RECORD OF DECISION (RODS) · health for trespassing recreational fishermen. This increased risk is...
Transcript of RECORD OF DECISION (RODS) · health for trespassing recreational fishermen. This increased risk is...
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
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
PART 1 - DECLARATION
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
PART 1 - DECLARATION
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 1-2 Brown’s Lake Site
2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
PART 1 - DECLARATION
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 1-3 Brown’s Lake Site
2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
PART 1 - DECLARATION
Final RECORD OF DECISION
• 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.
Page 1-4 Brown’s Lake Site
2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
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. 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
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.
Page 2-1 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-2 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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,
Page 2-3 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-4 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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:
Page 2-5 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
• 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;
Page 2-6 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
• 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,
Page 2-7 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-8 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
• 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
Page 2-9 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
(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
Page 2-10 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
Page 2-11 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-12 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-13 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
Page 2-14 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
Page 2-15 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
Page 2-16 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
Page 2-17 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-18 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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:
Page 2-19 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
• 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
Page 2-20 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-21 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
Page 2-22 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
Page 2-23 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-24 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-25 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
• 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
Page 2-26 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-27 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-28 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
Page 2-29 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
Page 2-30 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
Page 2-31 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
Page 2-32 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-33 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
Page 2-34 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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 -
Page 2-35 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-36 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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:
Page 2-37 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
• 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.
Page 2-38 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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;
Page 2-39 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-40 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-41 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
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.
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. 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.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
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
Page 2-42 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-43 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
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.
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. This
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.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
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
Page 2-44 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
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. In addition, because impacted media would be left on the site, a review
of the site conditions would be required every five years.
Page 2-45 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
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.
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. This
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 erosion control
requirements and regulatory requirements associated with disposal and transport of excavated
sediment.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
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
Page 2-46 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-47 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
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.
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. This
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.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
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.
Page 2-48 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Compliance with ARARs
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.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
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
Page 2-49 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
Page 2-50 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-51 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
Page 2-52 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
Page 2-53 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
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 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.
Page 2-54 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-55 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-56 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-57 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-58 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 2 – Decision Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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.
Page 2-59 Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Site 2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
Part 3 – Responsiveness Summary
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
PART 4 – ACRONYMS
Final RECORD OF DECISION
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
Page 4-1 Brown’s Lake Site
2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
PART 4 – ACRONYMS
Final RECORD OF DECISION
USEPA United Stated Environmental Protection Agency
VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Page 4-2 Brown’s Lake Site
2118-107 Fort Eustis, Virginia
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
Record of Decision Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Fort Eustis, Virginia
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
Aroclor-1221 60 U 98 U 82 U 74 U 74 U 72 U 95 U 86 U 65 U 68 U 67 U 89 U 56 U 63 U 61 U 51 U 55 U 66 U 75 U 22.7 22.7
Aroclor-1232 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
Aroclor-1242 30 U 49 U 41 U 37 U 37 U 36 U 48 U 43 U 32 U 34 U 33 U 45 U 28 U 31 U 30 U 26 U 28 U 33 U 38 U 22.7 22.7
Aroclor-1248 30 U 49 U 41 U 37 U 37 U 36 U 48 U 43 U 32 U 34 U 33 U 45 U 28 U 31 U 30 U 26 U 28 U 33 U 38 U 22.7 22.7
Aroclor-1254 30 U 49 U 41 U 37 U 37 U 36 U 48 U 43 U 32 U 34 U 33 U 45 U 28 U 31 U 30 U 26 U 28 U 33 U 38 U 22.7 22.7
Aroclor-1260 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 -- --
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
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 -- --
3-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 -- --
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-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 -- --
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 -- --
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
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 -- --
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
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
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event Data
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
Aroclor-1221 1.30 U 1.30 U 1.30 U 1.30 U 1.3 U 1.30 U 1.30 U 1.30 U 1.3 U 0.10 0.01
Aroclor-1232 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
Aroclor-1242 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.10 0.01
Aroclor-1248 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.10 0.01
Aroclor-1254 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.63 U 0.10 0.01
Aroclor-1260 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
TABLE 2-3 Summary of Analytical Results Surface Water Samples
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event Data
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
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 -- --
3-Nitroaniline 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 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-Nitroaniline 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 U 20 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
TABLE 2-3 Summary of Analytical Results Surface Water Samples
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event Data
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
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 -- --
TABLE 2-3 Summary of Analytical Results Surface Water Samples
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event Data
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
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)
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
Parameters CATFISH 1 CATFISH 2 CATFISH 3 CATFISH 4 CATFISH 5 CATFISH 6
EPA RBC
Fish
Total Metals (mg/kg)
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
Notes: Data Validation Qualifiers:
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)
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Total Metals (mg/kg)
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
Notes: Data Validation Qualifiers:
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
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
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
HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR SURFICIAL SEDIMENT
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)
Acetone 18 - 29 8/16 70,000,000 Not Assessed
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)anthracene 38 - 400 14/32 8,700 B2
Benzo(a)pyrene 50 - 640 15/32 870 B2
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 60 - 860 13/32 8,700 B2
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 42 - 580 15/32 --- D
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 61 - 690 18/32 87,000 B2
Carbazole 49 - 94 4/32 320,000 Not Available
Chrysene 40 - 830 18/32 870,000 B2
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 55 - 230 5/32 870 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
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 53 - 440 18/32 460,000 B2
Butylbenzylphthalate 100 1/32 16,000,000 C
Di-n-butylphthalate 64 - 82 7/32 7,800,000 D
Di-n-octyphthalate 37 - 200 7/32 3,100,000 Not Available
2118-059
VOCs (ug/kg)
TABLE 2-6
HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR SURFICIAL SEDIMENT
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
Metals (mg/kg)
Aluminum 5000 - 18200 32/32 78,000 Not Available
Antimony 0.34 - 1.2 23/32 31.00 Not Assessed
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:
(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 2-7
HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR SURFICIAL SEDIMENT
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)
Acetone 13 - 99 3/6 70,000,000 Not Assessed
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)anthracene 52 - 430 13/16 8,700 B2
Benzo(a)pyrene 44 - 360 15/16 870 B2
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 61 - 620 12/16 8,700 B2
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 46 - 270 13/16 --- D
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 48 - 480 15/16 87,000 B2
Carbazole 79 1/16 320,000 Not Available
Chrysene 41 - 730 15/16 870,000 B2
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 42 - 110 3/16 870 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
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 57 - 540 13/16 460,000 B2
Di-n-octyphthalate 26 - 700 5/16 3,100,000 Not Available
2118-059
VOCs (ug/kg)
TABLE 2-7
HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR SURFICIAL SEDIMENT
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
Metals (mg/kg)
Aluminum 950 - 9590 16/16 78,000 Not Available
Antimony 0.34 - 2.3 13/16 31.00 Not Assessed
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:
(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 2-8
HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR SURFACE WATER
BROWN'S LAKE - UPPER DITCH
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
adjusted to an increased cancer risk of 1E-05 to reflect recreational exposures.
(3) Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (40 CFR 131). 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.
(4) Weight of Evidence Classification:
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
HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR SURFACE WATER
BROWN'S LAKE - MAIN LAKE
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
Tap Water Water/Fish Fish Cons.
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)
Aluminum 130 - 420 16/16 - 37,000 - - Not Available
Antimony 2 - 3.4 3/16 43,000 15 140 43,000 Not Assessed
Barium 10 - 24.2 16/16 - 2,600 - - D
Chromium (as hexavalent) 0.9 - 1.9 9/16 - 110 - - D
Cobalt 0.9 - 1.4 2/16 - 730 - - Not Available
Copper 2.2 - 6.3 16/16 - 1,500 - - D
Iron 290 - 1470 16/16 - 11,000 - - Not Available
Lead 1.6 -3.0 6/16 - - - - B2
Manganese 21.0 - 100 16/16 - 730 - - D
Nickel 1.0 - 2.3 8/16 46,000 730 6,100 46,000 Not Assessed
Selenium 2.3 - 3.5 5/16 110,000 180 - - D
Vanadium 0.47 - 2.4 9/16 - 11 - - Not Assessed
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
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
adjusted to an increased cancer risk of 1E-05 to reflect recreational exposures.
(3) Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (40 CFR 131). 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.
(4) Weight of Evidence Classification:
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 2-10
HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR SURFACE WATER
BROWN'S LAKE - LOWER DITCH
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
Tap Water Water/Fish Fish Cons.
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
HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR SURFACE WATER
BROWN'S LAKE - LOWER DITCH
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
Tap Water Water/Fish Fish Cons.
Total Metals (ug/l)
Aluminum 54 - 4180 12/12 - 37,000 - - Not Available
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
Chromium (as hexavalent) 0.67 - 7.3 6/12 - 110 - - D
Cobalt 1.1 - 3.4 4/12 - 730 - - Not Available
Copper 2.1 - 28.8 12/12 - 1,500 - - D
Iron 1800 - 15800 12/12 - 11,000 - - Not Available
Lead 2.5 - 48.9 6/12 - - - - B2
Manganese 51 - 399 12/12 - 730 - - D
Nickel 1.2 - 4.7 12/12 46,000 730 6,100 46,000 Not Assessed
Selenium 3.1 - 4.1 5/16 110,000 180 - - D
Vanadium 0.91 - 16.3 7/12 - 11 - - Not Assessed
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
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 1and carcinogens have been
adjusted to an increased cancer risk of 1E-05 to reflect recreational exposures.
(3) Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (40 CFR 131). Non-carcinogenic criteria have been adjusted to a hazard quotient of 1and carcinogens
have been adjusted to an increased cancer risk of 1E-05 to reflect recreational exposures.
(4) Weight of Evidence Classification:
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 2-11
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
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 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
Butylbenzylphthalate 4.23E-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
Iron 7.20E+01 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 2-13
American Robin Hazard Quotients for CPOCs 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 3.02E-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
Butylbenzylphthalate 3.10E-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
alpha-Chlordane 1.13E-01 2.04E+00 5.53E-02 No
gamma-Chlordane 8.06E-02 2.04E+00 3.95E-02 No
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
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 2-14
Short-tail Shrew Hazard Quotients for CPOCs 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 3.61E-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
Butylbenzylphthalate 3.90E-01 NA NA No
Heptachlor epoxide 1.91E-02 3.90E-01 4.89E-02 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
alpha-Chlordane 1.58E-01 5.50E+00 2.87E-02 No
gamma-Chlordane 1.13E-01 5.50E+00 2.05E-02 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
Iron 1.17E+04 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 2-15
Grey Fox Hazard Quotients for CPOCs 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 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
Butylbenzylphthalate 5.26E-02 NA NA No
Heptachlor epoxide 2.41E-04 6.87E-02 3.51E-03 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
alpha-Chlordane 4.46E-03 1.30E+00 3.43E-03 No
gamma-Chlordane 1.50E-03 1.30E+00 1.16E-03 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
Iron 2.04E+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 2-16
Benthic Hazard Quotients for CPOCs at
Brown's Lake, Fort Eustis, Virgina
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
Bold - Indicates HQ value greater than Unity (1) (1)
Screening Level value based on No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL)
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.
The capital cost of implementing this are
estimated to be approximately
$8,869,000. The annual cost of
groundwater monitoring activities is
estimated to be $42,000 per year. The
estimate present net worth of this
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
Location-Specific - applicable guidance
includes VA Water protection Permit
Regulations (9VAC 25-210) and Coastal Zone
Provides both long-term effectiveness and
permanence as contaminated media
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 pose minimal risk to the
community during construction and
implementation. Workers could
potentially be exposed to contaminants
through direct contact, ingestion, or
Would be both technically and
administratively feasible. Excavation
would be performed using conventional
construction equipment. Local
contractors are available to perform
excavation, sedimentation basin
The capital cost of implementing this are
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.
Management Act will be followed/met all other
guidance not applicable
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.
inhalation. These risks can be minimized
through the use of dust control measures,
personal protective equipment, and safety
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
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 all ARAR's are applicable and
will be met.
Provides both long-term effectiveness and
permanence as contaminated media
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.
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 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.
The capital cost of implementing this are
estimated to be approximately
$2,024,000. The annual cost of
groundwater monitoring activities is
estimated to be $0 per year. The
estimate present net worth of this
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
MONITORING OF SEDIMENT
FORT EUSTIS - BROWN'S LAKE FEASIBILITY STUDY
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
FORT EUSTIS - BROWN'S LAKE FEASIBILITY STUDY
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
MONITORING OF SEDIMENT
FORT EUSTIS - BROWN'S LAKE FEASIBILITY STUDY
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
BROWN’S LAKE RECORD OF DECISION FORT EUSTIS, VA
Authority Location Requirement Status Synopsis of Requirement
Action to be Taken to Attain 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
BROWN’S LAKE RECORD OF DECISION FORT EUSTIS, VA
Authority Medium Requirement Status Synopsis of Requirement
Action to be Taken to Attain Requirement
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
BROWN’S LAKE RECORD OF DECISION FORT EUSTIS, VA
Authority Medium Requirement Status Synopsis of Requirement
Action to be Taken to Attain Requirement
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
Record of Decision Site 16 – Brown’s Lake Fort Eustis, Virginia
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
Attachment 1 Final Record of Decision SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
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.
Brown’s Lake Site Page A1-2 Fort Eustis, Virginia 2118-107
Attachment 1 Final Record of Decision SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
• 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
Brown’s Lake Site Page A1-3 Fort Eustis, Virginia 2118-107
Attachment 1 Final Record of Decision SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
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.
Brown’s Lake Site Page A1-4 Fort Eustis, Virginia 2118-107
Attachment 1 Final Record of Decision SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
• 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
Brown’s Lake Site Page A1-5 Fort Eustis, Virginia 2118-107
Attachment 1 Final Record of Decision SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
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
Brown’s Lake Site Page A1-6 Fort Eustis, Virginia 2118-107
Attachment 1 Final Record of Decision SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
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,
Brown’s Lake Site Page A1-7 Fort Eustis, Virginia 2118-107
Attachment 1 Final Record of Decision SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
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
Brown’s Lake Site Page A1-8 Fort Eustis, Virginia 2118-107
Attachment 1 Final Record of Decision SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
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)
Brown’s Lake Site Page A1-9 Fort Eustis, Virginia 2118-107
Attachment 1 Final Record of Decision SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
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
Brown’s Lake Site Page A1-10 Fort Eustis, Virginia 2118-107
Attachment 1 Final Record of Decision SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
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
Brown’s Lake Site Page A1-11 Fort Eustis, Virginia 2118-107
Attachment 1 Final Record of Decision SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
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
Brown’s Lake Site Page A1-12 Fort Eustis, Virginia 2118-107
Attachment 1 Final Record of Decision SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
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.
Brown’s Lake Site Page A1-13 Fort Eustis, Virginia 2118-107
Attachment 1 Final Record of Decision SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
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.
Brown’s Lake Site Page A1-14 Fort Eustis, Virginia 2118-107
Attachment 1 Final Record of Decision SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN
HEALTH RISK 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.
Brown’s Lake Site Page A1-15 Fort Eustis, Virginia 2118-107
Attachment 1 Final Record of Decision SUPPLEMENTAL HUMAN
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
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.
Brown’s Lake Site Page A1-16 Fort Eustis, Virginia 2118-107
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)
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 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)
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
Parameters CATFISH 1 CATFISH 2 CATFISH 3 CATFISH 4 CATFISH 5 CATFISH 6
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)
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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)
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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;
Developmental and Reproductive; Liver
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;
Developmental and Reproductive; Liver
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
Remedy Selection Decision Documents (U.S. EPA, 1999)
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
Remedy Selection Decision Documents (U.S. EPA, 1999)
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
Remedy Selection Decision Documents (U.S. EPA, 1999)
Appendix A Constituent Toxicity Summaries
Supplemental HHRA Brown’s Lake Site
Record of Decision Fort Eustis, Virginia
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.
Carcinogenic Health Effects
• 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.
Noncarcinogenic Health Effects
• 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
absorption factor of 0.7200.
Carcinogenic Health Effects
• 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:
Noncarcinogenic Health Effects
• 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
absorption factor of 0.1900.
Carcinogenic Health Effects
• 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:
Noncarcinogenic Health Effects
• 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
absorption factor of 0.0200.
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
absorption factor of 0.4100.
• 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
absorption factor of 0.4100.
Carcinogenic Health Effects
• 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:
Noncarcinogenic Health Effects
• 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
absorption factor of 0.0700.
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:
Noncarcinogenic Health Effects
• 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.
Carcinogenic Health Effects
• 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.
Noncarcinogenic Health Effects
• 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
absorption factor of 0.3.
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.
Noncarcinogenic Health Effects
• 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
1. • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration has an uncertainty factor
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
absorption factor of 0.0400.
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.
Noncarcinogenic Health Effects
• The Oral Chronic Reference Dose is 3.00E-04 (mg/kg-day). • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration has a modifying factor of
1. • The Inhalation Chronic Reference Concentration has an uncertainty factor
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.
• The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 2.10E-05 (mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is based on a gastrointestinal
absorption factor of 0.0700.
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.
Noncarcinogenic Health Effects
• 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
absorption factor of 0.4400.
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
Noncarcinogenic Health Effects
• 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.
• The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is 7.00E-05 (mg/kg-day). • The Dermal Chronic Reference Dose is based on a gastrointestinal
absorption factor of 0.0100.
Vanadium Pentoxide
Noncarcinogenic Health Effects
• 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
absorption factor of 0.2000.
Vanadium Sulfate
Noncarcinogenic Health Effects
• 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
absorption factor of 0.2000.
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.
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 p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethane (DDD)
File First On-Line: 08/22/1988 Last Significant Revision: 08/22/1988
Category Status Last Revised Oral RfD Assessment No data Inhalation RfC Assessment No data Carcinogenicity Assessment On-line 08/22/1988
Chronic Health Hazard Assessments for Noncarcinogenic Effects
Reference Dose for Chronic Oral Exposure (RfD)
Not Assessed under the IRIS Program.
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: 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.
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) 2.4x10-1 per mg/kg-day
Drinking Water Unit Risk(s): 6.9x10-6 per ug/L
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
Quantitative Estimate of Carcinogenic Risk from Inhalation Exposure
Not Assessed under the IRIS Program.
Revision History
Review Full IRIS Summary for complete 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)
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 p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE)
File First On-Line: 08/22/1988 Last Significant Revision: 08/22/1988
Category Status Last Revised Oral RfD Assessment No data Inhalation RfC Assessment No data Carcinogenicity Assessment On-line 08/22/1988
Chronic Health Hazard Assessments for Noncarcinogenic Effects
Reference Dose for Chronic Oral Exposure (RfD)
Not Assessed under the IRIS Program.
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: Increased incidence of liver tumors including carcinomas in two strains of mice and in hamsters and of thyroid tumors in female rats by diet.
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 3.4x10-1 per mg/kg-day Linearized multistage procedure, extra risk
Drinking Water Unit Risk(s): 9.7x10-6 per ug/L
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: 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
Quantitative Estimate of Carcinogenic Risk from Inhalation Exposure
Not Assessed under the IRIS Program.
Revision History
Review Full IRIS Summary for complete 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)
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 p,p'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
File First On-Line: 03/31/1987 Last Significant Revision: 01/01/1991
Category Status Last Revised Oral RfD Assessment On-line 02/01/1996 Inhalation RfC Assessment No data Carcinogenicity Assessment On-line 05/01/1991
Chronic Health Hazard Assessments for Noncarcinogenic Effects
Reference Dose for Chronic Oral Exposure (RfD)
Critical Effect Point of Departure UF MF RfD Liver lesions NOEL : 0.05 mg/kg-day 100 1 5 x10-4 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 27-week rat feeding study, Laug et al., 1950
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: 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.
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 3.4x10-1 per mg/kg-day Linearized multistage procedure, extra risk
Drinking Water Unit Risk(s): 9.7x10-6 per ug/L
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, 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
Quantitative Estimate of Carcinogenic Risk from Inhalation Exposure
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
Review Full IRIS Summary for complete 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.
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 alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha-HCH)
File First On-Line: 03/31/1987 Last Significant Revision: 01/01/1991
Category Status Last Revised Oral RfD Assessment No data 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)
Not Assessed under the IRIS Program.
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: Dietary alpha-HCH has been shown to cause increased incidence of liver tumors in five mouse strains and in Wistar rats.
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 6.3 per mg/kg-day Linearized multistage procedure, extra risk
Drinking Water Unit Risk(s): 1.8x10-4 per ug/L
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
Quantitative Estimate of Carcinogenic Risk from Inhalation Exposure
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
Review Full IRIS Summary for complete 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)
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 gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)
File First On-Line: 01/31/1987 Last Significant Revision: 03/01/1988
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
Chronic Health Hazard Assessments for Noncarcinogenic Effects
Reference Dose for Chronic Oral Exposure (RfD)
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
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, subchronic oral bioassay (NOAEL for females), Zoecon Corp., 1983
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
Not Assessed under the IRIS Program.
Quantitative Estimate of Carcinogenic Risk from Oral Exposure
Not Assessed under the IRIS Program.
Quantitative Estimate of Carcinogenic Risk from Inhalation Exposure
Not Assessed under the IRIS Program.
Revision History
Review Full IRIS Summary for complete 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
Supplemental HHRA Brown’s Lake Site
Record of Decision Fort Eustis, Virginia
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Suggested UCL 87.91048
5)e
ta
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 13 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.868227 Number of Unique Samples 12 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Minimum 15 Data are normal at 5% significance level Maximum 91 Mean 37.23076923 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 36 Student's-t UCL 47.67432 Standard Deviation 21.12720934 Variance 446.3589744 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 0.567466367 A-D Test Statistic 0.253618 Skewness 1.49448177 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.737212
K-S Test Statistic 0.131476 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.237667
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
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Log-transformed Statistics Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
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
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 91.68395
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 46.86901 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 49.4642 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 48.07912 Jackknife UCL 47.67432 Standard Bootstrap UCL 46.50282 Bootstrap-t UCL 53.49051
RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 56.95848 Data are normal (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 47.69231
BCA Bootstrap UCL 48.84615 Use Student's-t UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 62.77232
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 73.82417 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 95.53339
Suggested UCL 47.67432
)
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 13 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.943242 Number of Unique Samples 10 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Minimum 2 Data are normal at 5% significance level Maximum 28 Mean 14.11538 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 14 Student's-t UCL 18.1498 Standard Deviation 8.161581 Variance 66.61141 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 0.578205 A-D Test Statistic 0.289683 Skewness 0.393427 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.740898
K-S Test Statistic 0.157851 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.238741
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
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Log-transformed Statistics Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
Minimum of log data 0.693147 Maximum of log data 3.332205 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data 2.439731 95% H-UCL 25.76999 Standard Deviation of log data 0.748606 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 28.86207 Variance of log data 0.560411 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 34.95205
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 46.91462
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 17.8387 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 18.10262 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 18.19096 Jackknife UCL 18.1498 Standard Bootstrap UCL 17.78655 Bootstrap-t UCL 18.62821
RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 18.49653 Data are normal (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 17.82308
BCA Bootstrap UCL 17.93077 Use Student's-t UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 23.98226
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 28.25166 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 36.63807
Suggested UCL 18.1498
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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-S Test Statistic 0.330382 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.239371
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
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1.549112
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 0.910871 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 1.095412 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 0.965437 Jackknife UCL 0.936653 Standard Bootstrap UCL 0.898967 Bootstrap-t UCL 1.866216
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
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 1.773827 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 2.468837
Suggested UCL 1.420008
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 13 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.39546 Number of Unique Samples 4 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Minimum 0.3 Data not normal at 5% significance level Maximum 4.5 Mean 0.71615385 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 0.32 Student's-t UCL 1.282633 Standard Deviation 1.14598239 Variance 1.31327564 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 1.60019024 A-D Test Statistic 2.825102 Skewness 3.50784073 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.753614
K-S Test Statistic 0.37885 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.241906
k hat 1.2677362 Data do not follow gamma distribution k star (bias corrected) 1.02646375 at 5% significance level Theta hat 0.56490762 Theta star 0.69769035 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 32.9611413 Approximate Gamma UCL 1.201427 nu star 26.6880574 Adjusted Gamma UCL 1.297321 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 15.9083721 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03009 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 14.7324792 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.576142
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 1.5040774 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
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1.891949
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
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 2.701054 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 3.878605
Suggested UCL 2.101579
L
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
K-S Test Statistic 0.15704 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.238413
k hat 2.843455424 Data follow gamma distribution k star (bias corrected) 2.238555454 at 5% significance level Theta hat 8.678498306 Theta star 11.02359248 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 73.92984102 Approximate Gamma UCL 34.47541 nu star 58.20244181 Adjusted Gamma UCL 36.20308 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 41.66034026 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03009 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 39.67223635 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.938488
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Log-transformed Statistics Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
Minimum of log data 2.174751721 Maximum of log data 4.060443011 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data 3.019840056 95% H-UCL 38.22955 Standard Deviation of log data 0.636835776 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 44.37331 Variance of log data 0.405559806 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 52.90956
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 69.67736
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 31.8504 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 33.01205 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 32.63097 Jackknife UCL 32.44977 Standard Bootstrap UCL 31.61168 Bootstrap-t UCL 33.60943
RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 32.53521 Data are normal (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 31.84615
BCA Bootstrap UCL 33.13846 Use Student's-t UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 43.6868
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 51.91239 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 68.06997
Suggested UC 32.44977
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Gamma Statistics k hat 1.476470783 k star (bias corrected) 1.187028808 Theta hat 1.266012704 Theta star 1.574713905 nu hat 38.38824037 nu star 30.862749 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 19.17031422 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03009 Adjusted Chi Square Value 17.86642452
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
Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.750314 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Data not normal at 5% significance level
95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 2.679063
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
95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 3.009319 Adjusted Gamma UCL 3.228939
Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.745398 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL 3.872264 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 3.997704 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 4.92743 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 6.753696
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 2.616616 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 2.723815 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 2.695784 Jackknife UCL 2.679063 Standard Bootstrap UCL 2.590668 Bootstrap-t UCL 2.945768 Hall's Bootstrap UCL 2.485948 Percentile Bootstrap UCL 2.6 BCA Bootstrap UCL 2.653846 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 3.84982 97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 4.706822 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 6.390237
Suggested UCL 3.84982
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
K-S Test Statistic 0.201467 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.242053
k hat 1.23253152 Data follow gamma distribution k star (bias corrected) 0.999383221 at 5% significance level Theta hat 5.147629315 Theta star 6.348531028 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 32.04581952 Approximate Gamma UCL 10.72933 nu star 25.98396373 Adjusted Gamma UCL 11.60008 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 15.36519033 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03009 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 14.21182248 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.953805
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Log-transformed Statistics Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
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
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 25.19513
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 9.304469 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 10.0282 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 9.664664 Jackknife UCL 9.551776 Standard Bootstrap UCL 9.216703 Bootstrap-t UCL 10.85017
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
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 17.58226 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 24.24905
Suggested UCL 10.72933
L
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Gamma Statistics k hat 1.352962125 k star (bias corrected) 1.092022147 Theta hat 0.604371913 Theta star 0.748787293 nu hat 35.17701525 nu star 28.39257583 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 17.23204401 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03009 Adjusted Chi Square Value 16.0027888
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
Normal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.562586 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Data not normal at 5% significance level
95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Student's-t UCL 1.327651
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
95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) Approximate Gamma UCL 1.34728 Adjusted Gamma UCL 1.450772
Lognormal Distribution Test Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.723912 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) 95% H-UCL 1.364481 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1.484572 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1.811749 99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 2.454426
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 1.288328 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 1.503027 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 1.36114 Jackknife UCL 1.327651 Standard Bootstrap UCL 1.253626 Bootstrap-t UCL 3.696796 Hall's Bootstrap UCL 3.735817 Percentile Bootstrap UCL 1.318462 BCA Bootstrap UCL 1.51 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 2.064887 97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 2.604549 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 3.664611
Suggested UC 2.064887
d UCL
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
K-S Test Statistic 0.507912 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.256866
k hat 0.28937533 Data do not follow gamma distribution k star (bias corrected) 0.27387846 at 5% significance level Theta hat 15093.5197 Theta star 15947.5567 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 7.52375869 Approximate Gamma UCL 13906.37 nu star 7.12084002 Adjusted Gamma UCL 16656.88 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 2.23650291 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03009 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 1.86719446 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.586165
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Log-transformed Statistics Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
Minimum of log data 4.78749174 Maximum of log data 10.8395809 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data 5.98499114 95% H-UCL 11654.74 Standard Deviation of log data 1.66642833 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 4215.801 Variance of log data 2.77698339 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 5478.033
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 7957.444
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
RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 721152.2 Data are Non-parametric (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 11945.38
BCA Bootstrap UCL 16091.54 Use 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 21339.94
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 28683.85 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 43109.53
Suggeste 43109.53
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
K-S Test Statistic 0.253851 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.228735
k hat 9.42341302 Data do not follow gamma distribution k star (bias corrected) 7.45172928 at 5% significance level Theta hat 0.02281551 Theta star 0.02885236 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 263.855565 Approximate Gamma UCL 0.254571 nu star 208.64842 Adjusted Gamma UCL 0.260413 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 176.215913 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03122 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 172.262868 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.815619
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Log-transformed Statistics Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
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
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.430262
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 0.243685 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 0.241228 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 0.2455 Jackknife UCL 0.245883 Standard Bootstrap UCL 0.243087 Bootstrap-t UCL 0.244408
RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 0.243499 Data are normal (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.242143
BCA Bootstrap UCL 0.24 Use Student's-t UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.291015
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.323907 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.388516
Suggested UCL 0.245883
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Bass 1D 0.13 Bass 2 0.12 Bass 3 0.12 Bass 4 0.23 Bass 5 0.12 Bass 6 0.12 Bass 7 0.13
Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 14 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.615459 Number of Unique Samples 5 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Minimum 0.12 Data not normal at 5% significance level Maximum 0.3 Mean 0.15357143 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 0.13 Student's-t UCL 0.181763 Standard Deviation 0.05956343 Variance 0.0035478 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 0.38785489 A-D Test Statistic 2.581464 Skewness 1.77950624 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.734899
K-S Test Statistic 0.437012 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.228729
k hat 9.46746757 Data do not follow gamma distribution k star (bias corrected) 7.48634356 at 5% significance level Theta hat 0.01622096 Theta star 0.02051354 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 265.089092 Approximate Gamma UCL 0.181762 nu star 209.61762 Adjusted Gamma UCL 0.185922 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 177.10706 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03122 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 173.143675 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.637742
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Log-transformed Statistics Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
Minimum of log data -2.1202635 Maximum of log data -1.2039728 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data -1.9273306 95% H-UCL 0.181164 Standard Deviation of log data 0.31774133 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.209625 Variance of log data 0.10095955 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.234344
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.282899
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 0.179756 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 0.187846 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 0.183025 Jackknife UCL 0.181763 Standard Bootstrap UCL 0.178915 Bootstrap-t UCL 0.198195
RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 0.174855 Data are Non-parametric (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.180714
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
Suggested UCL 0.183025
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Bass 1D 0.85 Bass 2 0.50 Bass 3 0.39 Bass 4 0.77 Bass 5 0.11 Bass 6 0.88 Bass 7 0.44
Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 14 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.741786 Number of Unique Samples 14 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Minimum 0.11 Data not normal at 5% significance level Maximum 48 Mean 13.14571429 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 1.99 Student's-t UCL 21.34826 Standard Deviation 17.33047636 Variance 300.345411 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 1.318336607 A-D Test Statistic 1.027553 Skewness 0.940149196 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.806934
K-S Test Statistic 0.256328 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.243805
k hat 0.429494894 Data do not follow gamma distribution k star (bias corrected) 0.385079321 at 5% significance level Theta hat 30.60738201 Theta star 34.13767906 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 12.02585703 Approximate Gamma UCL 31.95606 nu star 10.782221 Adjusted Gamma UCL 36.25603 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 4.435464817 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03122 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 3.909418366 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.884067
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Log-transformed Statistics Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
Minimum of log data -2.207274913 Maximum of log data 3.871201011 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data 1.061360462 95% H-UCL 425.732 Standard Deviation of log data 2.085653629 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 65.93177 Variance of log data 4.349951059 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 86.82226
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 127.8576
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 20.76429 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 22.00783 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 21.54223 Jackknife UCL 21.34826 Standard Bootstrap UCL 20.44628 Bootstrap-t UCL 24.11719
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
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 42.07108 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 59.23119
Recommended UCL exceeds the maximum observation Suggested UCL 59.23119
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Bass 1D 0.02 Bass 2 0.02 Bass 3 0.02 Bass 4 0.02 Bass 5 0.02 Bass 6 0.04 Bass 7 0.02
Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 14 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.764241 Number of Unique Samples 7 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Minimum 0.02 Data not normal at 5% significance level Maximum 0.15 Mean 0.07285714 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 0.045 Student's-t UCL 0.100482 Standard Deviation 0.05836603 Variance 0.00340659 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 0.80110237 A-D Test Statistic 1.358312 Skewness 0.42341244 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.750541
K-S Test Statistic 0.27386 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.232705
k hat 1.51150418 Data do not follow gamma distribution k star (bias corrected) 1.23522948 at 5% significance level Theta hat 0.04820175 Theta star 0.05898268 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 42.3221172 Approximate Gamma UCL 0.113859 nu star 34.5864254 Adjusted Gamma UCL 0.121052 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 22.1314002 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03122 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 20.81635 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.773192
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Log-transformed Statistics Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
Minimum of log data -3.912023 Maximum of log data -1.89712 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data -2.9851704 95% H-UCL 0.152792 Standard Deviation of log data 0.92092019 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.159881 Variance of log data 0.84809399 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.19696
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.269795
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 0.098515 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 0.100401 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 0.100776 Jackknife UCL 0.100482 Standard Bootstrap UCL 0.097733 Bootstrap-t UCL 0.106261
RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 0.096013 Data are Non-parametric (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.097857
BCA Bootstrap UCL 0.097143 Use 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.140852
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.170273 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.228065
Suggested UCL 0.140852
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Bass 1D 3.62 Bass 2 0.59 Bass 3 0.50 Bass 4 0.49 Bass 5 0.29 Bass 6 0.58 Bass 7 0.46
Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 13 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.572036 Number of Unique Samples 11 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Minimum 0.29 Data not normal at 5% significance level Maximum 9.1 Mean 1.710769231 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 0.87 Student's-t UCL 2.886117 Standard Deviation 2.377717608 Variance 5.653541026 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 1.389852919 A-D Test Statistic 1.028396 Skewness 2.927087613 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.755163
K-S Test Statistic 0.302753 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.242366
k hat 1.158181919 Data do not follow gamma distribution k star (bias corrected) 0.94219122 at 5% significance level Theta hat 1.477116161 Theta star 1.815734635 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 30.1127299 Approximate Gamma UCL 2.94603 nu star 24.49697172 Adjusted Gamma UCL 3.194095 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 14.22547272 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03009 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 13.12067105 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.912635
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.866 Log-transformed Statistics Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
Minimum of log data -1.23787436 Maximum of log data 2.208274414 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data 0.046719211 95% H-UCL 3.259362 Standard Deviation of log data 0.914784274 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 3.331656 Variance of log data 0.836830269 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 4.112782
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 5.647152
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 2.795485 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 3.367534 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 2.975345 Jackknife UCL 2.886117 Standard Bootstrap UCL 2.744757 Bootstrap-t UCL 6.920741
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
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 5.829097 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 8.272315
Suggested UCL 3.259362
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Bass 1D 46.86 Bass 2 33.2 Bass 3 17.2 Bass 4 32.3 Bass 5 5.7 Bass 6 29.5 Bass 7 15.5
Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 14 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.794022 Number of Unique Samples 14 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Minimum 5.7 Data not normal at 5% significance level Maximum 262 Mean 99.7328571 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 45.38 Student's-t UCL 146.4663 Standard Deviation 98.7391437 Variance 9749.4185 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 0.99003625 A-D Test Statistic 0.533794 Skewness 0.88406089 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.759682
K-S Test Statistic 0.199384 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.235058
k hat 1.01494056 Data follow gamma distribution k star (bias corrected) 0.84507234 at 5% significance level Theta hat 98.2647275 Theta star 118.016946 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 28.4183356 Approximate Gamma UCL 173.6455 nu star 23.6620256 Adjusted Gamma UCL 187.4977 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 13.590227 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03122 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 12.586191 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.936667
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Log-transformed Statistics Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
Minimum of log data 1.74046618 Maximum of log data 5.5683445 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data 4.03476094 95% H-UCL 328.0764 Standard Deviation of log data 1.19663279 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 271.9612 Variance of log data 1.43193003 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 343.3399
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 483.5495
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 143.1391 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 149.8014 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 147.5055 Jackknife UCL 146.4663 Standard Bootstrap UCL 141.9993 Bootstrap-t UCL 157.4446
RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 137.3182 Data follow gamma distribution (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 141.1871
BCA Bootstrap UCL 150.4286 Use Approximate Gamma UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 214.7605
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 264.533 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 362.3015
Suggested UCL 173.6455
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Bass 1D 1.58 Bass 2 2.20 Bass 3 1.50 Bass 4 1.70 Bass 5 0.40 Bass 6 3.20 Bass 7 1.40
Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 14 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.73154 Number of Unique Samples 14 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Minimum 0.4 Data not normal at 5% significance level Maximum 31.6 Mean 9.80571429 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 3.35 Student's-t UCL 15.34628 Standard Deviation 11.7062046 Variance 137.035226 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 1.19381457 A-D Test Statistic 0.892341 Skewness 1.06040514 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.770354
K-S Test Statistic 0.211031 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.237529
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
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Log-transformed Statistics Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
Minimum of log data -0.9162907 Maximum of log data 3.45315712 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data 1.49226454 95% H-UCL 42.28981 Standard Deviation of log data 1.36980798 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 28.32309 Variance of log data 1.87637391 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 36.18105
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 51.6165
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 14.95183 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 15.89924 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 15.49406 Jackknife UCL 15.34628 Standard Bootstrap UCL 14.70207 Bootstrap-t UCL 18.28157
RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 13.93766 Assuming gamma distribution (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 15.06429
BCA Bootstrap UCL 15.60429 Use Approximate Gamma UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 23.44303
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 29.34391 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 40.93504
Suggested UCL 18.80973
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Bass 1D 0.21 Bass 2 0.25 Bass 3 0.26 Bass 4 0.24 Bass 5 0.18 Bass 6 0.07 Bass 7 0.13
Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 14 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.821864 Number of Unique Samples 12 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Minimum 0.025 Data not normal at 5% significance level Maximum 0.26 Mean 0.12835714 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 0.1 Student's-t UCL 0.174055 Standard Deviation 0.09655099 Variance 0.00932209 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 0.75220581 A-D Test Statistic 0.948477 Skewness 0.25297833 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.749927
K-S Test Statistic 0.210287 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.232563
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
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Log-transformed Statistics Data not lognormal at 5% significance level
Minimum of log data -3.68887945 Maximum of log data -1.34707365 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data -2.40245201 95% H-UCL 0.274758 Standard Deviation of log data 0.92289651 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.287154 Variance of log data 0.85173798 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.353824
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.484783
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 0.170802 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 0.172666 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 0.174346 Jackknife UCL 0.174055 Standard Bootstrap UCL 0.16837 Bootstrap-t UCL 0.174885
RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 0.167374 Assuming gamma distribution (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.168857
BCA Bootstrap UCL 0.168357 Use Approximate Gamma UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.240836
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.289505 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.385107
Suggested UCL 0.198582
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Bass 1D 0.58 Bass 2 0.70 Bass 3 0.60 Bass 4 0.70 Bass 5 0.64 Bass 6 0.58 Bass 7 0.53
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
K-S Test Statistic 0.176416 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.228481
k hat 14.59948061 Data follow gamma distribution k star (bias corrected) 11.51863953 at 5% significance level Theta hat 0.03610696 Theta star 0.045764333 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 408.7854571 Approximate Gamma UCL 0.603092 nu star 322.5219068 Adjusted Gamma UCL 0.614066 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 281.9056189 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03122 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 276.8680367 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.901424
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Log-transformed Statistics Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
Minimum of log data -1.38629436 Maximum of log data -0.35667494 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data -0.67492227 95% H-UCL 0.616422 Standard Deviation of log data 0.286737106 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.707392 Variance of log data 0.082218168 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.784601
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.936262
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 0.585295 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 0.57969 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 0.588879 Jackknife UCL 0.589753 Standard Bootstrap UCL 0.583044 Bootstrap-t UCL 0.584842
RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 0.582139 Data are normal (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.582143
BCA Bootstrap UCL 0.579286 Use Student's-t UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.681248
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.74793 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.878913
Suggested UCL 0.589753
Appendix B Upper Confidence Limits - Fish Tissue
Brown's Lake Monitoring Program - 2004 Monitoring Event
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
Bass 1D 0.08 Bass 2 0.05 Bass 3 0.04 Bass 4 0.05 Bass 5 0.02 Bass 6 0.07 Bass 7 0.02
Raw Statistics Normal Distribution Test Number of Valid Samples 14 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.84107 Number of Unique Samples 11 Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Minimum 0.02 Data not normal at 5% significance level Maximum 0.35 Mean 0.130714286 95% UCL (Assuming Normal Distribution) Median 0.09 Student's-t UCL 0.184052 Standard Deviation 0.112691839 Variance 0.012699451 Gamma Distribution Test Coefficient of Variation 0.862123358 A-D Test Statistic 0.359971 Skewness 1.000151087 A-D 5% Critical Value 0.751279
K-S Test Statistic 0.143681 Gamma Statistics K-S 5% Critical Value 0.232892
k hat 1.466211998 Data follow gamma distribution k star (bias corrected) 1.19964276 at 5% significance level Theta hat 0.089151014 Theta star 0.108961009 95% UCLs (Assuming Gamma Distribution) nu hat 41.05393593 Approximate Gamma UCL 0.2058 nu star 33.58999728 Adjusted Gamma UCL 0.219032 Approx.Chi Square Value (.05) 21.33478513 Adjusted Level of Significance 0.03122 Lognormal Distribution Test Adjusted Chi Square Value 20.04589144 Shapiro-Wilk Test Statisitic 0.946303
Shapiro-Wilk 5% Critical Value 0.874 Log-transformed Statistics Data are lognormal at 5% significance level
Minimum of log data -3.91202301 Maximum of log data -1.04982212 95% UCLs (Assuming Lognormal Distribution) Mean of log data -2.41300103 95% H-UCL 0.284239 Standard Deviation of log data 0.944109273 95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.293081 Variance of log data 0.891342318 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.361914
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 0.497124
95% Non-parametric UCLs CLT UCL 0.180254 Adj-CLT UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 0.188856 Mod-t UCL (Adjusted for skewness) 0.185393 Jackknife UCL 0.184052 Standard Bootstrap UCL 0.179469 Bootstrap-t UCL 0.195678
RECOMMENDATION Hall's Bootstrap UCL 0.17965 Data follow gamma distribution (0.05) Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.177857
BCA Bootstrap UCL 0.186429 Use Approximate Gamma UCL 95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.261996
97.5% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.318802 99% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL 0.430386
Suggested UCL 0.2058
Appendix C CDI Calculations
Supplemental HHRA Brown’s Lake Site
Record of Decision Fort Eustis, Virginia
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