media at

the site have been identified:

• Trespasser exposure (adults) to sediment contained in the drainage ditches,

• Trespasser exposure (children) to sediment contained in the drainage ditches, and

• Adult and child consumption of fish recreationally caught in Brown’s Lake by trespassing

fishermen.

The potential exposure pathways of concern at the site include:

Trespasser Populations (Adults)

• Ingestion of chemicals in surficial sediment in ditches

• Dermal contact with chemicals in surficial sediment in ditches

Trespasser Populations (Children)

• Ingestion of chemicals in surficial sediment in ditches

• Dermal contact with chemicals in surficial sediment in ditches

Trespassing Recreational Fishermen (Adults and Children)

• Ingestion of constituents in fish recreationally caught from Brown’s Lake

Risk Characterization

The human health risk assessment assumes disallowance of fishing for consumption and wading

at Brown’s Lake; however, it does assume that a small group of trespassing recreational

fishermen regularly catch and consume fish from the Lake.

With respect to sediment exposures, the human heath risk assessment assumed that the future

land use would remain the same as the current uses. The assessment also identified two




classes of potential future exposed populations for the Lake and the drainage ditches, adult

trespassers and child recreational users exposed to sediment. The risk assessment did not find

that any of the constituents detected (which included various pesticides, PAHs, phthalates, and

metals) in sediment during the five years of post-IRA monitoring exceeded concentrations that

would classify them as COPCs. Thus, as no COPCs were identified, a complete quantitative

analysis of human health risk was not required. The increasing trends of some detected

constituents, however, may present a potential risk to human receptors in the future if remedial

actions are not taken to mitigate the increases.

The only identified potentially exposed populations for the Brown’s Lake site are adults and

children who consume fish recreationally caught from the Lake. The baseline risk assessment

calculations have shown an unacceptable risk of cancer and other adverse health effects from

consumption of fish from the Lake. Toxicity data for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects is

summarized in Tables A1-3 and A1-4, and discussed at length in Toxicity Assessment

presented in Attachment 1.

For carcinogens, potential risks are generally expressed as the incremental probability of an

individual’s developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the carcinogen. Excess

lifetime cancer risk is calculated from the following equation:

Risk = CDI x SF

Where:

Risk = a unitless probability (e.g., 2 x 10-5) of an individual’s developing cancer

CDI = chronic daily intake averaged over 70 years (mg/kg-day)

SF = slope factor, expressed as (mg/kg-day)-1 .

These potential risks are probabilities that usually are expressed in scientific notation (e.g., 1x10

6). An excess lifetime cancer risk of 1x10-6 indicates that an individual experiencing the

reasonable maximum exposure estimate has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of developing cancer as a

result of site-related exposure. This is referred to as an “excess lifetime cancer risk” because it

would be in addition to the risks of cancer individuals face from other causes such as smoking or

exposure to too much sun. The chance of an individual’s developing cancer from all other

causes has been estimated to be as high as one in three. EPA’s generally acceptable risk range

for site-related exposures is 10-4 to 10-6 .

The potential for noncarcinogenic effects is evaluated by comparing an exposure level over a

specified time period (e.g., life-time) with a reference dose (RfD) derived for a similar exposure

period. An RfD represents a level that an individual may be exposed to that is not expected to

cause any deleterious effect. The ratio of exposure to toxicity is called a hazard quotient (HQ).

An HQ<1 indicates that a receptor’s dose of a single contaminant is less than the RfD, and that

toxic noncarcinogenic effects from that chemical are unlikely. The Hazard Index (HI) is




generated by adding the HQs for all chemical(s) of concern that affect the same target organ

(e.g., liver) or that act through the same mechanism of action within a medium or across all

media to which a given individual may reasonably be exposed. An HI<1 indicates that, based on

the sum of all HQ’s from different contaminants and exposure routes, toxic noncarcinogenic

effects from all contaminants are unlikely. An HI > 1 indicates that site-related exposures may

present a potential risk to human health. The HQ is calculated as follows:

Non-cancer HQ = CDI/RfD

Where:

CDI = Chronic daily intake

RfD = Reference dose.

CDI and RfD are expressed in the same units and represent the same exposure period (i.e.,

chronic, subchronic, or short-term).

Potential non-cancer health effects are presented in Table A1-5. Carcinogenic risks are similarly

presented in Table A1-6 for the COPC, for each pathway of concern and for each potentially

exposed population. The cumulative impact of exposure from the various pathways evaluated is

estimated for each potentially exposed population.

Non-cancer Effects

Tables A1-5a and A1-5b present the chemical-specific hazard quotients involving adult and

child exposures from consumption of fish from Brown’s Lake.

Adults

As shown in Table A1-5a the pathway hazard index for recreational consumption of fish caught

in Brown’s Lake is 2.3, which is greater than the threshold of 1 for adults. Thus, adverse non

carcinogen health effects in this population are possible. A summary of the largest contributors

to this hazard index is presented below.

• Antimony: approximately 10% of the total pathway HI;

• Arsenic: approximately 10% of the total pathway HI;

• Mercury: approximately 31% of the total pathway HI;

• bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate: approximately 33% of the total pathway HI.

Also notably, two of the more common target organs in this analysis are the kidneys and the

central nervous system (CNS). When effects on these two organs are considered separately,

the HQ for each organ exceeds 1. Specifically, the HQ for the kidneys is 1.6, and the HQ for the

CNS is 1.1.




Children

As shown in Table A1-5b the pathway hazard index for recreational consumption of fish caught

in Brown’s Lake is 7.1, which is greater than the USEPA acceptable threshold of 1. Thus,

adverse non-carcinogen health effects in this population are possible. A summary of the largest

contributors to this hazard index is presented below.

• Arsenic: approximately 9% of the total HI;

• Antimony: approximately 10% of the total pathway HI;

• Mercury: approximately 31% of the total HI;

• bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate: approximately 34% of the total pathway HI.

Also notably, three of the more common target organs in this analysis are the liver, the kidneys,

and the CNS. When effects on these three organs are considered separately, the HQ for each

organ exceeds 1. Specifically, the HQ for the liver is 3.0, the HQ for the kidneys is 4.8, and the

HQ for the CNS is 3.5.

Cancer Risks

Tables A1-6a and A1-6b present estimated chemical-specific and potential total pathway cancer

risks calculated for adult and children consumption of fish from Brown’s Lake.

Adults

As shown in Table A1-6a, the estimated potential cancer risk for adult recreational consumption

of fish caught in Brown’s Lake is about 1.9 x 10-4 or 1.9 in ten thousand. This value is greater

than the USEPA’s generally accepted risk range of 10-4 (1 in ten thousand) to 10-6 (1 in one

million), which serves as the target for site cleanup. A summary of the largest contributors to this

hazard index is presented below.

• Aroclor 1260: approximately 16% of the total potential pathway Risk;

• Arsenic: approximately 22% of the total potential pathway Risk;

• bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate: approximately 48% of the total potential pathway Risk.

Children

As shown in Table A1-6b, the estimated potential cancer risk for child recreational consumption

of fish caught in Brown’s Lake is about 1.7 x 10-4 or 1.7 in ten thousand. This value is greater

than the USEPA’s generally accepted risk range of 10-4 (1 in ten thousand) to 10-6 (1 in one

million), which serves as the target for site cleanup. A summary of the largest contributors to this

hazard index is presented below.




• Aroclor 1260: approximately 17% of the total potential pathway Risk;

• Arsenic: approximately 23% of the total potential pathway Risk;

• bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate: approximately 50% of the total potential pathway Risk.

2.7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA)

Two ERAs were performed for this site. The initial risk assessment was conducted as part of the

RI and described the ecological risks prior to the IRA. As the site conditions improved

significantly as a result of the IRA, a new ERA was completed for the FS to account for the

improved site condition. The updated risk assessment incorporated post-IRA monitoring data

and conclusions to assess potential ecological risks. As such, the ERA from the FS is most

reflective of current potential site risks, and is presented below. The conceptual site model for

the ERA is presented as Figure 2-1b.

Identification of Constituents of Potential Concern

This section presents lists of chemicals detected in the site surface water and sediment samples

that are considered COPCs. The compounds identified as COPCs are considered to be those

with the greatest potential significance to aquatic and wildlife receptors.

All analytical data were compared to USEPA Region III BTAG Fauna/Flora Screening Levels

(1995) or other applicable ecologic screening values, if available. Other sources of applicable

screening values that were considered included: the Screening Quick Reference Tables

(SQuiRT), NOAA, 1999; and, The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface

Waters of the United States, USEPA, 1997. Chemicals were retained for consideration as a

COPC if the media concentration exceeded the selected screening level. COPCs for the ERA

are as follows:

Pesticides SVOCs Metals

4,4’-DDD 2-Methylnaphthalene Aluminum

4,4’-DDE Acenaphthene Arsenic

4,4’-DDT Acenaphthylene Cadmium

Dieldrin Anthracene Chromium

Heptachlor epoxide Benzo(a)anthracene Copper

Endosulfan I Benzo(a)pyrene Iron

alpha-Chlordane Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Lead

gamma-Chlordane Benzo(k)fluoranthene Mercury

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

Butylbenzyl phthalate

Carbazole

Chrysene




Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

Dibenzofuran

Fluoranthene

Fluorene

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

Phenanthrene

Pyrene

Exposure media of ecological concern at the Site is focused on sediments in the Upper and

Lower Ditches, sediments in the Lake, and fish tissue. The maximum exposure concentration is

assumed for all exposure assessment calculations as required in USEPA Region III guidelines.

Maximum concentrations of COPCs in sediments from either the Upper/Lower Ditches or

Brown’s Lake are used to estimate direct exposure of ecological receptors to COPCs in

sediments, as well as modeling uptake into benthic invertebrates. Maximum concentrations of

COPCs in fish tissue are also used to determine the COPC intake for predators. Finally,

respective maximum concentrations for COPCs are used to compare against Region III BTAG

concentrations to estimate potential impact to benthic communities themselves. Benthic

invertebrates are either immobile or have limited mobility, and the maximum value is believed to

represent the exposure received by the most exposed individual and, therefore, is a conservative

estimate of the exposure experienced by the population.

Exposure Assessment

The following summarizes the ecological setting, target receptors, and potential exposure

pathways.

Ecological Setting

The Lake boundaries are characterized by thickly layered decaying biomass, and wetlands

grasses. The Upper Ditch is primarily sand or gravel with little organic bottom, with the exception

of a standing water pool that is a relatively shallow, less than one foot in depth, and is choked

with leaves and fallen wood. The Lower Ditch is primarily bedded by sediment, mostly clay and

silt. The Lower Ditch is bounded by wetlands plants and grasses, some of which are invasive

species.

Species Summary

The site is frequented by deer, small mammals, and a number of birds that feed on the insects

and potentially the fish. No fish catching birds have been observed using the Lake for hunting.

The existence of aerating fountains makes it unlikely that the Lake is used exclusively by any

fishing birds. Turtles and amphibians are expected to use the Lake and drainage ditches.




Exposure Pathways

Several ecologically relevant migration pathways for constituents exist at Brown’s Lake. Wildlife

may have incidental contact with or ingestion of constituents in surface water and sediment while

foraging, nesting, or engaging in other activities on the Site.

Chemical constituents can also adversely affect plants and animals in surrounding habitats via

the food chain. The ERA addressed incidental contact and ingestion as well as uptake of those

constituents in the food chain associated in the Upper Ditch and the Lake. This ERA did not

evaluate water ingestion as no water samples were collected that would be applicable to this

analysis. In addition, following the sediment remediation effort of the IRA, Brown’s Lake was

allowed to recharge. Thus, the water in the Lake was effectively replaced with fresh,

uncontaminated water after the IRA.

Some constituents detected in Lake sediment are persistent and may be transformed to more

bioavailable forms, and thus, mobilized in the food chain. Mobilization of constituents in the food

chain under the conditions found at the Brown’s Lake Site could occur through the following

pathways:

• Contact and absorption, incidental ingestion, and feeding on contaminated food by

invertebrates; and,

• Bioaccumulation from vegetation or animal prey at the base of the food chain by wildlife.

Based on these pathways, the following general classes of ecological receptors potentially might

be exposed to COPCs at the Site.

• Terrestrial invertebrates likely to occur in the bed of the Ditch;

• Benthic invertebrates occurring within the sediments of the Lake;

• Birds that forage or nest within the areas;

• Piscivorous birds that feed on fish species in the Lake;

• Small mammals that reside and/or feed in the vicinity of the Ditch and edge of the Lake;

and,

• Other higher trophic level wildlife species (e.g., carnivores) that feed within the vicinity of

the Site.

Ecological Effects Characterization

Toxic endpoints for risk characterization were chosen in accordance with USEPA guidelines and

toxic effect data. Toxic endpoints may include: lethality, reproductive impairment, behavioral

modifications, or various sub-lethal toxic effects. Endpoints may also include secondary effects

such as loss of habitat.




Ecological Risk Characterization

Hazard Quotients (HQs) were calculated for each COPC and each assessment endpoint

species. The hazard quotient is the ratio of a single COPC’s exposure level to a value that

represents the COPC’s estimated toxicity to the species. A HQ greater than 1 indicates that the

COPC may have the potential to pose a risk to the species investigated. A HQ less than 1

indicates that the COPC is unlikely to pose a potential risk to the species investigated.

Based upon the 2004 monitoring data, the FS included the calculation of an HQ for each COPC

relative to each of the benchmark species. HQs greater than one indicate that a toxic effect has

potential for occurring for that species. Tables 2-11 through 2-15 present the COPCs that had

HQs greater than one for the benchmark species; benchmark species include: raccoons, great

blue herons, American robins, short-tail shrews, and gray foxes. HQs were also developed in the

FS for benthic invertebrates. Table 2-16 presents the HQs for those constituents that exceeded

one for benthic invertebrate receptors.

Summary of Ecological Risk

HQs were calculated for each COPC and each assessment endpoint species. The following

summarizes constituents that have HQs greater than one, thus, indicating a potential for risk to

the receptor species.

• Five of the 17 COPCs had HQs above one including cadmium (shrews, HQ of 1.7),

copper (shrews, HQ of 1.3), lead (robins, HQ of 2.9), 4,4’-DDE (robins, HQ of 3.6), and

4,4’-DDT (robins, HQ of 1.5). While greater than one, these HQ values are relatively low

and not necessarily indicative of an exposure that would result in an adverse effect.

• In addition, aluminum had HQs ranging from 55 to 3,940 for four of the five end-point

species including raccoons, robins, shrews, and foxes. Aluminum is a naturally occurring

metal commonly found in soil and sediment. The levels of aluminum found at the site

were less than typical background levels at Fort Eustis. Furthermore, in soil, aluminum

toxicity is directly related to the soluble fraction, which is a function of pH. Insoluble

aluminum oxides are consistently less toxic than soluble forms. Potential ecological risks,

therefore, are based on pH. The USEPA states that aluminum should only be identified

as a COPC at sites where the soil or sediment pH is less than 5.5. The pH of the

sediment in Brown’s Lake averages approximately 6.2. Therefore, site-specific potential

risks to ecological receptors from aluminum are considered minimal.

• The risk assessment for benthic invertebrates included developing a HQ. The hazard

quotient analysis identified acenaphthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’

DDT as the principal hazard drivers to benthic communities with the HQs of these




principal hazard drivers being 23.7 for dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, 55.6 for acenaphthene,

86.4 for 4,4’-DDE, and 266 for 4,4’-DDT. However, risk assessment for benthic

invertebrates should not be limited to development of HQs. A study of the benthic

population in Brown’s Lake concluded that the sediment sample in Brown’s Lake with the

highest concentrations of COPCs also had the most diverse and densely populated

benthic sample. Therefore, benthic populations may be recovering since the IRA.

Based on the combination of low HQ values for higher order receptors (mammalian and avian), a

potentially recovering benthic invertebrate community, the conclusion of this risk characterization

is that concentrations of COPCs in sediments and fish tissue do not pose a potential risk to

upper trophic receptors at this time. In addition, benthic communities do not appear to be

adversely affected by the distribution of COPCs in sediments. The increasing trends of some

COPCs, however, may present a potential risk to ecological receptors in the future if actions are

not taken to mitigate the increases. In addition, further discussion of uncertainties with regards

to this increasing trend’s potential impacts is provided in ‘Brown’s Lake Supplemental

Evaluations, September 2007’.

The response action selected in this Record of Decision is necessary to protect the public health

or welfare or environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the

environment.

2.8 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES (RAOS)

RAOs are site-specific, initial clean-up objectives that are established on the basis of the nature

and extent of contamination, the resources that are currently and potentially threatened, and the

potential for human and environmental exposure.

The RAOs for the Brown’s Lake Site include the following:

• Minimize the potential for exposure of possible ecological receptors and higher order

predators to constituents of concern in sediment at the site.

• Reduce risks to human health from fish consumption

• Meet ARARs.

The only constituents in the sediment of Brown’s Lake and the Drainage ditches with

concentrations above human health risk screening levels were arsenic and vanadium. Arsenic

and vanadium concentrations in the sediment samples, however, were less than typical

background levels at Fort Eustis, and as such, no unacceptable human health risk was identified

for the sediment at Brown’s Lake site. However, the baseline risk assessment calculations have




shown an unacceptable risk of cancer and other adverse health effects from consumption of fish

from the Lake.

Based on the ERA findings presented in the FS, semi-volatile compounds (including PAHs) and

metals detected at the Site are not considered to pose significant potential risks to plants or

wildlife. The pesticides detected in the Upper Ditch, DDT, DDE, DDD, and heptachlor epoxide,

however, are persistent and toxic in the environment. The FS concluded that these compounds

pose a potential risk to macroinvertebrates and other aquatic, terrestrial and avian wildlife that

are present at the site due to bioaccumulation in the food chain.

The RAOs for Brown’s Lake included in this ROD focus on existing and potential sediment and

impacts. The IRA removed and/or capped the highly concentrated media within Brown’s Lake

proper. However, some impacted media was left on site in a dynamical situation that could

cause its migration, specifically in the Upper Ditch, and potential exposure pathways do exist.

Several potential migration pathways for constituents exist at the Site. Wildlife may come into

contact with constituents of potential concern while foraging, nesting, or engaging in other

activities at the site. Mobilization of constituents in the terrestrial food chain could potentially

occur in the following pathways:

• Contact and absorption, incidental ingestion, and feeding on contaminated food by

invertebrates,

• Bioaccumulation from vegetation or animal prey at the base of the food chain by wildlife.

Based on these pathways, the following general classes of ecological receptors might potentially

be exposed to constituents at the Site.

• Terrestrial invertebrates likely to occur in the bed of the Upper Ditch;

• Benthic invertebrates occurring within the sediments of the Lake;

• Birds that forage or nest within the areas;

• Piscivorous birds that feed on fish species in the Lake;

• Small mammals that reside and/or feed in the vicinity of the Upper Ditch and edge of the

Lake; and,

• Other higher trophic level wildlife species (e.g., carnivores) that feed within the vicinity of

the Site.

2.8.1 Remediation Goals

While there is currently a prohibition on fishing in the Lake, the baseline conditions outlined in the

supplemental human health risk assessment assumes that a small group of recreational

fishermen (adult and child) catch and eat limited amounts of fish from the Lake. The baseline

risk assessment calculations have shown an unacceptable potential risk of cancer and other




adverse health effects from consumption of fish from the Lake for this small group of fishermen.

These potential human health risks associated with consumption of fish will be mitigated through

the implementation of the Selected Remedy.

Based on the conclusions from the ERA, potential ecological risks currently do not exist at the

Site. The increasing trends of some COPCs, however, may present a potential risk to ecological

receptors in the future if actions are not taken to mitigate the increases. The COPCs are

generally low levels of pesticides, PAHs, and metals concentrations in the Lake sediment

material as well as the Upper Ditch sediments.

The project will excavate impacted sediment down to the underlying native clay layer from the

lower half of the Upper Ditch; and continue to sample chemical analytes from the Lake sediment,

as well as fish tissues, and evaluate the data for long-term trends. Specifically, long-term

monitoring will include the same list of target constituents as the Post-IRA monitoring, and will

incorporate statistical trend analysis.

In addition, to better evaluate the ecological health of Brown’s Lake, these statistical data

evaluations will be paired with bio-monitoring described below. Thus, statistical analysis on the

chemical analytes will not be the sole indicator of impact to the Lake. Therefore, in order to

trigger re-evaluation of the site, either biological monitoring (discussed below) or chemical

statistical trend monitoring must indicate at least three consecutive years of detrimental impacts

(i.e., a significantly impaired ecosystem or significantly increasing levels of constituents). The

general aspects of the ecological monitoring program are described below; specifics of the

monitoring program will be detailed in the Long Term Monitoring (LTM) Plan (which will be

prepared during the Remedial Action process), and submitted to USEPA and VDEQ for

concurrence. LTM shall be conducted in accordance with the LTM Plan that has been reviewed

and approved by USEPA and VDEQ.

Biological Monitoring

Biological data will be collected at Brown’s Lake that will help evaluate the current and long term

biological health of the Lake. The data to be collected may include:

• Physical water quality data

• Macrophytes

• Macroinvertebrates

• Fish




The data will be collected and analyzed according to USEPA’s Lake and Reservoir

Bioassessment and Biocriteria-Technical Guidance Document (USEPA, 1998)1.

Water Quality Data

Water quality data will be obtained from the lake to assess the general condition of the surface

water body; this data may include items such as:

• Secchi depth (a field test used quantify water clarity).

• Dissolved Oxygen profile (used to determine if the Lake is sufficiently oxygenated).

• Temperature profile (evaluates temperature of the Lake water at given depths to assist in

the determining whether the Lake has uniform water quality).

• Conductivity profile (evaluates conductivity which is a function of specific dissolved

minerals) of the Lake water at given depths to assist in the determining whether the Lake

has uniform water quality).

• pH profile (evaluates the acidity or alkalinity of the Lake water at given depths to assist in

the determining whether the Lake has uniform water quality).

• Total Nitrogen (an essential nutrient in small amounts, which can cause excessive algae

blooms at elevated levels).

• Total Phosphorus (an essential nutrient in small amounts, which can cause excessive

algae blooms at elevated levels).

These parameters will provide general health information on the condition of the Lake and will

help evaluate results of the following biological components. In addition, a trophic state index

(TSI) may be calculated using these data.

Macrophytes

Vegetative sample transects will be located from the banks to the outer edge of the littoral

(shallows) zone around the perimeter of the Lake. A line intercept method will be used to

quantify the cover and type(s) of macrophytes. General habitat quality will also be evaluated in

terms of substrate type, riparian cover, water depth, and bank condition.

Fish

Fish populations will be sampled as a means of evaluating environmental health of Browns Lake.

Metrics to be performed on the samples may include:

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998. Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria-

Technical Guidance Document. USEPA 841-B-98-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water.

Washington, D.C.




1. Total number of individuals;

2. Number of taxa;

3. Shannon-Wiener diversity per station; and,

4. Overall health (visible lesions, etc.).

Collection techniques will be assessed prior to field efforts commencement. These could include

netting, trapping, or electroshocking. In addition, fish tissues would be periodically collected and

analyzed for chemical constituents.

Macroinvertebrates

Background/baseline statistics will be generated by collecting samples from the littoral zone

around the perimeter of the Lake over two sampling events. Univariate metrics, such as those

cited below, will be calculated for each location.

1. Number of individuals/m3 per station;

2. Number of taxa per station; and,

3. Shannon-Wiener diversity per station.

Average values for the metrics above from each year will be compared to the baseline data

(specific statistical methods will be provided in the Long Term Monitoring Plan, which will be

submitted to USEPA and VDEQ for concurrence). Although all three metrics will be generated,

only metric no. 1 (indiv./m3), i.e., organism density, would be used as the indicator parameter to

determine if biota in the Lake is suffering impairment.

Reevaluation Triggers

The physical water quality, macrophyte, fish data (including chemical analysis), and

macroinvertebrate data will be collected at intervals specified in the LTM Plan approved by

USEPA and VDEQ, as appropriate. A comprehensive trend assessment of the ecological

health of the Lake will be aligned with the first Installation-wide Five Year Review cycle following

completion of the RA by a qualified ecologist, biologist, and/or limnologist. At that time, sufficient

physical and chemical water quality, macrophyte, macroinvertebrate data, and fish data will be

available for evaluation. The interval for follow-on reviews will be specified in the approved LTM

plan, but will be aligned with subsequent Five Year Reviews (although they may occur more

frequently as need arises).

If mean organism density is statistically significantly lower than the baseline value for three

consecutive years, or the sediment chemistry trend data is statistically significantly higher for

three consecutive years, additional actions or evaluations (which could include a background

study) will be considered (statistical significance will be defined in the LTM Plan and submitted




for USEPA/VDEQ concurrence). Additionally, if chemical constituent concentrations in fish

tissues (based upon a 95% Upper Confidence Limit of the mean) exceed the ‘threshold

concentration’ for three consecutive monitoring events, additional evaluation or actions will be

considered. The ‘threshold concentration’ will be based on food chain modeling for higher order

piscivorous predators (with exposure factors and toxicity values agreed upon by the Regulatory

Agencies and the US Army), and will be established in the LTM Plan for the site.

2.9 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

This section provides a description of the remedial alternatives developed for the site. Table 2

17 presents a summary of the Alternatives.

2.9.1 Remedy Components

The objective of developing alternatives is to assemble options and technologies into remedial

action alternatives. The alternatives should be protective of human health and the environment

and provide several remedial options. Five remedial alternatives were developed for the site.

These alternatives are identified and described below.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Under this alternative, no further effort or resources would be expended at the site. Alternative 1

serves as the baseline against which the effectiveness of other alternatives is judged. This

alternative is required under the NCP.

Alternative 2 – Land Use Controls and Monitoring

This alternative would include:

• A fence around the Upper Ditch to prevent access to, and protect people from exposure

to, impacted sediment in the Upper Ditch. The fence would be maintained until sampling

and a risk assessment determine that an acceptable level of potential risk exists to

potential receptors.

• Institutional controls, within the boundaries shown in Figure 2-5, to accomplish the

following objectives:

• Ensure that the soil cap, which covers impacted sediment on the Lake bottom,

remains undisturbed. This could be done through a land use restriction in the

installation’s Master Plan stating that the Lake shall remain a lake. This institutional

control shall last in perpetuity, or until the Army, USEPA and VDEQ concur that an

investigation and risk assessment -- of fish and sediment above and below the cap -




indicate acceptable risk to potential receptors, based on unrestricted use and

unlimited exposure.

• Prevent consumption of potentially contaminated fish from the Lake until the

approved LTM program and a risk assessment (concurred upon by the Army,

USEPA, and VDEQ) of lake sediments above the existing cap and of fish from the

Lake indicates acceptable potential risk to potential human receptors, based on

unrestricted consumption. This would be done by instituting a “catch and release”

program, in which all fish caught are released back to the Lake; and

• Prevent wading or swimming in the Lake until results of sediment sampling (part of

the long-term monitoring program), coupled with a risk assessment (concurred upon

by the Army, USEPA, and VDEQ) of lake sediments above the existing cap and fish

indicate an acceptable risk to potential human receptors, based on unrestricted use.

The Army would be responsible for implementing, maintaining, reporting on, and enforcing these

controls. The Army would prepare and submit to USEPA and VDEQ, for review and approval, a

Remedial Design with a land use control component, which would contain implementation and

maintenance actions, including periodic inspections, for these controls.

Monitoring would be performed as described in Section 2.8.1, and would be described in detail in

the LTM Plan approved by USEPA and VDEQ. The monitoring program would determine any

significant changes in constituent concentrations and to ensure the continued effectiveness of

the cap.

Alternative 3 – Backfill Lake, Reroute Storm Water Flow, Institutional Controls, and

Groundwater Monitoring

The site is made up of three separate areas: the Upper Ditch, the Lake, and the Lower Ditch.

Additionally, each of these areas presents unique treatment challenges, and therefore a

combination of treatments would likely be most appropriate. This alternative includes the

combination of the following steps:

• Permanently rerouting the storm water flow from the Upper Ditch to Lower Ditch through

piping;

• Draining the Lake, including collecting samples and filtering Lake water, if necessary;

• Backfilling the drained Lake with clean fill;

• Backfilling the Upper and Lower Ditches with clean fill;

• Restoring the site;

• Installing four groundwater monitoring wells;

• Conducting long-term groundwater monitoring; and,

• Restricting future land-use.




Backfilling the Lake would ensure the stabilization of the cap by removing any opportunity for

erosion. Routing the outfalls through a pipe would eliminate the potential for erosion of the cap

on the Lake. Backfilling the Upper and Lower Ditches would limit future exposures to

constituents of concern in the ditches. Four groundwater monitoring wells would be installed and

the groundwater monitored until RAOs are met (assumed to be for a period of 10 years for cost

estimation purposes) to ensure the constituents of concern left in place do not leach into the

surrounding groundwater. Institutional controls, prohibiting deep excavation in the area of the

Lake and ditches to ensure the protection of the cap and prevent exposures to constituents of

concern remaining in the ditches, would need to be instituted in the event that installation closure

and areas surrounding the site were re-developed.

Alternative 4 – Excavation of Upper Ditch with Institutional Controls, Storm Water

Controls, and Monitoring

This alternative includes the following activities:

• Dredging or excavating the impacted sediment in Upper Ditch between Wilson Avenue

and the railroad track down to native clay soil;

• Construction of a lined storm water settling basin (or similar technology that would enable

storm water sediment control) in the Upper Ditch between Wilson Avenue and the

railroad track;

• Disposing of the impacted sediment at an off-site solid waste disposal facility;

• Conducting long-term site media monitoring; and,

• Institutional controls on the Lake, as described in Alternative 2, without the fence around

the Upper Ditch.

This alternative identifies a settling basin as the mode to control sediment, as it is a very

common method of sedimentation. However, the Remedial Design will present the exact

form/method of sedimentation, as space or other design constraints could limit placement or

installation of the basin. Sedimentation is an effective means to prevent recontamination of the

Lake from historic releases of pesticides (e.g., DDT/DDD/DDE which were banned from general

use in 1971 and 1972) and PAHs contained in quasi-urban storm water runoff. This alternative

also includes limiting the future use of the Lake. This alternative includes the same institutional

controls as Alternative 2, which would restrict use of the Lake; however, it does not include a

fence around the Upper Ditch. LTM of the site would be conducted in accordance with a LTM

Plan that has been reviewed and approved by USEPA and VDEQ. The monitoring program

would determine any significant changes in constituent concentrations and ensure the continued

effectiveness of the cap in the Lake.

Alternative 5 – Removal and Off-Site Disposal

This alternative involves complete site remediation. This includes the following activities:




• Draining the Lake, including collecting samples and filtering lake water, if necessary;

• Excavating the existing sediment cap, and the impacted sediments beneath;

• Dredging or excavating the impacted sediment in Upper Ditch;

• Treating and replacing, or disposing of the impacted sediment at an off-site location; and,

• Restoring the site, and the Lake.

This would be accomplished by excavating the Lake bottom. The remaining impacted sediments

in the Upper Ditch would be removed and either treated and replaced, or disposed at an off-site

location. Depending on the cost effectiveness, the dredged sediments would be treated and

replaced or disposed of at an off-site location. The site would then be restored to its original

function as a lake.

2.9.2 Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of Each Alternative

This section provides a description of the relative benefits and disadvantages of each remedial

alternative.

Land Use Controls

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 include institutional controls which limit the future use of the Lake. For

Alternatives 2 and 4, the institutional controls would (1) ensure that the soil cap, which covers

impacted sediment on the lake bottom, remains undisturbed, (2) prevent consumption of

potentially contaminated fish from the Lake and (3) prevent wading or swimming in the Lake.

Figure 2-5 presents the boundaries of the proposed institutional controls around the Lake.

In addition to the institutional controls on the Lake, Alternative 2 would include fencing

surrounding the Upper Ditch to prevent access to, and protect people from exposure to,

impacted sediment. Alternative 4 includes no fencing.

As Alternative 3 includes backfilling of the Lake and Ditches, while leaving the sediment in place,

its institutional controls are different from those of Alternatives 2 and 4. Specifically, Alternative 3

institutional controls call for prohibition on deep excavation that could come in contact with the

buried sediments.

The exact methodology for implementation of institutional controls will be presented in the

Remedial Design. The Army will retain responsibility for implementing, maintaining, reporting on,

and enforcing the controls. The institutional controls will be imposed in the installation’s Master

Plan and under the Directorate of Community Activities’ Fishing Program. Signs will be posted

around the Lake, and the program will be enforced by Military Police patrols. The Environmental

Division will monitor the implementation and sustainment of the restricted fishing program.




Long Term Monitoring

Long Term Monitoring is a common element of Alternatives 2 and 4. The monitoring program

associated with these alternatives is described in concept in Section 2.8.1, and will be detailed in

the approved LTM Plan.

Monitoring is also an element of Alternative 3; however, this would include only monitoring of

groundwater as the Lake would be filled in.

Long-term Reliability

In terms of long-term reliability, Alternatives 5 would provide the highest level of reliability as all

sediment would be removed and disposed of, thus eliminating potential future exposures.

Alternatives 3 and 4 provide similar levels of reliability as they both sequester impacted

sediments on site in one form or another. Alternative 4, however, provides a slightly higher level

of reliability through the long-term use of a storm water sediment control device. Alternative 2

would provide no significant long-term reliability in itself.

Implementation Time Frame

Alternative 2 would have the shortest implementation time frame, as only a fence, institutional

controls and a Long-Term Monitoring Plan would be needed. Alternative 4 could also be

implemented relatively quickly, as the Remedial Design would be fairly simple to address limited

excavation and formal selection/design of a storm water sediment control device. Construction

of Alternative 4 would be relatively quick, estimated at two to three months. Alternative 3 and 5

would require the longest to implement as they would likely require more detailed design and

extensive logistical support given that the entire Lake would be backfilled (Alternative 3) or

excavated (Alternative 5). The estimated construction time of these two alternatives is four to six

months.

Estimated Time to Reach Remedial Endpoints

Alternatives 3 and 5 would have the shortest time (likely upon completion of the action) to reach

the remedial endpoints given the extensive nature of these alternatives. Alternative 4 will require

a period of time as the Brown’s Lake ecosystem continues its recovery. It is unclear, however,

when Alternative 2 would reach its endpoint.

Expected Outcomes

It is anticipated that Alternatives 4 and 5 would be successful in a reasonable period of time (five

to ten years) in returning the Brown’s Lake ecosystem to a restored state available for limited

recreational use. Alternative 3 would simply backfill the entire Lake, thus leaving an open area;




in which case Brown’s Lake would no longer exist. Alternative 2 would merely restrict access to

the Upper Ditch, limit use of the Lake and monitor the Brown’s Lake ecosystem.

2.10 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

The remedial alternatives were evaluated in relation to one another for each of the following nine

criteria:

• Protection of human health and the environment is an assessment of whether each alternative

achieves and maintains adequate protection of human health and the environment.

• Compliance with ARARs is used to determine whether an alternative would meet all federal,

state, and local ARARs that have been previously identified.

• Long-term effectiveness and permanence is used to determine whether the results of a

remedial action alternative are evaluated in terms of the potential risk remaining at the site after

response objectives have been met.

• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment addresses the statutory

preference for selecting remedial actions that use, as their principal element, technologies to

permanently treat and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous

substances.

• Short-term effectiveness addresses the effects of the alternative during the construction and

implementation phase until remedial action objectives are met.

• Implementability addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of executing an

alternative and the availability of various services and materials required during its

implementation.

• Cost is detailed cost analysis of alternatives, the expenditures required to complete each

measure are estimated in terms of both capital and annual operation and maintenance (O&M)

costs. Cost estimates are expected to be accurate within a range of +50 to -30 percent.

• State acceptance evaluates the technical and administrative issues and concerns the state

may have regarding each of the alternatives.

• Community acceptance evaluates the issues and concerns the public may have regarding

each of the alternatives.




The purpose of this analysis is to identify the relative advantages and disadvantages of each

alternative. Table 2-17 presents a summary of the Alternatives. A discussion of the analysis is

provided below.

2.10.1 Evaluation of Alternatives

Alternative 1 - No Action

Under this alternative, no further effort or resources would be expended at the site. Alternative 1

serves as the baseline against which the effectiveness of other alternatives are judged. This

alternative is required under the NCP.

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Implementation of Alternative 1 would not provide protection of human health or the

environment. The toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants would not be reduced or

eliminated. The risk of potential exposure would continue for human and ecological receptors.

Migration of constituents of potential concern would continue through movement of sediment

from the drainage ditches to the Lake through storm water runoff and further migration within the

Lake would continue.

Compliance with ARARs

Chemical-specific ARARs. Chemical-specific ARARs for this alternative include the Virginia

Water Quality Standards (9 VAC 25-260-5 to -155). This alternative complies with the chemical-

specific ARARs concerning water quality in the Lake, as concentrations of hazardous

substances, pollutants and contaminants in the surface water are less than the standards.

Location-specific ARARs. There are no known endangered species living at Brown’s Lake.

There are no data to indicate that the site contains any areas, which may be considered of

historic or archeological significance.

Action-specific ARARs. There are no applicable action-specific ARARs since no action would be

undertaken in this alternative.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

Alternative 1 does not provide long-term effectiveness and permanence. The potential risks

currently associated with the site would not be decreased and might be increased through

migration of constituents of concern from the Upper Ditch.




Cost

Taking no action would require no expenditure of money for capital purposes.

Alternative 2 – Future Land Use Controls and Monitoring

This alternative would include limiting the future use of the Lake and installing a fence around the

Upper Ditch, as described in Section 2.9.1 above. Because impacted media would be left on the

site, a review of the site conditions would be required every five years. The review is specified in

the NCP. As mentioned previously, this requirement would be met through periodic monitoring.


Implementation of Alternative 2 would provide protection of human health, but not the

environment. A potential for continued impact on the Lake and exposure to ecological receptors

exists as the remaining impacted sediment in the Upper Ditch is not addressed. Additionally, the

potential for ecological receptors to be exposed to impacted sediment from the Upper Ditch still

exists.

Existing potential risks to human receptors are minimal. Access restrictions would limit the

potential for human exposure to impacted media. The continued monitoring of the environmental

media at the Brown’s Lake Site would ensure the adequate condition/effectiveness of the cap.





substances, pollutants and contaminants in the surface water are less than the standards. This

alternative would not meet “To-Be-Considered” guidance values, as no remedial action would be

taken to address sediment impacts.

Location-specific ARARs. There are no applicable location-specific ARARs.

Action-specific ARARs. There are no applicable action-specific ARARs.


Alternative 2 does provide some measure of long-term effectiveness and permanence, in that

potential increases of constituents of potential concern in site sediment would be identified.

Furthermore, human exposure to the impacted media would be limited through the future land

use controls and the periodic monitoring of site conditions. Monitoring of site sediment would




provide assurance that the changes in the existing site conditions would be observed.

Therefore, additional remediation activities could be implemented if significant changes in the

site conditions are encountered.

Implementability

This criterion considers factors, where appropriate, such as technical feasibility, administrative

feasibility, and availability of services and materials.

Alternative 2 would be technically feasible. Continuing the monitoring program already in place

poses no technical difficulties and is completely implementable. Sampling and analytical

services to perform monitoring are available through local consulting firms and laboratories.

These actions would not inhibit further remedial actions, if they should become required or

appropriate.

Restrictions on land use may reduce the potential risk to human health, but would not affect

potential risks to ecological receptors. This option is implementable and has a relatively low

cost, but would not be effective in reducing potential risks to ecological receptors; however, the

results of the human health risk assessment and ERA indicated only minor potential risks to

human health and the environment.

Cost

The estimated cost of a periodic monitoring program including sampling and analytical expenses,

as well as time to be expended on data interpretation and preparation of a report detailing the

potential risk associated with the site, is estimated at $77,000 per year. Periodic monitoring is

higher in cost than Alternative 1, but it would be lower in cost than Alternatives 3, 4, and 5. This

alternative would require a capital expenditure of $1,000.

The estimated Present Net Worth (PNW) of Alternative 2 is $675,000.

Alternative 3 - Backfill Lake, Reroute Storm Water Flow, Institutional Controls, and

Groundwater Monitoring

This alternative consists of permanently rerouting the storm water flow from the Upper Ditch to

Lower Ditch through piping. After the storm water is rerouted, the Lake would be drained. While

draining the Lake, samples of the pumped Lake water would be collected/analyzed to determine

if filtration is necessary prior to discharging to surface water. Once drained, the Lake and Upper

and Lower Ditches would be backfilled with clean fill, and the site restored. Because impacted

media would be left on the site, long term groundwater monitoring would be prudent and

restrictions on future land-use restricting deep excavation in the area of the backfilled Lake and

Upper Ditch would be necessary.





Implementation of Alternative 3 would be protective of human health and environment as the

potential for exposure to impacted sediment would be eliminated. Backfilling the Lake would

eliminate the potential for exposure of ecological receptors to the impacted sediment under the

cap and from the Upper Ditch. This alternative would also eliminate the potential for failure or

erosion of the cap. The rerouting of the storm water through storm pipes would eliminate the

migration of the remaining impacted sediment in the Upper Ditch.






alternative would meet the “To-Be-Considered” guidance values, as the impacted media would

be made unavailable to receptors.

Location-specific ARARs. There are no known endangered species living in the vicinity of

Brown’s Lake. In addition, there are no historic or archeological significant sites located in close

proximity to Brown’s Lake.

Action-specific ARARs. Action-specific ARARs under this alternative include storm water and

erosion control requirements.


Alternative 3 does provide long-term effectiveness and permanence. Rerouting the Upper and

Lower Ditches to flow through pipes and to a single outfall eliminates the potential for

downstream migration of constituents of concern from the Upper Ditch into Brown’s Lake, and

from Brown’s Lake into the Lower Ditch. Additionally, the draining and backfilling of the Lake

would protect the cap and eliminate the potential for failure of the cap from erosion. Because of

impacted material left at the site, a review of site conditions would be required every 5 years.

Implementability

Alternative 3 may not be technically feasible. The draining and backfilling of the Lake and

Ditches, as well as the rerouting of the storm water through pipes to eliminate the potential for

migration of impacted sediment would be readily implementable. These actions would not inhibit

further remedial actions, if they should become required or appropriate. Although the actions




associated with this alternative are technically implementable, the costs, and environmental

impacts associated with backfilling the entire Lake, make this alternative unfeasible.

Cost

The estimated capital cost of the containment alternative is $8,869,000. The capital cost

includes the costs associated with rerouting the storm water through corrugated pipe, installing

groundwater monitoring wells, and draining and backfilling the Lake.

The estimated operation and maintenance cost is $42,000 per year. This includes the costs of

annual groundwater monitoring. The estimated PNW of Alternative 3 is $9,237,000.

Alternative 4 - Excavation of Upper Ditch with Institutional Controls, Storm Water Control,

and Monitoring

This alternative combines the following technologies:

• Excavation of impacted sediment in the Upper Ditch;

• If needed, dewatering of excavated sediments, testing of the water, and returning water

to the Lake;

• Conduct post excavation inspection to confirm that all the remaining impacted sediment

is removed;

• Disposal of impacted sediment at off-site landfill;

• Construction of a concrete-lined storm water settling basin (or similar technology that

would enable storm water sediment control) in the Upper Ditch between Wilson Avenue

and the railroad track;

• Implementation of a “catch and release” program and no swimming/wading policy using

posted warning signs;

• Continued monitoring of surface water, sediment, fish and benthic macroinvertebrates;

and,

• Instituting a restriction on the Lake stating that it shall remain a lake to ensure the

impacted sediments under the cap remain undisturbed.

This alternative identifies a settling basin as the mode to control sediment, as it is a very



installation of the basin. In addition, because impacted media would be left on the site, a review

of the site conditions would be required every five years.





Implementation of Alternative 4 would provide significant protection of human health, and limited

protection of the environment. The excavation of the Upper Ditch would eliminate the

downstream migration of impacted sediment from the Upper Ditch into the Lake. Restricting the

future use of the Brown’s Lake to strictly a water body ensures the impacted sediment beneath

the cap would remain undisturbed and unavailable to receptors. The exact methodology for

implementation of institutional control will be presented in the Remedial Design. The

implementation of a “catch and release” program and restricting swimming/wading would be

protective of human health. In order to ensure the adequate condition/effectiveness of the cap

installed during the IRA, monitoring of environmental media would be conducted on a regular

basis. The potential for fish and other aquatic receptors to be exposed to impacted sediment

from a failure of the cap still exists, albeit of minimal concern as the Lake is generally not subject

to extreme conditions that could affect the cap. In addition, the construction of the sedimentation

control technology (i.e., sediment basin or similar technology) upstream of the Lake should

minimize the ecological effects of storm water runoff transporting sediment potentially impacted

from historic releases or quasi-urban operations.











Action-specific ARARs. Action-specific ARARs under this alternative include erosion control

requirements and regulatory requirements associated with disposal and transport of excavated

sediment.


Implementation of Alternative 4 would provide significant long-term effectiveness and

permanence, and the potential risks associated with the impacted media in the Upper Ditch

would be eliminated. Although the majority of impacted sediment should be removed during

excavation, post-excavation inspection would be completed to ensure that all the impacted

sediment is removed from the Upper Ditch. Monitoring would be performed, as described in




Section 2.8.1, to monitor overall ecological health of Brown’s Lake. Specifics of the monitoring

program will be described in the approved LTM Plan. In addition, the construction of a

sedimentation basin (or similar sediment control technology) upstream of the Lake would provide

long-term effectiveness to prevent potential recontamination of the Lake via transport of

constituents of potential concern bound to sediment.

Implementability

This criterion considers factors, where appropriate, such as technical feasibility, administrative

feasibility, and availability of services and materials. Alternative 4 is technically feasible.

Excavating the Upper Ditch would be readily implementable as the effort would not require

significant permitting and equipment for the activities is readily available, and construction of the

sedimentation basin (or similar technology) can be conducted by a local general contractor, as

this is a relatively commonplace task. These actions would not inhibit further remedial actions, if

they should become required or appropriate.

Cost

The estimated capital cost of alternative 4 is $470,000. The capital cost includes the costs

associated with the excavation and disposal (in a landfill) of sediment in the Upper Ditch.

The estimated operation and maintenance cost is $64,000 per year. This includes the costs of

monitoring as described in Section 2.8.1. The estimated PNW of Alternative 4 is $966,000.

Alternative 5 – Removal and Off-Site Disposal

This alternative consists of the following elements:

• Removing impacted sediment from the Upper Ditch;

• Draining the Lake, periodically sampling the water to ensure low turbidity, and if

necessary, treating the water using a filtration system to remove residual constituents of

concern;

• Excavating the soil cap and the underlying impacted sediment from the Lake;

• Dewatering of excavated sediments (Lake and Upper Ditch) through mechanical

methods, testing of the water, and draining the water into the Lower Ditch. If necessary,

the water would be treated using a filtration system to remove residual constituents of

concern;

• Disposing of impacted sediment at an off-site landfill; and,

• Restoring both the Upper Ditch, and the Lake to their original state and function.





Implementation of Alternative 5 would provide the most complete protection to human health and

the environment. Removal and disposal of impacted sediment in the Lake and Upper Ditch

would eliminate the potential for exposure to both humans and the environment. Migration of the

constituents of concern from the Upper Ditch would also be eliminated by sediment removal.











Action-specific ARARs. Action-specific ARARs under this alternative include storm water and

erosion control requirements.


Implementation of Alternative 5 would provide significant long-term effectiveness and

permanence, and the currently associated potential risks from impacted media would be

eliminated. Although the majority of constituents of potential concern should be removed during

excavation, post-excavation sampling would be completed to document any remaining

constituents of concern for future potential risk management. This alternative would mitigate

potential risk to human health and the environment by removing impacted media from the site.

Implementability

Alternative 5 would likely be technically feasible. These actions would not inhibit further remedial

actions, if they should become required or appropriate. However, the process of excavating

sediment from the entire impacted area within the Lake is not readily implementable. This is due

to the time, costs, and environmental concerns associated with removing sediment from the

entire Lake area. In addition, it is not technically feasible to treat the large amount of waste to be

excavated from the Lake area. Furthermore, the integrity of the Lake would likely be sacrificed if

sediments were removed from the entire area.




Alternative 5 would likely be administratively feasible. Approval may come in the form of

preparation and submission of a Storm Water Management Plan. A Soil Erosion and Sediment

Control Plan may also have to be prepared as a result of on-site excavation activities

Cost

The estimated capital cost of Alternative 5 is $2,024,000. The capital cost includes the costs

associated with the excavation of sediment from the Upper Ditch, draining the Lake, excavating

the cap and impacted sediment from the Lake, and disposal of all excavated sediment.

The estimated operation and maintenance cost of Alternative 5 is $0 per year as no constituents

of concern would be left on site. The estimated PNW of Alternative 5 is $2,024,000.

2.10.2 Comparative Analysis Summary

Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would provide the highest level of protection of human health and the

environment from the short-term and long-term potential risks posed by the impacted sediment

present at the site. Alternative 2 would provide only limited environmental protection, by

restricting use of the Lake and access to the Upper Ditch, and documenting the potential

introduction of additional constituents of concern into the Lake. Alternative 1 would provide no

protection of human health and the environment; and therefore, can not be selected.


The ARARs are not applicable for Alternatives 1 and 2. Additionally, Alternatives 1 and 2 are not

expected to meet the “to-be-considered” guidance values. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are expected

to comply with all the applicable ARARs. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would comply with ARARs

because the availability of the impacted sediment would either be reduced or eliminated through

the burying, or removal and off-site disposal, as determined by the particular alternative.

Alternative 3 would involve extensive impact to the ecological setting resulting from the

backfilling the Lake completely. Additional action-specific ARARs such as surface water

discharge standards (with respect to discharge water), erosion control requirements, and/or

disposal requirements may also be associated with Alternatives 3, 4, and 5.


This criterion assesses the long-term effectiveness of an alternative. Alternatives 4 and 5 involve

the removal of constituents of concern from the site, and therefore provide the highest level of

long-term effectiveness and permanence. However, Alternative 4 provides a higher level of

long-term effectiveness as it includes construction of a storm water sedimentation basin (or




similar storm water sediment control technology). Storm water sediment control would mitigate

potential recontamination of the Lake, by settling out sediment that can transported via urban-like

storm water runoff typical of the site (sediment can often have remnants of historical releases

sorbed on to individual particulates). Alternative 3 provides significant long-term permanence in

that it controls migration of constituents of concern, and it prevents any potential for the soil cap

failure. Alternative 2 provides some level of long-term effectiveness and permanence, because it

prevents access to impacted sediment in the Upper Ditch by installation of a fence around the

ditch and monitors migration of constituents of concern from the Upper Ditch into the Lake, but

does not control migration of constituents into or within the Lake. In addition, both Alternatives 2

and 4 include institutional controls on the Lake that would (1) ensure that the soil cap, which

covers impacted sediment on the lake bottom, remains undisturbed, (2) prevent consumption of

potentially contaminated fish from the Lake and (3) prevent wading or swimming in the Lake.

Properly implemented, institutional controls can be very effective at controlling exposures and

preventing further contaminant migration; however, institutional controls (as well as fencing) can

fail. In this instance, the Army will be responsible maintaining, monitoring, enforcing, and

reporting on the institutional controls, which will reduce the chance of failures and increase the

chance of promptly detecting and correcting failures. Alternative 1 does not provide long-term

effectiveness and permanence to reduce potential for failure.

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment

This evaluation criterion assesses the degree to which an alternative employs treatment that

effectively reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the contaminants. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and

5 do not apply treatment to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants. However,

Alternative 4 would provide a level of mobility reduction through treatment of storm water (prior to

entering Brown’s Lake) and construction of the storm water sedimentation basin (or similar

technology) that would limit the re-introduction of potential impacted sediment.

Short-term Effectiveness

This criterion assesses the short-term impacts of the alternative. Alternatives 1 and 2 would not

result in any negative short-term impacts, and are, therefore, most preferable under this criterion.

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would result in some negative short-term impacts during the

implementation of these remedial actions. However, these short-term impacts can be readily

addressed by common and proper work practices, standard safety procedures, and dust control

measures. In addition, Alternative 3 would lead to the permanent destruction of the Brown’s

Lake ecosystem as the Lake would be filled in with soil under this alternative. Similarly,

Alternative 5 would involve the temporary destruction of the Brown’s Lake ecosystem as the

Lake would be drained and sediment fully excavated; however, the Lake would be restored to

some extent via re-vegetation and fish stock, but impacts would linger for some time.

In regards to positive short-term impacts, the fence installation and institutional control of




Alternative 2 could be implemented quickly, thus reducing potential exposure in a short period.

Similarly, the elements of Alternative 4 (including excavation of the Upper Ditch) could also be

implemented relatively quickly, but with the added benefit of removal of impacted media from the

ecosystem. With regards to Alternatives 3 and 5, while their implementation will be significantly

longer than Alternatives 2 and 4 due to the extent of activities involved, the removal or

sequestration of impacted sediment under Alternatives 3 and 5 will yield an immediate benefit as

the constituents are no longer available to receptors. However, in the case of Alternative 3, the

lake ecosystem of the site will be permanently destroyed via filling operation; and in the case of

Alternative 5, the lake ecosystem would be temporarily destroyed during draining/excavation

activities.

Thus overall, when considering positive and negative short-term effects of the alternatives,

Alternatives 2 and 4 seem to have the best balance as they produce a tangible short-term benefit

(i.e., reducing potential exposure), while minimizing negative short-term effects.

Implementability

This evaluation criterion assesses the ease or difficulty of implementing the alternative. There

are no implementability concerns with Alternative 1, because no action would be taken.

Alternative 2 would be readily implementable and technically feasible. Alternative 4 is

implementable and technically feasible, but would require a greater degree of effort to implement

than Alternatives 1 and 2 due to the wooded and steep terrain around the Upper Ditch. Although

Alternatives 3 and 5 are implementable, they are not likely technically or administratively feasible

due to the large scale environmental impacts and high costs associated with the construction

process.

Cost

There are no costs associated with the implementation of Alternative 1. Of the remaining

alternatives, Alternative 2 is the least costly, with a PNW of approximately $675,000. Alternative

3 is the most costly alternative with a PNW of $9,237,000. Alternative 4 has a PNW of $966,000,

which is approximately 43% higher than Alternative 2. Alternative 5 has a PNW of $2,024,000

although not the highest PNW it is the second most costly alternative.

State Acceptance

State acceptance is addressed by VDEQ review and comment on the RI, FS, and Proposed Plan.

The VDEQ has expressed support for Alternative 4 as it provides for removal of impacted

sediment, and establishes long-term protection through storm water sediment control. The VDEQ

does not support Alternative 2 as it does little to improve the overall situation of the site.

Additionally, VDEQ does not support Alternatives 3 and 5 due their extensive impacts to habitat

and high costs.




Community Acceptance

Community acceptance is determined via responses received during the comment period. The

responses received from the community have been properly addressed, and no significant

concerns regarding the remedial alternatives have been raised.

2.11 PRINCIPAL THREAT WASTES

No principal threat wastes (as defined by the NCP) exist at the site.

2.12 SELECTED REMEDY

The following presents the details of the Selected Remedy for Brown’s Lake. This section

describes the rationale for the remedy’s selection, a description of the Selected Remedy, and a

summary of estimated remedy costs.

2.12.1 Summary of the Rationale for the Selected Remedy

Alternative 4 is the Selected Remedy based on the following rationale.

Alternative 1 would do nothing to improve the conditions of the site, and is therefore eliminated.

In addition, Alternative 2 would do very little to improve site conditions, as the only action taken is

monitoring, rather than a corrective measure. Alternatives 3 and 5 are eliminated due to the

extremely high costs and difficulty in implementation of these alternatives. However, while

Alternative 4 is not the least expensive alternative, it does remove a quantity of impacted

sediments from which constituents of concern (i.e., residual sediments in the Upper Ditch

between Wilson Avenue and the railroad track) could migrate; and it can be implemented

relatively easily. Furthermore, Alternative 4 provides a measure to mitigate potential future

recontamination of the Lake by impacted sediment residuals from historic releases transported

via urban-like storm water runoff. Protection of human health would be maintained through the

implementation of institutional controls to (1) ensure that the soil cap, which covers impacted

sediment on the lake bottom, remains undisturbed, (2) prevent consumption of potentially

contaminated fish from the Lake and (3) prevent wading or swimming in the Lake. Thus, the

most feasible and cost-effective alternative appears to be Alternative 4.

In addition, ‘Brown’s Lake Supplemental Evaluations, September 2007’ provides a cost-benefit

analysis of implementing Alternative 4 in the near future versus hypothetically implementing only

a monitoring program that tracks increasing constituent concentrations trends that eventually

impact the entire Lake necessitating a broader action. Similarly, ‘Brown’s Lake Supplemental




Evaluations, September 2007’ provides an evaluation of the effect of the proposed Institutional

Controls.

2.12.2 Description of the Selected Remedy

The Selected Remedy includes the following steps:

• Excavation or dredging of impacted sediment in the Upper Ditch. The portion of the

Upper Ditch to be excavated will be between Wilson Avenue and the railroad track.

Sediment will be excavated until native clay is encountered;

• If needed, dewatering of excavated sediments, testing of the water, and returning water

to the Lake;

• Conducting a post-excavation inspection to confirm that all the remaining impacted

sediment is removed;

• Disposal of impacted sediment at an off-site landfill;

• Erosion controls, dust controls (if necessary), backfilling with clean soil as needed, and

ground cover restoration;

• Construction of a concrete-lined storm water settling basin (or similar technology that

would enable storm water sediment control) in the Upper Ditch between Wilson Avenue

and the railroad track;

• Long-term site monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with a Long-Term Monitoring

Plan that has been reviewed and approved by EPA and VDEQ. Before physical

construction of the selected remedy is complete, the Army shall submit a draft Long-Term

Monitoring Plan to the EPA and VDEQ for review and approval; and,

• Implementing institutional controls, within the boundaries shown on Figure 2-5, to

accomplish the following performance objectives:

• Ensure that the soil cap, which covers impacted sediment on the lake bottom,

remains undisturbed. This could be done through a land use restriction in the

installation’s Master Plan stating that the Lake shall remain a lake. This institutional

control shall last in perpetuity, or until the Army, USEPA and VDEQ concur that an

investigation and risk assessment -- of fish and sediment above and below the cap -

indicate acceptable potential risk to potential receptors, based on unrestricted use

and unlimited exposure.

• Prevent consumption of potentially contaminated fish from the Lake until the

approved LTM program and a risk assessment (concurred upon by the Army,

USEPA, and VDEQ) of lake sediments above the existing cap and of fish from the

Lake indicates acceptable risk to potential human receptors, based on unrestricted

consumption. This would be done by instituting a “catch and release” program, in

which all fish caught are released back to the Lake; and

• Prevent wading or swimming in the Lake until results of sediment sampling (part of

the approved long-term monitoring program), coupled with a risk assessment

(concurred upon by the Army, USEPA, and VDEQ) of lake sediments above the




existing cap and fish indicate an acceptable risk to potential human receptors, based

on unrestricted use.

This Selected Remedy identifies a settling basin as the mode to control sediment, as it is a very



installation of the basin. Sedimentation is an effective means to prevent recontamination of the

Lake from historic releases of pesticides (e.g., DDT/DDD/DDE which were banned from general

use in 1971 and 1972) and PAHs contained in quasi-urban storm water runoff.

This Selected Remedy also includes institutional controls limiting the future use of the Lake. The

Army is responsible for implementing, maintaining, reporting on, and enforcing these controls.

Within 180 days of the last signature on this ROD, the Army shall prepare and submit to USEPA

and VDEQ for review and approval a Remedial Design with a land use control component, which

shall contain implementation and maintenance actions, including periodic inspections, for the

institutional controls.

2.12.3 Summary of the Estimated Remedy Costs

The estimated capital cost of the Selected Remedy is $470,000. These costs include excavation

of impacted sediment, transportation & disposal at a local RCRA Subtitle D Landfill, site

restoration, and construction of a storm water sediment control mechanism (assumed to be a

retention pond). This estimate is based on the assumption that all removed material would be

disposed of in a landfill. Operation and maintenance costs are anticipated for the periodic

monitoring program, as well as periodic maintenance of the sediment control mechanism. The

actual length of the monitoring will depend upon the effectiveness of the remedy. As such, the

O&M is estimated at a cost of $64,000 per year (present day dollars). The estimated PNW of the

Selected Remedy is $966,000. A detailed cost breakdown for the Selected Remedy is

presented in Tables 2-18 through 2-20. The information in the cost estimate summary tables is

based upon the best available information regarding the anticipated scope of the remedial

alternative. Changes in the cost elements are likely to occur as a result of engineering design of

the remedial alternative. This is an order-of-magnitude engineering cost estimate that is

expected to be within +50 to -30 percent of the actual project cost.

2.12.4 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy

Following implementation of the Selected Remedy, and subsequent long-term monitoring, the

Brown’s Lake site will remain restricted for recreational use, allowing fishing (for catch and

release only), but excluding swimming/wading. The Selected Remedy is expected to arrest the

current increasing trend of constituents of concern. Additionally, it is expected that the Selected

Remedy will have a positive effect on the local ecosystem by restoring a habitat suitable to

support various trophic levels.




Once the Upper Ditch has been remediated and a storm water sediment control mechanism

installed, it is expected that residual potential risks from lingering constituents of potential

concern in the Lake will stabilize or slowly decrease over time. The Lake’s overall response to

the Selected Remedy will be monitored through an extensive chemical and biological monitoring

program discussed in Section 2.8.1. The monitoring program contains a methodology to

evaluate the monitoring data, and trigger a reassessment of the Brown’s Lake site if conditions

appear to deteriorate in the future. This monitoring program, in addition to a risk assessment,

may also be applied to determine if usage restrictions may be removed; however, the overall

land use restriction requiring Brown’s Lake to remain a lake will be maintained unless an

investigation and risk assessment (concurred upon by the Army, USEPA, and VDEQ) of

sediment below the existing cap, lake sediments above the existing cap, and fish, is conducted

and determines acceptable potential risk to receptors, based on unrestricted use and unlimited

exposure. However, the installation may maintain the swimming/wading prohibition for safety

reasons [e.g., no lifeguard facilities, snakes, etc.]).

2.13 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

Under CERCLA Section 121 and the NCP, the selected remedy must be protective of human

health and the environment, comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements

(unless a statutory waiver is justified), are cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions and

alternate treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent

practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes preference for remedies that employ treatment that

permanently and significantly reduces volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as a

principal element. The following sections will discuss how the Selected Remedy will satisfy the

statutory requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA.

2.13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Implementation of the Selected Remedy would provide protection of human health, and the

environment. The excavation of the Upper Ditch should eliminate the downstream migration of

impacted sediment currently capped in the Upper Ditch into the Lake.

Restricting the future use of the Brown’s Lake to strictly a water body ensures the impacted

sediment beneath the cap will remain undisturbed and unavailable to receptors. The

implementation of a “catch and release” program and prohibition on swimming/wading would be

protective of human health. The continued monitoring, of the environmental media at the

Brown’s Lake Site, will monitor the condition/effectiveness of the cap. The potential for fish and

other aquatic receptors to be exposed to impacted sediment from a failure of the cap still exists,

albeit of lesser concern.




In addition, the construction of the sedimentation basin (or other storm water sediment control

device) upstream of the Lake should further minimize the ecological impacts of storm water

runoff transporting sediment potentially impacted from historic releases.

2.13.2 Compliance with ARARS

The Selected Remedy will comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.

Chemical-specific, location-specific and action-specific ARARs and TBC criteria have been

compiled in Tables 2-21 though 2-23 respectively.

Several types of regulations are not considered applicable ARARs for the Brown’s Lake remedial

actions including the National Historical Preservation Act, Archaeological Historic Preservation

Act, and Virginia Historic Resources Law and Antiquities Act. No historic, archaeological, or

cultural resources have been identified at the site; therefore, these regulations are not

applicable. Chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs are summarized below:

• Virginia Water Quality Standards (9 VAC25-260-5 to 155)

• Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1536; 50 C.F.R. § 402.01)

• Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. § 1456(c); 15 CFR 930.30-.33, .36(a), .39(b

d))

• Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1311; 40 CFR 122.41(d), (e), (i), (m)(2)

& (m)(4); 40 CFR 122.44(a), (d), (e), (i), (k); 40 CFR 122.48(a) & (b))

• Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (9 VAC 20-60-261, incorporating 40

CFR 262.11)

• Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations (9 VAC 20-80-60 to 90, 130 to 230)

• Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, Va. Code Ann. § 10.1-563; Virginia Erosion

and Sediment Control Regulations (4 VAC 50-30-30, -40, -60.A)

2.13.3 Cost-Effectiveness

The Selected Remedy is cost-effective and represents a reasonable value for the money to be

spent. In making this determination, the following definition was used: “A remedy shall be cost-

effective if its costs are proportional to it overall effectiveness.” (NCP § 300.430(f)(1)(ii)(D)).

This was accomplished by evaluating the “overall effectiveness” of those alternatives that

satisfied the threshold criteria (i.e., were both protective of human health and the environment

and ARAR-compliant). Overall effectiveness was evaluated by assessing three of the five

balancing criteria in combination (long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity,

mobility, and volume through treatment; and short-term effectiveness). Overall effectiveness

was then compared to costs to determine cost-effectiveness. The relationship of the overall

effectiveness of the Selected Remedy was determined to be proportional to its costs and hence

the Selected Remedy represents a reasonable value for the money to be spent.




The estimated present worth cost of the Selected Remedy is $966,000. Although Alternative 2 is

$291,000 less expensive than the Selected Remedy, it provides no physical means to mitigate

current and future impacts. The Army and USEPA believe that the Selected Remedy will provide

a similar level of long-term protection as Alternatives 3 and 5, but with less overall short-term

impact and at significantly less cost.

2.13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment (or Resource

Recovery) Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)

The Selected Remedy uses permanent solutions and alternative treatment or resource recovery

technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The IRA utilized permanent solutions in the

form of sediment removal and capping. The Selected Remedy also uses a permanent solution

through the further excavation of accumulated sediments in the Upper Ditch and installation of a

storm water sediment control mechanism. Treatment of sediment is not practical due to the

nature of the site, the generally low (with respect to waste treatment target levels) constituent

concentration, and the desire to not disturb the Lake and surrounding ecology any more than

required.

2.13.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

The Selected Remedy does not satisfy the preference for remedies using treatment as a

principal element that permanently and significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of

the contaminants. The Selected Remedy represents the best balance of trade-offs between the

evaluation criteria.

2.13.6 Five-Year Review Requirements

As this remedy will result in constituents of concern remaining on site above levels that allow for

unrestricted use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review will be conducted within five years

of the initiation of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human

health and the environment.

2.14 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

The Proposed Plan for Site 16 – Brown’s Lake was released for public comment in August 2005.

The Proposed Plan identified Alternative 4 as the Preferred Alternative for remediation of

impacted sediment. No comments were received during the public comment period. It was

determined that no significant changes to the remedy, as originally identified in the Proposed

Plan, were necessary or appropriate.




However, since the Final Proposed Plan for the Brown’s Lake site was issued, a supplemental

Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, which focused solely on fish consumption by

trespassing recreational fishermen, was completed specifically for this ROD in order to establish

a baseline condition in accordance with CERCLA and more completely identify and quantify

potential health risk to potential human receptors. As this is a newly completed component of

the overall human health risk assessment, it is presented in its entirety as Attachment 1 to this

ROD.

While there is currently a prohibition on fishing in the Lake, the baseline conditions outlined in the

supplemental human health risk assessment assumes that a small group of trespassing

recreational fishermen (adult and child) catch and eat limited amounts of fish from the Lake. As

a result, the supplemental human health risk assessment determined that an unacceptable

potential risk of cancer and other adverse health effects from consumption of fish from the Lake

existed. Specifically, the potential pathway hazard index for recreational consumption of fish

caught in Brown’s Lake is 2.3 for adults and 7.1 for children, which is greater than the USEPA’s

generally acceptable criterion of 1.0. Thus, baseline conditions at the site show potential

adverse non-carcinogen health effects in this population are possible. In addition, the estimated

potential cancer risk for recreational consumption of fish caught in Brown’s Lake is about 1.9 x

10-4 or 1.9 in ten thousand for adults and about 1.7 x 10-4 or 1.7 in ten thousand for children.

This value is greater than the USEPA’s generally acceptable risk range of 10-4 (1 in ten

thousand) to 10-6 (1 in one million), which serves as the target for site cleanup.

As a result of the findings of this supplemental Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, a new

remedial action objective was added to address potential risks to human health from

consumption of fish as follows:

• Reduce risks to human health from fish consumption.

The lead agency, the Army, has determined that these changes could be reasonably anticipated

by the public based on the information in the Proposed Plan and the supporting information and

analysis in the Administrative Record. In particular, the Proposed Plan stated that there was an

unhealthy fish population in Brown’s Lake; that fishing had been placed off-limits; that a potential

existed for high risk to species that feed on aquatic species due to the potential for accumulation

of pollutants in fatty tissues; that an objective of a previous removal action was to reduce the

potential risk to human health from consumption of fish; that following the removal action, fish

tissue samples had shown an increasing trend in PCB, pesticide and heavy metal

concentrations; and that pesticides and PCBs were present in fish tissue at concentrations

greater than EPA Region III’s risk-based concentrations (RBCs). The public could reasonably

anticipate that the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment does not take the existing fishing

ban into account and therefore that some people might eat fish anyway, and that these people’s

health might be at potential risk as a result.




In addition, one remedial action objective was deleted:

• Restore the Lake to recreational use.

It is better to phrase the remedial action objectives in this ROD in terms of cleaning up

hazardous substances and protecting human health and the environment, rather than restoring

recreational opportunities on a manmade lake originally designed for storm water control.


Part 3 – Responsiveness Summary


This section details Public, State, and Federal comments, subsequent responses, as well as

resolutions regarding both the remedial alternatives and general concerns about the site.

No public comments were received. State and Federal comments were addressed via

modifications to the ROD text and format.

Page 3-1 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site


PART 4 – ACRONYMS


ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

AVS Acid Volatile Sulfide

BNAs Base-neutral Acid Extractable Compounds

BTAG Biological Technical Assistance Group

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COPCs Constituents of Potential Concern

CRP Community Relations Plan

CSM Conceptual Site Model

DDD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane

DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DoD Department of Defense

EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis

EP Extraction Procedure

ERA Environmental Risk Assessment

ER,A Environmental Restoration, Army

FS Feasibility Study

HMA Helicopter Maintenance Area

HQs Hazard Quotients

IRA Interim Removal Action

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

NPL National Priority List

NOAEL No Observed Effects Level

O&M Operation and Maintence

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OUs Operable Units

OU-2 Operable Unit 2

PAHs Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PID Photoionization Detector

PNW Present Net Worth

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RI Remedial Investigation

ROD Record of Decision

RBCs USEPA Region III Risk Based Concentrations

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SVOCs Semi-volatile Organic Contaminants

TAL Target Analyte List

TBC To-Be-Considered

TCE Trichloroethylene

TCL Target Compound List

TFH-H Total Fuel Hydrocarbons

TFH-H Total Fuel Hydrocarbons-Heavy Fraction

TFH-L Total Fuel Hydrocarbons-Light Fraction

UCL Upper Confidence Limits

USAEHA United States Army Environmental Health Agency



PART 4 – ACRONYMS


USEPA United Stated Environmental Protection Agency

VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality



Figures

Record of Decision Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Fort Eustis, Virginia

Fig

ure

2-1

a

Site Surface

Sediment Ditches

Trespassers -Adults

(Current /

Future)

Recreational Users – Children

(Future)

ING - Ingestion

DC - Dermal Contact

INH - Inhalation

Legend

Primary Exposure Route

Secondary Exposure Route

Contaminated Media

Exposure

Pathways

Potentially

Exposed Populations

ING/DC

HHRA Conceptual Site ModelHHRA Conceptual Site Model BrownBrown’’s Lake Sites Lake Site

Fort Eustis, VirginiaFort Eustis, Virginia

Game Fish

ING

Trespassing Recreational

Fishermen – Adults/Children

(Current/Future)

FIGURE 2-1b BROWN’S LAKE CONCEPTUAL FOOD CHAIN MODEL

BROWN’S LAKE, FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA

Large

Carnivorous

Mammal

Small

Carnivorous

Mammal

Omnivorous

Mammal

Piscivorous

Bird

Fish

Contaminated

Ditch and Lake

Sediments

Benthic

Invertebrate

Insectivorous

Bird

2118-059

Tables


TABLE 2-1

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIONS

BROWN'S LAKE

Investigation Title Organization Date Areas of Study Media Investigated

Screened

Compounds

Surface water bodies of Fort

Water Quality and Fish United States Army Eustis including Skiffes Creek

Study at Skiffes Creek Environmental Health Agency 1982 and Brown's Lake Fish populations None

Surface water bodies of Fort Macroinvertabrate

Water Quality and Fish United States Army Eustis including Skiffes Creek Populations, Surface VOCs, BNAs, PCBs,

Study at Skiffes Creek Environmental Health Agency 1985 and Brown's Lake Water, Sediment Oil & Grease

Surface water bodies of Fort Macroinvertabrate VOCs, BNAs, PCBs,

Water Quality and Fish United States Army Eustis including Skiffes Creek Populations, Surface Pesticides, metals,

Study at Skiffes Creek Environmental Health Agency 1987 and Brown's Lake Water, Sediment Oil & Grease

VOCs, BNAs, PCBs,

Brown's Lake, Upper and Surface Water, Pesticides, Metals,

Preliminary Assessment Montgomery Watson 1990 Lower Drainage Ditches Sediment TFL-L, Cyanide

Macroinvertabrate VOCs, BNAs, PCBs,

Brown's Lake, Upper and Populations, Surface Pesticides, Metals,

Remedial Investigation Montgomery Watson 1993 - 1994 Lower Drainage Ditches Water, Sediment TFL-H

Cost analysis for

Remedial/Removal

Engineering Evaluation/cost Brown's Lake, Upper and Action for Sediment and

Analysis Montgomery Watson 1997 Lower Drainage Ditches Surface Water N/A

Sediment, Treated and TSS, Metals,

Pumped Lake Water, Pesticides, PCBs,

Interim Removal Action Montgomery Watson 1999 Brown's Lake Fish Tissue PAHs

Macroinvertabrate

Post-IRA Yearly Monitoring Malcolm Pirnie 2000 - 2004

Brown's Lake, Upper and

Lower Drainage Ditches

Populations, Surface

Water, Sediment, Fish

Tissue (2004)

VOCs, SVOCs,

Pesticides, PCBs,

Metals

2118-059

TABLE 2-2 Summary of Analytical Results Surfical Sediment Samples

Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event Data

Parameters

Lake Sediment Results Lower Ditch Results Upper Ditch Sediment Results BTAG

BL-SED01 BL-SED02 BL-SED03 BL-SED04 BL-SED05 BL-SED06 BL-SED06D BL-SED07 BL-SED08 LD-SED01 LD-SED02 LD-SED03 LD-SED04 LD-SED04D LD-SED05 UD-SED01 UD-SED02 UD-SED03 UD-SED04 Flora Fauna

PCBs (ug/kg)

Aroclor-1016 44 U 72 U 61 U 54 U 54 U 53 U 70 U 63 U 48 U 50 U 49 U 66 U 41 U 46 U 45 U 38 U 41 U 48 U 55 U 22.7 22.7







Pesticides (ug/kg)

4,4-DDD 190.0 D 48.0 23.0 9.3 4.0 8.0 13.0 9.6 2.3 J 20.0 14.0 4.7 P 87.0 D 16.0 10.0 140.0 D 60.0 D 83.0 D 25.0

-- 16

4,4-DDE 47 D 12 6.4 3.1 1.4 J 2.8 5.1 4.4 P 0.9 J 17 6.3 3.4 44 PD 10.0 3.6 14 19 D 39 D 5.4

-- 2.2

4,4-DDT 420.0 D 5.9 2.9 JP 1.8 JP 4.4 U 2.6 JP 2.9 JP 5.1 U 3.8 U 19.0 5.9 P 1.8 JP 85.0 D 7.8 0.9 J 80.0 D 79.0 D 170.0 D 3.4 J

1.58 1.58

Aldrin 6 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.2 BP 1 U 1 U 3 U 1.3 BP 1 U 3 U 3 U 3 U 1 U -- --

Dieldrin 12 U 2 U 7 P 2 U 2 U 1 U 4 P 3 P 1 U 4.6 P 1 U 2 U 6.7 P 3.4 P 1.6 34 EP 10 P 12 P 5.1 P -- --

Endosulfan I 12.0 U 1.9 U 1.6 U 1.5 U 1.5 U 1.4 U 1.9 U 1.7 U 1.3 U 1.3 U 1.3 U 1.8 U 5.5 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 0.3 J 5.5 U 1.0 JP 1.5 U -- --

Endosulfan II 24.0 U 3.9 U 3.3 U 2.9 U 2.9 U 2.9 U 3.8 U 3.4 U 2.6 U 2.7 U 2.7 U 3.6 U 11.0 U 2.5 U 2.4 U 10.0 U 11.0 U 13.0 U 3.0 U -- --

Endosulfan sulfate 24.0 U 6.0 P 1.7 JP 1.1 J 2.9 U 1.1 JP 1.8 J 3.4 U 2.6 U 1.6 J 2.7 U 3.6 U 10.0 P 2.3 J 2.4 U 10.0 U 8.6 JD 7.1 JPD 3.0 U -- --

Endrin 24.0 U 3.9 U 3.3 U 2.9 U 2.9 U 2.9 U 3.8 U 3.4 U 2.6 U 2.7 U 2.7 U 3.6 U 1.0 J 2.5 U 2.4 U 10.0 U 11.0 U 13.0 U 3.0 U -- --

Endrin aldehyde 24.0 U 3.9 U 3.3 U 2.9 U 2.9 U 2.9 U 3.8 U 3.4 U 2.6 U 2.7 U 2.7 U 3.6 U 11.0 U 2.5 U 2.4 U 10.0 U 11.0 U 13.0 U 3.0 U -- --

Endrin ketone 60 U 10 U 8 U 7 U 7 U 7 U 10 U 9 U 6 U 7 U 7 U 9 U 28 U 6 U 6 U 25 U 15 P 33 U 7 U -- --

Heptachlor 0.2 JP 1.0 U 0.8 U 0.2 JP 0.7 U 0.7 U 1.0 U 0.9 U 0.7 U 0.7 U 0.7 U 0.9 U 2.8 U 0.6 U 0.6 U 2.6 U 1.8 JD 3.3 U 0.8 U -- --

Heptachlor epoxide 6.0 U 1.0 U 2.4 P 3.4 P 0.7 U 0.7 U 1.0 U 0.9 U 0.7 U 0.7 U 0.7 U 0.9 U 2.8 U 0.6 U 0.5 JP 1.8 P 2.8 U 3.3 U 0.8 U -- --

Methoxychlor 9 P 10 U 5 J 5 JP 7 U 7 U 10 22 P 6 U 7.1 P 6.6 U 8.9 U 28.0 U 9.7 P 6.0 U 25 U 22 P 33 U 7 U -- --

Toxaphene 1200 U 190 U 160 U 150 U 150 U 140 U 190 U 170 U 130 U 130 U 130 U 180 U 550 U 120 U 120 U 510 U 550 U 650 U 150 U -- --

alpha-BHC 6.0 U 1.0 U 0.3 J 0.7 U 0.7 U 0.5 JP 0.4 J 0.9 U 0.7 U 0.9 P 0.7 U 0.4 J 0.9 P 0.5 JP 0.6 U 2.6 U 2.8 U 0.3 J 0.8 U -- --

alpha-Chlordane 22.0 D 15.0 7.7 3.6 1.6 3.0 P 4.3 2.2 P 0.9 J 3.0 1.0 JP 0.5 J 1.6 P 1.9 4.2 23.0 PD 56.0 D 54.0 D 15.0 P -- --

beta-BHC 12.0 U 1.9 U 1.6 U 1.5 U 1.5 U 1.4 U 1.9 U 1.7 U 1.3 U 1.3 U 2.3 BP 1.8 U 2.3 BP 7.1 BP 1.2 U 5.1 U 5.5 U 6.5 U 1.5 U -- --

delta-BHC 6.0 U 1.0 U 0.8 U 0.7 U 0.7 U 0.7 U 1.0 U 0.9 U 0.7 U 0.7 U 0.7 U 0.9 U 2.8 U 0.6 U 0.6 U 2.6 U 2.8 U 3.3 U 0.8 U -- --

gamma-BHC 6 U 0.98 U 0.82 U 0.74 U 0.74 U 0.29 J 0.95 U 0.86 U 0.65 U 0.68 U 0.67 U 0.89 U 2.8 U 0.19 J 0.61 U 2.6 U 2.8 U 3.3 U 0.75 U -- --

gamma-Chlordane 13.0 D 8.5 4.7 2.7 P 0.7 U 2.1 3.6 P 0.9 U 0.7 U 0.7 U 0.6 JP 0.9 U 3.6 D 0.6 U 0.6 U 14.0 D 42.0 D 35.0 D 7.9 -- --



Parameters



SVOCs (ug/kg)

1,1'-Biphenyl 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 320 J 54 J 590 U -- --

2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

2,4-Dichlorophenol 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

2,4-Dimethylphenol 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U 29 29

2,4-Dinitrophenol 940 U 1500 U 1300 U 1200 U 1200 U 1100 U 1500 U 1300 U 1000 U 1100 U 1000 U 1400 U 880 U 990 U 960 U 800 U 870 U 1000 U 1200 U -- --

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

2,6-Dinitrotoluene 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

2-Chloronaphthalene 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

2-Chlorophenol 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

2-Methylnaphthalene 62 J 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 130 J 490 U 480 U 400 U 1300 200 J 61 J 70 70

SVOCs (ug/kg) cont.

2-Methylphenol 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

2-Nitroaniline 940 U 1500 U 1300 U 1200 U 1200 U 1100 U 1500 U 1300 U 1000 U 1100 U 1000 U 1400 U 880 U 990 U 960 U 800 U 870 U 1000 U 1200 U -- --

2-Nitrophenol 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --


4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 940 U 1500 U 1300 U 1200 U 1200 U 1100 U 1500 U 1300 U 1000 U 1100 U 1000 U 1400 U 880 U 990 U 960 U 800 U 870 U 1000 U 1200 U -- --

4-Bromophenyl-phenylether 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 63 J 520 U 60 J -- --

4-Chloroaniline 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

4-Methylphenol 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U 670 670


4-Nitrophenol 940 U 1500 U 1300 U 1200 U 1200 U 1100 U 1500 U 1300 U 1000 U 1100 U 1000 U 1400 U 880 U 990 U 960 U 800 U 870 U 1000 U 1200 U -- ---

Acenaphthene 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 890 230 J 63 J

16 16

Acenaphthylene 29 J 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 98 J 93 J 590 U 44 44

Acetophenone 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

Anthracene 87 J 130 J 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 95 J 510 U 41 J 520 U 700 U 54 J 490 U 480 U 400 U 940 250 J 74 J -- 85.3

Atrazine 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

Benzaldehyde 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 84 J 57 J 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 130 J -- --

Benzo(a)anthracene 560 1100 190 J 150 J 76 J 100 J 130 J 910 510 U 170 J 49 J 72 J 75 J 120 J 480 U 400 U 1300 520 260 J 261 261

Benzo(a)pyrene 720 1600 280 J 250 J 110 J 170 J 220 J 1300 48 J 180 J 48 J 96 J 69 J 140 J 37 J 400 U 1300 540 310 J 430 430

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 820 2000 420 J 330 J 160 J 240 J 300 J 1500 64 J 200 J 520 U 100 J 74 J 190 J 480 U 400 U 1400 800 420 J 3,200 3,200

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 690 1500 320 J 310 J 140 J 210 J 280 J 1400 56 J 150 J 48 J 110 J 64 J 140 J 480 U 400 U 680 370 J 290 J 670 670

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 970 2000 350 J 390 J 150 J 220 J 330 J 1700 60 J 210 J 68 J 130 J 82 J 170 J 480 U 400 U 1200 620 340 J -- --

Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --



Parameters



Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 490 950 270 J 300 J 91 J 130 J 190 J 170 J 67 J 130 J 520 U 75 J 120 J 87 J 480 U 49 J 570 690 370 J -- 1,300

Butylbenzyl phthalate 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 680 68 J 590 U -- 63

Caprolactam 470 U 770 U 170 J 270 J 580 U 570 U 750 U 400 J 240 J 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

Carbazole 120 J 250 J 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 180 J 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 850 260 J 87 J -- ---

Chrysene 1000 2100 390 J 350 J 160 J 230 J 310 J 1700 73 J 230 J 63 J 110 J 110 J 210 J 480 U 400 U 1600 1000 410 J 384 384

Di-n-butyl phthalate 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 55 J 480 U 400 U 52 J 46 J 590 U -- 1,300

Di-n-octyl phthalate 45 J 140 J 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 68 J 670 U 510 U 52 J 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 110 J 120 J 590 U -- 6,200

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 150 J 320 J 66 J 57 J 580 U 40 J 55 J 290 J 510 U 38 J 520 U 700 U 440 U 32 J 480 U 400 U 190 J 78 J 65 J 63.4 63.4

Dibenzofuran 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 690 150 J 590 U 540 540

Diethylphthalate 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- 200

Dimethylphthalate 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- 71

Fluoranthene 1900 3700 620 J 540 J 240 J 340 J 480 J 3000 93 J 420 J 100 J 200 J 160 J 370 J 55 J 400 U 5300 3100 800

600 600

Fluorene 49 J 48 J 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 120 J 490 U 480 U 400 U 800 220 J 53 J

19 19

Hexachlorobenzene 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U 22 22

Hexachlorobutadiene 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U 11 11

SVOCs (ug/kg) cont.

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

Hexachloroethane 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 690 1600 340 J 290 J 140 J 210 J 290 J 1300 60 J 170 J 49 J 110 J 66 J 150 J 33 J 400 U 820 400 J 310 J 600 600

Isophorone 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

N-Nitroso-di-N-propylamine 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- 28

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

Naphthalene 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 36 J 490 U 480 U 400 U 190 J 47 J 590 U 160 160

Nitrobenzene 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- --

Pentachlorophenol 940 U 1500 U 1300 U 1200 U 1200 U 1100 U 1500 U 1300 U 1000 U 1100 U 1000 U 1400 U 880 U 990 U 960 U 800 U 870 U 1000 U 100 J 360 360

Phenanthrene 690 1100 180 J 160 J 63 J 87 J 120 J 840 510 U 150 J 520 U 74 J 160 J 120 J 480 U 400 U 5300 2200 450 J

240 240

Phenol 470 U 770 U 650 U 580 U 580 U 570 U 750 U 670 U 510 U 530 U 520 U 700 U 440 U 490 U 480 U 400 U 430 U 520 U 590 U -- 420

Pyrene 1400 2900 490 J 420 J 190 J 260 J 360 J 2200 73 J 340 J 92 J 170 J 220 J 300 J 49 J 400 U 3700 2200 650 665 665

Total Metals (mg/kg)

Aluminum 6,090 13,600 8,990 14,500 13,100 14,900 14,600 15,700 13,500 3,280 4,650 8,250 6,280 2,140 1,320 2,940 1,990 5,100 8,160 -- --

Antimony 0.35 BN 0.59 BN 0.43 BN 0.52 BN 0.31 BN 0.38 BN 0.31 UN 0.31 UN 0.25 UN 0.40 BN 0.50 BN 0.71 BN 0.67 BN 0.38 BN 2.80 N 0.35 BN 0.92 BN 3.60 N 0.79 BN -- 150

Arsenic 2.0 4.7 3.6 4.7 2.9 5.4 5.5 4.4 4.1 2.8 2.3 4.5 4.6 2.0 1.6 B 2.5 1.9 3.5 2.6 8.2 8.2

Barium 31 56 34 54 37 52 55 50 47 24 B 31 30 B 47 18 B 11 B 15 B 19 B 37 43 -- --

Beryllium 0.41 B 0.62 B 0.40 B 0.57 B 0.33 B 0.52 B 0.57 B 0.50 B 0.36 B 0.28 B 0.40 B 0.54 B 0.46 B 0.25 B 0.21 B 0.29 B 0.49 B 0.61 B 0.48 B -- --

Cadmium 1.2 1.9 0.6 B 1.0 0.04 U 0.7 B 0.9 B 0.6 B 0.2 B 0.3 B 0.2 B 0.4 B 0.7 B 0.2 B 0.2 B 0.1 B 1.0 1.9 0.8 B 5.1 1.2

Calcium 807 1,250 713 B 1,030 708 963 1,030 911 B 895 1,070 848 1,430 972 1,140 1,400 1,450 678 3,270 1,320 -- --

Chromium 11.9 19.0 12.4 18.5 15.7 18.7 19.7 19.4 17.1 6.5 7.2 13.6 12.7 4.5 3.7 5.9 9.3 14.6 14.8 5 260

Cobalt 2.6 4.3 3.3 4.1 1.4 3.3 4.1 3.6 2.4 2.0 3.2 4.7 2.9 1.5 1.1 2.3 2.6 5.2 3.3 -- --



Parameters



Copper 16.8 36.1 15.0 24.3 5.0 17.8 23.9 17.2 7.9 9.5 7.1 23.6 18.2 8.7 5.8 11.5 11.9 38.0 46.5 -- 34

Iron 8,330 13,300 9,260 14,200 9,620 13,200 13,200 12,100 10,300 5,700 5,820 20,300 8,710 4,730 8,650 8,580 6,150 11,600 10,200 -- --

Lead 28.1 N 35.7 N 15.5 N 21.8 N 10.3 N 18.4 N 22.1 N 20.2 N 12.3 N 28.1 N 22.4 N 25.7 N 64.6 N 18.6 N 8.2 N 8.6 N 35.5 N 48.8 N 39.8 N -- 46.7

Magnesium 556 B 943 B 547 B 771 B 516 B 754 B 802 B 750 B 633 B 520 B 473 B 1,270 493 B 400 B 229 B 746 405 B 1,030 996 -- --

Manganese 42.00 72.10 44.30 84.90 39.20 58.00 66.30 48.90 46.80 41.00 23.20 129.00 56.90 34.70 29.70 66.10 43.90 68.00 68.10 -- --

Mercury 0.05 0.08 0.03 B 0.06 0.02 U 0.04 B 0.05 B 0.04 B 0.03 B 0.06 0.04 B 0.04 U 0.20 0.04 B 0.03 U 0.02 U 0.02 U 0.03 B 0.04 B 0.15 0.15

Nickel 4.7 B 7.4 B 4.9 B 6.8 3.3 B 6.1 B 6.5 B 5.6 B 4.4 B 4.1 B 4.4 B 6.9 B 5.2 B 3.4 B 1.7 B 2.7 B 3.8 B 7.7 6.0 B 20.9 20.9

Potassium 471 B 654 B 518 B 665 B 526 B 680 B 731 B 674 B 628 B 261 B 361 B 926 B 472 B 178 B 158 B 231 B 195 B 445 B 717 B -- --

Selenium 0.45 UN 0.65 UN 0.49 UN 0.55 UN 0.47 UN 0.60 UN 0.64 UN 0.84 BN 0.63 BN 0.47 UN 0.51 UN 0.75 UN 0.49 UN 0.58 UN 0.67 BN 0.39 UN 0.40 UN 0.57 UN 0.69 BN -- --

Silver 0.11 U 0.16 U 0.12 U 0.13 U 0.11 U 0.15 U 0.16 U 0.16 U 0.12 U 0.11 U 0.12 U 0.18 U 0.12 U 0.14 U 0.13 U 0.09 U 0.10 U 0.14 U 0.15 U -- 1

Sodium 103 B 157 B 105 B 128 B 110 B 148 B 128 B 141 B 149 B 123 B 212 B 998 B 120 B 139 B 263 B 85 B 104 B 141 B 141 B -- --

Thallium 0.55 UN 0.79 UN 0.59 UN 0.67 UN 0.57 UN 0.73 UN 0.78 UN 0.78 UN 0.61 UN 0.57 UN 0.62 UN 0.91 UN 0.60 UN 0.71 UN 0.66 UN 0.47 UN 0.48 UN 0.69 UN 0.76 UN -- --

Vanadium 17.3 32.4 21.6 32.3 26.3 33.0 33.7 33.3 29.3 10.6 12.7 24.8 17.7 8.0 6.2 9.4 9.2 21.0 24.8 -- --

Zinc 75.7 141.0 58.5 96.9 19.1 77.3 101.0 80.3 32.4 55.5 38.3 78.4 72.6 53.1 28.0 33.4 68.3 156.0 77.1 -- 150

Other Analysis (mg/kg)

TOC 12,150 21,920 10,770 9,604 6,597 11,530 13,850 13,360 9,422 16,180 29,390 43,980 34,210 13,350 35,100 2,136 15,400 28,430 29,410 -- --

Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.8 U 0.8 U 0.8 U 1.1 U 0.5 J 0.8 U 0.7 U 0.6 U 0.7 U 0.1 J 0.1 J -- --

Diesel Range Organics (DRO) 16 25 31 11 J 15 J 14 J 17 J 16 J 6 J 13 J 9 J 22 280 21 11 J 12 U 64 62 23 -- --

Notes:

Detects above BTAG levels D - Dilution U - Constituent not detected J - Estimated concentration (result between the MDL and PQL)

are highlighted. L - Result may be biased low N - Spiked sample recovery not within control limits B - Detected in associated QC blank for organics/estimated value between MDL and PQL for inorganics

SVOCs in Red - PAHs K - Reported value may be biased high. P - Target analyte that is greater than 25% difference for the detected concentrations between two GC columns.

TABLE 2-3 Summary of Analytical Results Surface Water Samples


Parameters

Lake Results Lower Ditch Results Upper Ditch EPA BTAG

BL-SW01 BL-SW02 BL-SW03 BL-SW03D BL-SW04 LD-SW01 LD-SW02 LD-SW03 UD-SW01 Flora Fauna

PCBs (ug/l)

Aroclor-1016 0.93 U 0.93 U 0.93 U 0.93 U 0.93 U 0.93 U 0.93 U 0.93 U 0.93 U 0.10 0.01







Pesticides (ug/l)

4,4'-DDD 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.60 0.60

4,4'-DDE 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 1,050 1,050

4,4'-DDT 0.075 U 0.044 JP 0.075 U 0.075 U 0.075 U 0.075 U 0.075 U 0.075 U 0.075 U 5,000 0.001

Aldrin 0.008 BJ 0.009 BJP 0.008 BJP 0.010 BJ 0.013 U 0.017 P 0.017 P 0.013 U 0.013 U 3.00 3.00

alpha-BHC 0.005 J 0.004 J 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.016 P 0.014 P 0.005 JP 0.013 U -- --

alpha-Chlordane 0.025 U 0.010 J 0.008 J 0.017 J 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 JD -- --

beta-BHC 0.025 U 0.200 BP 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.006 BJ 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.075 P -- --

delta-BHC 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.008 JP 0.016 P 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.012 J -- --

Dieldrin 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.0019 0.0019

Endosulfan I 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.025 U 0.056 0.056

Endosulfan II 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.056 0.056

Endosulfan sulfate 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U -- --

Endrin 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.0023 0.0023

Endrin aldehyde 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U 0.050 U -- --

Endrin ketone 0.130 U 0.130 U 0.130 U 0.130 U 0.130 U 0.130 U 0.130 U 0.130 U 0.130 U -- --

gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.010 J 0.013 U 0.008 JP 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.009 JP 0.013 U 0.027 P -- 0.08

Gamma-chlordane 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.008 JP 0.0043 0.0043

Heptachlor 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.010 JP 0.008 J 0.013 U 0.006 JP 0.140 P 0.012 JP 0.0038 0.0038

Heptachlor epoxide 0.015 P 0.013 U 0.016 P 0.026 P 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.013 U 0.0038 0.0038

Methoxychlor 0.130 U 0.130 U 0.130 U 0.130 U 0.130 U 0.130 U 0.130 U 0.130 U 2.900 EP 0.03 0.03

Toxaphene 2.5 U 2.50 U 2.50 U 2.50 U 2.5 U 2.50 U 2.50 U 2.50 U 2.5 U 0.0002 0.0002



Parameters



SVOCs (ug/l)

1,1'-Biphenyl 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

2,2'-Oxybis (1-Chloropropane) 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 63 63

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 970 970

2,4-Dinitrophenol 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

2,4-Dichlorophenol 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 365 365

2,4-Dimethylphenol 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 2,120 2,120

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 230 230

2,6-Dinitrotoluene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

2-Chloronaphthalene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

2-Chlorophenol 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 970 970

2-Methylnaphthalene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

2-Methylphenol 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

2-Nitroaniline 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U -- --

2-Nitrophenol 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --


4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U -- --

4-Bromophenyl-phenylether 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

4-Chloroaniline 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

4-Methylphenol 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --


4-Nitrophenol 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 150 150

Acenaphthene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 520 520

Atrazine 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- ---

Acenaphthylene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

Acetophenone 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

Anthracene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- 0.10

Benzaldehyde 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

Benzo(a)anthracene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- 6.30



Parameters



SVOCs (ug/l) (continued)

Benzo(a)pyrene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

bis(2-Chlorethoxy) methane 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 6 J 1.4 J 1 J 10 U 2 J 10 U 1 JB 10 U 1 JB -- 30

Butylbenzyl phthalate 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 3.00 3.00

Caprolactam 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

Carbazole 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- ---

Chrysene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 0.30 0.30

Di-n-octylphthalate 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 0.30 0.30

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- ---

Dibenzofuran 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- ---

Diethylphthalate 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 3.00 3.00

Dimethylphthalate 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 3.00 3.00

Fluoranthene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 3,980 3,980

Fluorene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- 430

Hexachlorobenzene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- ---

Hexachlorobutadiene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- ---

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

Hexachloroethane 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- ---

Isophorone 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

Naphthalene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --

Nitrobenzene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 27,000 27,000

Pentachlorophenol 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U -- --

Phenanthrene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 6.30 6.30

Phenol 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- ---

Pyrene 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U -- --



Parameters



Total Metals (ug/l)

Aluminum 392 271 443 575 459 282 90 B 435 208 460 25

Antimony 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1.6 U 2 U 19 3 B 1.6 U -- 30

Arsenic 3.4 U 3.4 U 3.4 U 3.4 U 3.4 U 3.4 U 3.4 U 3.4 U 3.4 U -- 190

Barium 17.2 B 18.0 B 18.6 B 26.2 B 21.5 B 26.2 B 21.0 B 24.7 B 27.6 B 10,000 10,000

Beryllium 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U -- 5.3

Cadmium 0.3 U 0.3 U 0.3 U 0.3 U 0.3 U 0.3 U 0.3 U 0.3 U 0.3 U 1.10 0.53

Calcium 9,360 9,780 8,670 9,870 14600 23,900 23,600 27,500 22400 -- --

Chromium 1.0 U 1.0 U 1.0 U 1.0 U 1.0 U 1.0 U 1.0 U 1.0 U 1.0 U -- 120

Cobalt 0.6 U 0.6 U 0.6 U 0.9 B 0.7 B 0.9 B 0.6 U 0.6 U 0.6 U -- 35,000

Copper 6.3 6.4 7.2 9.2 7.2 2.8 B 2.8 B 3.4 B 3.8 B -- 6.5

Iron 2,190 2,050 2,170 2,770 2860 4,280 3,460 5,200 4180 -- 320

Lead 3.0 B 2.9 B 2.2 B 4.5 2.7 B 1.7 U 1.7 U 1.7 U 3.0 B -- 3.2

Magnesium 1,070 B 1,120 B 1,000 B 1,120 B 1600 B 3,230 B 3,240 B 13,000 2260 B -- --

Manganese 133 129 207 446 195.0 476 192 316 241.0 -- 14,500

Mercury 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.01 0.01

Nickel 0.8 B 0.9 B 1.2 B 1.2 B 0.7 U 0.9 B 0.7 U 0.7 U 0.9 B 340 160

Potassium 1,440 B 1,500 B 1,390 B 1,600 B 1620 B 1,600 B 1,580 B 4,850 B 1680 B -- --

Selenium 3.3 U 3.3 B 3.8 B 4.3 B 3.3 U 5.2 5.7 3.6 B 4.3 B 522 5

Silver 0.8 U 0.8 U 0.8 U 0.8 U 0.8 U 0.8 U 0.8 U 0.8 U 0.8 U 1.90 0.0001

Sodium 3,350 B 3,410 B 3,060 B 3,360 B 5310 8,490 8,240 87,400 8010 -- --

Thallium 4.0 U 4.0 U 4.0 U 4.0 U 4.0 U 4.0 U 4.0 U 4.0 U 4.0 U -- 40

Vanadium 1.9 B 1.6 B 2.2 B 2.6 B 2.1 B 1.4 B 0.8 B 1.6 B 1.3 B -- 10,000

Zinc 19.1 B 43.8 25.5 42.3 19.8 B 16.8 B 105.0 10.2 B 38.2 30 110

Other Analysis

Suspended Soilds (mg/l) 8.4 8.4 23.2 17.6 10.4 9.2 7.6 35.6 35.6 -- --

TPH-GRO (mg/l) 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U -- --

TPH-DRO (mg/l) 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U 0.50 U -- --

Notes: Data Validation Qualifiers:

SVOCs in Red - PAHs J - Estimated concentration N - Tentative Identification.

Detects above BTAG levels are highlighted. U - Concentration Below MDL K - Reported value may be biased high.

L - Reported value may be biased low. D - Dilution

B - Detected in associated QCBlank for organics/ detected at Estimated concentration between MDL and PQL for inorganics.

P - Target analyte that is greater than 25% difference for the detected concentrations between two GC columns.

TABLE 2-4a Summary of Detected Analytes for Fish Tissue Samples (Catfish)

Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event

Parameters CATFISH 1 CATFISH 2 CATFISH 3 CATFISH 4 CATFISH 5 CATFISH 6

EPA RBC

Fish

PCBs (ug/kg)

Aroclor-1260 46.0 J 35.0 J 120.0 80.0 J 84.0 J 93.0 U 1.60

Pesticides (ug/kg)

4,4'-DDD

4,4'-DDE

24

17

32.0

15.0

160

61

120

41

110

36

63

23

13

9.3

4,4'-DDT 4 U 4.9 28 P 28 P 17 17 P 9.3

Aldrin 0.63 U 0.6 U 1.30 U 4.5 P 1.30 U 1.30 U 0.19

alpha-BHC 0.63 U 0.6 U 2.8 P 1.30 U 1.30 U 1.30 U 0.50

alpha-Chlordane 11 P 12 58 43 41 18 9.0

beta-BHC 3.9 P 1.2 U 2.5 U 4.2 3.7 2.5 U 1.80

Endosulfan I 1.2 U 1.2 U 2.5 U 4.7 P 1.7 JP 2.5 U 8,100

Endrin aldehyde 5.4 P 2.6 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U ---

Gamma-chlordane 4.3 P 5.2 20.0 16.0 16.0 5.6 9.0

Heptachlor epoxide 0.63 U 0.6 U 3.8 P 1.30 U 1.30 U 2.2 0.35

SVOCs (ug/kg)

Acenaphthylene 500 U 500 U 88 J 500 U 500 U 500 U ---

Benzaldehyde 500 U 500 U 310 J 220 J 140 J 140 J 14,000

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 500 U 500 U 360 J 500 U 500 U 500 U ---

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 51000 D 220 J 120 J 500 U 500 U 500 U 230

TABLE 2-4a Summary of Detected Analytes for Fish Tissue Samples (Catfish)



EPA RBC

Fish


Aluminum 118.00 64.30 14.60 B 78.10 76.90 11.40 B 140

Antimony 0.29 B 0.21 B 0.23 B 0.18 U 0.19 B 0.25 B 0.054

Arsenic 0.23 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 B 0.30 B 0.25 U 0.0021

Barium 26.7 27.3 3.1 B 35.9 35.3 48.0 9.5

Cadmium 0.15 B 0.09 B 0.05 B 0.15 B 0.14 B 0.15 B 0.14

Calcium 1,150 1,330 8,800 16,600 16400 5,000 ---

Chromium, total 0.49 0.46 B 0.25 B 0.49 0.52 0.19 B ---

Chromium III (estimated)1

0.42 0.39 0.21 0.42 0.45 0.16 200

Chromium VI (estimated)1

0.07 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.41

Cobalt 0.39 B 0.10 B 0.07 U 0.20 B 0.20 B 0.29 B 2.7

Copper 1.40 1.20 0.87 1.40 1.40 0.80 5.4

Iron 262.0 116.0 90.1 258.0 255.0 43.9 41

Lead 0.50 0.33 0.32 0.86 0.89 0.24 B ---

Magnesium 216 B 216 B 304 B 441 B 435 B 288 B ---

Manganese 31.60 7.60 5.20 24.70 24.30 28.40 19

Mercury 0.035 0.045 0.048 0.035 0.029 0.025 B 0.014

Nickel 0.33 B 0.22 B 0.07 U 0.13 B 0.11 B 0.07 U 2.7

Potassium 2,600 2,820 2,590 2,340 2300 2,280 ---

Selenium 0.25 B 0.43 B 0.39 B 0.47 B 0.49 0.38 B 0.68

Silver 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.04 B 0.07 B 0.07 B 0.68

Sodium 1,190 1,150 1,140 1,270 1230 1,160 ---

Vanadium 0.350 B 0.210 B 0.12 B 0.310 B 0.290 B 0.12 B 0.14

Zinc 19.4 18.3 14.1 15.7 24.5 27.3 41


SVOCs in Red - PAHs K - Reported value may be biased high. N - Tentative Identification.

Detects above EPA RBCs are highlighted. U - Concentration Below MDL J - Estimated concentration

1) Values estimated based upon Region IX guidance, L - Reported value may be biased low. D - Dilution

and assumes a ration of 1:6 Cr VI to Cr III. B - Detected in associated QCBlank for organics/ detected at estimated

concentration between MDL and PQL for inorganics.

P - Target analyte that is greater than 25% difference for the detected concentrations

between two GC columns.

TABLE 2-4b Summary of Detected Analytes for Fish Tissue Samples (Bass)


EPA RBC

Parameters BASS 1 BASS 1D BASS 2 BASS 3 BASS 4 BASS 5 BASS 6 BASS 7 Fish

PCBs (ug/kg)

Aroclor-1260 190.0 JD --- 80.0 62.0 47.0 100.0 D 48.0 87.0 1.60

Pesticides (ug/kg)

4,4'-DDD 110 D --- 49 37 24 70 D 16 35 13

4,4'-DDE 91 D --- 36 27 26 53 D 20 38 9.3

4,4'-DDT 18 P --- 11 11 6.9 19 PD 6.7 14 9.3

alpha-BHC 0.63 U --- 0.54 J 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.50

alpha-Chlordane 38.0 PD --- 23.0 P 14.0 P 8.8 P 28.0 PD 9.0 P 17.0 P 9.0

beta-BHC 1.20 U --- 1.20 U 1.20 U 1.20 U 4.70 PD 1.20 U 1.20 U 1.80

Endrin aldehyde 14.0 P --- 10.0 P 7.2 P 2.6 U 8.6 P 2.6 U 7.7 P ---

Gamma-chlordane 3.50 D --- 2.80 1.90 0.68 2.90 D 1.30 2.30 9.0

Heptachlor 0.63 U --- 0.63 U 0.69 P 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.7

Heptachlor epoxide 0.63 U --- 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.46 J 0.65 0.63 U 0.35

SVOCs (ug/kg)

Acenaphthylene 500 U --- 500 U 110 J 500 U 500 U 500 U 500 U ---

Benzaldehyde 500 U --- 500 U 500 U 150 J 500 U 500 U 500 U 14,000

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 150 J --- 160 J 500 U 500 U 500 U 3400 230 J 230


Aluminum 22.30 9.66 B 5.80 B 5.50 B 7.10 B 4.20 B 7.20 B 5.90 B 140

Antimony 0.30 B 0.19 U 0.19 B 0.21 B 0.25 B 0.18 U 0.21 B 0.26 B 0.054

Barium 3.80 B 0.85 B 0.50 B 0.39 B 0.77 B 0.22 U 0.88 B 0.44 B 9.5

Cadmium 0.13 B 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.04 B 0.04 U 1.40

Calcium 11,800 19,712 6,010 9,710 18,800 3,200 19,500 10,500 ---

Chromium 1.10 0.58 0.42 B 0.42 B 0.51 0.34 B 0.63 0.49 B ---

Chromium III (estimated)1

0.94 0.49 0.36 0.36 0.44 0.29 0.54 0.42 200

Chromium VI (estimated)1

0.16 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.41

Cobalt 0.11 B 0.07 U 0.06 U 0.07 U 0.06 U 0.07 U 0.06 U 0.07 U 2.7

Copper 9.10 3.62 0.59 0.50 0.49 0.29 B 0.58 0.46 B 5.4

Iron 191.00 46.86 33.2 17.2 32.3 5.7 B 29.5 15.5 41

Lead 0.35 0.30 0.18 B 0.12 U 0.27 B 0.13 B 0.14 B 0.16 B ---

Magnesium 372 B 550 334 B 363 B 570 320 B 541 413 B ---

Manganese 3.50 1.58 2.20 1.50 1.70 0.40 B 3.20 1.40 19

Mercury 0.24 0.21 0.25 0.26 0.24 0.18 0.07 0.13 0.014

Nickel 0.16 B 0.15 B 0.13 B 0.12 B 0.11 B 0.07 U 0.14 B 0.11 B 2.7

Potassium 2,860 3,049 3,060 2,940 3020 3,670 2,550 3,290 ---

Selenium 0.64 0.58 0.70 0.60 0.70 0.64 0.58 0.53 0.68

Sodium 1,070 1,237 1,090 986 1150 751 1,300 1,010 ---

Vanadium 0.10 B 0.08 B 0.05 B 0.04 B 0.05 B 0.04 U 0.07 B 0.04 U 0.14

Zinc 14.9 13.3 15.8 14.0 23.8 7.3 21.6 17.1 41


SVOCs in Red - PAHs J - Estimated concentration N - Tentative Identification.

Noncarcinogen RBCs adjusted by factor of 0.1. U - Concentration Below MDL K - Reported value may be biased high.

Detects above EPA RBCs are highlighted. L - Reported value may be biased low. D - Dilution

1) Values estimated based on Region IX guidance, B - Detected in associated QCBlank for organics/detected at estimated concentration between MDL & PQL for inorganics.

and assumes a ration of 1:6 Cr VI to Cr III. P - Target analyte that is greater than 25% difference for the detected concentrations between two GC columns.

page 1 of 1

TABLE 2-5

HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR SURFICIAL SEDIMENT

BROWN'S LAKE - UPPER DITCH

Compound

Upper Drainage Ditch TBC Criteria

Adjusted EPA

Region III RBC

Criteria (1)

EPA

Carcinogen

Class(2)

Potential

Concern? Range of

Detection

Freq. of

Detection

VOCs (ug/kg)

Acetone 11 - 49 7/8 70,000,000 Not Assessed

2-Butanone (MEK) 9.6 - 21 3/8 47,000,000 Not Assessed

Benzene 5.9 - 63 3/8 120,000 A

Toluene 4.5 1/8 16,000,000 D

Pesticides (ug/kg)

Aldrin 1.5 - 6.4 4/16 380 B2

Dieldrin 4.1 - 4.2 2/16 400 B2

4,4-DDD 8 - 140 16/16 27,000 B2

4,4-DDE 1.7 - 15 12/16 19,000 B2

4,4-DDT 3.1 - 150 15/16 19,000 B2

Endosulfan sulfate 2.7 - 53 4/16 --- Not Available

Endrin ketone 4.2 - 9.8 4/16 --- Not Available

Heptachlor epoxide 7.3 1/16 700 B2

beta-BHC 4.7 - 74 2/16 3,500 C

gamma-BHC (lindane) 2.8 1/16 4,900 B2

alpha-Chlordane 5 - 61 16/16 18,000 B2

gamma-Chlordane 2.7 - 44 15/16 18,000 B2

SVOCs (ug/kg)

Acenaphthylene 35 - 42 3/16 --- D

Acenaphthene 42 - 470 6/16 4,700,000 Not Available

Anthracene 32 - 550 8/16 23,000,000 D

Benzo(a)anthracene 51 - 820 12/16 8,700 B2

Benzo(a)pyrene 41 - 690 13/16 870 B2

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 84 - 660 9/16 8,700 B2

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 36 - 480 11/16 --- D

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 69 - 880 13/16 87,000 B2

Carbazole 37 - 310 7/16 320,000 Not Available

Chrysene 43 - 920 14/16 870,000 B2

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 64 - 190 5/16 870 B2

Dibenzofuran 190 - 450 4/16 160,000 Not Assessed

Fluoranthene 37 - 2600 14/16 3,100,000 D

Fluorene 26 - 540 7/16 3,100,000 D

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 39 - 450 7/16 8,700.0 B2

2-Methylnaphthalene 46 - 710 7/16 1,600,000 Not Assessed

Naphthalene 68 - 90 3/16 1,600,000 C

Phenanthrene 48 - 2600 13/16 --- D

Pyrene 76 - 2000 13/16 31,000,000 D

Benzaldehyde 190 1/16 7,800,000 Not Assessed

1,1'-Biphenyl 86 - 250 3/16 3,900,000 D

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 63 - 580 16/16 460,000 B2

Butylbenzylphthalate 52 - 640 3/16 16,000,000 C

Di-n-butylphthalate 41 - 60 3/16 7,800,000 D

Di-n-octyphthalate 26 - 190 5/16 3,100,000 Not Available

2118-059

VOCs (ug/kg)

TABLE 2-5



Compound

Upper Drainage Ditch TBC Criteria

Adjusted EPA

Region III RBC

Criteria (1)

EPA

Carcinogen

Class(2)

Potential

Concern? Range of

Detection

Freq. of

Detection

Metals (mg/kg)

Aluminum 742 - 9610 16/16 78,000 Not Available

Antimony 0.57 - 1.7 12/16 31.00 Not Assessed

Arsenic 0.76 - 9.7 16/16 4.3 A

Barium 10 - 140 16/16 5,500 D

Beryllium 0.021 - 0.92 16/16 160 B1

Cadmium 0.26 - 0.88 12/16 39 B1

Chromium 3.2 - 26 16/16 230 D

Cobalt 0.66 - 4.6 16/16 1,600 Not Available

Copper 5.6 - 46.1 16/16 3,100 D

Iron 2230 - 26000 16/16 23,000 Not Available

Lead (3)

9.8 - 120 16/16 400 B2

Manganese 15 - 99 16/16 1,600 D

Mercury (as mercuric chloride) 0.0093 - 0.063 14/16 23 D

Nickel 1 - 6.5 16/16 1,600 Not Assessed

Selenium 0.29 - 0.78 5/16 390 D

Silver 0.93 1/16 390 D

Thallium 0.64 - 0.92 2/16 5.50 D

Vanadium 4.2 - 42 16/16 23 Not Assessed

Zinc 19 - 630 16/16 23,000 D

Notes:

(1) EPA Region III RBC Criteria (Oct 2003). Non-carcinogenic RBCs have been adjusted to a hazard quotient of 1 and carcinogens

have been adjusted to an increased cancer risk of 1E-05 to reflect recreational exposures.

(2) Weight of Evidence Classification:

A= Human carcinogen

B1= Probable human carcinogen, limited human data

Probable human carcinogen, sufficient evidence in animals or no evidence B2=

in humans

C= Possible human carcinogen

D= Not classified as to carcinogenicity

(3) EPA Standards for Lead in Soil, OPPT Lead Programs, 1/2/2001

2118-059

TABLE 2-6


BROWN'S LAKE - MAIN LAKE

Compound

Main Lake TBC Criteria

Adjusted EPA

Region III RBC

Criteria (1)

EPA

Carcinogen

Class(2)

Potential

Concern? Range of

Detection

Freq. of

Detection

VOCs (ug/kg)


Benzene 5.3 - 24 8/16 120,000 A

Pesticides/PCBs (ug/kg)

Aroclor 1260 21 - 40 2/32 3,200 B2

Aldrin 0.44 - 30 4/32 380 B2

Dieldrin 0.71 - 15 8/32 400 B2

4,4-DDD 0.48 - 52 24/32 27,000 B2

4,4-DDE 0.63 - 19 11/32 19,000 B2

4,4-DDT 1.6 - 21 12/32 19,000 B2

Endosulfan sulfate 3 1/32 --- Not Available

Endrin aldehyde 8 1/32 --- Not Available

alpha-BHC 0.71 1/32 4,900 B2

beta-BHC 0.52 - 17 4/32 3,500 C

alpha-Chlordane 0.53 - 11 11/32 18,000 B2

gamma-Chlordane 0.68 - 16 15/32 18,000 B2

SVOCs (ug/kg)

Anthracene 62 1/32 23,000,000 D

Atrazine 30 1/32 29,000 B2


Benzo(a)pyrene 50 - 640 15/32 870 B2




Carbazole 49 - 94 4/32 320,000 Not Available

Chrysene 40 - 830 18/32 870,000 B2


Fluoranthene 26 - 1300 19/32 3,100,000 D

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 43 - 520 9/32 8,700 B2

Phenanthrene 44 - 470 12/32 --- D

Pyrene 52 - 1200 15/32 31,000,000 D

Benzaldehyde 58 1/32 7,800,000 Not Assessed


Butylbenzylphthalate 100 1/32 16,000,000 C

Di-n-butylphthalate 64 - 82 7/32 7,800,000 D


2118-059

VOCs (ug/kg)

TABLE 2-6



Compound

Main Lake TBC Criteria

Adjusted EPA

Region III RBC

Criteria (1)

EPA

Carcinogen

Class(2)

Potential

Concern? Range of

Detection

Freq. of

Detection

Metals (mg/kg)



Arsenic 2.4 - 7 32/32 4.30 A

Barium 21 - 62 32/32 5,500 D

Beryllium 0.18 - 0.44 32/32 160 B1

Cadmium 0.06 - 1.5 15/32 39 B1

Chromium 11 - 23 32/32 230 D

Cobalt 0.73 - 3.9 32/32 1,600 Not Available

Copper 3.3 - 27 32/32 3,100 D

Iron 8400 - 15000 32/32 23,000 Not Available

Lead (3)

8 - 35 32/32 400 B2

Manganese 15 - 69 32/32 1,600 D

Mercury (as mercuric chloride) 0.018 - 0.11 32/32 23 D

Nickel 2.5 - 6.8 32/32 1,600 Not Assessed

Selenium 0.34 - 1.3 15/32 390 D

Vanadium 18 - 40 32/32 23 Not Assessed

Zinc 12 - 83 32/32 23,000 D

Notes:




A= Human carcinogen



in humans




2118-059

TABLE 2-7


BROWN'S LAKE - LOWER DITCH

Compound

Lower Drainage Ditch TBC Criteria

Adjusted EPA

Region III RBC

Criteria (1)

EPA

Carcinogen

Class(2)

Potential

Concern? Range of

Detection

Freq. of

Detection

VOCs (ug/kg)


2-Butanone (MEK) 8.1 - 43 2/6 47,000,000 Not Assessed

Pesticides (ug/kg)

Aroclor 1260 31 - 76 2/16 3,200 B2

Aldrin 5.3 1/16 380 B2

Dieldrin 0.55 1/16 400 B2

4,4-DDD 3.0 - 59 16/16 27,000 B2

4,4-DDE 0.82 - 20 13/16 19,000 B2

4,4-DDT 1.5 - 2000 16/16 19,000 B2

Endosulfan sulfate 2 - 18 3/16 --- Not Available

Endrin aldehyde 2.3 1/16 --- Not Available

Endrin ketone 1.2 - 3.0 3/16 --- Not Available

beta-BHC 2.0 - 2.6 3/16 3,500 B2

alpha-Chlordane 0.39 - 3.1 11/16 18,000 B2

gamma-Chlordane 0.63 - 8.2 11/16 18,000 B2

SVOCs (ug/kg)

Acenaphthylene 25 - 55 3/16 --- D

Acenaphthene 34 1/16 4,700,000 Not Available

Anthracene 41 - 120 3/16 23,000,000 D


Benzo(a)pyrene 44 - 360 15/16 870 B2




Carbazole 79 1/16 320,000 Not Available

Chrysene 41 - 730 15/16 870,000 B2


Fluoranthene 45 - 1400 16/16 3,100,000 D

Fluorene 33 - 34 3/16 3,100,000 D

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 39 - 250 10/16 8,700.0 B2

2-Methylnaphthalene 100 1/16 1,600,000 Not Assessed

Phenanthrene 26 - 410 13/16 --- D

Pyrene 49 - 1200 13/16 31,000,000 D

Benzaldehyde 36 - 52 2/16 7,800,000.0 Not Assessed



2118-059

VOCs (ug/kg)

TABLE 2-7



Compound

Lower Drainage Ditch TBC Criteria

Adjusted EPA

Region III RBC

Criteria (1)

EPA

Carcinogen

Class(2)

Potential

Concern? Range of

Detection

Freq. of

Detection

Metals (mg/kg)



Arsenic 0.37 - 9.1 16/16 4.30 A

Barium 9.3 - 70.4 16/16 5,500.00 D

Beryllium 0.03 - 0.59 16/16 160.00 B1

Cadmium 0.06 - 1 12/16 39.00 B1

Chromium 3.2 - 19 16/16 230.00 D

Cobalt 0.59 - 4.8 16/16 1,600.00 Not Available

Copper 3.7 - 33 16/16 3,100.00 D

Iron 2500 - 37200 16/16 23,000.00 Not Available

Lead (3)

8 - 100 16/16 400.00 B2

Manganese 12.5 - 290 16/16 1,600.00 D

Mercury (as mercuric chloride) 0.0014 - 0.25 14/16 23.00 D

Nickel 0.95 - 7.9 16/16 1,600.00 Not Assessed

Selenium 0.25 - 1.1 8/16 390.00 D

Silver 0.9 - 0.12 16/16 390.00 D

Thallium 0.63 - 1.2 2/16 5.50 D

Vanadium 3.8 - 26.4 16/16 23.00 Not Assessed

Zinc 14 - 108 16/16 23,000.00 D

Notes:




A= Human carcinogen



in humans




2118-059

TABLE 2-8

HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR SURFACE WATER


Parameters (ug/L)

Upper Ditch

ARARs & TBC

EPA

Carcinogen

Class(4)

Potential

Concern?

Virginia SW

(Freshwater)

Quality

Standards(1)

EPA

RBCs(2)

Federal AWQC

(Freshwater)(3)

Range of

Detection

Freq. of

Detection

All Other

Surface

Waters

Tap Water Water/Fish Fish Cons.

VOCs (ug/l)

Acetone 11.0 - 27.0 2/2 - 5,500 - - Not Assessed

SVOCs (ug/l)

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 2.8 1/4 - 48.0 18.0 59.0 B2

Di-n-butylphthalate 0.29 1/4 120,000 3,700 27,000 120,000 D

Pesticides (ug/l)

Lindane 0.035 1/4 0.63 0.52 0.19 0.63 B2

Total Metals (ug/l)

Aluminum 420 - 1370 4/4 - 37,000 - - Not Available

Antimony 6.20 1/4 43,000 15 140 43,000 Not Assessed

Barium 20 - 36.4 4/4 - 2,600 - - D

Cadmium 0.24 - 0.63 2/4 - 18 - - B1

Chromium (as hexavalent) 1.0 - 3.9 3/4 - 110 - - D

Cobalt 1.4 - 2.9 2/4 - 730 - - Not Available

Copper 3.9 - 23 4/4 - 1,500 - - D

Iron 1100 - 5860 4/4 - 11,000 - - Not Available

Lead 3.7 - 12.5 4/4 - - - - B2

Manganese 52.1 - 243 2/4 - 730 - - D

Nickel 3.0 - 4.2 2/4 46,000 730 6,100 46,000 Not Assessed

Vanadium 1.9 - 6.1 3/4 - 11 - - Not Assessed

Zinc 19.5 - 99 4/4 69,000 11,000 - - D

Notes:

(1) Virginia Surface Water Quality Standards, non-carcinogenic criteria have been adjusted to a hazard quotient of 1 and carcinogens have been

adjusted to an increased cancer risk of 1E-05 to reflect recreational exposures.

(2) EPA Region III RBC Criteria (Oct 2003). Non-carcinogenic RBCs have been adjusted to a hazard quotient of 1 and carcinogens have been


(3) Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (40 CFR 131). Non-carcinogenic criteria have been adjusted to a hazard quotient of 1 and carcinogens



A = Human carcinogen

B1 = Probable human carcinogen, limited human data

B2 = Probable human carcinogen, sufficient evidence in animals or no evidence in humans

C = Possible human carcinogen

D = Not classified as to carcinogenicity

2118-059

TABLE 2-9



Parameters (ug/L)

Main Lake

ARARs & TBC

EPA

Carcinogen

Class(4)

Potential

Concern?

Virginia SW

(Freshwater)

Quality

Standards(1)

EPA

RBCs(2)

Federal AWQC

(Freshwater)(3)

Range of

Detection

Freq. of

Detection

All Other

Surface

Waters


VOCs (ug/l)

Acetone 10.0 - 16.0 4/8 - 5,500 - - Not Assessed

SVOCs (ug/l)

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 2.5 - 14 5/16 - 48.0 18.0 59.0 B2

Butylbenzylphthalate 0.60 1/16 52,000 7,300 - - C

Pesticides (ug/l)

beta-BHC 0.010 1/16 0.46 0.37 0.14 0.46 B2

Total Metals (ug/l)


Antimony 2 - 3.4 3/16 43,000 15 140 43,000 Not Assessed

Barium 10 - 24.2 16/16 - 2,600 - - D



Copper 2.2 - 6.3 16/16 - 1,500 - - D


Lead 1.6 -3.0 6/16 - - - - B2

Manganese 21.0 - 100 16/16 - 730 - - D


Selenium 2.3 - 3.5 5/16 110,000 180 - - D


Zinc 5.0 - 69.6 16/16 69,000 11,000 - - D

Notes:

(1) Virginia Surface Water Quality Standards, non-carcinogenic criteria have been adjusted to a hazard quotient of 1 and carcinogens have been


(2) EPA Region III RBC Criteria (Oct 2003). Non-carcinogenic RBCs have been adjusted to a hazard quotient of 1 and carcinogens have been


(3) Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (40 CFR 131). Non-carcinogenic criteria have been adjusted to a hazard quotient of 1 and carcinogens








2118-059

TABLE 2-10



Parameters (ug/L)

Lower Ditch

ARARs & TBC

EPA

Carcinogen

Class(4)

Potential

Concern?

Virginia SW

(Freshwater)

Quality

Standards(1)

EPA

RBCs(2)

Federal AWQC

(Freshwater)(3)

Range of

Detection

Freq. of

Detection

All Other

Surface

Waters


VOCs (ug/l)

Acetone 50 1/6 - 5,500 - - Not Assessed

SVOCs (ug/l)

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.9 - 3.3 6/12 - 48.0 18.0 59.0 B2

Benzo(a)anthracene 1 1/12 4.90 0.92 0.028 0.31 B2

Benzo(a)pyrene 1 1/12 4.90 0.09 0.028 0.31 B2

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2 1/12 4.90 0.92 0.028 0.31 B2

Benzo(g,h,I)perylene 1 1/12 - - - - D

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 3 1/12 4.90 9.20 0.028 0.31 B2

Fluoranthene 2 1/12 3,700 1,500 3,000 3,700 D

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1 1/12 4.9 0.92 0.028 0.31 B2

Phenanthrene 0.70 1/12 - - - - D

Pyrene 2 1/12 11,000 180 0.028 0.31 D

Di-n-butylphthalate 0.32 1/12 120,000 3,700 27,000 120,000 D

Pesticides (ug/l)

Lindane 0.035 1/12 0.63 0.52 0.19 0.63 B2

Heptachlor 0.0091-0.062 2/12 0.021 0.150 0.0021 0.0021 B2

2118-059

TABLE 2-10



Parameters (ug/L)

Lower Ditch

ARARs & TBC

EPA

Carcinogen

Class(4)

Potential

Concern?

Virginia SW

(Freshwater)

Quality

Standards(1)

EPA

RBCs(2)

Federal AWQC

(Freshwater)(3)

Range of

Detection

Freq. of

Detection

All Other

Surface

Waters


Total Metals (ug/l)


Antimony 2.1 - 2.5 3/12 43,000 15 140 43,000 Not Assessed

Arsenic 4.30 1/12 - 0.45 0.18 0.14 A

Barium 16 - 54.1 12/12 - 2,600 - - D

Cadmium 1.10 1/12 - 18 - - B1



Copper 2.1 - 28.8 12/12 - 1,500 - - D


Lead 2.5 - 48.9 6/12 - - - - B2

Manganese 51 - 399 12/12 - 730 - - D


Selenium 3.1 - 4.1 5/16 110,000 180 - - D


Zinc 8.1 - 106 12/12 69,000 11,000 - - D

Notes:

(1) Virginia Surface Water Quality Standards, non-carcinogenic criteria have been adjusted to a hazard quotient of 1and carcinogens have been


(2) EPA Region III RBC Criteria (Oct 2003). Non-carcinogenic RBCs have been adjusted to a hazard quotient of 1and carcinogens have been


(3) Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (40 CFR 131). Non-carcinogenic criteria have been adjusted to a hazard quotient of 1and carcinogens








2118-059

Table 2-11

Raccoon Hazard Quotients for COPCs at

Brown's Lake, Fort Eustis, Virgina

Chemical Total Estimated

Exposure

(mg/kg BW-day)

Screening

Level(2)

(mg/kg BW-day)

Hazard

Quotents

(unitless)

Contaminant

of

Concern

(yes or no)

Acenaphthene 3.15E-02 4.91E-01 6.42E-02 No

Acenaphthylene 3.47E-03 4.91E-01 7.07E-03 No

Fluorene 2.83E-02 4.91E-01 5.77E-02 No

Phenanthrene 1.88E-01 4.91E-01 3.82E-01 No

Anthracene 3.33E-02 4.91E-01 6.78E-02 No

Fluoranthene 1.88E-01 4.91E-01 3.82E-01 No

Pyrene 1.31E-01 4.91E-01 2.67E-01 No

Carbazole 3.01E-02 4.91E-01 6.13E-02 No

Chrysene 7.44E-02 4.91E-01 1.52E-01 No

Benzo(a)anthracene 4.61E-02 4.91E-01 9.38E-02 No

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 7.09E-02 4.91E-01 1.44E-01 No

Benzo(a)pyrene 5.67E-02 4.91E-01 1.15E-01 No

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 5.32E-02 4.91E-01 1.08E-01 No

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1.13E-02 4.91E-01 2.31E-02 No

Dibenzofuran 2.44E-02 4.91E-01 4.98E-02 No

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 5.67E-02 4.91E-01 1.15E-01 No

2-Methylnaphthalene 4.61E-02 4.91E-01 9.38E-02 No

Butylbenzylphthalate 2.78E-02 NA NA No

Heptachlor epoxide 6.69E-04 4.91E-02 1.36E-02 No

Endosulfan I(1)

8.17E-04 7.37E-02 1.11E-02 No

Dieldrin 1.23E-03 9.83E-03 1.25E-01 No

4,4-DDE 5.80E-03 3.93E-01 1.48E-02 No

4,4-DDD 2.07E-02 3.93E-01 5.26E-02 No

4,4-DDT 4.14E-02 3.93E-01 1.05E-01 No

alpha-Chlordane 6.23E-03 1.22E+00 5.11E-03 No

gamma-Chlordane 4.08E-03 1.22E+00 3.34E-03 No

Aluminum 4.07E+02 5.13E-01 7.93E+02 6.47E-04

Arsenic 6.74E-02 1.23E+00 5.48E-02 No

Cadmium 1.33E-01 4.91E-01 2.71E-01 No

Chromium 2.02E-01 1.35E+03 1.50E-04 No

Copper 1.73E+00 7.48E+00 2.31E-01 No

Lead 9.08E-01 3.93E+00 2.31E-01 No

Mercury 1.05E-02 6.39E-01 1.64E-02 No

Iron 5.28E+02 NA NA No

Bold - Indicates HQ value greater than Unity (1) (1)

Surrogate for Endosulfan II (2)

Screening Level value based on No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL)

2118-059

Table 2-12

Great Blue Heron Hazard Quotients for CPOCs at



Exposure

(mg/kg BW-day)

Screening

Level(2)

(mg/kg BW-day)

Hazard

Quotents

(unitless)

Contaminant

of

Concern

(yes or no)

Acenaphthene 5.53E-03 NA NA No

Acenaphthylene 6.09E-04 NA NA No

Fluorene 4.97E-03 NA NA No

Phenanthrene 3.29E-02 NA NA No

Anthracene 5.84E-03 NA NA No

Fluoranthene 3.29E-02 NA NA No

Pyrene 2.30E-02 NA NA No

Carbazole 5.28E-03 NA NA No

Chrysene 1.31E-02 NA NA No

Benzo(a)anthracene 8.08E-03 NA NA No

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.24E-02 NA NA No

Benzo(a)pyrene 9.94E-03 NA NA No

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 9.32E-03 NA NA No

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1.99E-03 NA NA No

Dibenzofuran 4.29E-03 NA NA No

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 9.94E-03 NA NA No

2-Methylnaphthalene 8.08E-03 NA NA No


Heptachlor epoxide 1.73E-05 NA NA No

Endosulfan I(1)

1.24E-04 6.40E+00 1.94E-05 No

Dieldrin 1.86E-04 5.12E-02 3.64E-03 No

4,4-DDE 3.81E-04 1.11E-02 3.43E-02 No

4,4-DDD 1.05E-03 2.41E-01 4.34E-03 No

4,4-DDT 1.53E-03 2.41E-01 6.35E-03 No

alpha-Chlordane 3.32E-04 8.66E-01 3.83E-04 No

gamma-Chlordane 1.70E-04 8.66E-01 1.97E-04 No

Aluminum 5.54E+01 5.54E+01 9.99E-01 No

Arsenic 2.01E-02 4.13E+00 4.88E-03 No

Cadmium 7.06E-03 1.17E+00 6.03E-03 No

Chromium 7.14E-02 8.50E-01 8.40E-02 No

Copper 1.41E-01 3.23E+01 4.36E-03 No

Lead 2.30E-01 1.86E+00 1.24E-01 No

Mercury 1.53E-03 2.25E-01 6.82E-03 No





2118-059

Table 2-13

American Robin Hazard Quotients for CPOCs at



Exposure

(mg/kg BW-day)

Screening

Level(2)

(mg/kg BW-day)

Hazard

Quotents

(unitless)

Contaminant

of

Concern

(yes or no)

Acenaphthene 3.02E-01 NA NA No

Acenaphthylene 3.32E-02 NA NA No

Fluorene 2.71E-01 NA NA No

Phenanthrene 1.80E+00 NA NA No

Anthracene 3.19E-01 NA NA No

Fluoranthene 1.80E+00 NA NA No

Pyrene 1.26E+00 NA NA No

Carbazole 2.88E-01 NA NA No

Chrysene 7.12E-01 NA NA No

Benzo(a)anthracene 4.41E-01 NA NA No

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 6.78E-01 NA NA No

Benzo(a)pyrene 5.43E-01 NA NA No

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 5.09E-01 NA NA No

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1.09E-01 NA NA No

Dibenzofuran 2.34E-01 NA NA No

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 5.43E-01 NA NA No

2-Methylnaphthalene 4.41E-01 NA NA No


Heptachlor epoxide 1.35E-02 NA NA No

Endosulfan I(1)

9.12E-03 1.51E+01 6.04E-04 No

Dieldrin 1.37E-02 1.21E-01 1.13E-01 No

4,4-DDE 9.48E-02 2.60E-02 3.64E+00 Yes

4,4-DDD 3.83E-01 5.70E-01 6.72E-01 No

4,4-DDT 8.47E-01 5.70E-01 1.49E+00 Yes



Aluminum 7.16E+03 1.31E+02 5.47E+01 Yes

Arsenic 7.93E-01 9.75E+00 8.14E-02 No

Cadmium 2.65E+00 2.75E+00 9.62E-01 No

Chromium 2.07E+00 2.01E+00 1.03E+00 No

Copper 3.20E+01 7.63E+01 4.19E-01 No

Lead 1.26E+01 4.39E+00 2.87E+00 Yes

Mercury 1.07E-01 5.32E-01 2.01E-01 No

Iron 9.26E+03 NA NA NA




2118-059

Table 2-14

Short-tail Shrew Hazard Quotients for CPOCs at



Exposure

(mg/kg BW-day)

Screening

Level(2)

(mg/kg BW-day)

Hazard

Quotents

(unitless)

Contaminant

of

Concern

(yes or no)

Acenaphthene 3.61E-01 2.20E+00 1.64E-01 No

Acenaphthylene 3.98E-02 2.20E+00 1.81E-02 No

Fluorene 3.25E-01 2.20E+00 1.48E-01 No

Phenanthrene 2.15E+00 2.20E+00 9.78E-01 No

Anthracene 3.82E-01 2.20E+00 1.74E-01 No

Fluoranthene 2.15E+00 2.20E+00 9.78E-01 No

Pyrene 1.50E+00 2.20E+00 6.83E-01 No

Carbazole 3.45E-01 2.20E+00 1.57E-01 No

Chrysene 8.53E-01 2.20E+00 3.88E-01 No

Benzo(a)anthracene 5.28E-01 2.20E+00 2.40E-01 No

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 8.12E-01 2.20E+00 3.69E-01 No

Benzo(a)pyrene 6.50E-01 2.20E+00 2.95E-01 No

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 6.09E-01 2.20E+00 2.77E-01 No

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1.30E-01 2.20E+00 5.91E-02 No

Dibenzofuran 2.80E-01 2.20E+00 1.27E-01 No

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 6.50E-01 2.20E+00 2.95E-01 No

2-Methylnaphthalene 5.28E-01 2.20E+00 2.40E-01 No



Endosulfan I(1)

1.15E-02 8.00E-02 1.44E-01 No

Dieldrin 1.72E-02 4.40E-02 3.91E-01 No

4,4-DDE 1.32E-01 1.76E+00 7.51E-02 No

4,4-DDD 5.35E-01 1.76E+00 3.04E-01 No

4,4-DDT 1.18E+00 1.76E+00 6.72E-01 No



Aluminum 9.01E+03 2.29E+00 3.94E+03 Yes

Arsenic 6.94E-01 5.49E+00 1.26E-01 No

Cadmium 3.64E+00 2.20E+00 1.66E+00 Yes

Chromium 1.38E+00 6.02E+03 2.29E-04 No

Copper 4.30E+01 3.34E+01 1.29E+00 Yes

Lead 1.29E+01 1.76E+01 7.30E-01 No

Mercury 1.37E-01 2.86E+00 4.80E-02 No





2118-059

Table 2-15

Grey Fox Hazard Quotients for CPOCs at



Exposure

(mg/kg BW-day)

Screening

Level(2)

(mg/kg BW-day)

Hazard

Quotents

(unitless)

Contaminant

of

Concern

(yes or no)

Acenaphthene 6.81E-02 5.28E-01 1.29E-01 No

Acenaphthylene 7.50E-03 5.28E-01 1.42E-02 No

Fluorene 6.13E-02 5.28E-01 1.16E-01 No

Phenanthrene 4.06E-01 5.28E-01 7.69E-01 No

Anthracene 7.20E-02 5.28E-01 1.36E-01 No

Fluoranthene 4.06E-01 5.28E-01 7.69E-01 No

Pyrene 2.83E-01 5.28E-01 5.37E-01 No

Carbazole 6.51E-02 5.28E-01 1.23E-01 No

Chrysene 1.61E-01 5.28E-01 3.05E-01 No

Benzo(a)anthracene 9.95E-02 5.28E-01 1.89E-01 No

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.53E-01 5.28E-01 2.90E-01 No

Benzo(a)pyrene 1.23E-01 5.28E-01 2.32E-01 No

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.15E-01 5.28E-01 2.18E-01 No

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 2.45E-02 5.28E-01 4.64E-02 No

Dibenzofuran 5.28E-02 5.28E-01 1.00E-01 No

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1.23E-01 5.28E-01 2.32E-01 No

2-Methylnaphthalene 9.95E-02 5.28E-01 1.89E-01 No



Endosulfan I (1)

1.55E-03 7.92E-02 1.95E-02 No

Dieldrin 2.32E-03 1.10E-02 2.11E-01 No

4,4-DDE 6.33E-03 4.20E-01 1.51E-02 No

4,4-DDD 1.31E-02 4.20E-01 3.12E-02 No

4,4-DDT 9.29E-03 4.20E-01 2.21E-02 No



Aluminum 1.51E+02 5.51E-02 2.73E+03 Yes

Arsenic 6.09E-02 1.32E+00 4.62E-02 No

Cadmium 3.81E-02 5.28E-01 7.22E-02 No

Chromium 1.96E-01 1.45E+03 1.35E-04 No

Copper 7.84E-01 4.22E+00 1.86E-01 No

Lead 5.79E-01 8.03E+00 7.21E-02 No

Mercury 2.29E-02 6.87E-01 3.33E-02 No





2118-059

Table 2-16

Benthic Hazard Quotients for CPOCs at


COPC Maximum Sediment

Concentration (mg/kg)

Screening Level(1)

(mg/kg)

HQ

Acenaphthene 8.90E-01 0.016 5.56E+01

Acenaphthylene 9.80E-02 0.044 2.23E+00

Fluorene 8.00E-01 0.019 4.21E+01

Phenanthrene 5.30E+00 0.24 2.21E+01

Anthracene 9.40E-01 0.0853 1.10E+01

Fluoranthene 5.30E+00 0.6 8.83E+00

Pyrene 3.70E+00 0.665 5.56E+00

Carbazole 8.50E-01 -

Chrysene 2.10E+00 0.384 5.47E+00

Benzo(a)anthracene 1.30E+00 0.261 4.98E+00

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2.00E+00 0.108 1.85E+01

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.60E+00 0.67 2.39E+00

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 1.50E+00 0.0634 2.37E+01

Dibenzofuran 3.20E-01 0.54 5.93E-01

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 6.90E-01 0.6 1.15E+00

Benzo(a)pyrene 1.60E+00 0.43 3.72E+00

2-Methylnaphthalene 1.30E+00 0.07 1.86E+01

Butylbenzylphthalate 6.80E-01 0.063 1.08E+01

Heptachlor epoxide 3.40E-03 0.00247 1.38E+00

Endosulfan I 2.00E-02 -

Dieldrin 3.00E-02 0.0019 1.58E+01

4,4'-DDD 4.70E-02 0.016 2.94E+00

4,4'-DDE 1.90E-01 0.0022 8.64E+01

4,4'-DDT 4.20E-01 0.00158 2.66E+02

alpha-Chlordane 5.60E-02 0.00324 1.73E+01

gamma-Chlordane 4.00E-02 0.00324 1.23E+01

Aluminum 1.57E+04 -

Arsenic 5.50E+00 8.2 6.71E-01

Cadmium 1.90E+00 1.2 1.58E+00

Chromium 1.97E+01 260 7.58E-02

Copper 3.61E+01 34 1.06E+00

Lead 6.44E+01 46.1 1.40E+00

Mercury 2.00E-01 0.15 1.33E+00

Iron 2.03E+04 20000 1.02E+00



2118-059

TABLE 2-17

INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION OF CONSIDERED ALERNATIVES

BROWN'S LAKE RECORD OF DECISION

FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA

Alternative Overall Protection of Human Health and

Environment Compliance with ARARs

Long-Term Effectiveness and

Permanence

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and

Volume Short-Term Effectiveness Implementability Cost

Alternative 1 - No Action Would not provide protection of human health

and environment.

Chemical - ARAR's not applicable / TBC not

met

Location-Specific - not applicable

Action-Specific not applicable

Does not provide long-term effectiveness

as risks could potentially increase through

migration of contaminants.

Does not provide any reduction of

toxicity, mobility, or volume of

contaminants in the site media.

Current risks to potential receptors would

remain. No increased short-term risks to

the surrounding community would be

realized.

There are no issues concerning

implementation, because this

alternative does not have a monitoring

or construction component associated

with it.

No capital expenditures would occur

under this alternative. Sampling may be

required as part of the 5-year review

process, but these costs are minimal in

comparison to other alternatives.

Alternative 2 - Future Land

Use Controls and Monitoring

Would provide protection of human health, but

not the environment. Allows continued impacts

of sediment from upper ditch into the Lake.

Existing risks to human receptors are minimal.

Access restrictions would further limit the

potential for human exposure to contaminated

media.

Chemical - ARAR's not applicable / TBC not

met

Location-Specific - not applicable

Action-Specific not applicable

Provides some measure of long-term

effectiveness in that exposure to impacted

media would be limited due to access

restrictions, and the site sediment

conditions would be continually monitored.

However, the contaminated sediment will

not be removed and existing risks will

remain until fully attenuated.

Does not provide any reduction of

toxicity, mobility, or volume of

contaminants in the site media.

However, contaminant concentrations

would be observed through monitoring

activities.

Workers would potentially be exposed to

low levels of contaminants during

monitoring activities. These risks can be

minimized through the use of personal

protective equipment and safety

procedures. Institutional controls would

yield a quick benefit by reducing exposure

potential.

Easily implementable. Materials,

equipment, and services required to

implement this alternative are readily

available. Would not impede further

remedial actions (if required based on

monitoring activities).

The capital cost of implementing this are

estimated to be approximately $1,000.

The annual cost of monitoring activities is

estimated to be $77,000 per year. The

estimate present net worth of this

alternative is $675,000.

Alternative 3 - Backfill Lake,

Reroute Storm water Flow,

Land Use Controls, and

Monitoring

Would be protective of human health and

environment as the potential for exposure to

contaminated sediment would be eliminated.

Backfilling the Lake would eliminate the potential

for exposure of ecological receptors to the

contaminated sediment under the cap and from

the upper ditch.

Chemical - all applicable ARAR's will be met /

TBC met

Location-Specific - applicable guidance

includes VA Water protection Permit

Regulations (9VAC 25-210) and Coastal Zone

Management Act will be followed/met all other

guidance not applicable

Action-Specific - applicable ARAR's include

OSHA requirements, storm water and erosion

control requirements, and Air Quality Standards

for Particulate Matter (40CFR 50) all of which will

be met.

Provides both long-term effectiveness and

permanence as contaminated media

would be removed from the site, and post-

excavation sampling would document the

need for future risk management. Site

media monitoring would provide additional

long-term effectiveness.

Mobility of the contaminants would be

reduced by rerouting the storm water

around the impacted media. However,

the toxicity and volume of the

contaminants would not be reduced.

Would pose minimal risk to the

community during construction and

implementation. Workers could

potentially be exposed to contaminants

through direct contact, ingestion, or

inhalation. These risks can be minimized

through the use of dust control measures,

personal protective equipment, and safety

procedures. Would provide an immediate

benefit as impacted sediment is

sequestered, thus eliminating exposure.

However, Lake ecosystem is permanently

destroyed as a result.

May be both technically and

administratively feasible. Lake water

can be drained into the downstream

ditch. Local contractors are available

to perform the rerouting of the storm

water and to backfill the lake.

However, the environmental impacts

and cost it may render this alternative

unfeasible.


estimated to be approximately

$8,869,000. The annual cost of

groundwater monitoring activities is

estimated to be $42,000 per year. The


alternative is $9,237,000.

Alternative 4 - Excavation Of

Would provide significant protection to human

health and some protection for the environment.

The excavation of the upper ditch would

eliminate the downstream migration of

contaminated sediment from the upper ditch into

the Lake, but would not eliminate the potential for

Chemical - all applicable ARAR's will be met /

TBC met






would be excavated, treated and disposed

of off-site. Post-excavation sampling

Mobility of the contaminants would be

reduced by removing the remaining

contaminated media from the upper

ditch, and installing the sedimentation

basin would prevent future migration






Would be both technically and

administratively feasible. Excavation

would be performed using conventional

construction equipment. Local

contractors are available to perform

excavation, sedimentation basin


estimated to be approximately $470,000.

Upper Ditch With Land Use

Control, Storm Water

Controls, And Monitoring

exposure of the ecological receptors to

contaminated sediment under the cap. However,

some risks may be incurred by disturbance of the

contaminants during excavation. Potential future

recontamination of the lake by sediment

transport would be mitigated by construction of a

sedimentation basin.



Action-Specific all ARAR's are applicable and

will be met.

would document the need for future risk

management. In addition, the

sedimentation basin would mitigate

potential recontamination from urban-like

storm water runoff.

due to urban-like storm water runoff.

However, the toxicity and volume of

the contaminants would not be

reduced because the remaining

contaminated sediment in the Lake

(under the cap) would remain.




procedures. Institutional Controls and

removal of sediment from Upper Ditch

would yield a quick benefit by reducing

exposure potential.

construction, and sampling activities.

Off-site disposal of the dredged

contaminated sediments is readily

implementable. These actions would

not inhibit further remedial actions, if

they should become required or

appropriate.

The annual cost of groundwater

monitoring activities is estimated to be

$64,000 per year. The estimate present

net worth of this alternative is $966,000.

Alternative 5 - Removal And

Off-Site Disposal

Would provide the most complete protection to

human health and the environment. Removal

and disposal of contaminated sediment in the

Lake and upper ditch would eliminate the

potential for exposure to both humans and the

environment. Some risks may be incurred by

disturbance of the contaminants during

excavation.

Chemical - all applicable ARAR's met / TBC met






Action-Specific all ARAR's are applicable and

will be met.



would be excavated, treated and disposed

of off-site. Post-excavation sampling

would document the need for future risk

management. Site media would provide

additional long-term effectiveness.

Would result in a complete reduction of

toxicity, mobility, and volume of the

contaminants. Excavating and off-site

removal of contaminated sediment

would completely reduce the toxicity,

mobility, and volume of the

contaminants.









procedures. Would provide an immediate

benefit as impacted sediment is removed,

thus eliminating exposure. However,

Lake ecosystem is temporarily destroyed

as a result.

Would be technically and

administratively feasible. Local

contractors are available to perform

both excavation, sampling and

analytical services. Off-site disposal of

sediment is readily implementable.


estimated to be approximately

$2,024,000. The annual cost of

groundwater monitoring activities is

estimated to be $0 per year. The


alternative is $2,024,000.

Brown's Lake Record of Decision

2118-059 Fort Eustis, Virgnia

TABLE 2-18

(1) CAPITAL COSTS

SELECTED REMEDY - EXCAVATION OF UPPER DITCH WITH LAND USE CONTROL, STORM WATER CONTROL, AND

MONITORING OF SEDIMENT

FORT EUSTIS - BROWN'S LAKE FEASIBILITY STUDY

Process Description Unit Cost Quantity Unit of

Measure Subtotal

Site Preparation

Mobilization/Demobilization see below --- --- --- ---

Site Preparation (general)(2)

see below --- --- --- ---

Clearing (to create access) $4,500 0.4 AC $1,800

Decon Pad for equipment (24)

see notes --- 1 LS ---

Installation of erosion controls (3)

silt fence $2 2000 LF $4,000

Access Restrictions

Signs $50 8 EA $400

Stormwater Diversion

Pump (purchase) (17)

see notes $3,537 2 EA $7,074

Piping for diversion and dewatering $8 1000 LF $8,000

Culvert discharge blocking (4)

see notes $1,000 1 LS $1,000

Culvert inlet protection (16)

see notes $3,000 1 LS $3,000

Dust suppression (5)

see notes $2 1000 SY $2,000

Long-term Monitoring

Work/Sample Plan Development (6)

see notes $0 1 EA $0

Excavation of Upper Ditch

Sheet Piling (19)

see notes $11.00 1600 SF $17,600

Excavation Labor(7)

see notes $40.00 640 HRS $25,600

Crawler-mounted, 2.0 CY, 235 Hydraulic Excavator $152.60 160 HRS $24,416

Sediment/Soil Dewatering(8)

$4.00 500 CY $2,000

Polyethylene Cover $0.25 5000 SF $1,250

Staging/Drying Area Liner (40 mil liner) $1 5000 SF $5,000

Staging/Drying Area Liner Base (6" sand layer) $18 500 CY $9,000

Staging/Drying Area Berm (straw bales) $10 50 EA $500

Dewatering Labor (9)

$40 160 HR $6,400

D3 with U-Blade Bulldozer $158 160 HRS $25,280

Sample dewatering discharge Scientist $100 20 hours $2,000

Chemical analysis (10)

see notes $600 10 samples $6,000

Post-excavation sampling Scientist $100 20 hours $2,000

Chemical analysis (11)

see notes $800 10 samples $8,000

Carbon Canister (18)

see notes $11,000 1 EA $11,000

Sedimentation Basin Construction

Excavation Labor (2 man crew, one week ) see notes $40.00 80 HRS $3,200

Crawler-mounted, 1.0 CY, 215 Hydraulic Excavator $99.15 40 HRS $3,966

Subgrade/Base Prep (20)

see notes $3.80 830 SY $3,154

Forms for Basin Footings (21)

see notes $2.77 1600 SF $4,432

Basin Footings Construction (place concrete) $90 120 CY $10,855

Basin Sidewall Construction (22)

see notes $256 60 CY $15,360

Forms for Sidewalls $4.24 3900 SF $16,536

Basin Bottom Construction (trowel finish) (23)

see notes $1.89 7500 SF $14,175

Outlet Structure Construction (rectangular weir) $5,000 1 LS $5,000

Off-Site disposal (Dredge Spoils)

Sediment Loading

Sediment Transportation (12)

Sediment Disposal(13)

see notes

see notes

see notes

$2

$2

$35

500

375

750

CY

MI

TON

$965

$570

$26,250

Site Restoration

Grading(14)

Hydroseeding(15)

see note

see note

$68

$503

25

25

MSF

MSF

$1,695

$12,584

Subtotal : $292,062

Mobilization/Demobilization (10%): $29,206

Site Preparation (general) (5%): $14,603

Subtotal : $335,871

Engineering and Administration (20%): $67,174

Contingency (20%): $67,174

TOTAL : $470,000

TABLE 2-18

(1) CAPITAL COSTS

SELECTED REMEDY - EXCAVATION OF UPPER DITCH WITH LAND USE CONTROL, STORM WATER CONTROL, AND



Notes:

(1) All cost data estimated from RSMeans Environmental Remediation Cost Data - Assemblies, 2000/2003, RSMeans Site Work and

Landscape Cost Data, 2002, RSMeans Heavy Construction Cost Data, 2002, or previous Malcolm Pirnie experience. (2)

Calculated as 5% of the total cost and includes: swamp mats for access, portable toilet, construction entrance, laydown area (3)

Erosion controls consist of a minimum of 2 rows of silt fence surrounding the excavation area. (4)

Includes miscellaneous supplies used to block culvert for storm water diversion: plywood, hose, building supplies (5)

A tree-sap based overall dust suppressant would be used to control dust generation during excavation. (6)

Assumes use of existing Work Plan developed for monitoring of sediment/surface water/fish. (7)

Assumes a 4-man crew for 3 weeks = 480 hours.

(8) Assumes all excavated material will require dewatering and includes materials to perform moisture content reduction.

(9) Assumes a 1-man crew for 3 weeks = 120 hours.

(10) Chemical analyses of water samples for TSS, TAL metals, TCL pesticides, TCL, PCBs,and TCL PAHs

(11) Chemical analyses of sediment samples for TSS, TAL metals, TCL pesticides, TCL, PCBs,and TCL PAHs

(12) Transport Bulk Solid Waste Max 20 CY per mile to Subtitle D - Big Bethel Landfill, Hampton, VA.

(13) Subtitle D - Big Bethel Landfill, Hampton, VA.

(14) Spread soil with machine (includes labor, and equipment / assume exisiting site soils spread)

(15) Hydroseeding, 50 Lb/MSF (includes labor, equipment, and materials)

(16) Sand and gravel placed in front of downstream culvert to minimize sediment from leaving excavated areas

(17) Pump for diverting water in ditch, second pump for removing water from dewatering pad

(18) Canister needed for water not passing chemical analysis, carbon and accesories included in price of canister

(19) Sheet piling used to partition ditch into sections for ease of excavation

(20) Crushed 3/4" stone base, compacted, 6"deep

(21) Footings would be approximately 2 feet below basin bottom, and 2 feet wide

(22) Finished retaining wall, 5" thick

(23) Slab on grade, 4 inch thick

(24) Decon pad would be part of Sediment Dewatering area.

TABLE 2-19

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS (1)

SELECTED REMEDY - EXCAVATION OF UPPER DITCH WITH LAND USE CONTROL, STORM WATER

CONTROL, AND MONITORING OF SEDIMENT


Process Description Unit Cost Quantity Unit of

Measure Subtotal

Environmental Sampling and Analysis

Sediment Sampling Labor Costs (2)

Scientist $100 38 HR $3,800

Fish Tissue Sampling Labor Costs (2)

Scientist $100 6 HR $600

Surface Water Sampling Labor Costs (2)

Scientist $100 4 HR $400

Sediment Analytical Costs (3)

see notes $800 8 EA $6,400

Fish Tissue Analytical Costs (3)

see notes $800 4 EA $3,200

Surface Water Analytical Costs (3)

Settling Basin Maintenance (4)

see notes $600 8 EA $4,800

Removal of Accumulated Sediment (5)

see notes $950 1 DY $950

Transport Sediment $800 1 EA $800

Disposal of Sediment (6)

Reporting (7)

see notes $35 37.5 TON $1,313

Data Evaluation $5,000 1 LS $5,000

Report Preparation $5,000 1 LS $5,000

Subtotal : $32,300

Mobilization/Demobilization (10%): $3,230

Subtotal : $45,530

Engineering and Administration (20%): $9,106

Contingency (20%): $9,106

TOTAL : $64,000

Notes:

(1) All cost data estimated from RSMeans Environmental Remediation Cost Data - Assemblies, 2000, RSMeans Site

Work and Landscape Cost Data, 2002, RSMeans Heavy Construction Cost Data, 2002, or previous Malcolm Pirnie

experience.

(2) Assumes sediment, and surface water sampling will be conducted annually and 12 fish samples will be collected

every 3 years (12/3 = 4) from the Lake only.

(3) Chemical analyses of surface water, sediment, and fish samples for TSS, TAL metals, TCL pesticides, TCL, PCBs,

and TCL PAHs (4)

Assumes 1" of sediment uniformly accumlates in basin for a total of 25 cu yd of sediment per year. (5)

Assumes use of 5,000 gallon vacuum truck, with crew of two. (6)

Assumes disposal at Subtitle D Landfill - Hampton, VA (7)

Annual reporting would consist of data/risk analysis and preparation of a written report.

TABLE 2-20

PRESENT NET WORTH CALCULATION

SELECTED REMEDY

EXCAVATION OF UPPER DITCH WITH LAND USE CONTROL, STORM WATER CONTROL, AND



Year Capital Cost O&M Costs Total P/W Factor Present Net Worth

1 $470,000 $0 $470,000 1.0 $470,000 2 $0 $64,000 $64,000 0.97 $62,080 3 $0 $64,000 $64,000 0.94 $60,218 4 $0 $64,000 $64,000 0.91 $58,411 5 $0 $64,000 $64,000 0.89 $56,659 6 $0 $64,000 $64,000 0.86 $54,959 7 $0 $64,000 $64,000 0.83 $53,310 8 $0 $64,000 $64,000 0.81 $51,711 9 $0 $64,000 $64,000 0.78 $50,160

10 $0 $64,000 $64,000 0.76 $48,655

Total: $966,000

Notes:

PNW is based on a 3% annual inflation rate.

TABLE 2-21 CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARS

BROWN’S LAKE RECORD OF DECISION FORT EUSTIS, VA

Authority Medium Requirement Status Synopsis of Requirement

Action to be Taken to Attain Requirement

State

Regulatory

Requirement

Surface

water

Virginia Water

Quality

Standards (9

VAC 25-260-5

to -155)

Applicable These criteria may be

applied directly to surface

water.

Surface water

constituents

currently attain

requirement.

TABLE 2-22 LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS


Authority Location Requirement Status Synopsis of Requirement


Federal Habitat of Endangered Applicable if a Federal agencies shall, in The ecological risk

Regulatory Endangered Species Act, threatened or consultation with the assessment did not

Requirement or

Threatened

Species

16 U.S.C.

§ 1536;

50 C.F.R.

§ 402.01

endangered

species, or

its critical

habitat, will

be affected

by the

response

action

Department of Interior,

ensure that the actions they

authorize, fund, or carry out

are not likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of

endangered or threatened

species, or adversely modify

or destroy their critical

habitats.

observe

endangered or

threatened species

at Brown’s Lake;

however, the

threatened bald

eagle has been

observed at Ft.

Eustis. The

presence of

endangered or

threatened species

is not anticipated;

however, if they are

discovered at any

point during the

Remedial Design or

Action, site activities

will be tailored to

comply with the

regulations.

Federal Coastal Zone Coastal Zone Applicable Each Federal agency activity During the Remedial

Regulatory Management within or outside the coastal Design, activities

Requirement Act, 16 U.S.C.

§ 1456(c), 15

C.F.R. §§

930.30-.33,

.36(a), .39(b-d)

zone that affects any land or

water use or natural resource

of the coastal zone shall be

carried out in a manner

which is consistent to the

maximum extent practicable

with the enforceable policies

of the approved State coastal

zone management programs.

Procedural requirements of

the regulations need not be

followed for remedial action

conducted entirely on-site.

will be reviewed

and, if necessary,

revised to ensure

they are consistent

to the maximum

extent practicable

with Virginia’s

federally-approved

Coastal Resources

Management

Program.

TABLE 2-23 ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS




Federal

Regulatory

Requirement

Surface

Water

Federal Water

Pollution

Control Act, 33

U.S.C. § 1311

Applicable Pollutants may be

discharged into waters of the

United States only in

compliance with effluent

If sediment de-watering

is required (which is

unlikely), and this water

is discharged on-site (in

limitations and other the Lake or Upper Ditch),

substantive standards of the discharge will meet

control for water pollutants effluent limitations and

(below) other substantive—not

administrative or

procedural—standards of

control for water

pollutants

40 C.F.R.

122.41(d), (e),

(i), (m)(2) &

(m)(4)

Applicable Other substantive

requirements: duty to

mitigate adverse effects of

discharges, proper operation

and maintenance of

treatment facility and

controls, allow DEQ

inspection and entry, no by

passing treatment or controls

40 C.F.R. Applicable Monitoring requirements

122.44(i),

122.48(a) & (b)

40 C.F.R.

122.44(a)

Applicable Technology-based effluent

limitations. Technology-

based limitations may be

determined on a case-by

case basis.

40 C.F.R. Applicable Water quality standards must

122.44(d); be complied with.

40 C.F.R. § Applicable Discharge limitations must be

122.44(e) established at more stringent

levels than technology-based

standards for toxic pollutants.

40 C.F.R. §

122.44(k)

Applicable Develop and implement a

Best Management Practices

program to prevent the

release of toxic constituents

to surface waters.

TABLE 2-23 ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS




Federal & Hazardous 9 VAC 20-60 Applicable Determine whether solid Determine whether

State Waste 261 waste is hazardous waste waste generated during

Regulatory (incorporating the project, including

Requirement 40 C.F.R. §

262.11)

excavated sediment, is

hazardous. It is not

anticipated that waste

generated during the

project will be

hazardous.

State Solid Waste Virginia Solid Applicable These regulations govern the The Virginia Solid Waste

Regulatory Waste management and disposal of Management

Requirement Management

Regulations (9

VAC 9 VAC §§

20-80-60 to 90,

130-230)

solid wastes. Regulations will be an

applicable if

contaminated sediment

is excavated and

removed from the site for

treatment and/or

disposal. Based on the

existing analysis

conducted on the

sediments, if removed

from the site, the

sediments would be

expected to be disposed

in a solid waste landfill.

Both substantive and

procedural requirements

apply to off-site actions.

State Soil / Virginia Erosion Applicable Establishes requirements for The remedial action will

Regulatory Sediment and Sediment sediment and erosion control comply with the

Requirement Control Law,

Va. Code Ann.

§ 10.1-563;

Virginia Erosion

and Sediment

Control

Regulations (4

VAC §§ 50-30

30, -40, -60.A

from land disturbing

activities.

substantive standards—

as opposed to

procedural

requirements—of these

laws.

Attachment 1 SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK

ASSESSMENT


Attachment 1 Final Record of Decision SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN

HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

A1.1 INTRODUCTION

This supplemental human health risk assessment (HHRA) presents an analysis of potential human health risks associated with constituents detected in game fish (bass and catfish) from the Brown’s Lake site at Fort Eustis, Virginia. This risk assessment is intended to supplement the HHRA included in the FS Report for the Brown’s Lake site. That Risk Assessment considered only sediment and surface water exposures to humans, and determined that there were no constituents in either of those two media that were detected at concentrations warranting further consideration as Constituents of Potential Concern. As such, the potential for risks was not evaluated. The HHRA included in the FS did not address the presence of constituents in fish tissues, as the Lake is posted as no fishing, and thus, this was considered an incomplete pathway. However, as there is a possibility of trespassing fishermen ignoring posted warnings, the Army determined it was important to evaluate this potential pathway.

The HHRA presents an analysis of potential human health risks associated with exposure to constituents detected at or migrating from the site. The HHRA follows guidance provided in the following documents:

• Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), USEPA, 1989a

• Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B), USEPA, 1989b

• Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health. Supplemental Guidance. "Standard Default Exposure Factors", USEPA, 1991a

• Selecting Exposure Routes and Contaminants of Concern by Risk-based Screening, USEPA Region III, 1993a

• Risk-Based Concentration Table, USEPA Region III, April 2006

• Exposure Factors Handbook, Vol. 1-3, USEPA, August 1997

• Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment, Part 2, USEPA, 1992a

• ProUCL Version 3.0 User Guide, April 2004

A1.1.1 Objectives

The objectives of the assessment are to (1) provide an analysis of baseline risk, currently and in the

Brown’s Lake Site Page A1-1 Fort Eustis, Virginia 2118-107



future, in the absence of any major action to control or mitigate site contamination, and (2) to assist in determining the need for and extent of remediation.

The goal of the HHRA process is to provide a framework for developing the risk information necessary to assist decision-making at the site. Specific objectives include:

• Provide an analysis of baseline human health risks and help determine the need for and extent of remedial action at the site.

• Provide a basis for determining levels of constituents that can remain at the site while still adequately protecting public and Fort Eustis personnel health.

• Provide a basis for comparing potential health impacts of various remedial alternatives. • Provide a consistent process for evaluating and documenting public health threats at the

site.

A1.1.2 HHRA Components

There are four components to the HHRA process: (1) hazard identification, (2) exposure assessment, (3) toxicity assessment, and (4) risk characterization. Each step is described briefly as follows:

• Hazard identification involves gathering and analyzing the site data relevant to the human health evaluation and identifying the constituents of potential concern (COPC) at the site that are the focus of the risk assessment process. The selection of such constituents is based on a number of parameters, including the frequency of detection and concentration in each environmental medium, environmental fate and transport characteristics, intrinsic toxicity and the likelihood of human exposure via significant exposure routes.

• Exposure assessments are conducted to estimate the magnitude of actual and/or potential human exposures, the frequency and duration of these exposures, and the pathways by which humans are exposed. In the exposure assessment, reasonable maximum estimates of exposure are developed for both current and future land-use assumptions. Conducting an exposure assessment involves analyzing contaminant releases, identifying exposed populations, identifying all potential pathways of exposure, estimating exposure point concentrations for specific pathways and estimating contaminant intakes for specific pathways. The results of this assessment are pathway-specific intakes for current and future exposures to individual constituents.

• Toxicity assessments consider the types of adverse health effects associated with constituent exposures, the relationship between magnitude of exposure and adverse effects and related uncertainties such as the weight of evidence of a particular constituent’s carcinogenicity in humans. Qualitative and quantitative toxicity data for each COPC are summarized, and appropriate guidance levels with which to characterize risks are identified.




• Risk characterization summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to characterize baseline risk, in both quantitative expressions and qualitative statements. The likelihood and magnitude of adverse health risks are estimated in this step in the form of non-cancer hazard quotients and cancer risks.

A1.2 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

Fish tissue samples were collected from the site during the 2004 Post-IRA monitoring event to evaluate constituent trends since completion of the IRA and, with the completion of this human health risk assessment, to update the HHRA included in the FS. The samples were analyzed for PCBs, pesticides, SVOCs, and metals. Detected constituents are presented in A1-1a and A1-1b, and the data for those constituents exceeding screening criteria (USEPA Region III RBCs for fish tissue consumption) are summarized in Table A1-2 to facilitate the hazard identification. The data set is presented in its entirety in the Post-IRA Monitoring Report, Year 2004 Data (March, 2005). Presented in Table A1-2 are the basis (i.e., carcinogen or non-carcinogen), frequency of detection and the range of detected concentrations for each constituent, selected screening criteria (in this case, USEPA Region III RBCs for fish tissue), the exposure point concentration, and statistical measure. The screening criteria are used to select COPCs for evaluation in the exposure assessment and risk characterization.

The USEPA Region III RBCs for fish tissue for non-carcinogenic compounds have been adjusted to a hazard quotient of 0.1 by dividing them by a factor of ten. The RBCs were established for single constituent exposure situations; however, as multiple constituents have been detected for the matrix, the RBCs have been adjusted as per guidance.

While numerous surface water and sediment samples have been collected previously at the Brown’s Lake site, this HHRA will focus on the most recent data (i.e., the 2004 Post-IRA Monitoring Event), as these will most accurately reflects the current site conditions. In addition, this risk assessment focuses solely on human consumption of fish, as other exposures (i.e., to sediment and surface water) were assessed as part of the FS.

A1.2.1 Selection of Fish Tissue Constituents of Potential Concern

Tissue samples from thirteen game-sized fish (six channel catfish and seven largemouth bass) were collected from Brown’s Lake. Each individual fish was subjected to whole-body analysis for PCBs, pesticides, SVOCs, and metals. Tables A1-1a and A1-1b summarize the findings of the analyses, and compares the results to USEPA Region III RBCs for Fish Tissue. COPCs identified during the hazard identification are provided in Table A-2. For the purposes of this HHRA, the data for the two fish species (i.e., channel catfish and largemouth bass) have been pooled into one data set, as these are both considered game species and subject to human consumption. Both of these species are also predatory fish at the upper end of the aquatic food chain, and thus subject to




bioaccumulation and bioconcentration.

Twenty COPCs were identified, and these consisted primarily of pesticides and metals. Approximately two-thirds of the constituents identified as COPCs were detected in 85-100% of the samples. Aroclor 1260, a PCB mixture, was detected in twelve of the thirteen fish samples, and the only SVOC selected as a COPC was bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate, which was found in six of the tissue samples. The COPCs are summarized below, all concentrations are reported as wet weights.

PCBs • Aroclor 1260: Detected in 12 of 13 samples (35 to 190 ug/kg); exceeded its RBC of 1.6

ug/kg.

Pesticides • 4,4-DDD: Detected in 13 of 13 samples (16 to 160 ug/kg); exceeded its RBC of 13 ug/kg. • 4,4-DDE: Detected in 13 of 13 samples (15 to 91 ug/kg); exceeded its RBC of 9.3 ug/kg. • 4,4-DDT: Detected in 12 of 13 samples (4.9 to 28 ug/kg); exceeded its RBC of 9.3 ug/kg. • Aldrin: Detected in 1 of 13 samples (4.5 ug/kg); exceeded its RBC of 0.19 ug/kg. • alpha-BHC: Detected in 2 of 13 samples (0.54 to 2.7 ug/kg); exceeded its RBC of 0.5 ug/kg. • alpha-Chlordane: Detected in 13 of 13 samples (8.8 to 58 ug/kg); exceeded its RBC of 9

ug/kg. • beta-BHC: Detected in 4 of 13 samples (3.7 to 4.7 ug/kg); exceeded its RBC of 3.4 ug/kg. • gamma-Chlordane: Detected in 13 of 13 samples (0.68 to 20 ug/kg); exceeded its RBC of 9

ug/kg. • Heptachlor epoxide: Detected in 4 of 13 samples (0.46 to 3.8 ug/kg); exceeded its RBC of

0.35 ug/kg.

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds • Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate: Detected in 6 of 13 samples (120 to 51,000 ug/kg); exceeded its

RBC of 230 ug/kg.

Inorganic Constituents • Antimony: Detected in 12 of 13 samples (0.19 to 0.3 mg/kg); exceeded its RBC of 0.054

mg/kg. • Arsenic: Detected in 2 of 13 samples (0.19 to 0.3 mg/kg); exceeded its RBC of 0.0021

mg/kg. • Barium: Detected in 12 of 13 samples (0.39 to 48 mg/kg); exceeded its RBC of 27 mg/kg. • Cadmium: Detected in 7 of 13 samples (0.05 to 0.15 mg/kg); exceeded its RBC of 0.14

mg/kg. • Copper: Detected in 13 of 13 samples (0.29 to 9.1 mg/kg); exceeded its RBC of 5.4 mg/kg. • Manganese: Detected in 13 of 13 samples (0.4 to 31.6 mg/kg); exceeded its RBC of 19

mg/kg.




• Mercury: Detected in 13 of 13 samples (0.025 to 0.26 mg/kg); exceeded its RBC of 0.014 mg/kg. This assessment assumes mercury is present as methylmercury.

• Selenium: Detected in 13 of 13 samples (0.25 to 0.7 mg/kg); exceeded its RBC of 0.68 mg/kg.

• Vanadium: Detected in 11 of 13 samples (0.07 to 0.35 mg/kg); exceeded its RBC of 0.14 mg/kg.

The metals aluminum, cobalt, and lead do not have screening criteria, and as such will not be carried forward through quantitative risk assessment. Their presence in samples will be discussed in the uncertainty section.

In addition, iron was determined to be present at concentrations above risk screening criteria in the fish tissue samples. However, iron is naturally occurring, and an essential nutrient that is a vital element of hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying component of the blood. Constituents that are essential nutrients, present at low concentrations (e.g., only slightly above background), are toxic only at very high doses and need not be considered further in the quantitative risk assessment.

The ‘Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet’ for Iron from the National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements, is provided in Appendix A. The fact sheet provides the Recommended Daily Allowances (RDAs) for iron, as well as the Tolerable Upper Intake Levels ([ULs] which are the maximum daily amounts unlikely to result in adverse health effects), as recommended by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. A comparison of the Daily Intake (which is discussed in detail in Section A1.3.6) from consumption of fish recreationally caught from the site to RDAs and ULs adjusted as intakes (i.e., dividing RDAs and ULs by the receptor weight) is provided below in Table A.

TABLE A RECEPTOR RDA UL

Daily Intake from Fish

Consumption2

(mg/kg-day)

Daily Allowance

(mg)

RDA as Intake1

(mg/kg-day)

Daily UL (mg)

UL as Intake1

(mg/kg-day)

CHILD (7mo - 6 yrs)

ADULT

7 to 10 0.47 to 0.67

8 to 18 0.11 to 0.26

40

45

2.67

0.64

0.19

0.062

1: Represents RDA or UL value adjusted to reflect average weight of the receptor (i.e., 15 kg for child, and 70 kg for adult). 2: Recreational Fish consumption from the Site, CDI calculations are provided in Appendix C.

As noted above, neither of the Daily Intakes from fish consumption exceeded the RDA. In addition, the Daily Intakes from fish consumption were significantly less (by an order of magnitude) than the Upper Limits, which suggests that even site exposures coupled with normal dietary intake of iron would not cause adverse health effects. Thus, it can be surmised that the concentrations of iron




present in site media do not pose a significant health threat to receptors. As such, iron will not be assessed further in this Risk Assessment.

In addition, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium were detected in the fish samples. As these are considered essential nutrients, they will not be evaluated further.

A1.3 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

The objective of the exposure assessment is to estimate the type and magnitude of exposures to the COPCs that are present at the site.

A1.3.1 Potentially Exposed Populations

As part of the exposure assessment, it is important to characterize the potentially exposed populations at or near the site with regard to the current situation and potential future conditions.

Current Situation

Brown’s Lake is currently not open for game/recreational fishing. However, it is possible that a small number of recreational fishermen may be able to elude the regular Military Police patrols of the area. Further, it is reasonable to expect that these hypothetical ‘trespasser’ recreational fishermen may retain their catches. Given the size of the Lake (approximately 4 to 5 acres) and game fish (bass and catfish) or pan fish (e.g., blue gill or crappie) available in the Lake, and, it is reasonable to expect that the fish population could support a small group of recreational fishermen (and by extension their families) with enough fish for a weekly meal.

Thus, there is one potentially exposed population (recreational fishermen) under the current situation.

Future Land Use

Based on master planning issues for Fort Eustis, the facility is expected to remain government property, and Brown’s Lake is planned to remain conservation area. Thus, future land use mirrors the current land use.

Potential Exposed Populations Summary

For the current and future situation, the potentially exposed populations to the impacted media at the site are adults and children through consumption of fish recreationally caught from Brown’s Lake. Although children do not typically consume fish as readily as adults do, there is the potential for children to consume fish from the Lake, and therefore this exposure scenario is evaluated




quantitatively along with the adults.

A1.3.2 Exposure Pathways

The potential exposure pathways of concern for current future land use at the site include the following:

• Adult and child consumption of fish recreationally caught in Brown’s Lake by trespassing fishermen.

A1.3.3 Data Limitations and Uncertainties

The limitations and uncertainties associated with the analytical data for the site were reviewed to ensure that appropriate and reliable data are selected for use in estimating human exposure. No major problems (those problems that would seriously impact data usability) were encountered.

Samples and their duplicates are not considered as separate sampling events. Rather a constituent-specific value representing the maximum value of the sample and its duplicate is used. This may result in a conservative estimate of exposure. However, since only one duplicate sample was collected, the overall impact on risk estimates should be minimal.

For purposes of this HHRA, if a COPC was not detected in a sample, it is assumed to be present at ½ the sample-specific quantitation limit. Adjusting non-detects by assigning values at ½ of the constituent-specific quantitation limit assumes that a constituent may be present at a concentration just below the quantitation limit. One-half the quantitation limit is used as a conservative "proxy" concentration consistent with USEPA guidance. This approach would tend to overestimate the risk. It should be noted that the method detection limit (MDL) for PCBs is approximately 10 times less than the PQL. If PCBs were present between the MDL and the PQL, the result would have been reported with a “J” flag as an estimated concentration. For example, when a sample was non-detect with the PQL at 1,000 ug/kg, ½ the PQL or 500 was used as the concentration for the risk analysis. In reality with the MDL at 100 ug/kg for that same sample, the use of 500 ug/kg is a conservative method for risk analysis when in fact the concentration was most likely less than 100 ug/kg.

In this evaluation, data which were qualified by indicating that the numerical value is an estimated quantity are treated in this evaluation the same as data without this qualifier.

A1.3.4 Estimates of Constituent Intake

Evaluation of the exposure pathway described above involves the estimation of several parameters such as exposure time, frequency, and duration, ingestion rates and constituent concentrations in the specific media of concern. Table B represents a general equation for calculating constituent intakes (chronic daily intakes or CDI) and defines the intake variables in terms of constituent-related,




population-related and evaluation-determined parameters.

TABLE B GENERIC EQUATION FOR CALCULATING CONSTITUENT INTAKE S

I = [(C x CR X EFD)/BW] x 1/AT

Where:

I = intake; the amount of constituent at the exchange boundary (mg/kg body weight-day)

C = constituent concentration; the "average" concentration contacted over the exposure period (e.g., mg/kg for fish tissue)

CR = contact rate; the amount of impacted medium contacted per unit time or event (e.g., grams/day)

EFD = exposure frequency and duration; describes how long and how often exposure occurs; often calculated using two terms (EF and ED)

EF = exposure frequency (day/year)

ED = exposure duration (years)

BW = body weight; the average body weight over the exposure period (kg)

AT = averaging time; time period over which exposure is averaged (days)

A1.3.5 Estimates of Reasonable Maximum Exposures

The USEPA recommends that estimates of constituent intake be developed to portray reasonable maximum exposures (RME) that might be expected to occur under current and future site conditions. Accordingly, the highest exposure that might reasonably be expected to occur at the site, one that is well above the average case of exposure but within the range of possibility, should be considered.

The sample data obtained are only a "snapshot" of constituent concentrations in biota. In order to determine the constituent concentrations to which one might be exposed over many years, it is necessary to evaluate the entire data set in order to develop "representative" concentrations. In many instances, environmental data sets are skewed such that the normal distribution is not a suitable model for estimating parameters such as means, proportions, confidence limits, etc. The USEPA (USEPA 1989a) recommends that the 95% upper confidence limit [i.e., the upper confidence limit (UCL)] on the mean of all the data should be used for evaluating RMEs. The 95% UCL of the arithmetic mean is calculated and used as the reasonable maximum concentration.

The UCLs were calculated using the computer program, ProUCL Version 3.00.02, which is provided




by the USEPA on their website. Based upon the data set entered into the program, ProUCL determines the data set distribution (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma-distributed), calculates the UCL via a variety of methods (e.g., parametric and non-parametric), and recommends the UCL calculation that best fits the distribution of the data set. Additional information regarding this process can be found in the “ProUCL Version 3.0 User Guide” dated April 2004. The UCLs are summarized in Table A1-2, and the ProUCL program output is provided in Appendix B.

A1.3.6 Parameters and Assumptions in Assessing Exposures

Recreational Populations

Consumption of Fish

The equation and assumptions for calculating constituent intakes for fish consumption is provided in Table C below. All CDI calculations are provided in Appendix C.

TABLE C ADULT AND CHILD EXPOSURE: INGESTION OF CONSTITUENTS IN FISH FILLETS

EQUATION:

Intake (mg/kg-day) = (CS x IR x CF x EF x ED)/(BW x AT)

Where:

CS = Constituent concentration in fish tissue (mg/kg) IR = Ingestion rate (grams/day) CF = Conversion factor (10-3 kg/g) EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) ED = Exposure duration (years) BW = Body weight (kg) AT = Averaging time (period over which exposure is averaged - days)

Variable values:

CS = 95% UCL on the mean of the measured concentrations in site samples, except when it exceeds the maximum detected concentration

IR = 25 grams per day for adults and 16.5 grams per day for children (Section 10.10.3 and Table 10-1, USEPA, 1997a)

CF = 10-3 kg/g

EF = 365 days (Exhibit 6-17, RAGS, Volume 1) (USEPA, 1989A)




ED = 30 years for adult and 9 years for child (USEPA, 1995a)

BW = 70 kg for the adult and 15kg for children ages 1 to 6 (USEPA Region III, Technical Background Information, Development of Risk-Based Concentrations)

AT = period of exposure for noncarcinogenic effects is equal to ED x 365 days/year; for carcinogenic effects - 70 x 365 days/year

The ingestion rates (25 grams/day and 16.5 grams/day) were selected based upon recommendations made in the Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997a) and the USEPA Region III Toxicologist, as well as reasonable judgment. When converted to a weekly ingestion rate, the value for adults and children is 175 grams/week (approximately 6.2 ounces/week) and 115.5 grams/week (approximately 4 ounces/week), respectively. As a serving size at a meal, this ingestion rate would roughly equate to one to two fillets of a game fish or one to three pan fish per person. Thus, the underlying assumption is that the exposed receptor dines on recreationally caught fish once a week. Thus, as mentioned above, given the size of Brown’s Lake (approximately 4 to 5 acres) and game fish available in the Lake (bass, catfish, and bluegill), it is reasonable to expect that the fish population could support a small group of recreational fishermen (and by extension their families) with enough fish for a weekly meal.

A1.4 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT

The toxicity assessment, also termed the dose-response assessment, serves to characterize the relationship between the magnitude of exposure and the potential that an adverse effect will occur. It involves (1) determining whether exposure to a constituent can cause an increase in the incidence of a particular adverse health effect and (2) characterizing the nature and strength of the evidence of causation. The toxicity information is then quantitatively evaluated and the relationship between the dose of the constituent received and the incidence of adverse effects in the exposed population is evaluated. The USEPA and other regulatory agencies have performed toxicity assessments for numerous constituents and the guidance they provide is used when available. These include verified reference doses (RfDs) for the evaluation of noncarcinogenic effects from chronic exposure and cancer potency slopes (CPSs) for the evaluation of cancer risk from lifetime exposure. Each of these are discussed below. A toxicity profile for each COPC is provided in Appendix A.

A1.4.1 Non-Carcinogenic Effects

The potential for non-cancer health effects associated with constituent exposure is evaluated by comparing an estimated intake (such as chronic daily intake or CDI) over a specified time period with a RfD derived for a similar exposure period. The RfD is an estimate of a daily exposure level for the human population (including sensitive subpopulations) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. RfDs often have an uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of




magnitude or greater. Chronic RfDs, used in this assessment, are specifically developed to be protective of long-term exposure to a constituent.

The RfDs for the COPC used for the characterization of chronic non-cancer risk via oral exposure routes are presented in Table A1-3 along with the critical effect, the basis and source of the RfD and any uncertainty of modifying factors used in the derivation of the RfD.

The ratio of the estimate of the CDI to the health-protective criterion (CDI/RfD) is called the hazard quotient (USEPA, 1989a). The hazard quotient assumes there is a level of exposure (i.e., the RfD) below which it is unlikely for even sensitive subpopulations to experience adverse health effects. If the hazard quotient exceeds 1.0, there may be concern for potential non-cancer effects. Subsequently, the greater the hazard quotient exceeds 1.0, then the greater the level of concern.

A1.4.2 Carcinogenic Effects

Regardless of the mechanism of effect, risk assessment methods generally derive from the hypothesis that thresholds for cancer induction by carcinogens do not exist and that the dose-response relationship is linear at low doses. Such risk assessment methods require extrapolation from high dose animal studies to evaluate low dose exposures to humans. In the absence of adequate information to the contrary, a linearized, multistage, non-threshold low dose extrapolation model is recommended by the USEPA as the most appropriate method for assessing constituent carcinogens. The USEPA emphasizes that this procedure leads to a plausible upper limit to the risk that is consistent with some proposed mechanisms of carcinogenesis.

Through application of this approach, the USEPA has derived estimates of incremental excess cancer risk from lifetime exposure to potential carcinogens. This is accomplished by establishing the carcinogenic potency of the constituent through critical evaluation of the various test data and the fitting of those dose-response data to a low dose extrapolation model. The cancer slope factor (CSF) describes the dose-response relationship at low doses and is expressed as a function of intake [i.e., per mg/kg-day]. Cancer slope factor for oral exposures (CSFo) for the COPC are presented in Table A1-4. The CSFo is used to estimate finite, upper limits of risk at low dose levels administered over a lifetime. The weight-of-evidence classification for carcinogenicity, and the basis and source of the CSFo are also presented in Table A1-4.

To arrive at an estimate of incremental cancer risk, the following equation is used (USEPA, 1989a):

Risk = CDI x CSF where:

Risk = a unitless probability (e.g., 2 x 10-5 or 2 in 100,000) of an individual developing cancer CDI = chronic daily intake averaged over 70 years (mg/kg-day) CSF = Cancer slope factor expressed in (mg/kg-day)-1




This linear equation is valid only at low risk levels (i.e., below estimated risks of 0.01). This approach does not necessarily give a realistic prediction of risk but is however, a conservative estimate. The true value of the risk at trace ambient concentrations is unknown and may be as low as zero.

A1.4.3 Mixtures

The USEPA has also developed guidelines to evaluate the overall potential for noncancer and cancer effects posed by multiple constituents. For the assessment of non-carcinogenic hazard, this approach assumes that subthreshold exposures to several constituents at the same time could result in an adverse health effect. It further assumes that the magnitude of the adverse effect will be proportional to the sum of the ratios of the subthreshold exposures to acceptable exposures. The hazard index is equal to the sum of the hazard quotients. When the hazard index exceeds 1.0, there may be concern for potential health effects. Generally, hazard indices are only used in the evaluation of a mixture of constituents that induce the same effect by the same mechanism of action. In this evaluation, the hazard quotients of a mixture of constituents that can have different effects

are used as a screening-level approach, as recommended by the USEPA (USEPA, 1989a). This approach is likely to overestimate the potential for effects.

For the assessment of carcinogenic risks, the individual risks associated with exposure to each constituent are summed. This represents an approximation of the precise equation for combining risks that account for the joint probabilities of the same individual developing cancer as a consequence of exposure to two or more carcinogens. This additive approach assumes independence of action by the constituents involved (i.e., that there are no synergistic or antagonistic constituent interactions and all constituents produce the same effect, i.e., cancer).

A1.5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION

The final step in the human health evaluation is the characterization of risk. Here the toxicity and exposure assessments are summarized and combined into quantitative and qualitative expressions of risk. Potential noncarcinogenic effects are characterized by comparing intakes and toxicity values, while carcinogenic risks are characterized by estimating the probability that an individual will develop cancer over a lifetime of exposure.

Potential non-cancer health effects are presented in Table A1-5. Carcinogenic risks are similarly presented in Table A1-6.

A1.5.1 Non-cancer Effects

Tables A1-5a and A1-5b present the constituent-specific hazard quotients involving adult and child




exposures from consumption of fish from Brown’s Lake.

Adults

As shown in Table A1-5a the pathway hazard index for consumption of fish caught recreationally in Brown’s Lake is 2.3, which is greater than the USEPA acceptable threshold of 1. Thus, adverse non-carcinogen health effects in this population are possible. A summary of the largest contributors to this hazard index is presented below.

• Antimony: approximately 10% of the total pathway HI; • Arsenic: approximately 10% of the total pathway HI; • Mercury: approximately 31% of the total pathway HI; • bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate: approximately 33% of the total pathway HI.

Also notably, the two of the more common target organs in this analysis are the kidneys and the central nervous system (CNS). When effects on these two organs are considered separately, the HQ for each organ exceeds 1. Specifically, the HQ for the kidneys is 1.6, and the HQ for the CNS is 1.1.

Children

As shown in Table A1-5b the pathway hazard index for recreational consumption of fish caught in Brown’s Lake is 7.1, which is greater than the USEPA acceptable threshold of 1. Thus, adverse non-carcinogen health effects in this population are possible. A summary of the largest contributors to this hazard index is presented below.

• Arsenic: approximately 9% of the total HI; • Antimony: approximately 10% of the total pathway HI; • Mercury: approximately 31% of the total HI; • bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate: Approximately 34% of the total pathway HI.

Also notably, the three of the more common target organs in this analysis are the liver, the kidneys, and the CNS. When effects on these three organs are considered separately, the HQ for each organ exceeds 1. Specifically, the HQ for the liver is 3.0, the HQ for the kidneys is 4.8, and the HQ for the CNS is 3.5.

A1.5.2 Cancer Risks

Tables A1-6a and A1-6b present estimated constituent-specific and total pathway cancer risks calculated for adult and children consumption of fish from Brown’s Lake.




Adults

As shown in Table A1-6a, the estimated cancer risk for adult recreational consumption of fish caught in Brown’s Lake is about 1.9 x 10-4 or 1.9 in ten thousand. This value is greater than the USEPA’s generally accepted risk range of 10-4 (1 in ten thousand) to 10-6 (1 in one million), which serves as the target for site cleanup. A summary of the largest contributors to this hazard index is presented below.

• Aroclor 1260: approximately 16% of the total pathway Risk; • Arsenic: approximately 22% of the total pathway Risk; • bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate: approximately 48% of the total pathway Risk.

Children

As shown in Table A1-6b, the estimated cancer risk for child recreational consumption of fish caught in Brown’s Lake is about 1.7 x 10-4 or 1.7 in ten thousand. This value is greater than the USEPA’s generally accepted risk range of 10-4 (1 in ten thousand) to 10-6 (1 in one million), which serves as the target for site cleanup. A summary of the largest contributors to this hazard index is presented below.

• Aroclor 1260: approximately 17% of the total pathway Risk; • Arsenic: approximately 23% of the total pathway Risk; • bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate: approximately 50% of the total pathway Risk.

A1.5.3 Uncertainty

Some uncertainty is inherent in the process of conducting predictive, quantitative health risk assessments. Environmental sampling and analysis, fate and transport modeling and human exposure modeling are all prone to uncertainty, as are the available toxicity values used to characterize risk. Such uncertainty is generally related to the limitations of the sampling in terms of the number and distribution of samples and analytical information in terms of systematic or random errors used to characterize a site, the estimation procedures and the input variables and assumptions used in the assessment.

There are uncertainties in every step of the risk assessment process; uncertainties that relate to this human health evaluation may be noted. Model input parameters and assumptions that tend to overestimate exposure were used in the exposure assessment. For example, frequent exposure to constituents is considered even though exposures may occur infrequently or not at all, and thus may overestimate risk. Additional uncertainties are inherent in the exposure assessment for individual constituents and exposure routes.

There is also some uncertainty in the derivation of health effects criteria in the toxicity assessment.




In most cases, the criteria are derived from the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to the human condition. This may have the effect of either overestimating or underestimating the risk.

For this site, some important uncertainties that may influence the results include:

• Actual fish availability, or population, represents a degree of uncertainty. As Brown’s Lake is a relatively small lake, the population of game fish is expected to be low as there are insufficient resources (such as food and space) to support a large population of consumption-sized fish. However, there should be sufficient resources to sustain a population of fish that could provide ample recreational opportunity to a small group of fishermen who fish the area regularly for game fish (i.e., catfish and bass) and pan fish (bluegill and crappie). It would be expected though, that if this group of recreational fishermen grew, then the Lake could quickly become over-fished.

• As noted in Section A1.2.1, the data from the two fish species sampled (channel catfish and largemouth bass) were pooled into one data set as these are both considered game species and subject to human consumption. Additionally, both of these species are also predatory fish at the upper end of the aquatic food chain, and thus subject to bioaccumulation and bioconcentration. It was also assumed that ‘trespassing’ recreational fishermen may have the tendency to be opportunistic (i.e., they will keep whatever they catch), so in these respects, pooling the data appears appropriate. Furthermore, as there is no specific data to support portioning of the catch into species (i.e., what percent of the catch would be bass and what percent catfish), so in this respect, pooling the data is appropriate. However, this pooling of data does create an uncertainty as the fish species do have different behaviors and feeding habits which may result in different body-burden for the constituents.

• As discussed previously, the fish tissue analyses were whole body analyses of individual fish. This may lead to an overestimation of risk, as persistent constituents of concern tend to accumulate in fatty tissues and specific organs, while fish fillets tend to have lower concentrations of these constituents. However, it is important to note, that consumption of fish organs or use of the whole fish body in soups/stocks by particular socio-economic demographic groups does occur, thus consideration of whole body analysis for the consumption by trespassing recreational fishermen may be a realistic assumption.

• As noted in Section A1.2.1, three detected constituents (aluminum, cobalt, and lead) lacked screening criteria (as well as toxicity data), and as a result were not carried through the quantitative risk assessment. While this does present an uncertainty in the assessment, it is important to note that cobalt and lead were detected at fairly low levels in comparison to the other metals constituents. As for the presence of aluminum, it was detected at levels very similar to the other metals constituents present. Thus, it is appropriate to view these concentrations as generally equivalent to the other metals detected, and therefore, these three constituents would not be expected to significantly affect the risk analysis conclusions.




A1.5.4 Final Exposure Scenarios and Potentially Exposed Populations

The only identified potentially exposed population for the Brown’s Lake site is adults and children who consume fish recreationally caught from the Lake. The risk assessment calculations have shown an increased cancer risk and hazard associated with consumption of fish from the Lake above the USEPA’s generally accepted risk range.


Tables

Supplemental HHRA Brown’s Lake Site

Record of Decision Fort Eustis, Virginia

Table A1-1a

Summary of Detected Analytes for Fish Tissue Samples ( Channel Catfish)



EPA RBC

Fish

PCBs (ug/kg wet weight)

Aroclor-1260 46.0 J 35.0 J 120.0 80.0 J 84.0 J 93.0 U 1.6

Pesticides (ug/kg wet weight)

4,4'-DDD

4,4'-DDE

24

17

32.0

15.0

160

61

120

41

110

36

63

23

13

9.3

4,4'-DDT 4 U 4.9 28 P 28 P 17 17 P 9.3

Aldrin 0.63 U 0.6 U 1.30 U 4.5 P 1.30 U 1.30 U 0.19

alpha-BHC 0.63 U 0.6 U 2.8 P 1.30 U 1.30 U 1.30 U 0.50

alpha-Chlordane 11 P 12 58 43 41 18 9.0

beta-BHC 3.9 P 1.2 U 2.5 U 4.2 3.7 2.5 U 3.40

Endosulfan I 1.2 U 1.2 U 2.5 U 4.7 P 1.7 JP 2.5 U 810

Endrin aldehyde 1 5.4 P 2.6 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U 41

gamma-Chlordane 4.3 P 5.2 20.0 16.0 16.0 5.6 9.0

Heptachlor epoxide 0.63 U 0.6 U 3.8 P 1.30 U 1.30 U 2.2 0.35

SVOCs (ug/kg wet weight)

Acenaphthylene 2 500 U 500 U 88 J 500 U 500 U 500 U 4,100

Benzaldehyde 500 U 500 U 310 J 220 J 140 J 140 J 14,000

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2 500 U 500 U 360 J 500 U 500 U 500 U 4,100

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 51000 D 220 J 120 J 500 U 500 U 500 U 230

Table A1-1a

Summary of Detected Analytes for Fish Tissue Samples ( Channel Catfish)



EPA RBC

Fish

Metals (mg/kg wet weight)

Aluminum 118.00 64.30 14.60 B 78.10 76.90 11.40 B ----

Antimony 0.3 B 0.2 B 0.2 B 0.2 U 0.2 B 0.3 B 0.054

Arsenic 0.23 U 0.24 U 0.25 U 0.25 B 0.30 B 0.25 U 0.0021

Barium 26.7 27.3 3.1 B 35.9 35.3 48.0 27.0

Cadmium 0.15 B 0.09 B 0.05 B 0.15 B 0.14 B 0.15 B 0.14

Calcium 1,150 1,330 8,800 16,600 16,400 5,000 ----

Chromium, total 0.49 0.46 B 0.25 B 0.49 0.52 0.19 B ----

Chromium III (estimated)3 0.42 0.39 0.21 0.42 0.45 0.16 200

Chromium VI (estimated)3 0.070 0.066 0.036 0.070 0.074 0.027 0.41

Cobalt 0.39 B 0.10 B 0.07 U 0.20 B 0.20 B 0.29 B ----

Copper 1.40 1.20 0.87 1.40 1.40 0.80 5.4

Iron 262.0 116.0 90.1 258.0 255.0 43.9 41

Lead 0.50 0.33 0.32 0.86 0.89 0.24 B ----

Magnesium 216 B 216 B 304 B 441 B 435 B 288 B ----

Manganese 31.60 7.60 5.20 24.70 24.30 28.40 19

Mercury (as methylmercury) 0.035 0.045 0.048 0.035 0.029 0.025 B 0.014

Nickel 0.33 B 0.22 B 0.07 U 0.13 B 0.11 B 0.07 U 2.7

Potassium 2,600 2,820 2,590 2,340 2300 2,280 ----

Selenium 0.25 B 0.43 B 0.39 B 0.47 B 0.49 0.38 B 0.68

Silver 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.04 B 0.07 B 0.07 B 0.68

Sodium 1,190 1,150 1,140 1,270 1230 1,160 ----

Vanadium 0.350 B 0.210 B 0.12 B 0.310 B 0.290 B 0.12 B 0.14

Zinc 19.4 18.3 14.1 15.7 24.5 27.3 41 Notes: Data Validation Qualifiers: April 2006 Region III RBC Table K - Reported value may be biased high. N - Tentative Identification. Non-carcinogens adjusted to a Hazard Quotient of 0.1. U - Concentration Below MDL J - Estimated concentration Detects above EPA RBCs are highlighted. L - Reported value may be biased low. D - Dilution

B - Detected in associated QC Blank for organics/ detected at estimated 1) Evaluated as Endrin, shares similar chemical structure.

concentration between MDL and PQL for inorganics. 2) Evaluated as Pyrene P - Target analyte that is greater than 25% difference for the detected concentrations 3) Values estimated based upon Region IX guidance, between two GC columns.

and assumes a ration of 1:6 Cr VI to Cr III.

Table A1-1b Summary of Detected Analytes for Fish Tissue Samples (Largemouth Bass)


EPA RBC

Parameters BASS 1 BASS 1D BASS 2 BASS 3 BASS 4 BASS 5 BASS 6 BASS 7 Fish

PCBs (ug/kg wet weight)

Aroclor-1260 190.0 JD ---- 80.0 62.0 47.0 100.0 D 48.0 87.0 1.6

Pesticides (ug/kg wet weight)

4,4'-DDD 110 D ---- 49 37 24 70 D 16 35 13

4,4'-DDE 91 D ---- 36 27 26 53 D 20 38 9.3

4,4'-DDT 18 P ---- 11 11 6.9 19 PD 6.7 14 9.3

alpha-BHC 0.63 U ---- 0.54 J 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.50

alpha-Chlordane 38.0 PD ---- 23.0 P 14.0 P 8.8 P 28.0 PD 9.0 P 17.0 P 9.0

beta-BHC 1.20 U ---- 1.20 U 1.20 U 1.20 U 4.70 PD 1.20 U 1.20 U 3.40

Endrin aldehyde 1 14.0 P ---- 10.0 P 7.2 P 2.6 U 8.6 P 2.6 U 7.7 P 41

gamma-Chlordane 3.50 D ---- 2.80 1.90 0.68 2.90 D 1.30 2.30 9.0

Heptachlor 0.63 U ---- 0.63 U 0.69 P 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.70

Heptachlor epoxide 0.63 U ---- 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.46 J 0.65 0.63 U 0.35

SVOCs (ug/kg wet weight)

Acenaphthylene 2 500 U ---- 500 U 110 J 500 U 500 U 500 U 500 U 4,100

Benzaldehyde 500 U ---- 500 U 500 U 150 J 500 U 500 U 500 U 14,000

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 150 J ---- 160 J 500 U 500 U 500 U 3400 230 J 230

page 3 of 4

Table A1-1b

Summary of Detected Analytes for Fish Tissue Samples (Largemouth Bass)


Parameters BASS 1 BASS 1D BASS 2 BASS 3 BASS 4 BASS 5 BASS 6 BASS 7

EPA RBC

Fish

Metals (mg/kg wet weight)

Aluminum 22.30 9.66 B 5.80 B 5.50 B 7.10 B 4.20 B 7.20 B 5.90 B ----

Antimony 0.30 B 0.19 U 0.19 B 0.21 B 0.25 B 0.18 U 0.21 B 0.26 B 0.054

Barium 3.80 B 0.85 B 0.50 B 0.39 B 0.77 B 0.22 U 0.88 B 0.44 B 27.0

Cadmium 0.13 B 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.04 U 0.04 B 0.04 U 0.14

Calcium 11,800 19,712 6,010 9,710 18,800 3,200 19,500 10,500 ----

Chromium 1.10 0.58 0.42 B 0.42 B 0.51 0.34 B 0.63 0.49 B ----

Chromium III (estimated)3 0.94 0.49 0.36 0.36 0.44 0.29 0.54 0.42 200

Chromium VI (estimated)3 0.16 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.41

Cobalt 0.11 B 0.07 U 0.06 U 0.07 U 0.06 U 0.07 U 0.06 U 0.07 U ----

Copper 9.10 3.62 0.59 0.50 0.49 0.29 B 0.58 0.46 B 5.4

Iron 191.00 46.86 33.2 17.2 32.3 5.7 B 29.5 15.5 41

Lead 0.35 0.30 0.18 B 0.12 U 0.27 B 0.13 B 0.14 B 0.16 B ----

Magnesium 372 B 550 334 B 363 B 570 320 B 541 413 B ----

Manganese 3.50 1.58 2.20 1.50 1.70 0.40 B 3.20 1.40 19

Mercury (as methylmercury) 0.24 0.21 0.25 0.26 0.24 0.18 0.07 0.13 0.014

Nickel 0.16 B 0.15 B 0.13 B 0.12 B 0.11 B 0.07 U 0.14 B 0.11 B 2.7

Potassium 2,860 3,049 3,060 2,940 3020 3,670 2,550 3,290 ----

Selenium 0.64 0.58 0.70 0.60 0.70 0.64 0.58 0.53 0.68

Sodium 1,070 1,237 1,090 986 1150 751 1,300 1,010 ----

Vanadium 0.10 B 0.08 B 0.05 B 0.04 B 0.05 B 0.04 U 0.07 B 0.04 U 0.14

Zinc 14.9 13.3 15.8 14.0 23.8 7.3 21.6 17.1 41 Notes: Data Validation Qualifiers: April 2006 Region III RBC Table J - Estimated concentration N - Tentative Identification. Non-carcinogens adjusted to a Hazard Quotient of 0.1. U - Concentration Below MDL K - Reported value may be biased high. Detects above EPA RBCs are highlighted. L - Reported value may be biased low. D - Dilution

B - Detected in associated QC Blank for organics/detected at estimated concentration between MDL & PQL for inorganics.

1) Evaluated as Endrin, shares similar chemical structure. P - Target analyte that is greater than 25% difference for the detected concentrations between two GC columns.

2) Evaluated as Pyrene, shares similar chemical structure. 3) Values estimated based upon Region IX guidance,

and assumes a ration of 1:6 Cr VI to Cr III.

page 4 of 4

Table A1-2

Summary of Chemical of Concern and Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentration

Scenario Timeframe: Current Exposures Medium: Fish Tissue Exposure Medium: Recreational Fish Consumption

Exposure Point Chemical of Concern and Basis Concentration Detected EPA Region III

RBC - Fish Units Frequency of Detection

Exposure Point Concentration Statistical Measure

Minimum Maximum

Human

Consumption

of Fish

Organic Constituents (ug/kg)

Aroclor 1260 C 35 190 1.6 ug/kg 12 / 13 101.7 Gamma UCL

4,4-DDD C 16 160 13 ug/kg 13 / 13 87.9 Student's-t UCL

4,4-DDE C 15 91 9.3 ug/kg 13 / 13 47.7 Student's-t UCL

4,4-DDT C 4.9 28 9.3 ug/kg 12 / 13 18.1 Student's-t UCL

Aldrin C 4.5 4.5 0.19 ug/kg 1 / 13 2.1 95% Chebyshev UCL

alpha-BHC C 0.54 2.7 0.5 ug/kg 2 / 13 1.4 95% Chebyshev UCL

alpha-Chlordane C 8.8 58 9 ug/kg 13 / 13 32.4 Student's-t UCL

beta-BHC C 3.7 4.7 3.4 ug/kg 4 / 13 3.8 95% Chebyshev UCL

gamma-Chlordane C 0.68 20 9 ug/kg 13 / 13 10.7 Approx. Gamma UCL

Heptachlor epoxide C 0.46 3.8 0.35 ug/kg 4 / 13 2.1 95% Chebyshev UCL

bis(2-EH)phthalate1 C 120 51000 230 ug/kg 6 / 13 43109 99% Chebyshev UCL

Inorganic Constituents (mg/kg)

Antimony NC 0.19 0.3 0.054 mg/kg 12 / 13 0.25 Student's-t UCL

Arsenic C 0.25 0.3 0.0021 mg/kg 2 / 13 0.18 Student's-t UCL

Barium NC 0.39 48 27 mg/kg 12 / 13 48 Maximum

Cadmium NC 0.05 0.15 0.14 mg/kg 7 / 13 0.14 95% Chebyshev UCL

Copper NC 0.29 9.1 5.4 mg/kg 13 / 13 3.3 H-UCL

Iron NC 5.7 191 41 mg/kg 13 / 13 174 Approx. Gamma UCL

Manganese NC 0.4 31.6 19 mg/kg 13 / 13 18.8 Approx. Gamma UCL

Mercury2 NC 0.025 0.26 0.014 mg/kg 13 / 13 0.2 Approx. Gamma UCL

Selenium NC 0.25 0.7 0.68 mg/kg 13 / 13 0.6 Student's-t UCL

Vanadium NC 0.07 0.35 0.14 mg/kg 11 / 13 0.21 Approx. Gamma UCL

Key C = Carcinogen; NC = Non-Carcinogen; Non-carcinogens adjusted to a Hazard Quotient of 0.1. 1) bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 2) Screening assumes mercury is present as methylmercury.

Source: A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents (U.S. EPA, 1999)

Page 1 of 1 December 2001

Table A1-3

Non-Cancer Toxicity Data Summary

Pathway: Recreation Fish Consumption

Chemical of Concern Chronic/ Subchronic Oral RfD Value Oral RfD Units Primary Target Organ

Combined Uncertainty/ Modifying

Factors

Sources of RfD: Dates of Rfd:

Non-Carcinogens Antimony C 0.0004 mg/kg-day GI Tract 1000/1 IRIS 1992

Arsenic C 0.0003 mg/kg-day Skin; Nervous and Cardiovascular Systems 3/1 IRIS 1991

Barium C 0.2 mg/kg-day Cardiovascular and Nervous systems 300/1 IRIS 1994

Cadmium C 0.001 mg/kg-day Kidney; GI Tract 10/1 IRIS 1991

Copper C 0.04 mg/kg-day GI system; Liver; Kidneys;

Hematopoietic; Reproductive and Development

1000/1 IRIS 1991

Manganese C 0.14 mg/kg-day Central Nervous and Reproductive Systems 1/1 IRIS 1995

Mercury (as Methylmercury) C 0.0001 mg/kg-day CNS & Kidneys 10/1 IRIS 1996

Selenium C 0.005 mg/kg-day Nervous system; Skin and hair;

Developmental and Reproductive; Liver

3/1 IRIS 1992

Vanadium C 0.007 mg/kg-day GI System; Kidney; Blood 100/1 RAIS 1991

4,4-DDT C 0.0005 mg/kg-day Liver 100/1 IRIS 1996

Aldrin C 0.00003 mg/kg-day Liver 1000/1 IRIS 1988

Heptachlor Epoxide C 0.000013 mg/kg-day Liver 1000/1 IRIS 1991

bis(2-EH)phthalate1 C 0.02 mg/kg-day Liver and Kidneys 1000/1 IRIS 1992

Chlordane C 0.0005 mg/kg-day Liver and CNS 1000/1 IRIS 1994 Key C = Chronic; S = Subchronic RAIS: Risk Assessment Information System, US Department of Energy 1) bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Source: A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents (U.S. EPA, 1999)

Table A1-4

Cancer Toxicity Data Summary

Pathway: Human Consumption of Fish Chemical of

Concern Oral Cancer Slope Factor

Slope Factor Units

Weight of Evidence/Cancer

Guideline Description Source Date

Carcinogens Aroclor 1260 2 1/(mg/kg-day) B2 IRIS 1996 4,4-DDD 0.24 1/(mg/kg-day) B2 IRIS 1988 4,4-DDE 0.34 1/(mg/kg-day) B2 IRIS 1988 4,4-DDT 0.34 1/(mg/kg-day) B2 IRIS 1991 Aldrin 17 1/(mg/kg-day) B2 IRIS 1993 alpha-BHC 6.3 1/(mg/kg-day) B2 IRIS 1993 alpha-Chlordane 0.35 1/(mg/kg-day) B2 RAIS 1994 beta-BHC 1.8 1/(mg/kg-day) B2 IRIS 1993 gamma-Chlordane 0.35 1/(mg/kg-day) B2 RAIS 1994 Heptachlor epoxide 9.1 1/(mg/kg-day) B2 IRIS 1995 bis(2-EH)phthalate1 0.014 1/(mg/kg-day) B2 IRIS 1993 Arsenic 1.5 1/(mg/kg-day) A IRIS 1998 Key RAIS: Risk Assessment Information System, US Department of Energy 1) bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Source: A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents (U.S. EPA, 1999)

Table A1-5a

Risk Characterization Summary - Non-Carcinogens

Scenario Timeframe: Current Receptor Population: Recreational Receptor Age: Adults

Medium and Exposure Point Chemical of Concern Primary Target Organ

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Ingestion Exposure Routes

Total Consumption of Fish Antimony GI Tract 2.2E-01 2.2E-01

Arsenic Skin; Nervous and Cardiovascular Systems 2.2E-01 2.2E-01

Barium Cardiovascular and Nervous System 8.6E-02 8.6E-02

Cadmium Kidneys; GI Tract 5.0E-02 5.0E-02

Copper GI System; Kidneys; Liver;

Hematopoietic System; Reproductive and Development

2.9E-02 2.9E-02

Manganese Central Nervous and Reproductive Systems 4.8E-02 4.8E-02

Mercury CNS and Kidneys 7.1E-01 7.1E-01

Selenium Nervous system; Skin and hair;


4.2E-02 4.2E-02

Vanadium GI System; Kidneys; Blood Chemistry 1.0E-02 1.0E-02

4,4-DDT Liver 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 Aldrin Liver 2.5E-02 2.5E-02

Heptachlor Epoxide Liver 5.7E-02 5.7E-02 bis(2-EH)phthalate1 Liver and Kidneys 7.7E-01 7.7E-01

alpha-Chlordane Liver and CNS 2.3E-02 2.3E-02 gamma-Chlordane Liver and CNS 7.7E-03 7.7E-03

Fish Ingestion Hazard Index Total = 2.3 Receptor Hazard Index = 2.3

Key C = Carcinogen; NC = Non-Carcinogen; ND = Not Detected 1) bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Source: A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other

Remedy Selection Decision Documents (U.S. EPA, 1999)

Table A1-5b

Risk Characterization Summary - Non-Carcinogens

Scenario Timeframe: Current Receptor Population: Recreational Receptor Age: Children

Medium and Exposure Point Chemical of Concern Primary Target Organ

Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient Ingestion Exposure Routes

Total Consumption of Fish Antimony GI Tract 6.8E-01 6.8E-01

Arsenic Skin; Nervous and Cardiovascular Systems 6.7E-01 6.7E-01

Barium Cardiovascular and Nervous System 2.6E-01 2.6E-01

Cadmium Kidneys; GI Tract 1.5E-01 1.5E-01

Copper GI System; Kidneys; Liver;

Hematopoietic System; Reproductive and Development

9.0E-02 9.0E-02

Manganese Central Nervous and Reproductive Systems 1.5E-01 1.5E-01

Mercury CNS and Kidneys 2.2E+00 2.2E+00

Selenium Nervous system; Skin and hair;


1.3E-01 1.3E-01

Vanadium GI System; Kidneys; Blood Chemistry 3.2E-02 3.2E-02

4,4-DDT Liver 4.0E-02 4.0E-02 Aldrin Liver 7.7E-02 7.7E-02

Heptachlor Epoxide Liver 1.7E-01 1.7E-01 bis(2-EH)phthalate1 Liver and Kidneys 2.4E+00 2.4E+00

alpha-Chlordane Liver and CNS 7.1E-02 7.1E-02 gamma-Chlordane Liver and CNS 2.4E-02 2.4E-02

Fish Ingestion Hazard Index Total = 7.1 Receptor Hazard Index = 7.1

Key 1) bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Source: A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other


Table A1-6a

Risk Characterization Summary - Carcinogens

Scenario Timeframe: Current Receptor Population: Recreational Receptor Age: Adults

Medium & Exposure Point

Chemical of Concern Carcinogenic Risk

Ingestion Exposure Routes Total

Consumption of Fish Aroclor 1260 3.1E-05 3.1E-05 4,4'-DDD 3.2E-06 3.2E-06 4,4'-DDE 2.5E-06 2.5E-06 4,4'-DDT 9.4E-07 9.4E-07

Aldrin 5.5E-06 5.5E-06 alpha-BHC 1.4E-06 1.4E-06

alpha-Chlordane 1.7E-06 1.7E-06 beta-BHC 1.1E-06 1.1E-06

gamma-Chlordane 5.7E-07 5.7E-07 Heptachlor epoxide 2.9E-06 2.9E-06 bis(2-EH)phthalate1 9.2E-05 9.2E-05

Arsenic 4.2E-05 4.2E-05

Fish Ingestion risk total = 1.9E-04 Total Risk = 1.9E-04

Key 1) bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

Source: A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other


Table A1-6b

Risk Characterization Summary - Carcinogens

Scenario Timeframe: Current Receptor Population: Recreational Receptor Age: Children

Medium & Exposure Point

Chemical of Concern Carcinogenic Risk

Ingestion Exposure Routes Total

Consumption of Fish Aroclor 1260 2.9E-05 2.9E-05 4,4'-DDD 3.0E-06 3.0E-06 4,4'-DDE 2.3E-06 2.3E-06 4,4'-DDT 8.7E-07 8.7E-07

Aldrin 5.1E-06 5.1E-06 alpha-BHC 1.3E-06 1.3E-06

alpha-Chlordane 1.6E-06 1.6E-06 beta-BHC 9.8E-07 9.8E-07

gamma-Chlordane 5.3E-07 5.3E-07 Heptachlor epoxide 2.7E-06 2.7E-06 bis(2-EH)phthalate1 8.5E-05 8.5E-05

Arsenic 3.9E-05 3.9E-05

Fish Ingestion risk total = 1.7E-04 Total Risk = 1.7E-04

Key 1) bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

Source: A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other


Appendix A Constituent Toxicity Summaries



Aroclor® 1260 - CAS Number 11096825

Aroclor® 1260 is a colorless, liquid polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) mixture containing approximately 38% C12H4Cl6, 41% C12H3Cl7, 8% C12H2Cl8, and 12% C12H5Cl5 with an average chlorine content of 60%. PCBs are inert, thermally and physically stable, and have dielectric properties. They have been used in closed systems such as heat transfer liquids, hydraulic fluids and lubricants, and in open systems such as plasticizers, surface coatings, inks, adhesives, pesticide extenders, and for microencapsulation of dyes for carbonless duplicating papers. In the environment, the behavior of PCB mixtures is directly correlated to the degree of chlorination. Aroclor® is strongly sorbed to soil and remains immobile when leached with water; however, the mixture is highly mobile in the presence of organic solvents. PCBs are resistant to chemical degradation by oxidation or hydrolysis. PCBs have high bioconcentration factors, and tend to accumulate in the fat of fish, birds, mammals, and humans. In humans, relatively greater amounts of PCBs have also been identified in skin, liver, and breast milk.

PCBs are absorbed after oral, inhalation, or dermal exposure and are stored in adipose tissue. Accidental human poisonings and data from occupational exposure to PCBs suggest initial dermal and mucosal disturbances followed by systemic effects that may manifest themselves several years post-exposure. Initial effects are enlargement and hypersecretion of the Meibomian gland of the eye, swelling of the eyelids, pigmentation of the fingernails and mucous membranes, fatigue, and nausea. These effects were followed by hyperkeratosis, darkening of the skin, acneform eruptions, edema of the arms and legs, neurological symptoms, such as headache and limb numbness, and liver disturbance. Hepatotoxicity is a prominent effect of PCBs, including Aroclor®

1260, that has been well characterized. Effects include hepatic microsomal enzyme induction, increased serum levels of liver-related enzymes (indicative of hepatocellular damage), liver enlargement, lipid deposition, fibrosis, and necrosis.

Data are suggestive but not conclusive concerning the carcinogenicity of PCBs in humans. However, hepatocellular carcinomas in three strains of rats and two strains of mice have led the EPA to classify PCBs as group B2, probable human carcinogen.

The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Aroclor-1260:

Carcinogenic Health Effects

• The Oral Slope Factor is for exposure to soil or food is 2.00E+00 (mg/kgday)-1.

• The Oral Slope Factor is for exposure to water is 4.00E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1. • The Inhalation Unit Risk for exposure to soil or food is 5.7E-01 (mg/m3)-1.

• The Inhalation Unit Risk for exposure to water is 1.0E-01 (mg/m3)-1. • The Dermal Slope Factor for exposure to soil or food is 2.22E+00 (mg/kg

day)-1. • The Dermal Slope Factor for exposure to water is 4.44E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1. • The Dermal Slope Factors are based on a gastrointestinal absorption

factor of 0.9000.

Chlordane - CAS Number 57749

Chlordane is a manufactured chemical that was used as a pesticide in the United States from 1948 to 1988; it does not occur naturally in the environment. Technical chlordane is not a single chemical, but is actually a mixture of pure chlordane mixed with many related chemicals. It is a thick liquid whose color ranges from colorless to amber. Chlordane has a mild, irritating smell. Some of its trade names are Octachlor and Velsicol 1068. Until 1983, chlordane was used as a pesticide on crops like corn and citrus and on home lawns and gardens. Because of concern about damage to the environment and harm to human health, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned all uses of chlordane in 1983 except to control termites. In 1988, EPA banned all uses.

Chlordane is readily absorbed after oral, inhalation, or dermal exposure and is stored in adipose tissue. Death in humans from ingestion of chlordane was accompanied by vomiting, dry cough, agitation, restlessness, hemorrhagic gastritis, bronchopneumonia, muscle twitching, and convulsions. Headaches, irritability, confusion, weakness, vision problems, vomiting, stomach cramps, diarrhea, and jaundice have occurred in humans who breathed air containing high concentrations of chlordane or accidentally swallowed small amounts of chlordane. Large amounts of chlordane taken by mouth can cause convulsions and death in humans. Animals given high levels of chlordane by mouth for short periods died or had convulsions. Long-term exposure caused harmful effects in the liver of test animals.

Exposure of humans from chlordane treated homes has been associated with leukemia. An increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has been found among farmers exposed to chlordane 20 or more days per year. Hepatic carcinomas and hepatocellular adenomas have been described for several strains of male and female mice and male rats given chlordane in the diet. EPA has classified chlordane as group B2, probable human carcinogen on the basis of benign and malignant liver tumor induction in four strains of male and female mice and in male rats treated with chlordane in the diet.

The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Chlordane.

Noncarcinogenic Health Effects

• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 5.00E-04 (mg/kg-day). • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has a modifying factor of 1. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has an uncertainty factor of 300. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is based on the Khasawinah and

Grutsch study from 1989. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose study target organ is liver. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose study critical effect is necrosis.

• The overall confidence in the Oral Chronic Reference Dose is medium. • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration is 7.00E-04 (mg/m3). • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration has a modifying factor of

1. • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration has an uncertainty factor

of 1000. • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration is based on the

Khawawinah et al. study from 1989. • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration study target organ is

liver. • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration study critical effect is

effects. • The overall confidence in the Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration

is low. • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 2.50E-04 (mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is based on a gastrointestinal

absorption factor of 0.5000.


• The Oral Slope Factor is 3.50E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1. • The Oral Slope Factor study target organ is liver. • The Oral Slope Factor study cancer type is carcinoma. • The Oral Slope Factor is based on the Khasawinah and Grutsch study

from 1989. • The Inhalation Unit Risk is 1.0E-01 (mg/m3)-1. • The Inhalation Unit Risk study target organ is liver. • The Inhalation Unit Risk study cancer type is carcinoma. • The Inhalation Unit Risk is based on the Khasawinah and Grutsch study

from 1989. • The Dermal Slope Factor is 7.00E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1. • The Dermal Slope Factor is based on a gastrointestinal absorption factor

of 0.5000.

Heptachlor Epoxide - CAS Number 1024573

Heptachlor epoxide is a manufactured chemical that does not occur naturally. Pure heptachlor epoxide is a crystalline white powder that is a break down product of heptachlor and chlordane. The epoxide is more likely to be found in the environment than heptachlor because Heptachlor epoxide degrades slower and, as a result, is more persistent than heptachlor. Heptachlor epoxide is not produced commercially in the United States.

Heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide are clearly toxic to humans and animals and can damage the nervous system. No studies were available regarding the specific toxic effects in humans after exposure to heptachlor epoxide alone. In laboratory animals, the liver and central nervous system are the primary target organs for heptachlor epoxide toxicity. Oral doses in animals produced hypoactivity, ruffled fur, increased mortality, muscle spasms, and convulsive seizures.

No epidemiological studies or case reports addressing the carcinogenicity of heptachlor epoxide in humans were available. Studies with laboratory animals demonstrated that heptachlor epoxide causes liver cancer in mice and rats. Based on EPA guidelines, heptachlor epoxide was assigned to weight-ofevidence group B2, probable human carcinogen.

The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Heptachlor epoxide.


• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 1.30E-05 (mg/kg-day). • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has a modifying factor of 1. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has an uncertainty factor of 1000. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is based on the Dow Chemical Co.

study from 1958. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose study target organ is liver. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose study critical effect is increased weight

to body ratio. • The overall confidence in the Oral Chronic Reference Dose is low. • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 9.36E-06 (mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is based on a gastrointestinal



• The Oral Slope Factor is 9.10E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1. • The Oral Slope Factor study target organ is liver. • The Oral Slope Factor study cancer type is carcinoma.

• The Oral Slope Factor is based on the Velsicol study from 1973. • The Inhalation Unit Risk is 2.6E+00 (mg/m3)-1. • The Inhalation Unit Risk study target organ is liver. • The Inhalation Unit Risk study cancer type is carcinoma. • The Inhalation Unit Risk is based on the Velsicol study from 1973. • The Dermal Slope Factor is 1.26E+01 (mg/kg-day)-1. • The Dermal Slope Factor is based on a gastrointestinal absorption factor

of 0.7200.

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate - CAS Number 117817

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate or di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) is a clear oily liquid and is practically insoluble in water. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is primarily used in the plastics industry as a plasticizer with such varied applications as wire insulation, food packaging and biomedical applications such as tubing and blood containers. Other uses include vacuum pump oil and as a dielectric fluid in capacitors. The combined annual production of dioctyl phthalates in the United States exceeds 300 million pounds. The wide-spread uses of bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate have made the compound, along with other phthalic acid esters, ubiquitous in the environment. It has been detected in ground water, surface water, drinking water, air, soil, plants, fish and animals.

There is no evidence that DEHP causes serious health effects in humans. Most of what we know about the health effects of DEHP comes from high exposures to rats and mice. Brief exposure to very high levels of DEHP in food or water damaged sperm, but the effect reversed when DEHP was removed from the diet. Longer exposures to high doses affected the ability of both males and females to reproduce and caused birth defects. High levels of DEHP damaged the livers of rats and mice. Long exposures of rats to DEHP caused kidney damage similar to the damage seen in the kidneys of long-term dialysis patients. Whether or not DEHP contributes to human kidney damage, is unclear at present. Health effects from skin contact with products containing DEHP do not cause harmful effects because it cannot be taken up easily through the skin.

There is no direct evidence in any study on humans exposed to bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate that it causes cancer. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is known to induce the proliferation of peroxisomes, which has been associated with carcinogenesis. Dose-dependent, statistically-significant increases in the incidences of hepatocellular carcinomas and combined carcinomas and adenomas were seen in mice and rats exposed to bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in their diet. An increased incidence of neoplastic nodules and hepatocellular carcinomas was also reported in exposed rats.

Based on U.S. EPA guidelines, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was assigned to weight-of-evidence Group B2, probable human carcinogen, on the basis of an increased incidence of liver tumors in rats and mice.

The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate:


• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 2.00E-02 (mg/kg-day). • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has a modifying factor of 1. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has an uncertainty factor of 1000.

• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is based on the Carpenter et al. study from 1953.

• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose study target organ is liver. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose study critical effect is increased relative

weight. • The overall confidence in the Oral Chronic Reference Dose is medium. • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 3.80E-03 (mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is based on a gastrointestinal



• The Oral Slope Factor is 1.40E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1. • The Oral Slope Factor study target organ is liver. • The Oral Slope Factor study cancer type is carcinoma and adenoma. • The Oral Slope Factor is based on the NTP study from 1982. • The Dermal Slope Factor is 7.37E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1. • The Dermal Slope Factor is based on a gastrointestinal absorption factor

of 0.1900.

Antimony (metallic) - CAS Number 7440360

Antimony is a naturally occurring silvery-white metal that is found in the earth's crust. Antimony ores are mined and then mixed with other metals to form antimony alloys or combined with oxygen to form antimony oxide. Little antimony is currently mined in the United States. It is brought into this country from other countries for processing. However, there are companies in the United States that produce antimony as a by-product of smelting lead and other metals. Antimony is used in lead storage batteries, solder, sheet and pipe metal, bearings, castings, and pewter. Antimony oxide is added to textiles and plastics to prevent them from catching fire. It is also used in paints, ceramics, and fireworks, and as enamels for plastics, metal, and glass.

Metallic antimony and a few trivalent antimony compounds are the most significant regarding exposure potential and toxicity. Antimony is a common urban air pollutant, occurring at an average concentration of 0.001 µg/m3. Exposure to antimony may occur via inhalation and by ingestion of contaminated food.

Acute oral and inhalation exposure of humans and animals to high doses of antimony or antimony-containing compounds (antimonials) may cause gastrointestinal disorders (vomiting, diarrhea), respiratory difficulties, and death at extremely high doses. Subchronic and chronic oral exposure may affect hematologic parameters. Long-term oral exposure to high doses of antimony or antimonials has been shown to adversely affect longevity in animals. Long-term occupational exposure of humans has resulted in electrocardiac disorders, respiratory disorders, and possibly increased mortality. Antimony levels for these occupational exposure evaluations ranged from 2.2 to 11.98 mg Sb/m3. Based on limited data, occupational exposure of women to metallic antimony and several antimonials has reportedly caused alterations in the menstrual cycle and an increased incidence of spontaneous abortions.

The Department of Health and Human Services, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have not classified antimony as to its human carcinogenicity.

The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Antimony:


• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 4.00E-04 (mg/kg-day). • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has a modifying factor of 1. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has an uncertainty factor of 1000. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is based on the Schroeder et al. study

from 1970.

• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose study effects are longevity, blood glucose, and cholesterol.

• The overall confidence in the Oral Chronic Reference Dose is low. • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 8.00E-06 (mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is based on a gastrointestinal


Arsenic, Inorganic - CAS Number 7440382

Arsenic is a naturally occurring element widely distributed in the earth's crust. In the environment, arsenic is combined with oxygen, chlorine, and sulfur to form inorganic arsenic compounds. Arsenic in animals and plants combines with carbon and hydrogen to form organic arsenic compounds. Inorganic arsenic compounds are mainly used to preserve wood. Organic arsenic compounds are used as pesticides, primarily on cotton plants. Arsenic cannot be destroyed in the environment. It can only change its form. Arsenic in air will settle to the ground or is washed out of the air by rain. Many arsenic compounds can dissolve in water. Fish and shellfish can accumulate arsenic, but the arsenic in fish is mostly in a form that is not harmful. The toxicity of inorganic arsenic depends on its valence state and also on the physical and chemical properties of the compound in which it occurs.

Water soluble inorganic arsenic compounds are absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract and lungs; distributed primarily to the liver, kidney, lung, spleen, aorta, and skin; and excreted mainly in the urine at rates as high as 80%. Symptoms of acute inorganic arsenic poisoning in humans are nausea, anorexia, vomiting, epigastric and abdominal pain, and diarrhea. Dermatitis (exfoliative erythroderma), muscle cramps, cardiac abnormalities, hepatotoxicity, bone marrow suppression and hematologic abnormalities (anemia), vascular lesions, and peripheral neuropathy (motor dysfunction, paresthesia) have also been reported. Oral doses as low as 20-60 g/kg/day have been reported to cause toxic effects in some individuals. Severe exposures can result in acute encephalopathy, congestive heart failure, stupor, convulsions, paralysis, coma, and death. The acute lethal dose to humans has been estimated to be about 0.6 mg/kg/day.

General symptoms of chronic arsenic poisoning in humans are weakness, general debility and lassitude, loss of appetite and energy, loss of hair, hoarseness of voice, loss of weight, and mental disorders. Primary target organs are the skin (hyperpigmentation and hyperkeratosis), nervous system (peripheral neuropathy), and vascular system. Anemia, leukopenia, hepatomegaly, and portal hypertension have also been reported. In addition, possible reproductive effects include a high male to female birth ratio.

Epidemiological studies have revealed an association between arsenic concentrations in drinking water and increased incidences of skin cancers, as well as cancers of the liver, bladder, respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts. Occupational exposure studies have shown a clear correlation between exposure to arsenic and lung cancer mortality. Several studies have shown that inorganic arsenic can increase the risk of lung cancer, skin cancer, bladder cancer, liver cancer, kidney cancer, and prostate cancer. The World Health Organization (WHO), the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and the EPA

have determined that inorganic arsenic is a human carcinogen and is classified: A; human carcinogen.

The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Arsenic: Noncarcinogenic Health Effects

• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 3.00E-04 (mg/kg-day). • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has a modifying factor of 1. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has an uncertainty factor of 3. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is based on the Tseng study from 1977. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose study critical effects are

hyperpigmentation, keratosis, and possible vascular complications. • The overall confidence in the Oral Chronic Reference Dose is medium. • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 1.23E-04 (mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is based on a gastrointestinal


• The Oral Subchronic Reference Dose is 5.00E-03 (mg/kg-day). • The Oral Subchronic Reference Dose has a modifying factor of 1. • The Oral Subchronic Reference Dose has an uncertainty factor of 10. • The Oral Subchronic Reference Dose is based on a human study (EPA

2002). • The Oral Subchronic Reference Dose study critical effects are skin /

hyperpigmentation and hyperkeratosis. • The overall confidence in the Oral Subchronic Reference Dose is not

listed. • The Dermal Subchronic Reference Dose is 1.23E-04 (mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Subchronic Reference Dose is based on a gastrointestinal



• The Oral Unit Risk is 5.00E-02 (mg/L)-1. • The Oral Slope Factor is 1.50E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1. • The Oral Slope Factor study target organ is skin. • The Oral Slope Factor study cancer type is skin cancer. • The Oral Slope Factor is based on the U.S. EPA study from 1988. • The Inhalation Slope Factor is 1.51E+01 (mg/kg-day)-1. • The Inhalation Unit Risk is 4.3E+00 (mg/m3)-1. • The Inhalation Risk study target organ is lung. • The Inhalation Unit Risk study cancer type of lung cancer. • The Inhalation Unit Risk is based on the Brown and Chu study from 1983. • The Dermal Slope Factor is 3.66E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1. • The Dermal Slope Factor is based on a gastrointestinal absorption factor

of 0.4100.

Barium - CAS Number 7440393

Barium is a divalent alkaline-earth metal found only in combination with other elements in nature. The most important of these combinations are the peroxide, chloride, sulfate, carbonate, nitrate, and chlorate. The pure metal oxidizes readily and reacts with water emitting hydrogen. The most likely source of barium in the atmosphere is from industrial emissions. Barium compounds are used by the oil and gas industries to make drilling muds. Drilling muds make it easier to drill through rock by keeping the drill bit lubricated. They are also used to make paint, bricks, tiles, glass, and rubber. A barium compound (barium sulfate) is sometimes used by doctors to perform medical tests and to take barium-rays of the stomach. Since it is usually present as a particulate form, it can be removed from the atmosphere by wet precipitation and deposition. Due to the element's tendency to form salts with limited solubility in soil and water, it is expected to have a residence time of hundreds of years and is not expected to be very mobile. Trace amounts of barium were found in more than 99% of the surface waters and finished drinking water samples across the United States.

The soluble salts of barium are toxic in mammalian systems. They are absorbed rapidly from the gastrointestinal tract and are deposited in the muscles, lungs, and bone. Inhalation exposure of human populations to barium-containing dust can result in a benign pneumoconiosis called "baritosis." At low doses, barium acts as a muscle stimulant and at higher doses affects the nervous system eventually leading to paralysis. Acute and subchronic oral doses of barium cause vomiting and diarrhea, followed by decreased heart rate and elevated blood pressure. Higher doses result in cardiac irregularities, weakness, tremors, anxiety, and dyspnea. A drop in serum potassium may account for some of the symptoms. Death can occur from cardiac and respiratory failure. Acute doses around 0.8 grams can be fatal to humans.

The Department of Health and Human Services, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have not classified barium as to its human carcinogenicity.

The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Barium:


• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 2.00E-01 (mg/kg-day). • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has a modifying factor of 1. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has an uncertainty factor of 300. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is based on the NTP mouse study from

1994. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose study critical effect is nephropathy. • The overall confidence in the Oral Chronic Reference Dose is medium. • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration is 5.00E-04 (mg/m3).

• The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration has a modifying factor of 1.

• The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration has an uncertainty factor of 1000.

• The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration is based on the U.S. EPA study from 1984.

• The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration study target organ is fetus.

• The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration study critical effect is fetotoxicity.

• The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 1.40E-02 (mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is based on a gastrointestinal


Cadmium - CAS Number 7440439

Cadmium is a natural element in the earth's crust. It is usually found as a mineral combined with other elements such as oxygen (cadmium oxide), chlorine (cadmium chloride), or sulfur (cadmium sulfate, cadmium sulfide). These cadmium compounds have varying degrees of solubility ranging from very soluble to nearly insoluble. The solubility affects their absorption and toxicity. All soils and rocks, including coal and mineral fertilizers, contain some cadmium. Most cadmium used in the United States is extracted during the production of other metals like zinc, lead, and copper. Cadmium does not corrode easily and has many uses, including batteries, pigments, metal coatings, and plastics. Cadmium compounds have varying degrees of solubility ranging from very soluble to nearly insoluble. The solubility affects their absorption and toxicity. Environmental exposure can occur via the diet and drinking water.

Breathing high levels of cadmium severely damages the lungs and can cause death. The 1-minute and 10-minute lethal concentration of cadmium for humans has been estimated to be about 2,500 and 250 mg/m3, respectively. Eating food or drinking water with very high levels severely irritates the stomach, leading to vomiting and diarrhea. Acute oral exposure to 20-30 g have caused fatalities in humans. Cadmium is absorbed more efficiently by the lungs (30 to 60%) than by the gastrointestinal tract. Long-term exposure to lower levels of cadmium in air, food, or water leads to a buildup of cadmium in the kidneys and possible kidney disease. Other long-term effects are lung damage and fragile bones. Animals given cadmium in food or water had high blood pressure, iron-poor blood, liver disease, and nerve or brain damage.

There is limited evidence from epidemiologic studies for cadmium-related respiratory tract cancer. Based on limited evidence from multiple occupational exposure studies and adequate animal data, cadmium is placed in weight-ofevidence group B1 - probable human carcinogen.

The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Cadmium:


• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose for Cadmium in the diet is 1.00E-03 (mg/kg-day).

• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose for Cadmium in water is 5.00E-04 (mg/kg-day).

• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has a modifying factor of 1. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has an uncertainty factor of 10. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is based on the U.S. EPA study from

1985.

• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose study critical effect is significant proteinuria.

• The overall confidence in the Oral Chronic Reference Dose is high. • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose for Cadmium in the diet is 1.00E-05

(mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose for Cadmium in water is 5.00E-06

(mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose for Cadmium in the diet is based on

a gastrointestinal absorption factor of 0.0100.


• The Inhalation Unit Risk is 1.8E+00 (mg/m3)-1. • The Inhalation Unit Risk study target organ is lung. • The Inhalation Unit Risk study cancer type is tumors. • The Inhalation Unit Risk is based on the Thun et al. study from 1985.

Copper - CAS Number 7440508

Copper is a reddish metal that occurs naturally in the environment in plants and animals. Copper is an essential element for all living things including humans. Copper is extensively mined in the United States and is used to make wire, sheet metal, pipes, and pennies. It is also used in farming to treat some plant diseases; in water treatment; and to preserve wood, leather, and fabrics. Also, because of its high electrical and thermal conductivity and other properties such as malleability, metallic copper is widely used in the manufacture of electrical equipment.

Copper is an essential trace element that is widely distributed in animal and plant tissues. Copper is necessary for good health and can be absorbed by the oral, inhalation, and dermal routes of exposure. Very large doses, however, can be harmful. In humans, ingestion of gram quantities of copper salts may cause gastrointestinal, hepatic, and renal effects with symptoms such as severe abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, hemolysis, hepatic necrosis, hematuria, proteinuria, hypotension, tachycardia, convulsions, coma, and death. Acute inhalation exposure to copper dust or fumes at concentrations of 0.075-0.12 mg Cu/m3 may cause metal fume fever with symptoms such as cough, chills and muscle ache. Skin contact with copper can result in an allergic reaction, usually skin irritation or a skin rash.

No suitable bioassays or epidemiological studies are available to assess the carcinogenicity of copper. U.S. EPA, therefore, has placed copper in weight-ofevidence group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.


• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose for Copper is 4.00E-02 (mg/kg-day). • The Oral Subchronic Reference Dose for Copper is 4.00E-02 (mg/kg-day). • These values are based on the MCLG of 1.3 mg/L presented in HEAST. • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose for Copper is 1.20E-02 (mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Subchronic Reference Dose for Copper is 1.20E-02 (mg/kg

day). • The Dermal Reference Doses for Copper are based on a gastrointestinal


Manganese - CAS Number 7439965

Manganese is a silver-colored, naturally occurring metal that is found in many types of rocks and makes up about 0.10% of the earth's crust. Manganese is not found alone but combines with other substances such as oxygen, sulfur, or chlorine. Manganese can also be combined with carbon to make organic manganese compounds, including pesticides (e.g., maneb or mancozeb) and methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT), a fuel additive in some gasolines. Manganese is an essential trace element and is necessary for good health. Normal nutritional requirements of manganese are satisfied through the diet, which is the normal source of the element, with minor contributions from water and air. The National Research Council recommends a dietary allowance of 2-5 mg/day for a safe and adequate intake of manganese for an adult human. Manganese can be found in several food items, including grains, cereals, and tea.

Manganese can elicit a variety of serious toxic responses upon prolonged exposure to elevated concentrations, either orally or by inhalation. The central nervous system is the primary target. Initial symptoms are headache, insomnia, disorientation, anxiety, lethargy, and memory loss. These symptoms progress with continued exposure and eventually include motor disturbances, tremors, and difficulty in walking, symptoms similar to those seen with Parkinsonism. These motor difficulties are often irreversible. Some individuals exposed to very high levels of manganese for long periods of time at work developed mental and emotional disturbances and slow and clumsy body movements. This combination of symptoms is a disease called "manganism."

There are no human cancer data available for manganese. Some conflicting data exist on possible carcinogenesis following injections of manganese chloride and manganese sulfate in mice. However, the EPA weight-of-evidence classification is D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity, based on no evidence in humans and inadequate evidence in animals.

The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Manganese.


• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose for Manganese in the diet is 1.40E-01 (mg/kg-day).

• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose for Manganese in water is 4.60E-02 (mg/kg-day).

• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has a modifying factor of 1. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has an uncertainty factor of 1. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is based on the NRC study from 1989. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose study critical effect is CNS effects.

• The overall confidence in the Oral Chronic Reference Dose is medium. • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration is 5.00E-05 (mg/m3). • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration has a modifying factor of


of 1000. • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration is based on the Roels et

al. study from 1992. • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration study critical effect is

impairment of neuro-behavioral function. • The overall confidence in the Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration

is medium. • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose for Manganese in the diet is 5.60E

03 (mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose for Manganese in water is 1.84E-03

(mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is based on a gastrointestinal


Mercury - CAS Number 7439976

Mercury is a naturally occurring metal which has several forms. The metallic mercury is a shiny, silver-white, odorless liquid; if heated, it is a colorless, odorless gas. Mercury combines with other elements, such as chlorine, sulfur, or oxygen, to form inorganic mercury compounds or "salts," which are usually white powders or crystals. Mercury also combines with carbon to make organic mercury compounds; methylmercury is the most common organic mercury compound and is produced mainly by microscopic organisms in the water and soil. More mercury in the environment can increase the amounts of methylmercury that these small organisms make. Metallic mercury is used to produce chlorine gas and caustic soda and is also used in thermometers, dental fillings, electrical switches, and batteries. Mercury salts are sometimes used in skin lightening creams and as antiseptic creams and ointments.

The nervous system is very sensitive to all forms of mercury. Methylmercury and metallic mercury vapors are more harmful than other forms, because more mercury reaches the brain in these forms. Exposure to high levels of metallic, inorganic, or organic mercury can permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and developing fetus. Effects on brain functioning may result in irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, and memory problems. Short-term exposure to high levels of metallic mercury vapors may cause lung damage, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, increases in blood pressure or heart rate, skin rashes, and eye irritation.

No data were available regarding the carcinogenicity of mercury in humans or animals. EPA has placed inorganic mercury in weight-of-evidence classification D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. Other forms of mercury are possible human carcinogens.

The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Mercury.


• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 3.00E-04 (mg/kg-day). • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration has a modifying factor of


of 30. • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration is based on the Liang et

al. study from 1993. • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration study critical effects are

hand tremor, memory disturbance, objective autonomic dysfunction. • The overall confidence in the Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration

is medium.



Selenium - CAS Number 7782492

Selenium is a metal commonly found in rocks and soil; much of the selenium in rocks is combined with sulfide minerals or with silver, copper, lead, and nickel minerals. Selenium and oxygen combine to form several compounds. Selenium sulfide is a bright red-yellow powder used in anti-dandruff shampoo. Industrially produced hydrogen selenide is a colorless gas with a disagreeable odor. It is probably the only selenium compound that might pose a health concern in the workplace. Selenium dioxide is an industrially produced compound that dissolves in water to form selenious acid. Selenious acid can be found in gun blueing (a solution used to clean the metal parts of a gun). Selenium is an essential trace element important in many biochemical processes that take place in human cells. Recommended human dietary allowances for selenium for adults is about 40-70 µg.

In humans, acute oral exposures can result in excessive salivation, garlic odor to the breath, shallow breathing, diarrhea, pulmonary edema, and death. Other reported signs and symptoms of acute selenosis include tachycardia, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, abnormal liver function, muscle aches and pains, irritability, chills, and tremors. The exact levels at which these effects occur are not known. Gastrointestinal absorption in animals and humans of various selenium compounds ranges from about 44% to 95% of the ingested dose. If too much selenium is ingested over long periods of time, brittle hair and deformed nails can develop. Upon contact with skin, selenium compounds have caused rashes, swelling, and pain. Respiratory tract absorption rates of 97% and 94% for aerosols of selenious acid have been reported for dogs and rats, respectively. In humans, inhalation of selenium or selenium compounds primarily affects the respiratory system. Dusts of elemental selenium and selenium dioxide can cause irritation of the skin and mucous membranes of the nose and throat, coughing, nosebleed, loss of sense of smell, dyspnea, bronchial spasms, bronchitis, and chemical pneumonia.

Studies of laboratory animals and humans show that most selenium compounds probably do not cause cancer. In fact, human studies suggest that lower-thannormal selenium levels in the diet might increase the risk of cancer. Other forms of selenium may, however, be carcinogenic according to The Department of Health and Human Services. Selenium sulfide produced a significant increase in the incidence of lung and liver tumors in rats and mice. EPA has placed selenium and selenious acid in Group D, not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans, while selenium sulfide is placed in Group B2, probable human carcinogen. Selenium sulfide is very different from the selenium compounds found in foods and in the environment. Selenium sulfide has not caused cancer in animals when it is placed on the skin, and the use of anti-dandruff shampoos containing selenium sulfide is considered safe.

The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Selenium.


• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 5.00E-03 (mg/kg-day). • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has a modifying factor of 1. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has an uncertainty factor of 3. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is based on the Yang et al. study from

1989. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose study critical effect is clinical selenosis. • The overall confidence in the Oral Chronic Reference Dose is high. • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 2.20E-03 (mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is based on a gastrointestinal


Vanadium - CAS Number 7440622

Vanadium is a compound that occurs in nature as a white-to-gray metal and is often found as crystals. Pure vanadium has no smell and usually combines with other elements such as oxygen, sodium, sulfur, or chloride, which greatly alter toxicity. Vanadium and vanadium compounds can be found in the earth's crust and in rocks, some iron ores, and crude petroleum deposits. Vanadium is mostly combined with other metals to make special metal mixtures called alloys. Most of the vanadium used in the United States, vanadium oxide, is used to make steel for automobile parts, springs, and ball bearings. Vanadium oxide is a yellow-orange powder, dark-gray flakes, or yellow crystals. Vanadium is also mixed with iron to make important parts for aircraft engines. Small amounts of vanadium are used in making rubber, plastics, ceramics, and other chemicals.

Exposure to high levels of vanadium can cause harmful health effects. Vanadium compounds are poorly absorbed through the digestive system (0.5-2% of dietary amount), but slightly more readily absorbed through the lungs (20-25%). The major effects from breathing high levels of vanadium are on the lungs, throat, and eyes. Workers who breathed it for short and long periods sometimes had lung irritation, coughing, wheezing, chest pain, runny nose, and a sore throat. These effects stopped soon when removed from the contaminated air. Similar effects have been observed in animal studies. No other significant health effects of vanadium have been found in humans. The health effects in humans of ingesting vanadium are not known. Animals that ingested very large doses have died. Lower, but still high levels of vanadium in the water of pregnant animals resulted in minor birth defects. Some animals that breathed or ingested vanadium over a long term had minor kidney and liver changes.

There is no evidence that any vanadium compound is carcinogenic; however, very few adequate studies are available for evaluation. No increase in tumors was noted in a long-term animal study where the animals were exposed to vanadium in the drinking water. The Department of Health and Human Services, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have not classified vanadium as to its human carcinogenicity.

The following is a presentation of the toxicity information associated with Vanadium.

Vanadium, Metallic


• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 7.00E-03 (mg/kg-day). • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has a modifying factor of 1. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has an uncertainty factor of 100.

• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is based on the U.S. EPA study from 1987.



Vanadium Pentoxide


• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 9.00E-03 (mg/kg-day). • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has a modifying factor of 1. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has an uncertainty factor of 100. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is based on the Stokinger et al.study

from 1953. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose study critical effect is decreased hair

cystine. • The overall confidence in the Oral Chronic Reference Dose is low. • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 1.80E-03 (mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is based on a gastrointestinal


Vanadium Sulfate


• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 2.00E-02 (mg/kg-day). • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has a modifying factor of 1. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose has an uncertainty factor of 100. • The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is based on the U.S. EPA study from

1987. • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 4.00E-03 (mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is based on a gastrointestinal


Aldrin (CASRN 309-00-2) Health assessment information on a chemical substance is included in IRIS only after a comprehensive review of toxicity data by U.S. EPA health scientists from several Program Offices, Regional Offices, and the Office of Research and Development.

Disclaimer: This QuickView represents a snapshot of key information. We suggest that you read the Full IRIS Summary to put this information into complete context.

For definitions of terms in the IRIS Web site, refer to the IRIS Glossary.

Status of Data for Aldrin

File First On-Line: 03/31/1987 Last Significant Revision: 01/01/1991

Category Status Last Revised Oral RfD Assessment On-line 03/01/1988 Inhalation RfC Assessment No data Carcinogenicity Assessment On-line 07/01/1993

Chronic Health Hazard Assessments for Noncarcinogenic Effects

Reference Dose for Chronic Oral Exposure (RfD)

Critical Effect Point of Departure UF MF RfD Liver toxicity LOAEL : 0.025 mg/kg-day 1000 1 3 x10-5 mg/kg-day

The Point of Departure listed serves as a basis from which the Oral RfD was derived. See Discussion of Conversion Factors and Assumptions for more details.

Principal Study Rat chronic feeding study, Fitzhugh et al., 1964

Confidence in the Oral RfD Study -- Medium Database -- Medium RfD -- Medium

Reference Concentration for Chronic Inhalation Exposure (RfC)

Not Assessed under the IRIS Program.

Carcinogenicity Assessment for Lifetime Exposure

Weight of Evidence Characterization

Weight of Evidence (1986 US EPA Guidelines): B2 (Probable human carcinogen - based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals)

Weight of Evidence Narrative: Orally administered aldrin produced significant increases in tumor responses in three different strains of mice in both males and females. Tumor induction has been observed for structurally related chemicals, including dieldrin, a metabolite.

This may be a synopsis of the full weight-of-evidence narrative. See Full IRIS Summary.

Quantitative Estimate of Carcinogenic Risk from Oral Exposure

Oral Slope Factor(s) Extrapolation Method 1.7x101 per mg/kg-day Linearized multistage procedure, extra risk

Drinking Water Unit Risk(s): 4.9x10-4 per ug/L

Drinking Water Concentrations at Specified Risk Levels Risk Level Concentration E-4 (1 in 10,000) 2x10-1 ug/L E-5 (1 in 100,000) 2x10-2 ug/L E-6 (1 in 1,000,000) 2x10-3 ug/L

Dose-Response Data (Carcinogenicity, Oral Exposure) Tumor Type: Liver carcinoma Test Species: Mouse/C3H (Davis); mouse/B6C3F1, male (NCI) Route: Oral, Drin Reference: Davis, 1965, NCI, 1978

Quantitative Estimate of Carcinogenic Risk from Inhalation Exposure

Air Unit Risk(s) Extrapolation Method 4.9x10-3 per ug/m3 Linearized multistage procedure, extra risk

Air Concentrations at Specified Risk Levels Risk Level Concentration E-4 (1 in 10,000) 2.x10-2 ug/m3 E-5 (1 in 100,000) 2.x10-3 ug/m3

E-6 (1 in 1,000,000) 2.x10-4 ug/m3

Dose-Response Data (Carcinogenicity, Inhalation Exposure) Tumor Type: Liver carcinoma Test Species: Mouse/C3H (Davis); mouse/B6C3F1, male (NCI) Route: Oral, Diet Reference: Davis, 1965, NCI, 1978

Revision History

Review Full IRIS Summary for complete Revision History.

Synonyms

309-00-2 Aldrex Aldrin Aldrite Aldrosol 1,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene, 1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro-, (1 alpha, 4 alpha, 4a beta, 5 alpha, 8 alpha, 8a beta)- 1,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene, 1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro- Drinox ENT 15,949 1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro-1,4,5,8-dimethanonaphthalene 1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro-1,4-endo-exo-5,8-dimethanonaphthalene 1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro-exo-1,4-endo-5,8-dimethanonaphthalene Hexachlorohexahydro-endo-exo-dimethanonaphthalene HHDN NCI-c00044 Octalene Seedrin

IRON CAS Number: 7439-89-6

Iron and heart disease:

Because known risk factors cannot explain all cases of heart disease, researchers continue to look for new causes. Some evidence suggests that iron can stimulate the activity of free radicals. Free radicals are natural by-products of oxygen metabolism that are associated with chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease. Free radicals may inflame and damage coronary arteries, the blood vessels that supply the heart muscle. This inflammation may contribute to the development of atherosclerosis, a condition characterized by partial or complete blockage of one or more coronary arteries. Other researchers suggest that iron may contribute to the oxidation of LDL ("bad") cholesterol, changing it to a form that is more damaging to coronary arteries.

As far back as the 1980s, some researchers suggested that the regular menstrual loss of iron, rather than a protective effect from estrogen, could better explain the lower incidence of heart disease seen in pre-menopausal women [70]. After menopause, a woman's risk of developing coronary heart disease increases along with her iron stores. Researchers have also observed lower rates of heart disease in populations with lower iron stores, such as those in developing countries [71-74]. In those geographic areas, lower iron stores are attributed to low meat (and iron) intake, high fiber diets that inhibit iron absorption, and gastrointestinal (GI) blood (and iron) loss due to parasitic infections.

In the 1980s, researchers linked high iron stores with increased risk of heart attacks in Finnish men [75]. However, more recent studies have not supported such an association [76-77].

One way of testing an association between iron stores and coronary heart disease is to compare levels of ferritin, the storage form of iron, to the degree of atherosclerosis in coronary arteries. In one study, researchers examined the relationship between ferritin levels and atherosclerosis in 100 men and women referred for cardiac examination. In this population, higher ferritin levels were not associated with an increased degree of atherosclerosis, as measured by angiography. Coronary angiography is a technique used to estimate the degree of blockage in coronary arteries [78]. In a different study, researchers found that ferritin levels were higher in male patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease. They did not find any association between ferritin levels and risk of coronary disease in women [79].

A second way to test this association is to examine rates of coronary disease in people who frequently donate blood. If excess iron stores contribute to heart disease, frequent blood donation could potentially lower heart disease rates because of the iron loss associated with blood donation. Over 2,000 men over age 39 and women over age 50 who donated blood between 1988 and 1990 were surveyed 10 years later to compare rates of cardiac events to frequency of blood donation. Cardiac events were defined as (1) occurrence of an acute myocardial infarction (heart attack), (2) undergoing angioplasty, a medical procedure that opens a blocked coronary artery; or (3) undergoing bypass grafting, a surgical procedure that replaces blocked coronary arteries with healthy blood vessels. Researchers found that frequent donors, who donated more than 1 unit of whole blood each year between 1988 and 1990, were less likely to experience cardiac events than casual donors (those who only donated a single unit in that 3-year period). Researchers concluded that frequent and long-term blood donation may decrease the risk of cardiac events [80].

Conflicting results, and different methods to measure iron stores, make it difficult to reach a final conclusion on this issue. However, researchers know that it is feasible to decrease iron stores in healthy individual through phlebotomy (blood letting or donation). Using phlebotomy, researchers hope to learn more about iron levels and cardiovascular disease.

Iron and intense exercise:

Many men and women who engage in regular, intense exercise such as jogging, competitive swimming, and cycling have marginal or inadequate iron status [1,81-85]. Possible explanations include increased gastrointestinal blood loss after running and a greater turnover of red blood cells. Also, red blood cells within the foot can rupture while running. For these reasons, the need for iron may be 30% greater in those who engage in regular intense exercise [1].

Three groups of athletes may be at greatest risk of iron depletion and deficiency: female athletes, distance runners, and vegetarian athletes. It is particularly important for members of these groups to consume recommended amounts of iron and to pay attention to dietary factors that enhance iron absorption. If appropriate nutrition intervention does not promote normal iron status, iron supplementation may be indicated. In one study of female swimmers, researchers found that supplementation with 125 milligrams (mg) of ferrous sulfate per day prevented iron depletion. These swimmers maintained adequate iron stores, and did not experience the gastrointestinal side effects often seen with higher doses of iron supplementation [86].

Iron and mineral interactions

Some researchers have raised concerns about interactions between iron, zinc, and calcium. When iron and zinc supplements are given together in a water solution and without food, greater doses of iron may decrease zinc absorption. However, the effect of supplemental iron on zinc absorption does not appear to be significant when supplements are consumed with food [1,87-88]. There is evidence that calcium from supplements and dairy foods may inhibit iron absorption, but it has been very difficult to distinguish between the effects of calcium on iron absorption versus other inhibitory factors such as phytate [1].

What is the risk of iron toxicity?

There is considerable potential for iron toxicity because very little iron is excreted from the body. Thus, iron can accumulate in body tissues and organs when normal storage sites are full. For example, people with hemachromatosis are at risk of developing iron toxicity because of their high iron stores.

In children, death has occurred from ingesting 200 mg of iron [7]. It is important to keep iron supplements tightly capped and away from children's reach. Any time excessive iron intake is suspected, immediately call your physician or Poison Control Center, or visit your local emergency room. Doses of iron prescribed for iron deficiency anemia in adults are associated with constipation, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, especially when the supplements are taken on an empty stomach [1].

In 2001, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences set a tolerable upper intake level (UL) for iron for healthy people [1]. There may be times when a physician prescribes an intake higher than the upper limit, such as when individuals with iron deficiency anemia need higher doses to replenish their iron stores. Table 5 lists the ULs for healthy adults, children, and infants 7 to 12 months of age [1].

Table 5: Tolerable Upper Intake Levels for Iron for Infants 7 to 12 months, Children, and Adults [1]

Age Males (mg/day)

Females (mg/day)

Pregnancy (mg/day)

Lactation (mg/day)

7 to 12 months 40 40 N/A N/A

1 to 13 years 40 40 N/A N/A

14 to 18 years 45 45 45 45

19 + years 45 45 45 45

p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethane (DDD) (CASRN 7254-8)

Health assessment information on a chemical substance is included in IRIS only after a comprehensive review of toxicity data by U.S. EPA health scientists from several Program Offices, Regional Offices, and the Office of Research and Development.



Status of Data for p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethane (DDD)


Category Status Last Revised Oral RfD Assessment No data Inhalation RfC Assessment No data Carcinogenicity Assessment On-line 08/22/1988









Weight of Evidence Narrative: Based on an increased incidence of lung tumors in male and female mice, liver tumors in male mice and thyroid tumors in male rats. DDD is structurally similar to, and is a known metabolite of DDT, a probable human carcinogen.



Oral Slope Factor(s) 2.4x10-1 per mg/kg-day


Extrapolation Method Linearized multistage procedure, extra risk

Drinking Water Concentrations at Specified Risk Levels Risk Level Concentration E-4 (1 in 10,000) 1x101 ug/L E-5 (1 in 100,000) 1 ug/L E-6 (1 in 1,000,000) 1x10-1 ug/L

Dose-Response Data (Carcinogenicity, Oral Exposure) Tumor Type: Liver tumors Test Species: Mouse/ CF-1, males Route: Oral, Diet Reference: Tomatis et al., 1974



Revision History


Synonyms

72-54-8 1,1-Bis(4-chlorophenyl)-2,2-dichloroethane 1,1-Bis(p-chlorophenyl)-2,2-dichloroethane 2,2-Bis(p-chlorophenyl)-1,1-dichloroethane DDD 4,4'-DDD p,p'-DDD 1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane Dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethane Dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethane, p,p'-

Dilene Rothane TDE p,p'-TDE Dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethane (DDD)

p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) (CASRN 72-55-9)




Status of Data for p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE)











Weight of Evidence Narrative: Increased incidence of liver tumors including carcinomas in two strains of mice and in hamsters and of thyroid tumors in female rats by diet.



Oral Slope Factor(s) Extrapolation Method 3.4x10-1 per mg/kg-day Linearized multistage procedure, extra risk



Dose-Response Data (Carcinogenicity, Oral Exposure) Tumor Type: Hepatocellular carcinomas, hepatomas Test Species: Mouse/ B6C3F1; mouse/ CF-1; hamsters/ Syrian Golden Route: Oral, Diet Reference: NCI, 1978; Tomatis et al., 1974; Rossi et al., 1983



Revision History


Synonyms

72-55-9 2,2-Bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1-dichloroethene 2,2-Bis(p-chlorophenyl)-1,1-dichloroethylene DDE p,p'-DDE DDT dehydrochloride 1,1-Dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, p,p'- 1,1'-Dichloroethenylidene)bis(4-chlorobenzene) Ethylene, 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)- NCI-C00555 Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE)

p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) (CASRN 5029-3)




Status of Data for p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)


Category Status Last Revised Oral RfD Assessment On-line 02/01/1996 Inhalation RfC Assessment No data Carcinogenicity Assessment On-line 05/01/1991



Critical Effect Point of Departure UF MF RfD Liver lesions NOEL : 0.05 mg/kg-day 100 1 5 x10-4 mg/kg-day


Principal Study 27-week rat feeding study, Laug et al., 1950







Weight of Evidence Narrative: Observation of tumors (generally of the liver) in seven studies in various mouse strains and three studies in rats. DDT is structurally similar to other probable carcinogens, such as DDD and DDE.



Oral Slope Factor(s) Extrapolation Method 3.4x10-1 per mg/kg-day Linearized multistage procedure, extra risk



Dose-Response Data (Carcinogenicity, Oral Exposure) Tumor Type: Liver tumors, benign and malignant Test Species: Mouse/ CF-1; Mouse/ BALB/C; Rat/ MRC Porton; Rat/ Wistar Route: Oral, Diet Reference: Turusov et al., 1973; Terracini et al., 1973; Thorpe and Walker, 1973; Tomatis and Turusov, 1975; Cabral et al., 1982; Rossi et al., 1977


Air Unit Risk(s) Extrapolation Method 9.7x10-5 per ug/m3 Linear multistage procedure, extra risk

Air Concentrations at Specified Risk Levels Risk Level Concentration E-4 (1 in 10,000) 1 ug/m3 E-5 (1 in 100,000) 1x10-1 ug/m3 E-6 (1 in 1,000,000) 1x10-2 ug/m3

Dose-Response Data (Carcinogenicity, Inhalation Exposure) Tumor Type: Liver tumors, benign and malignant Test Species: Mouse/ CF-1; Mouse/ BALB/C; Rat/ MRC Porton; Rat/ Wistar Route: Oral, Diet Reference: Turusov et al., 1973; Terracini et al., 1973; Thorpe and Walker, 1973; Tomatis and Turusov, 1975; Cabral et al., 1982; Rossi et al., 1977

Revision History


Synonyms

50-29-3 Agritan Anofex Arkotine Azotox Benzene, 1,1'-(2,2,2-trichloroethylidene)bis(4-chloro-) alpha,alpha-Bis(p-chlorophenyl)-beta,beta,beta-trichlorethane 1,1-Bis-(p-chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethane 2,2-Bis(p-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane Bosan Supra Bovidermol Chlorophenothan Chlorophenothane Chlorophenotoxum Citox Clofenotane DDT p,p'-DDT Dedelo Deoval Detox Detoxan Dibovan Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, p,p'- Dicophane Didigam Didimac Diphenyltrichloroethane Dodat Dykol ENT 1,506 Estonate Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)- Genitox Gesafid Gesapon

Gesarex Gesarol Guesapon Guesarol Gyron Havero-Extra Hildit Ivoran Ixodex Kopsol Micro DDT 75 Mutoxin NA 2761 NCI-C00464 Neocid Parachlorocidum PEB1 Pentachlorin Pentech Ppzeidan R50 RCRA Waste Number u061 Rukseam Santobane Tech DDT 1,1,1-Trichloor-2,2-bis(4-chloor fenyl)-ethaan 1,1,1-Trichlor-2,2-bis(4-chlor-phenyl)-aethan 1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane Trichlorobis(4-chlorophenyl)ethane 1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2-di(4-chlorophenyl)-ethane 1,1,1-Tricloro-2,2-bis(4-cloro-fenil)-etano Zeidane Zerdane Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)

alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha-HCH) (CASRN 31984-6) Health assessment information on a chemical substance is included in IRIS only after a comprehensive review of toxicity data by U.S. EPA health scientists from several Program Offices, Regional Offices, and the Office of Research and Development.



Status of Data for alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha-HCH)











Weight of Evidence Narrative: Dietary alpha-HCH has been shown to cause increased incidence of liver tumors in five mouse strains and in Wistar rats.



Oral Slope Factor(s) Extrapolation Method 6.3 per mg/kg-day Linearized multistage procedure, extra risk


Drinking Water Concentrations at Specified Risk Levels Risk Level Concentration E-4 (1 in 10,000) 6x10-1 ug/L E-5 (1 in 100,000) 6x10-2 ug/L E-6 (1 in 1,000,000) 6x10-3 ug/L

Dose-Response Data (Carcinogenicity, Oral Exposure) Tumor Type: Hepatic nodules and hepatocellular carcinomas Test Species: Mouse/dd, male Route: Oral, Diet Reference: Ito et al., 1973a


Air Unit Risk(s) Extrapolation Method 1.8x10-3 per ug/m3 Linearized multistage procedure, extra risk

Air Concentrations at Specified Risk Levels Risk Level Concentration E-4 (1 in 10,000) 6x10-2 ug/m3 E-5 (1 in 100,000) 6x10-3 ug/m3 E-6 (1 in 1,000,000) 6x10-4 ug/m3

Dose-Response Data (Carcinogenicity, Inhalation Exposure) Tumor Type: Hepatic nodules and hepatocellular carcinomas Test Species: Mouse/dd, male Route: Oral, Diet Reference: Ito et al., 1973a

Revision History


Synonyms

319-84-6 alpha-Benzenehexachloride Benzene hexachloride-alpha-isomer alpha-BHC Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-, alpha-Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-, alpha-isomer ENT 9,232 alpha-HCH alpha-Hexachloran alpha-Hexachlorane Hexachlorcyclohexan alpha-Hexachlorcyclohexane 1-alpha,2-alpha,3-beta,4-alpha,5-beta,6-beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane Hexachlorocyclohexane, alpha- alpha-1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane alpha-Lindane Cyclohexane, alpha-1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-Hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha-HCH)

gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) (CASRN 58-89-9)




Status of Data for gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)


Category Status Last Revised Oral RfD Assessment On-line 03/01/1988 Inhalation RfC Assessment No data 07/01/1992 Carcinogenicity Assessment No data 10/01/1993



Critical Effect Point of Departure UF MF RfD Liver and kidney toxicity NOAEL : 0.33 mg/kg-day 1000 1 3 x10-4 mg/kg-day


Principal Study Rat, subchronic oral bioassay (NOAEL for females), Zoecon Corp., 1983











Revision History


Synonyms

58-89-9 Aalindan Aficide Agrisol g-20 Agronexit Ameisenatod Ameisenmittel merck Aparasin Aphtiria Aplidal Arbitex BBH Ben-hex Bentox 10 gamma-Benzene hexachloride Benzene hexachloride-gamma-isomer Bexol BHC gamma-BHC Celanex Chloresene Codechine Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachloro-, gamma-isomer DBH Detmol-extrakt Detox 25 Devoran

Dol granule Drill tox-spezial aglukon ENT 7,796 Entomoxan Exagama Forlin Gallogama Gamacarbatox Gamacid Gamaphex Gamene Gamiso Gamma-col Gammahexa Gammahexane Gammalin Gammalin 20 Gammaterr Gammex Gammexane Gammopaz Gexane HCCH HCH gamma-HCH Heclotox Hexa Hexachloran Hexachlorane gamma-Hexachlorane gamma-Hexachloran gamma-Hexachlor gamma-Hexachlorobenzene 1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane 1-alpha,2-alpha,3-beta,4-alpha,5-alpha,6-beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma- gamma-1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane 1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma-isomer Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma-isomer Hexatox Hexaverm Hexicide Hexyclan HGI Hortex Inexit Isotox Jacutin Kokotine Kwell Lendine Lentox Lidenal Lindafor Lindagam Lindagrain Lindagranox Lindane gamma-Lindane Lindapoudre Lindatox Lindosep

Lintox Lorexane Milbol 49 Mszycol NA 2761 NCI-C00204 neo-Scabicidol Nexit Nexit-stark Novigam Omnitox Pedraczak RCRA Waste Number U129 Silvanol Streunex Tap 85 Tri-6 Nicochloran Owadziak Quellada Sang gamma Spruehpflanzol Viton Nexen fb Nexol-e Pflanzol Spritz-rapidin Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)

Appendix B UCL Calculations



Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue


Summary of Detected Analytes for Fish Tissue Samples (Catfish and Bass)

Constituent Catfish 1 Catfish 2 Catfish 3 Catfish 4 Catfish 5 Catfish 6 Bass 1 Bass 1D Bass 2 Bass 3 Bass 4 Bass 5 Bass 6 Bass 7 UCL Aroclor-1260 46.0 35.0 120.0 80.0 84.0 46.5 190.0 - 80.0 62.0 47.0 100.0 48.0 87.0 101.70

4,4'-DDD 24 32.0 160 120 110 63 110 - 49 37 24 70 16 35 87.91 4,4'-DDE 17 15.0 61 41 36 23 91 - 36 27 26 53 20 38 47.67 4,4'-DDT 2 4.9 28 28 17 17 18 - 11 11 6.9 19 6.7 14 18.15

Aldrin 0.32 0.3 0.65 4.5 0.65 0.65 0.32 - 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 2.10 alpha-BHC 0.32 0.3 2.8 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.32 - 0.54 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 1.42

alpha-Chlordane 11 12 58 43 41 18 38.0 - 23.0 14.0 8.8 28.0 9.0 17.0 32.45 beta-BHC 3.9 0.6 1.8 4.2 3.7 1.8 0.60 - 0.60 0.60 0.60 4.70 0.60 0.60 3.85

Gamma-chlordane 4.3 5.2 20.0 16.0 16.0 5.6 3.50 - 2.80 1.90 0.68 2.90 1.30 2.30 10.73 Heptachlor epoxide 0.32 0.3 3.8 0.65 0.65 2.2 0.32 - 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.46 0.65 0.32 2.06

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 51000 220 120 250 250 250 150 - 160 250 250 250 3400 230 43,109.53 Antimony 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.30 0.10 0.19 0.21 0.25 0.09 0.21 0.26 0.25 Arsenic 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.25 0.30 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.23 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.18 Barium 26.7 27.3 3.1 35.9 35.3 48.0 3.80 0.85 0.50 0.39 0.77 0.11 0.88 0.44 59.23

Cadmium 0.15 0.09 0.05 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.14 Copper 1.40 1.20 0.87 1.40 1.40 0.80 9.10 3.62 0.59 0.50 0.49 0.29 0.58 0.46 3.26

Iron 262.0 116.0 90.1 258.0 255.0 43.9 191.00 46.86 33.2 17.2 32.3 5.7 29.5 15.5 173.65 Manganese 31.60 7.60 5.20 24.70 24.30 28.40 3.50 1.58 2.20 1.50 1.70 0.40 3.20 1.40 18.81

Mercury 0.035 0.045 0.048 0.035 0.029 0.025 0.24 0.21 0.25 0.26 0.24 0.18 0.07 0.13 0.20 Selenium 0.25 0.43 0.39 0.47 0.49 0.38 0.64 0.58 0.70 0.60 0.70 0.64 0.58 0.53 0.59 Vanadium 0.350 0.210 0.12 0.310 0.290 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.21

Note 1: All Results reported in ug/kg. Note 2: All UCLs canculated using ProUCL Version 3.0



Sample ID Aroclor 1260 Catfish 1 46.0 Catfish 2 35.0 Catfish 3 120.0 Catfish 4 80.0 Catfish 5 84.0 Catfish 6 46.5 Bass 1 190.0 Bass 2 80.0 Bass 3 62.0 Bass 4 47.0 Bass 5 100.0 Bass 6 48.0 Bass 7 87.0

Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples 13 Number of Unique Samples 12 Minimum 35 Maximum 190 Mean 78.88461538 Median 80 Standard Deviation 41.72237302 Variance 1740.75641 Coefficient of Variation 0.528903802 Skewness 1.668923384

Gamma Statistics k hat 4.765615675 k star (bias corrected) 3.717140263 Theta hat 16.55286972 Theta star 21.221856 nu hat 123.9060076 nu star 96.64564684 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 74.96530517 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03009 Adjusted Chi Square Value 72.24853051

Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data 3.555348061 Maximum of log data 5.247024072 Mean of log data 4.259414535 Standard Deviation of log data 0.471630281 Variance of log data 0.222435122

RECOMMENDATION Data follow gamma distribution (0.05)

Use Approximate Gamma UCL

Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.838274 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Data not normal at 5% significance level

95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 99.50872

Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic 0.429421 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.736235 K-S Test Statistic 0.184928 K-S 5% Critical Value 0.237494 Data follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level

95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 101.6984 Adjusted Gamma UCL 105.5226

Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.947641 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Data are lognormal at 5% significance level

95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL 105.041 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 124.0883 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 143.8742 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 182.7397

95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 97.91838 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 103.6416 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 100.4014 Jackknife UCL 99.50872 Standard Bootstrap UCL 96.90901 Bootstrap-t UCL 108.9344 Hall's Bootstrap UCL 180.5411 Percentile Bootstrap UCL 98.76923 BCA Bootstrap UCL 104.6923 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 129.3245 97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 151.1499 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 194.0216

Suggested UCL 101.6984



Sample ID 4,4'-DDD Catfish 1 24 Catfish 2 32.0 Catfish 3 160 Catfish 4 120 Catfish 5 110 Catfish 6 63 Bass 1 110 Bass 2 49 Bass 3 37 Bass 4 24 Bass 5 70 Bass 6 16 Bass 7 35

Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 13 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.883707 Number of Unique Samples 11 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Minimum 16 Data are normal at 5% significance level Maximum 160 Mean 65.38461538 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 49 Student's-t UCL 87.91048 Standard Deviation 45.56961426 Variance 2076.589744 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 0.696947042 A-D Test Statistic 0.382243 Skewness 0.866821546 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.741966

K-S Test Statistic 0.172829 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.239056

k hat 2.293838292 Data follow gamma distribution k star (bias corrected) 1.815773045 at 5% significance level Theta hat 28.50445718 Theta star 36.00924441 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 59.6397956 Approximate Gamma UCL 95.15661 nu star 47.21009918 Adjusted Gamma UCL 100.5422 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 32.43930373 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03009 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 30.70169066 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.953251

Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Log-transformed Statistics Data are lognormal at 5% significance level

Minimum of log data 2.772588722 Maximum of log data 5.075173815 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data 3.946751909 95% H-UCL 111.5833 Standard Deviation of log data 0.724961831 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 126.1315 Variance of log data 0.525569656 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 152.2751

99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 203.6291

95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 86.17349 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 89.42019 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 88.4169 Jackknife UCL 87.91048 Standard Bootstrap UCL 85.16352 Bootstrap-t UCL 92.99608

RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 87.19812 Data are normal (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 85.53846

BCA Bootstrap UCL 87.38462 Use Student's-t UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 120.4756

97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 144.3135 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 191.1385


5)e

ta



Sample ID 4,4'-DDE Catfish 1 17 Catfish 2 15.0 Catfish 3 61 Catfish 4 41 Catfish 5 36 Catfish 6 23 Bass 1 91 Bass 2 36 Bass 3 27 Bass 4 26 Bass 5 53 Bass 6 20 Bass 7 38



k hat 4.014105796 Data follow gamma distribution k star (bias corrected) 3.13905574 at 5% significance level Theta hat 9.274984549 Theta star 11.86049956 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 104.3667507 Approximate Gamma UCL 49.17351 nu star 81.61544925 Adjusted Gamma UCL 51.2062 Approx.Chi Square Value (.0 61.79355174 Adjusted Level of Significanc 0.03009 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 59.34058923 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.976448


Minimum of log data 2.708050201 Maximum of log data 4.510859507 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data 3.487434217 95% H-UCL 51.65902 Standard Deviation of log da 0.520557284 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 60.96644 Variance of log data 0.270979886 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 71.3289







)



Sample ID 4,4'-DDT Catfish 1 2 Catfish 2 4.9 Catfish 3 28 Catfish 4 28 Catfish 5 17 Catfish 6 17 Bass 1 18 Bass 2 11 Bass 3 11 Bass 4 6.9 Bass 5 19 Bass 6 6.7 Bass 7 14



k hat 2.563639 Data follow gamma distribution k star (bias corrected) 2.023312 at 5% significance level Theta hat 5.505995 Theta star 6.976375 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 66.65462 Approximate Gamma UCL 20.10032 nu star 52.60611 Adjusted Gamma UCL 21.1683 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05 36.94247 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03009 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 35.07865 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.914715











Sample ID alpha-BHC Catfish 1 0.32 Catfish 2 0.3 Catfish 3 2.8 Catfish 4 0.65 Catfish 5 0.65 Catfish 6 0.65 Bass 1 0.32 Bass 2 0.54 Bass 3 0.32 Bass 4 0.32 Bass 5 0.32 Bass 6 0.32 Bass 7 0.32

Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 13 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.471918 Number of Unique Samples 5 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Minimum 0.3 Data not normal at 5% significance level Maximum 2.8 Mean 0.6023077 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 0.32 Student's-t UCL 0.936653 Standard Deviation 0.676377 Variance 0.4574859 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 1.1229759 A-D Test Statistic 2.0931 Skewness 3.3194479 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.743031


k hat 2.025072 Data do not follow gamma distribution k star (bias corrected) 1.6090297 at 5% significance level Theta hat 0.2974253 Theta star 0.3743297 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 52.651872 Approximate Gamma UCL 0.899707 nu star 41.834773 Adjusted Gamma UCL 0.954388 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 28.006233 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03009 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 26.401637 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.668394

Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Log-transformed Statistics Data not lognormal at 5% significance level

Minimum of log data -1.2039728 Maximum of log data 1.0296194 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data -0.7737637 95% H-UCL 0.850683 Standard Deviation of log data 0.62922 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.989088 Variance of log data 0.3959178 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1.17801



RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 1.982559 Data are Non-parametric (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.958462

BCA Bootstrap UCL 1.150769 Use 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 1.420008





Sample ID Aldrin Catfish 1 0.32 Catfish 2 0.3 Catfish 3 0.65 Catfish 4 4.5 Catfish 5 0.65 Catfish 6 0.65 Bass 1 0.32 Bass 2 0.32 Bass 3 0.32 Bass 4 0.32 Bass 5 0.32 Bass 6 0.32 Bass 7 0.32





Minimum of log data -1.2039728 Maximum of log data 1.5040774 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data -0.7775168 95% H-UCL 1.039776 Standard Deviation of log data 0.75255587 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1.162636 Variance of log data 0.56634034 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1.408668


95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 1.238951 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 1.569363 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 1.334171 Jackknife UCL 1.282633 Standard Bootstrap UCL N/R Bootstrap-t UCL N/R

RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL N/R Data are Non-parametric (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL N/R

BCA Bootstrap UCL N/R Use 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 2.101579



L



Sample ID alpha-Chlordane Catfish 1 11 Catfish 2 12 Catfish 3 58 Catfish 4 43 Catfish 5 41 Catfish 6 18 Bass 1 38.0 Bass 2 23.0 Bass 3 14.0 Bass 4 8.8 Bass 5 28.0 Bass 6 9.0 Bass 7 17.0

Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 13 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.883766 Number of Unique Samples 13 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Minimum 8.8 Data are normal at 5% significance level Maximum 58 Mean 24.67692308 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 18 Student's-t UCL 32.44977 Standard Deviation 15.72440533 Variance 247.2569231 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 0.637210939 A-D Test Statistic 0.396911 Skewness 0.898800639 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.73979










Suggested UC 32.44977



Sample ID beta-BHC Catfish 1 3.9 Catfish 2 0.6 Catfish 3 1.8 Catfish 4 4.2 Catfish 5 3.7 Catfish 6 1.8 Bass 1 0.60 Bass 2 0.60 Bass 3 0.60 Bass 4 0.60 Bass 5 4.70 Bass 6 0.60 Bass 7 0.60

Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples 13 Number of Unique Samples 6 Minimum 0.6 Maximum 4.7 Mean 1.869230769 Median 0.6 Standard Deviation 1.638283968 Variance 2.683974359 Coefficient of Variation 0.876448213 Skewness 0.796087497


Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data -0.51082562 Maximum of log data 1.547562509 Mean of log data 0.250134644 Standard Deviation of log data 0.900121283 Variance of log data 0.810218324

RECOMMENDATION Data are Non-parametric (0.05)

Use 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL



Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic 1.522401 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.750663 K-S Test Statistic 0.345533 K-S 5% Critical Value 0.241029 Data do not follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level


Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.745398 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Data not lognormal at 5% significance level






Sample ID gamma-Chlordane Catfish 1 4.3 Catfish 2 5.2 Catfish 3 20.0 Catfish 4 16.0 Catfish 5 16.0 Catfish 6 5.6 Bass 1 3.50 Bass 2 2.80 Bass 3 1.90 Bass 4 0.68 Bass 5 2.90 Bass 6 1.30 Bass 7 2.30

Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 13 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.756226 Number of Unique Samples 12 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Minimum 0.68 Data not normal at 5% significance level Maximum 20 Mean 6.344615385 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 3.5 Student's-t UCL 9.551776 Standard Deviation 6.488056483 Variance 42.09487692 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 1.022608321 A-D Test Statistic 0.607987 Skewness 1.357151354 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.754112




Minimum of log data -0.38566248 Maximum of log data 2.995732274 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data 1.389962145 95% H-UCL 15.30035 Standard Deviation of log data 1.005524693 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 14.5834 Variance of log data 1.011079909 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 18.16323



RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 8.780446 Data follow gamma distribution (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 9.469231

BCA Bootstrap UCL 10.07538 Use Approximate Gamma UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 14.18829



L



Sample ID Heptachlor epoxide Catfish 1 0.32 Catfish 2 0.3 Catfish 3 3.8 Catfish 4 0.65 Catfish 5 0.65 Catfish 6 2.2 Bass 1 0.32 Bass 2 0.32 Bass 3 0.32 Bass 4 0.32 Bass 5 0.46 Bass 6 0.65 Bass 7 0.32

Raw Statistics Number of Valid Samples 13 Number of Unique Samples 6 Minimum 0.3 Maximum 3.8 Mean 0.817692308 Median 0.32 Standard Deviation 1.03164233 Variance 1.064285897 Coefficient of Variation 1.261651015 Skewness 2.531997546


Log-transformed Statistics Minimum of log data -1.203972804 Maximum of log data 1.335001067 Mean of log data -0.614307509 Standard Deviation of log data 0.811231919 Variance of log data 0.658097226

RECOMMENDATION Data are Non-parametric (0.05)

Use 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL



Gamma Distribution Test A-D Test Statistic 1.930128 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.752409 K-S Test Statistic 0.331262 K-S 5% Critical Value 0.241548 Data do not follow gamma distribution at 5% significance level


Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.723912 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Data not lognormal at 5% significance level



Suggested UC 2.064887

d UCL



Sample ID bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate Catfish 1 51000 Catfish 2 220 Catfish 3 120 Catfish 4 250 Catfish 5 250 Catfish 6 250 Bass 1 150 Bass 2 160 Bass 3 250 Bass 4 250 Bass 5 250 Bass 6 3400 Bass 7 230

Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 13 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.340455 Number of Unique Samples 8 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Minimum 120 Data not normal at 5% significance level Maximum 51000 Mean 4367.69231 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 250 Student's-t UCL 11307.39 Standard Deviation 14038.9376 Variance 197091769 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 3.21426891 A-D Test Statistic 3.393027 Skewness 3.58128347 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.833876






95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 10772.26 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 14904.73 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 11951.97 Jackknife UCL 11307.39 Standard Bootstrap UCL 10399.86 Bootstrap-t UCL 1305651




Suggeste 43109.53



Sample ID Antimony Catfish 1 0.3 Catfish 2 0.2 Catfish 3 0.2 Catfish 4 0.2 Catfish 5 0.2 Catfish 6 0.3 Bass 1 0.30

Bass 1D 0.10 Bass 2 0.19 Bass 3 0.21 Bass 4 0.25 Bass 5 0.09 Bass 6 0.21 Bass 7 0.26

Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 14 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.887761 Number of Unique Samples 8 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Minimum 0.09 Data are normal at 5% significance level Maximum 0.3 Mean 0.215 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 0.205 Student's-t UCL 0.245883 Standard Deviation 0.06525099 Variance 0.00425769 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 0.303493 A-D Test Statistic 0.903164 Skewness -0.4932659 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.734929




Minimum of log data -2.4079456 Maximum of log data -1.2039728 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data -1.591114 95% H-UCL 0.265376 Standard Deviation of log data 0.36507035 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.310228 Variance of log data 0.13327636 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.350721









Sample ID Arsenic Catfish 1 0.12 Catfish 2 0.12 Catfish 3 0.13 Catfish 4 0.25 Catfish 5 0.30 Catfish 6 0.13 Bass 1 0.13










BCA Bootstrap UCL 0.184286 Use Student's-t UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.222961 or Modified-t UCL 97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.252986

99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.311963




Sample ID Barium Catfish 1 26.7 Catfish 2 27.3 Catfish 3 3.1 Catfish 4 35.9 Catfish 5 35.3 Catfish 6 48.0 Bass 1 3.80









RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 19.98307 Data are lognormal (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 20.77071

BCA Bootstrap UCL 21.85857 Use 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 33.33511


Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation Suggested UCL 59.23119



Sample ID Cadmium Catfish 1 0.15 Catfish 2 0.09 Catfish 3 0.05 Catfish 4 0.15 Catfish 5 0.14 Catfish 6 0.15 Bass 1 0.13















Sample ID Copper Catfish 1 1.40 Catfish 2 1.20 Catfish 3 0.87 Catfish 4 1.40 Catfish 5 1.40 Catfish 6 0.80 Bass 1 9.10









RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 7.979807 Data are lognormal (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 2.828462

BCA Bootstrap UCL 3.516923 Use H-UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 4.58529





Sample ID Iron Catfish 1 262.0 Catfish 2 116.0 Catfish 3 90.1 Catfish 4 258.0 Catfish 5 255.0 Catfish 6 43.9 Bass 1 191.00















Sample ID Manganese Catfish 1 31.60 Catfish 2 7.60 Catfish 3 5.20 Catfish 4 24.70 Catfish 5 24.30 Catfish 6 28.40 Bass 1 3.50




k hat 0.75624399 Data follow approximate gamma distibution k star (bias corrected) 0.64181075 at 5% significance level Theta hat 12.9663368 Theta star 15.2782019 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 21.1748317 Approximate Gamma UCL 18.80973 nu star 17.9707011 Adjusted Gamma UCL 20.59904 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 9.36831929 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03122 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 8.55455043 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.915288





RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 13.93766 Assuming gamma distribution (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 15.06429






Sample ID Mercury Catfish 1 0.035 Catfish 2 0.045 Catfish 3 0.048 Catfish 4 0.035 Catfish 5 0.029 Catfish 6 0.025 Bass 1 0.24




k hat 1.57656772 Data follow approximate gamma distibution k star (bias corrected) 1.28635083 at 5% significance level Theta hat 0.08141556 Theta star 0.09978393 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 44.1438961 Approximate Gamma UCL 0.198582 nu star 36.0178231 Adjusted Gamma UCL 0.210825 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 23.2807899 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03122 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 21.9288038 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.849505





RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 0.167374 Assuming gamma distribution (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.168857






Sample ID Selenium Catfish 1 0.25 Catfish 2 0.43 Catfish 3 0.39 Catfish 4 0.47 Catfish 5 0.49 Catfish 6 0.38 Bass 1 0.64


Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 14 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.953265 Number of Unique Samples 11 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Minimum 0.25 Data are normal at 5% significance level Maximum 0.7 Mean 0.527142857 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 0.555 Student's-t UCL 0.589753 Standard Deviation 0.132283412 Variance 0.017498901 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 0.250944142 A-D Test Statistic 0.37624 Skewness -0.55516759 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.734282













Sample ID Vanadium Catfish 1 0.350 Catfish 2 0.210 Catfish 3 0.12 Catfish 4 0.310 Catfish 5 0.290 Catfish 6 0.12 Bass 1 0.10













Appendix C CDI Calculations



CDI CALCULATIONS: ADULT CONSUMPTION OF RECREATIONALLY

CAUGHT FISH

BROWN'S LAKE SITE, FT. EUSTIS

Non-Carcinogenic: Ingestion of Fish - Adults

Chemical Conc

(mg/kg) IR

(g/day) CF

(kg/g) EF

(days/yr) ED

(yrs) BW (kg)

CDI (mg/kg-day)

Antimony 0.24588341 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 8.78E-05 Arsenic 0.18302474 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 6.54E-05 Barium 48 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 1.71E-02

Cadmium 0.14085151 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 5.03E-05 Copper 3.25936241 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 1.16E-03

Iron 173.645474 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 6.20E-02 Manganese 18.8097305 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 6.72E-03

Mercury 0.19858196 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 7.09E-05 Selenium 0.58975284 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 2.11E-04 Vanadium 0.20579971 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 7.35E-05 4,4-DDT 0.0181498 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 6.48E-06

Aldrin 0.00210158 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 7.51E-07 Heptachlor Epoxide 0.00206489 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 7.37E-07 bis(2-EH)phthalate1 43.1095254 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 1.54E-02

alpha-Chlordane 0.03244977 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 1.16E-05 gamma-Chlordane 0.01072933 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 3.83E-06

Carcinogenic: Ingestion of Fish - Adults

Chemical Conc

(mg/kg) IR

(g/day) CF

(kg/g) EF

(days/yr) ED

(yrs) BW (kg)

CDI (mg/kg-day)

Aroclor 1260 0.10169844 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 1.56E-05 4,4'-DDD 0.08791048 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 1.35E-05 4,4'-DDE 0.04767432 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 7.30E-06 4,4'-DDT 0.0181498 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 2.78E-06

Aldrin 0.00210158 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 3.22E-07 alpha-BHC 0.00142001 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 2.17E-07

alpha-Chlordane 0.03244977 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 4.97E-06 beta-BHC 0.00384982 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 5.89E-07

gamma-Chlordane 0.01072933 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 1.64E-06 Heptachlor epoxide 0.00206489 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 3.16E-07 bis(2-EH)phthalate1 43.1095254 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 6.60E-03

Arsenic 0.18302474 25 1.00E-03 365 30 70 2.80E-05 Key 1) bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

CDI CALCULATIONS: CHILD CONSUMPTION OF RECREATIONALLY

CAUGHT FISH

BROWN'S LAKE SITE, FT. EUSTIS

Non-Carcinogenic: Ingestion of Fish - Children

Chemical Conc

(mg/kg) IR

(g/day) CF

(kg/g) EF

(days/yr) ED

(yrs) BW (kg)

CDI (mg/kg-day)

Antimony 0.245883414 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 2.70E-04 Arsenic 0.183024735 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 2.01E-04 Barium 48 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 5.28E-02

Cadmium 0.14085151 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 1.55E-04 Copper 3.259362407 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 3.59E-03

Iron 173.6454741 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 1.91E-01 Manganese 18.80973045 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 2.07E-02

Mercury 0.198581959 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 2.18E-04 Selenium 0.589752835 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 6.49E-04 Vanadium 0.205799706 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 2.26E-04 4,4-DDT 0.018149798 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 2.00E-05

Aldrin 0.002101579 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 2.31E-06 Heptachlor Epoxide 0.002064887 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 2.27E-06 bis(2-EH)phthalate1 43.10952535 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 4.74E-02

alpha-Chlordane 0.032449773 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 3.57E-05 gamma-Chlordane 0.010729334 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 1.18E-05

Carcinogenic: Ingestion of Fish - Children

Chemical Conc

(mg/kg) IR

(g/day) CF

(kg/g) EF

(days/yr) ED

(yrs) BW (kg)

CDI (mg/kg-day)

Aroclor 1260 0.101698441 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 1.44E-05 4,4'-DDD 0.087910478 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 1.24E-05 4,4'-DDE 0.047674321 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 6.74E-06 4,4'-DDT 0.018149798 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 2.57E-06

Aldrin 0.002101579 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 2.97E-07 alpha-BHC 0.001420008 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 2.01E-07

alpha-Chlordane 0.032449773 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 4.59E-06 beta-BHC 0.00384982 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 5.44E-07

gamma-Chlordane 0.010729334 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 1.52E-06 Heptachlor epoxide 0.002064887 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 2.92E-07 bis(2-EH)phthalate1 43.10952535 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 6.10E-03

Arsenic 0.183024735 16.5 1.00E-03 365 9 15 2.59E-05 Key 1) bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate