report: final screening level ecological risk assessment

FINAL SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT PUCHACK WELL FIELD SITE, OPERABLE UNIT 2

PENNSAUKEN TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY Work Assignment No. 007-RICO-02JL

Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

290 Broadway New York, New York 10007-1866

October 15, 2009

Prepared by CDM Federal Programs Corporation

125 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor New York, New York 10038

EPA Work Assignment No. : 007-RICO-02JL EPA Region : 2 Contract No. : EP-W-09-002 CDM Federal Programs Corporation Document No. : 3320-007-00203 Prepared by : CDM Site Manager : Frank Tsang, P.E. Telephone Number : (212) 377-4056 EPA Remedial Project Manager : Jon Gorin Telephone Number : (212) 637-4361 Date Prepared : October 15, 2009

300001

A i Final Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment

Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1 Section 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Report Organization ................................................................................................. 1-2

Section 2 Problem Formulation ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Site Location and Description .................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Site History ................................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.3 Site Geology and Hydrogeology ............................................................. 2-3 2.1.3.1 Site Geology ............................................................................... 2-3 2.1.3.2 Site Hydrogeology ..................................................................... 2-4 2.1.4 Habitat and Biota ....................................................................................... 2-5 2.1.5 Threatened, Endangered Species/Sensitive Environments ................ 2-8 2.1.5.1 Federally-Listed Species ........................................................... 2-8 2.1.5.2 State-Listed Species ................................................................... 2-8

2.2 Sample Collection and Analysis ............................................................................. 2-9 2.2.1 Soil ............................................................................................................... 2-9 2.2.1.1 Volatile Organic Compounds .................................................. 2-9 2.2.1.2 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds ...................................... 2-10 2.2.1.3 Pesticides and PCBs ................................................................ 2-10 2.2.1.4 Target Analyte List Metals and Cyanide ............................. 2-10 2.2.1.5 Hexavalent Chromium ........................................................... 2-10 2.2.1.6 Soil Summary ........................................................................... 2-10 2.2.2 Sediment ................................................................................................... 2-11 2.2.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds ................................................ 2-11 2.2.2.2 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds ...................................... 2-11 2.2.2.3 Pesticides and PCBs ................................................................ 2-11 2.2.2.4 Target Analyte List Metals ..................................................... 2-11 2.2.2.5 Hexavalent Chromium ........................................................... 2-12 2.2.2.6 Sediment Summary................................................................. 2-12 2.2.3 Surface Water ........................................................................................... 2-12 2.2.3.1 Volatile Organic Compounds ................................................ 2-12 2.2.3.2 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds ...................................... 2-12 2.2.3.3 Pesticides and PCBs ................................................................ 2-12 2.2.3.4 Target Analyte List Metals ..................................................... 2-12 2.2.3.5 Hexavalent Chromium ........................................................... 2-12 2.2.3.6 Surface Water Summary ........................................................ 2-13

2.3 Risk Questions ........................................................................................................ 2-13 2.4 Conceptual Site Model ........................................................................................... 2-13

300002

Contents Final Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment

A ii Final Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment

2.4.1 Sources of Contamination ...................................................................... 2-13 2.4.2 Exposure Pathways ................................................................................. 2-14 2.4.3 Assessment Endpoints ............................................................................ 2-14 2.4.4 Measurement Endpoints ........................................................................ 2-15

2.5 Risk Characterization Methods ............................................................................ 2-15 Section 3 Exposure Assessment........................................................................................... 3-1 Section 4 Effects Assessment ............................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Literature-Based Effects Data.................................................................................. 4-1 Section 5 Risk Characterization .......................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Hazard Quotient Approach .................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 HQ-based Risk Estimates ........................................................................................ 5-1 5.3 Evaluation of Site-Specific Data .............................................................................. 5-2 5.4 Evaluation Approach ............................................................................................... 5-2 5.5 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern ................................................ 5-2 5.6 Risk Summary ........................................................................................................... 5-3

Section 6 Uncertainty Assessment ...................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Problem Formulation ............................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Exposure Assessment ............................................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Effects Assessment ................................................................................................... 6-2 6.4 Risk Characterization ............................................................................................... 6-3

Section 7 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................. 7-1 Section 8 References .............................................................................................................. 8-1

300003


A iii Final Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment

List of Tables 2-1 List of Plant Species Observed 2-2 Wildlife Species Observed 5-1 Chemicals of Potential Concern Detected in Soil 5-2 Chemicals of Potential Concern Detected in Sediment 5-3 Chemicals of Potential Concern Detected in Surface Water List of Figures 2-1 Site Location Map 2-2 Sample Location Map 2-3 Conceptual Site Model Appendices Appendix A Letter from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Appendix B Analytical Results Appendix C Fate, Transport and Toxicity of Chemicals of Potential Concern

300004


A iv Final Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment

Acronyms and Abbreviations ABS A. Barry Steel Inc. APS Advance Process Supply Company BERA baseline ecological risk assessment BTAG Biological Technical Assistance Group CDM CDM Federal Programs Corporation COPC chemical of potential concern CSM conceptual site model 1,2-DCA 1,2-dichloroethane 1,1-DCE 1,1-dichloroethene DQO data quality objective EC exposure concentration EcoSSL ecological soil screening level EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ERAGS Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund ESL ecological screening level HQ hazard quotient Kow octanol/water partition coefficient LOAEL lowest-observed-adverse-effect level MCL maximum contaminant level mg/kg milligram per kilogram mg/L milligram per liter NJ New Jersey NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAEL no-observed-adverse-effect level NPC National Paving Company OU Operable Unit PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PCE tetrachloroethene QAPP quality assurance project plan QC quality control RAC Response Action Contract RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RD remedial design SGL SGL Property RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study SLERA screening level ecological risk assessment SMDP scientific management decision point SVOC semi-volatile organic compound TAL target analyte list TCL target compound list 1,1,1-TCA 1,1,1-trichloroethane TCE trichloroethene

300005


A v Final Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment

TDS total dissolved solids The site The Puchack Well Field Site, Operable Unit 2 TOC total organic carbon TSS total suspended solid USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey VOC volatile organic compound μg/kg microgram per kilogram μg/L microgram per liter

300006

A ES-1 Final Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment

Executive Summary CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM) received Work Assignment Number 177-RICO-02JL under the Response Action Contract (RAC) II program to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for Operable Unit (OU) 2 of the Puchack Well Field Superfund Site (the site) for the United States Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2. The site is located in Pennsauken Township, Camden, New Jersey. At the termination of that contract, the project was transferred to the current Region 2 RAC2 contract as Work Assignment Number 007-RICO-02JL.

The overall purpose of the work assignment is to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination at the site and to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives, as appropriate. This screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA), as part of the RI/FS, evaluates the ecological risks associated with terrestrial and aquatic environments present within OU 2 of the study area. The site is located in a commercial, industrial, and residential neighborhood. Several hundred single and multi-family residential buildings, commercial buildings, and industrial facilities are located within a two mile radius of the site.

The objective of this SLERA is to evaluate the potential ecological impact of contaminants at the site. Conservative assumptions are used to identify exposure pathways and, where possible, quantify potential ecological risks. This report is prepared in accordance with the following documents:

EPA’s 1997 Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Interim Final

EPA’s 1998 Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment

Site Background Groundwater contamination consisting of trichloroethene (TCE), 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and chromium was first detected at Puchack Well No. 6 in the early 1970s. Subsequently, additional field efforts were conducted by multiple regulatory agencies investigating the extent of contamination. OU2 addresses the investigation and cleanup of source (soil and subsurface soils) areas that contributed to the site’s groundwater contamination. During the screening phase of the OU2 RI, several potential source areas were investigated. The results of the screening phase refined the list of potential sources as King Arthur and SGL properties, the two areas evaluated in the SLERA.

Site-related contaminants were selected based on the site history and the results of the RI for OU1 conducted by CDM. Results of that investigation determined that site-related contaminants are chromium, hexavalent chromium, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primarily TCE, 1,2-DCA, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), and PCE. Ecological Reconnaissance and Presence of Threatened and Endangered Species As part of the SLERA, an ecological reconnaissance was performed at the site and focused on any available habitat within the King Arthur and SGL properties. Tippin’s

300007

Executive Summary


Pond was included in the ecological reconnaissance.

Information regarding threatened and endangered species and ecologically sensitive environments that may exist at or in the vicinity of the site was requested from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).

The USFWS reported that a review of their records for the site and surrounding areas indicated that with the exception of an occasional transient bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) no federally-listed or proposed threatened or endangered species are known to occur within the vicinity of the site.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) indicated that the federally endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is known to occur in the Delaware River. This is the only species listed under the jurisdiction of the NMFS that occurs in the Delaware River.

The NJDEP reported that a review of their records for the site and surrounding areas indicate that the following state-listed threatened, endangered or concerned species or habitat may occur on or near the site.

Bald eagle Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines) Bald eagle foraging habitat

Additional species within ¼ mile of the site:

Shortnose sturgeon Tidewater mucket (Leptodea ochracea)

A search of NJDEP records for the presence of rare ecological communities showed that the site is located within the vicinity of a freshwater tidal marsh complex. This area is immediately northeast of Petty Island along the Delaware River west of the SGL property.

During the field ecological reconnaissance no federal- or state-listed rare, endangered, and threatened species were observed.

Sample Collection and Analysis The following environmental media were collected and evaluated in this SLERA:

Two surface soil samples from King Arthur Seven surface soil samples from the SGL area Five surface soil samples from Tippin’s Pond Three collocated sediment and surface water samples from Tippin’s Pond

300008

Executive Summary


Soil: Soil from the SGL property had the highest concentrations and most contaminants detected throughout the study area. Site-related contaminants chromium, hexavalent chromium, TCE, and PCE were detected in several samples from this area. Hexavalent chromium was detected in one sample from King Arthur, and PCE was detected in two samples collected from Tippin’s Pond park. Chromium was detected in soil samples from all locations. Sediment: With the exception of chromium, no other site-related contaminants were detected in the three sediment samples from Tippin’s Pond. Surface Water: With the exception of chromium, no other site-related contaminants were detected in the three surface water samples from Tippin’s Pond. Summary and Conclusions Based on a comparison of maximum detected concentrations of contaminants in site soil, sediment, and surface water to conservatively derived ESLs, the potential for ecological risk may occur. Specifically, HQs > 1.0 were calculated, which indicate potential risk from exposure to the following media-specific contaminants.

Soil SVOCs: naphthalene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, and benzo(a)pyrene Pesticides: dieldrin, 4,4’-DDT, and endrin ketone Inorganics: antimony, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, copper,

lead, mercury, vanadium, and zinc

Sediment SVOCs: benzo(k)fluoranthene Pesticides: 4,4’-DDE and 4,4’-DDD PCBs: Aroclor-1260 Inorganics: antimony, cadmium, copper, lead, and mercury

Surface Water Inorganics: aluminum, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese,

vanadium, and zinc

Potential risk from the following media-specific contaminants cannot be concluded as ESLs are not available for these compounds:

Soil: aluminum and carbazole Sediment: aluminum, barium, beryllium, thallium, and vanadium

COPCs were comprised of different classes of contaminants in this SLERA; however, it is unlikely that all are site-related. Review of site background and historical information (Section 2.1.2) show the primary contaminants for the site are chromium, hexavalent chromium, and VOCs, primarily TCE, 1,2-DCA, 1,1,1-TCA, and PCE.

Concentrations of chromium in soil and surface water exceeded their respective ecological screening criteria; however, the exceedance in surface water was noted for

300009

Executive Summary


only one location, SW-201 with a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1.3. Concentrations of chromium that exceeded the soil screening criterion were limited to four samples from the SGL property: SGL-SB203-00, SGL-SB204-00, SGL-SB206-00, and SGL-SB207-00. HQs calculated for chromium in these samples were 2.5, 18.5, 41.5, and 27.3, respectively. Concentrations of hexavalent chromium exceeded the soil criterion at location SGL-SB206-00, with an HQ of 1.5. TCE and PCE were detected; however, concentrations were orders of magnitude below their respective screening criteria.

Other constituents detected such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, and other metals are typically associated with urbanized/industrialized areas such as those within the study area and may not be site-related. In addition, HQs for these contaminants were relatively low. The majority of sediment and soil-based HQs, in general, were less than 3.0 and 4.0, respectively. Surface water HQs were some of the highest calculated; however, most were limited to contaminants detected in sample SW-201. In conclusion, results of the SLERA, which utilized the most conservative assumptions, indicate potential risk to ecological receptors from site-related contaminants chromium and hexavalent chromium.

300010

A 1-1 Final Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment

Section 1 Introduction CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM) received Work Assignment Number 177-RICO-02JL under the Response Action Contract (RAC) II program to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for Operable Unit (OU) 2 of the Puchack Well Field Superfund Site (the site) for the United States Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2. The site is located in Pennsauken Township, Camden, New Jersey (NJ). At the termination of that contract, the project was transferred to the current Region 2 RAC2 contract as Work Assignment Number 007-RICO-02JL.

The overall purpose of the work assignment is to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination at the site and to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives, as appropriate. This Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA), as part of the RI/FS, evaluates the ecological risks associated with terrestrial and aquatic environments present within the study area. 1.1 Objectives The objective of this SLERA is to evaluate the potential ecological impact of contaminants at the site. Conservative assumptions are used to identify exposure pathways and, where possible, quantify potential ecological risks. This report is prepared in accordance with the following documents:

■ EPA’s Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Interim Final (ERAGS) (EPA 1997)

■ EPA’s Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (EPA 1998)

The SLERA consists of Steps 1 and 2 of the eight step process presented in the EPA Guidance (EPA 1997). In Step 1 of the ERAGS, the screening level problem formulation and ecological effects evaluation, descriptions are developed of:

■ Environmental setting ■ Contaminants known or suspected to exist at the site and the maximum

concentrations present in each medium ■ Contaminant fate and transport mechanisms that might exist ■ Mechanisms of ecotoxicity associated with contaminants and categories of

receptors that may be affected ■ Potentially complete exposure pathways

In Step 2 of the ERAGS, the screening level preliminary exposure estimate and risk calculations, risk is estimated by comparing maximum documented exposure concentrations with the ecotoxicity screening values identified in Step 1. The process concludes with a scientific management decision point (SMDP), which determines that:

■ Ecological threats are negligible ■ Ecological risk assessment should continue to determine whether a risk exists

300011

Section 1 Introduction

A 1-2

Final Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment

■ There is a potential for adverse ecological effects, and a baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA), incorporating more site-specific information, is needed.

Per EPA’s ERAGS (1997), a SMDP will be made by risk managers.

1.2 Report Organization This SLERA is composed of eight sections and three appendices as presented below. Section 1 Introduction – provides an overview of the objectives and organization

of the report.

Section 2 Problem Formulation – presents the environmental setting, sample collection and analysis, risk questions, conceptual site model (CSM), and the process for selecting chemicals of potential concern (COPCs).

Section 3 Exposure Assessment – presents the pathways and media through which receptors may be exposed to site contaminants.

Section 4 Effects Assessment – presents the literature based- and chemical-specific ecological screening levels (ESLs) for detected chemicals.

Section 5 Risk Characterization – integrates information from the exposure and effects assessments and expands upon discussion of chemical properties of identified COPCs to evaluate risk to representative ecological receptors.

Section 6 Uncertainty Assessment – discusses the uncertainties associated with assumptions utilized in this SLERA.

Section 7 Summary and Conclusions – summarizes the significant findings of the SLERA.

Section 8 References – provides a list of references cited in this report.

Tables and figures are presented at the end of the text. In addition, Appendix A presents letters received from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding State and federally-listed threatened and endangered species at or in the vicinity of the site. Appendix B provides analytical results of soil, sediment, and surface water samples used to develop this SLERA. Fate, transport, and toxicity information for COPCs is included in Appendix C.

300012


Section 2 Problem Formulation The problem formulation for this SLERA contains overviews of the environmental setting, sample collection and analysis, potential sources of contamination, the initial tier of assessment endpoints selected for the SLERA, potential exposure pathways, and the process for identifying COPCs. 2.1 Environmental Setting This subsection describes the site location and description, site history, site geology and hydrogeology, ecological habitat and biota, and threatened and endangered species that may occur at or in the vicinity of the site. 2.1.1 Site Location and Description The Puchack Well Field site is located in a commercial/industrial and residential neighborhood of Pennsauken Township, Camden, NJ (Figure 2-1). Several hundred single and multi-family residential buildings, commercial buildings, and industrial facilities are located within a two mile radius of the site. The Puchack Well Field consists of six municipal supply wells that are owned and were operated by the City of Camden. Due to the complexity of the site, EPA divided the site into two OUs. OU1 involves the investigation and cleanup of the site-wide chromium-contaminated groundwater, as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) present in conjunction with the chromium. OU1 is defined by the 70 micrograms per liter (µg/L) chromium isoconcentration line. The 70 µg/L chromium isoconcentration line was chosen because it is NJDEP’s Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for chromium, which is lower than EPA’s MCL (100 µg/L). Groundwater sampling data obtained from 1999 through 2001 were used to draw the 70 µg/L isoconcentration line, which shows that chromium-contaminated groundwater is situated in an area roughly bounded to the north by Route 90, to the east by Westfield Avenue, to the south by Cove Road, and to the west by the Conrail railroad track. As part of the remedial design (RD), a round of groundwater samples was collected from the existing wells in the summer of 2007 to determine the current extent of the chromium plume. OU2 addresses the investigation and cleanup of source areas that contributed to the site’s groundwater contamination. The preliminary review of historical sample results for known possible chromium sources within the current extent of the chromium plumes identified the following facilities as screening-level targets requiring further evaluation: SGL, King Arthur, Mercon, Penler, Advance Processing Supply Company (APS), and Davidson-Pacific. All facilities, except Penler, are located within the site boundary (CDM 2008a). Subsequently, the results of the screening phase refined the list of potential sources as King Arthur and SGL properties. Thus, these areas are evaluated in this SLERA.

300013

Section 2 Problem Formulation


2.1.2 Site History Groundwater contamination consisting of trichloroethene (TCE), 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and chromium was first detected at Puchack Well No. 6 in the early 1970s. Further sampling indicated the presence of hexavalent chromium (with relatively high solubility and toxicity) and trivalent chromium (with relatively low solubility and toxicity) at concentrations above the EPA MCL (100 µg/L). In 1978, chromium was detected in Puchack Well No. 5. In 1982, chromium was detected in Puchack Wells No. 2, 3, and 7. Historical chromium concentrations ranged from 1,500 to 3,000 µg/L. In 1984, general use of the well field was terminated. However, controlled pumping of Well No. 1 was instituted to act as a tentative plume containment measure. The pumping was terminated in 1998 due to concerns about the requirements to treat water withdrawn from the well.

In 1986, CDM investigated the chromium contamination in the well field on behalf of NJDEP. CDM found chromium concentrations up to 1,000 µg/L, mercury concentrations up to 5.8 µg/L, and TCE concentrations up to 70 µg/L in the well field.

In 1992, CDM was tasked by NJDEP to conduct a pilot-scale treatability study of the contaminated groundwater at the Puchack Well Field. Over a two month period, 1.7 million gallons of groundwater were treated. The pilot-scale system demonstrated a substantial reduction in chromium levels in the treated water.

In March of 1996, NJDEP collected samples from the Puchack supply wells and monitoring wells. Analytical results indicated chromium, mercury, and TCE were present in all of the supply wells.

Several contaminated sites were identified as potential chromium source areas for the Puchack Well Field by NJDEP in Pennsauken Township in the early 1980s. Potentially contaminated sites located within or near the Puchack Well Field site included SGL, King Arthur, Mercon, and Supertire, among others. The SGL site was used for chromium plating and is currently a parking lot with no historical structural features remaining.

In 1997, the United States Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with NJDEP, initiated a field investigation of the groundwater contamination of the Pennsauken Township area. Groundwater contaminated with chromium was found in the Middle aquifer in two isolated areas, one located at the SGL facility and one located to the north near the Pennsauken Landfill. Groundwater contamination at the Pennsauken Landfill is not related to the Puchack site. The SGL site is also the location of the highest hexavalent chromium groundwater contamination in the Middle aquifer at 11,540 µg/L. Based on the sampling results in the 1997-1998 USGS investigation, total chromium levels in the Middle aquifer, Intermediate Sand, and Lower aquifer generally ranged from non-detect to 10,250 µg/L, from 2 to 9,070 µg/L, and from non-detect to 3,454 µg/L, respectively.

The findings of the 1997-1998 sampling indicated that VOC contamination was more widespread, with multiple sources, and was present in pockets near contaminant

300014



source areas. VOC contamination in the three aquifers has commingled with the chromium plume and is generally larger in size. TCE, with estimated concentrations up to 140 µg/L, was the most frequently detected VOC. Other frequently detected VOCs included 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) with estimated concentrations up to 12,500 µg/L, 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) with estimated concentrations up to 3,580 µg/L, PCE with estimated concentrations up to 280 µg/L, and benzene with estimated concentrations up to 1,200 µg/L (CDM 2008a).

2.1.3 Site Geology and Hydrogeology This section provides a summary of the lithologic and hydrogeologic characteristics of the unconsolidated sediments that make up the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system in the vicinity of the Puchack Well Field site. The nature of the sediments that form the aquifer system, and the movement of groundwater within and between the aquifers are also summarized in this section.

2.1.3.1 Site Geology The study area is almost entirely urban land; the original surface soils have, in some instances, been replaced with soil and sediment from elsewhere. Indigenous soils commonly have been disturbed and soil series typical of the area, such as Freehold, Downer, Holmdel and Howell, generally have been mapped as urban land complexes (Markley 1966). Below the surficial deposits lie the unconsolidated sediments that make up the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system including the following deposits listed in depositional order.

Potomac Group: The oldest unconsolidated sediments in the area are sands and gravels of the Potomac Group which lie unconformably upon weathered bedrock (mica schist or clays derived from the schists). Sediments of the Potomac Group are interbedded sand and gravel, clayey silt, and silty clay.

Raritan Formation: The overlying Raritan Formation is composed of interbedded light-colored sands and red, white, or yellow silty clays (Owens and Sohl 1969).

Magothy Formation: The youngest of the Cretaceous sediments in the study area is the Magothy Formation, which is composed of light-colored quartzose sands and lenses of dark clay.

Tertiary/Quaternary Deposits: In Pennsauken Township and vicinity, permeable layers of sand and gravel of the Pensauken Formation and Quaternary deposits cap most of the extent of the outcrops of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system (Owens and Denny 1979; Farlekas et al. 1976). The Tertiary and Quaternary surficial units, which are of variable thickness, are hydraulically connected to the underlying Cretaceous sediments and, therefore, are considered to be part of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system.

300015



2.1.3.2 Site Hydrogeology The unconsolidated sediments described above make up the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system. In the Camden County area the aquifer system can be divided into five layers described as the Upper, Middle, and Lower aquifers separated by two confining units.

Due to the fluvial/deltaic depositional environment of the sediments that compose the aquifer system, discontinuities in individual units are common. Throughout the thickness of the Cretaceous sediments, channels have been cut and filled. Thus, major confining units and aquifers can contain either sand lenses that are local water-bearing zones that act as pathways for contaminant transport via groundwater movement or clay lenses that serve as local confining units. Major confining units also are found to pinch out in some areas. As a result, the hydraulic connections between the sedimentary units are complex.

Site Aquifers Four water-bearing units were encountered in the study area: the Upper aquifer (mostly unsaturated in the study area), the Middle aquifer, the Intermediate Sand (located within the middle confining unit), and the Lower aquifer, all separated by leaky confining units.

Upper Aquifer: The outcrop of the Upper aquifer, the least used of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifers in the vicinity of Pennsauken Township, covers a large part of the study area. Unconfined conditions generally prevail in this part of the aquifer as a result of the downward movement of water caused by pumping from the underlying, more heavily used aquifers. Where the Upper aquifer is unconfined and saturated, water levels are variable, indicating that, locally, perched conditions may occur.

Middle Aquifer: Below the upper aquifer, groundwater is present under water-table conditions in the outcrop areas and changes gradually to artesian conditions in areas to the southeast where the aquifers are confined. There are downward head gradients between the Middle aquifer and Intermediate Sand that promote movement of water from the middle aquifer down through the leaky confining units.

Intermediate Sand: Although hydraulic heads between the Intermediate Sand and the Lower aquifer are now similar, it is likely that during full-scale pumping at the Puchack well field, a greater downward head gradient between these two units existed. Under these conditions groundwater would have likely migrated through the middle confining unit (in areas where it was leaky) to the lower aquifer.

Lower Aquifer: In Pennsauken Township and vicinity, over 98 percent of the groundwater is pumped from the Lower aquifer (Walker and Jacobsen, 2003). Most of the recharge in areas closest to the Delaware River reaches the Lower aquifer from the river. Farther to the southeast, proportionately larger amounts of

300016



recharge reach the Lower aquifer through vertical leakage from the overlying aquifers. Leakage from the confining units between the major aquifers leads to the unsaturated conditions in the Upper aquifer described above.

Groundwater Flow Groundwater levels and flows in the study area are controlled by the sustained pumping of the Middle and Lower Aquifers, recharge from precipitation, and from the tidal Delaware River.

Groundwater in the Upper, Middle and Lower aquifers generally flows to the southeast, but can be highly variable because to a large extent, pumping at the many water supply well fields influences local groundwater flows and water levels. During full-scale pumping at the Puchack Well Field, groundwater flow directions, locally, were probably toward the northeast, but now have shifted to the southeast.

2.1.4 Habitat and Biota An ecological reconnaissance was performed for the site on June 13, 2008 in accordance with the CDM Final Work Plan (CDM 2008a). The field effort focused on areas which exhibited some type of marginal habitat suitable for supporting populations or communities that may potentially be exposed to contaminants present in the study area. The ecological reconnaissance included the King Arthur and SGL (including Tippin’s Pond) properties. Information regarding the habitats and biota observed is discussed in this section. Vegetation and wildlife species observed during the reconnaissance are presented in Tables 2-1 and 2-2, respectively. King Arthur The King Arthur area is located on Bethel Road. The area is occupied by office/warehouses bounded by Bethel Road, an undeveloped land parcel, other commercial and light industries and Arlington cemetery. Topography, in general, slopes east to west towards the Delaware River. Available habitat is mostly limited to the undeveloped land parcel as any other open areas consist mostly of mowed turf and weed species intermixed with ornamental landscaping shrubs on the outside of buildings.

The undeveloped land parcel is situated southeast of Bethel Road and is approximately 16 acres in size. In general, areas adjacent to buildings begin as mowed turf intermixed with weed species such as plantain (Plantago spp.), white clover (Trifolium repens) and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), followed by an unmaintained field of grasses and forbes and included open field species such as goldenrod (Solidago spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and rabbitfoot clover (Trifolium arvense). Sporadic stands of grey birch (Betula populifolia) and blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica) are found in this area which transitions into a wooded parcel consisting mostly of blackjack and scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea) with some sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Understory in this area was scant and consisted mostly of saplings of the above mentioned tree species. The wooded parcel abruptly ends at the border of the cemetery property; however, it continues northwest as a dense tree line

300017



forming a visual barrier along the eastern border of the cemetery. Moving north along the tree line, other trees species characteristic of disturbed areas such as black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), catalpa (Catalpa speciosa) and bigtooth aspen (Populus grandidentata) were observed. Understory was heavy and consisted of Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and Asiatic bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus).

Wildlife observed included eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), chipmunk (Tamias striatus) and grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). Several song birds were heard and whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) tracks were observed along with evidence of browsing on tree saplings.

SGL The SGL area consists of several properties which include the former SGL Modern Hard Chrome, A. Barry Steel Inc. (ABS), National Paving Company (NPC) and Tippin’s Pond Park properties. For ease of discussion, these properties are collectively referred to as the SGL area.

The majority of the SGL area is developed. The NPC is an active asphalt plant characterized by several piles of graded stones and aggregate and a distribution center for transport of materials. Adjacent to this property to the west is the former SGL and ABS properties which include a vacant, dilapidated steel building and a social club. The Delaware River is approximately 0.25 mile west of the area, and Tippin’s Pond is found approximately 750 feet to the southwest. Within the immediate vicinity of these properties lies an undeveloped wooded parcel north and west of the buildings. New Road is immediately south of the buildings and a Conrail line is situated to the west. Topography within the area is generally flat with a slight slope toward the northwest which conveys runoff toward the wooded parcel.

The wooded parcel of land is approximately 5.5 acres in size and has been subjected to disturbance activities such as excavation and the placement/disposal of fill material, aggregate and miscellaneous refuse. The interior of the wooded parcel can be described as mixed oak community consisting of several species of oaks intermixed with cherry (Prunus spp.), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoidea), and other miscellaneous species. Understory consisted mostly of saplings of the above mentioned species. Where intact, herbaceous vegetation was relatively dense and consisted mostly of false Solomon’s seal (Smilacina racemosa) and false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrical). Northwestern portions of the wooded parcel adjacent to the rail line were dominated by species more characteristic of disturbed areas such black locust, white mulberry (Morus alba), boxelder (Acer negundo), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), vetches (Vicia spp.), mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), and aster (Aster spp.).

Wildlife observed included eastern cottontail and chipmunk. Several song birds were heard and whitetail deer tracks were observed within the interior of the wooded parcel and within areas adjacent to the rail line.

300018



Tippin’s Pond Tippin’s Pond is a portion of the study area collectively known as the SGL area; however, it is discussed separately due to the presence of different habitat types, specifically, aquatic environments. The pond is approximately 5.5 acres in size and is located southwest and down gradient of the SGL property. The pond and surrounding area function as a municipal park approximately 14.5 acres in size; the park features boardwalks along the northern shore and walking trails around the pond and upland areas. Tippin’s Pond is freshwater and has a sand/gravel bottom. Depth is unknown; however, observations made from shore indicate the pond, in general, is relatively shallow. It is unknown if stormwater is routed into the pond, but it is assumed the pond is subjected to overland flow from upland areas including a parking lot, adjacent residential areas, New Road, Cove Road, an active rail line and the SGL property. Little aquatic vegetation was present within shallow water along the pond’s immediate periphery. Small stands of cattails (Typha latifolia) and yellow flag (Iris pseudacorus) were noted; woody species consisted mostly of sweetpepper bush (Clethra alnifolia), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) and willow (Salix spp.) along with other species.

Terrestrial habitat associated with Tippin’s Pond varied. The area adjacent to the parking lot off New Road consisted mainly of mowed turf grass and weed species. Trees noted within the maintained area consisted mostly of red (Morus rubra) and white mulberry, silver maple (Acer saccharinum), Norway maple (Acer platanoides) and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). Transition areas between the shoreline of Tippin’s Pond and mowed areas consisted mostly of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Asiatic bittersweet, poison ivy and saplings of mulberry and cherry. Moving east and south behind a vacant building located on the park property, the area can be described as a mixed oak community consisting mostly of red (Quercus rubra), chestnut (Quercus prinus) and scarlet oaks intermixed with some blackjack oak and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica). Understory was sparse, and consisted mostly of saplings of the above mentioned species along with those of cherry and white oak (Quercus alba). Herbaceous species consisted mostly of a few patches of grasses and moss. Remaining areas around the pond consisted of transition and upland communities similar to those found in other undeveloped/unmaintained portions of the area. Upland areas were comprised mostly of a mixed oak community intermixed with some black gum and American beech (Fagus grandifolia). Herbaceous species were scant, and the understory consisted mostly of saplings of dominant tree species. Moving downslope toward the pond, tulip tree, red maple (Acer rubra), and, to a lesser extent, catalpa, dominated the area. Understory consisted mostly of arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), saplings of the above mentioned tree species, and vines such as roundleaf greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle, and Asiatic bittersweet.

300019



Wildlife observed within Tippin’s Pond and adjacent areas included chipmunk, grey squirrel, garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and Baltimore oriole (Icterus galbula). Several other song birds were heard and whitetail deer tracks were observed. Within the pond several large carp (Cyprinus carpio) were observed along with sunfish (Lepomis spp.), an unidentified turtle, green frog (Rana clamitans), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and a mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) hen with ducklings.

2.1.5 Threatened, Endangered Species/Sensitive Environments Information regarding threatened and endangered species and ecologically sensitive environments that may exist at or in the vicinity of the site was requested from the USFWS and the NJDEP. Letters received from both agencies are presented in Appendix A.

2.1.5.1 Federally-Listed Species The USFWS reported that a review of their records for the site and surrounding areas indicated that with the exception of an occasional transient bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) no federally-listed or proposed threatened or endangered species are known to occur within the vicinity of the site.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) indicated that the federally endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is known to occur in the Delaware River. This is the only species listed under the jurisdiction of the NMFS that occurs in the Delaware River.

2.1.5.2 State-Listed Species The NJDEP reported that a review of their records for the site and surrounding areas indicate that the following state-listed threatened, endangered or concerned species or habitat may occur on or near the site.

Bald eagle Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines) Bald eagle foraging habitat

Additional species may be found within ¼ mile of the site:

Shortnose sturgeon Tidewater mucket (Leptodea ochracea)

A search of NJDEP records for the presence of rare ecological communities showed that the site is located within the vicinity of a freshwater tidal marsh complex. This area is immediately northeast of Petty Island along the Delaware River west of the SGL property.

300020



During the field ecological reconnaissance conducted on June 13, 2008, no federal- or state-listed rare, endangered, and threatened species were observed.

2.2 Sample Collection and Analysis Site-related contaminants were selected based on site history and results of the RI for OU1 conducted by CDM. Site-related contaminants are chromium, hexavalent chromium, and VOCs, primarily TCE, 1,2-DCA, 1,1,1-TCA, and PCE (CDM 2005). For this SLERA, soil represents the source of site-related contaminants which may eventually be transported to Tippin’s Pond via erosion and overland flow. Thus, in addition to soil, potential ecological risks due to the contamination of surface water and sediments in Tippin’s Pond are also evaluated. As a result, the SLERA focuses on potential risks to ecological receptors associated with both terrestrial and aquatic portions of the study area, specifically, those present and utilizing areas discussed in Section 2.1.4. Soil, sediment, and surface water samples were collected from locations discussed in Section 2.1.4. Soil samples were collected from potential source areas, or locations susceptible to runoff from source areas as identified during Stage 1 of the OU2 RI investigation. A total of 14 soil and 3 collocated surface water and sediment samples were collected in locations specified below (Figure 2-2). Background or reference samples were not collected as part of this investigation. Analytical results are in Appendix B. All data quality objective (DQO) goals for completeness, comparability, and representativeness established during project planning were achieved. All data are usable as reported with the data validation qualifiers added. A copy of the Data Quality Assessment Summary Report will be included in the RI report. 2.2.1 Soil A total of 14 surface soil samples were collected: 2 from King Arthur identified as KA-SB201-00 and KA-SB202-00, 7 from SGL identified as SGL-SB201-00, SGL -SB203-00, SGL-SB204-00, SGL-SB206-00, SGL-SB207-00, SGL-SB208-00, and SGL-SB209-00, and 5 from Tippin’s Pond identified as SS-201 through SS-205. All samples were collected in accordance with procedures outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (CDM 2008b). Samples were analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides/polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Target Analyte List (TAL) metals, and hexavalent chromium. Additional analyses included pH, grain size, and total organic carbon (TOC). 2.2.1.1 Volatile Organic Compounds Several VOCs were detected throughout the study area. The majority of compounds were detected in SGL soil samples followed by Tippin’s Pond and then King Arthur. The most common detected VOC was acetone followed by methylene chloride, and site–related VOCs TCE and PCE. Both acetone and methylene chloride are common laboratory contaminants and are not considered site-related. Detections of TCE were

300021



limited to SGL soil samples and ranged from 0.89 J microgram per kilogram (µg/kg) to 7.6 µg/kg; PCE was found in one sample (SGL-SB203-00) from SGL at a concentration of 1.5 J µg/kg and two locations within Tippin’s Pond with levels ranging from 0.36 J µg/kg to 0.43 J µg/kg. 2.2.1.2 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds Several SVOCs were detected in soil samples. The majority of compounds detected were polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The highest concentrations and most compounds detected were found in SGL sample SGL-SB203-00. The remaining samples from SGL had fewer compounds, levels considerably lower, or were not detected. Tippin’s Pond soil samples SS-201 and SS-202 had the second highest concentrations of PAHs detected. Only one SVOC, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, a common laboratory contaminant, was detected in both King Arthur soil samples.

2.2.1.3 Pesticides and PCBs Several pesticide compounds were detected in soil samples. Only endosulfan I was detected in King Arthur soil sample KA-SB201-00. No other pesticides were detected in samples from King Arthur. Concentrations of various pesticides detected at SGL and Tippin’s Pond samples were relatively consistent. The most common compound detected was 4,4-DDE followed by dieldrin. Concentrations ranged from 1 J µg/kg to 9.1 µg/kg, and 1.3 µg/kg to 5.9 µg/kg, respectively.

No PCBs were detected in samples from King Arthur or SGL samples SGL-SB201-00 through SGL-SB208-00. Aroclor 1254 and 1260 was found in SGL sample SGL-SB209-00 at concentrations of 83 µg/kg and 19 J µg/kg, respectively. Aroclor 1260 was detected in all Tippin’s Pond soil samples with the exception of SS-205. Concentrations ranged from 21 J µg/kg to 79 µg/kg.

2.2.1.4 Target Analyte List Metals Several metals were detected throughout the study area. The highest concentrations of most metals were found in samples collected from SGL. Sample SGL-SB206-00 had the highest concentrations of most metals than any other study area sample, including chromium at 1,080 J milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Chromium was also notably high at SGL-SB204-00 and SGL-SB207-00 at concentrations of 481 J mg/kg and 710 J mg/kg, respectively. In general, concentrations of other metals were consistent at all other locations.

2.2.1.5 Hexavalent Chromium Hexavalent chromium was not detected in any Tippin’s Pond soil samples. A concentration of 1.5 J mg/kg was detected in King Arthur soil sample KA-SB201-00. Hexavalent chromium was also found in samples SGL-SB203-00, SGL-SB204-00, SGL-SB206-00, and SGL-SB207-00 with concentrations ranging from 25 mg/kg to 200 mg/kg.

2.2.1.6 Soil Summary Soil from the SGL property had the highest concentrations and most contaminants

300022



detected throughout the study area. Site-related contaminants chromium, hexavalent chromium, TCE, and PCE were detected in several samples from this area. Hexavalent chromium was detected in one sample from King Arthur, and PCE was detected in two samples from Tippin’s Pond Park. Chromium was detected in soil samples from all locations.

SVOCs detected, in general, were mostly PAHs. Locations where elevated levels were noted were most often situated near paved parking lots, or within areas subject to road runoff. Aroclor 1254 and 1260 were detected in one sample from the SGL area; Aroclor 1260 was detected in every Tippin’s Pond Park soil sample with the exception of SS-205. This location was the southernmost location within the park’s boundaries. The highest concentrations of Aroclor 1260 were from samples near the park’s parking lot and near the location of sediment and surface water location SD/SW-201.

2.2.2 Sediment A total of three sediment samples identified as SD-201 through SD-203 were collected from Tippin’s Pond. All samples were collected in accordance with procedures outlined in the QAPP (CDM 2008b). Samples were analyzed for TCL VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, TAL metals, and hexavalent chromium. Additional analyses included pH, grain size, and TOC (Appendix B).

2.2.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds Three VOCs, acetone, carbon disulfide, and toluene, were detected in sediment samples. Acetone was also detected in the field blank and is often considered a common laboratory contaminant. Concentrations of carbon disulfide and toluene were 0.58 J µg/kg, and 0.23 J µg/kg, respectively.

2.2.2.2 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds Several SVOCs were detected at location SD-201 and were all PAHs. Levels ranged from 55 J µg/kg of anthracene to 470 µg/kg of pyrene. No SVOCs were detected in any other sediment sample.

2.2.2.3 Pesticides and PCBs Five pesticide compounds, heptachlor epoxide, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDT, and alpha-chlordane were detected in sediment samples. All compounds, and the highest concentrations detected, were at location SD-201. The most common pesticide was 4,4-DDE and ranged from 2.2 µg/kg to 12 µg/kg. Aroclor 1260 was detected at locations SD-201 and SD-202 at concentrations of 62 µg/kg and 35/µg/kg, respectively.

2.2.2.4 Target Analyte List Metals Several metals were detected in all sediment samples. The most metals and highest concentrations were found in sample SD-201. Chromium was detected in all three samples and ranged from 2.5 J mg/kg to 9.2 J mg/kg. Concentrations of metals detected in samples SD-202 and SD-203 were similar, and were slightly lower than those detected at SD-201.

300023



2.2.2.5 Hexavalent Chromium Hexavalent chromium was not detected in any sample.

2.2.2.6 Sediment Summary With the exception of chromium, no other site-related contaminants were detected in the three sediment samples from Tippin’s Pond. VOCs are most likely laboratory contaminants or residue from the decontamination of sampling equipment. Several PAHs were detected; however, they were only found in sample SD-201. This sample also had the most and highest concentrations of pesticides and metals. Location SD-201 is situated in a small cove on the northern portion of the pond that extends toward the northeast. This location is relatively isolated in regard to the other sediment locations, as these were collected within the main body of the pond along the shoreline.

2.2.3 Surface Water A total of three surface water samples identified as SW-201 through SW-203 were collected from Tippin’s Pond and were collocated with sediment samples. All samples were collected in accordance with procedures outlined in the QAPP (CDM 2008b). Samples were analyzed for TCL VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, TAL metals, and hexavalent chromium. Additional analyses included alkalinity, total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), and hardness (Appendix B).

2.2.3.1 Volatile Organic Compounds Acetone was detected in sample SW-201. This compound is typically associated with laboratory contamination and is most likely not associated with the site. In addition, acetone was also detected in the field blank. No other VOCs were detected in any samples. 2.2.3.2 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds Di-n-octylphthalate was detected in sample SW-201. No other SVOCs were detected in any samples.

2.2.3.3 Pesticides and PCBs No pesticides and PCBs were detected in any sample.

2.2.3.4 Target Analyte List Metals Several metals were detected in all samples. Concentrations of chromium ranged from 0.73 µg /L at SW-202 to 15 µg/L at SW-201. The highest concentrations of all metals detected (with the exception of sodium) were in sample SW-201. This sample was collocated with sediment sample SD-201 which also exhibited the most and highest metals along with other contaminants.

2.2.3.5 Hexavalent Chromium Hexavalent chromium was not detected in any sample.

300024



2.2.3.6 Surface Water Summary With the exception of chromium, no other site-related contaminants were detected in the three surface water samples from Tippin’s Pond. Several metals were detected in all three samples, with location SW-201 having the most and highest concentrations. This sample was collocated with sediment sample SD-201 which also had the highest concentrations and most contaminants.

2.3 Risk Questions Risk questions summarize important components of the problem formulation phase of the SLERA. Risk questions are directly related to testable hypotheses that can be accepted or rejected using the results of the SLERA. Selected risk questions to be answered in this SLERA include:

May ecological receptors be exposed to site-related contaminants present in soil, sediment and surface water?

This question is addressed in the Exposure Assessment phase of the SLERA (Section 3).

Where present, are the concentrations of site-related contaminants sufficiently elevated to impair the survival, growth, or reproduction of sensitive ecological receptors?

This question is addressed in the Effects Assessment and Risk Characterization phases of the SLERA (Sections 4 and 5).

Are known or potential ecological receptors sufficiently exposed to site-related

contaminants to cause adverse population-level or community-level effects?

This question is addressed in the Risk Characterization phase of the SLERA. 2.4 Conceptual Site Model The CSM integrates information on contaminant and habitat characteristics and is used to identify critical exposure pathways linking contaminants to receptors. The CSM is essentially a contaminant fate-and-transport diagram that illustrates the likely pathways along which COPCs might move from the sources of contamination through potentially-affected habitats to important ecological receptors. This section presents a discussion of the sources of contamination and potential exposure pathways used to develop the CSM (Figure 2-3). The selection of assessment endpoints and specific risk questions are discussed. These are used to evaluate the potential for harmful effects to the selected assessment endpoints. 2.4.1 Sources of Contamination The source of the hexavalent chromium and VOC contamination documented at the site has been determined to be surface and subsurface soils associated with historical industrial practices at the SGL and potentially King Arthur properties. This soil

300025



contamination has resulted in a hexavalent chromium and VOC contaminated groundwater plume. This SLERA does not evaluate groundwater as an exposure pathway. Contamination originating from these sources may have, or continues, to potentially migrate to surrounding areas via erosion, overland flow, and wind dispersion. Areas the most prone to the deposition of contaminants in soil are those located down gradient of source areas, including Tippin’s Pond. 2.4.2 Exposure Pathways An exposure pathway is the means by which contaminants are transported from a source to ecological receptors. For this SLERA, contaminated soil represents the source of contaminants and primary exposure pathway followed by contaminants in sediment and surface water at Tippin’s Pond. Soil, sediment, and surface water in areas evaluated in this SLERA are contaminated with a number of contaminants. Some of these contaminants, such as pesticides, are characterized by very low water solubility and high octanol/water partition coefficient (Kow), indicating that they are likely to be strongly associated with soil particles. Thus, the strong adsorption may result in the retention of certain contaminants in the soil. Any soil transport that occurs may also result in the transport of contaminants, most likely during precipitation events and, to a lesser extent, via wind. Through these processes, contaminants in soils may be transported via erosion, overland flow and wind dispersion and be re-deposited in other areas down gradient of source areas and Tippin’s Pond. The potential exposure pathways are illustrated on the CSM (Figure 2-3). In undeveloped portions of the study area, habitats support a number of terrestrial and aquatic species including invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Ecological receptors at the site may be exposed to contaminated soil, sediment, and surface water via direct contact or incidental ingestion. Exposure of higher trophic-level receptors can also occur through food chain exposure (through the ingestion of prey that may have become contaminated through site-related exposure).

2.4.3 Assessment Endpoints Assessment endpoints are explicit expressions of an environmental resource that is considered of value, operationally defined by an ecological entity and its attributes (EPA 1997). In SLERAs, assessment endpoints are usually considered to be any adverse effects from site contaminants to any ecological receptors at the site. It is not practical or possible to directly evaluate risks to all the individual components of the ecosystem on site, so assessment endpoints are used to focus on particular components that could be adversely affected by the contaminants associated with the site. In general, the assessment endpoints selected for the site are aimed at the viability of aquatic populations and organism survivability. The criteria for selection of assessment endpoints include ecological relevance, susceptibility (exposure plus sensitivity), and relevance to management goals.

300026



A review of the CSM provided information for the selection of assessment endpoints. A variety of invertebrates, fish, reptiles, and amphibians inhabit the area. In addition, many birds and mammals inhabiting this and adjacent areas may forage within these areas and could feed on organisms inhabiting the site. Therefore, the assessment endpoints focused on these groups.

2.4.4 Measurement Endpoints Measurement endpoints are chosen to link the existing site conditions to the goals established by the assessment endpoints and are useful for assessment endpoint evaluation. Measurement endpoints are quantitative expressions of observed or measured biological responses to contamination relevant to selected assessment endpoints. For a SLERA, ESLs are commonly used as measurement endpoints. For this SLERA, measurement endpoints are based on conservative ESLs from sources discussed in Section 4.1. For this SLERA, the following assessment endpoints and measurement endpoints were selected to evaluate whether site-related contaminants pose a risk to ecological receptors: ■ Assessment Endpoint 1: Viability (survival, growth, and reproduction) of

terrestrial ecological receptors/communities present on site.

Measurement Endpoint: Evaluate the toxicity of contaminants in soil by comparing maximum detected concentrations to soil-specific ESLs.

■ Assessment Endpoint 2: Viability (survival, growth, and reproduction) of aquatic ecological receptor/communities present in Tippin’s Pond.

Measurement Endpoint: Evaluate the toxicity of sediment and surface water by comparing maximum-detected concentrations to sediment- and surface water-specific ESLs.

2.5 Risk Characterization Methods Potential risks to ecological receptors are evaluated using the HQ approach. This process involves comparing the maximum contaminant concentrations measured at the site to ESLs. The ESLs are intended to be conservative screening values independent of pathways, and in this way avoid the potential for underestimating risk. The HQ method was used to estimate risk of exposure to each COPC. This method compares the maximum exposure concentration (EC) for a specific chemical to its screening benchmark counterpart and is expressed as a ratio per the following formula:

300027



Maximum Detected Concentration of a COPCESL

Hazard Quotient =

Where the ESL represents the no adverse effect level for that contaminant and assessment endpoint. For this SLERA, if HQs are greater than unity (1.0), risk will be implied. An HQ less than or equal to 1.0 suggests there is a high degree of confidence that minimal risk exists for the given COPC, particularly since the benchmarks represent the lowest measurable concentration considered to be protective of the most sensitive organisms. Therefore, contaminants for which the HQ is above one are retained as COPCs for potential further evaluation, such as a BERA. Higher HQs are not necessarily indicative of more severe effects because of varying degrees of uncertainty in the screening-level benchmarks used to calculate HQs.

Chemicals for which ESLs are not available are also retained as COPCs. In addition, any contaminants that exceed their ESLs that may not necessarily be site related will be retained; however, a discussion on their potential exclusion as COPCs will be provided. Calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium were eliminated from further consideration as COPCs because they are ubiquitous, occur naturally in high concentrations, are essential nutrients, and are unlikely to pose risk. The COPC selection process for this SLERA is further discussed in Sections 3, 4, and 5.

300028

A 3-1


Section 3 Exposure Assessment The objective of the exposure assessment is to determine the pathways and media through which receptors may be exposed to site contaminants. Exposure scenarios are simplified descriptions of how potential receptors may come in contact with contaminants. Potential exposure pathways are dependent on habitats and receptors present on-site, the extent and magnitude of contamination, and environmental fate and transport of COPCs.

The source of the hexavalent chromium contamination documented at the site has been determined to be surface and subsurface soils associated with historic industrial practices at the SGL, and potentially at the King Arthur properties. Contamination from these sources may have, or may continue to migrate to surrounding areas via erosion, overland flow, and wind dispersion. Areas most prone to the deposition of contaminants in soil are those situated down gradient of source areas, including Tippin’s Pond.

Exposure-related information for representative groups of organisms previously identified as potential receptors for this SLERA are described in this section. These descriptions are based on likely exposure scenarios identified in the CSM (Figure 2-3), developed in the Problem Formulation phase. The receptor groups represent organisms who, with reasonable potential, may be exposed to site-related contaminants.

Observations during the ecological reconnaissance indicate the study area provides habitat for a number of terrestrial and aquatic species, including invertebrates, fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. The site is located in a heavily urbanized area. The majority of areas evaluated in this SLERA are associated with undeveloped land parcels within source areas (i.e., King Arthur and SGL properties), and within Tippin’s Pond, which is located immediately down gradient of the SGL property.

Organisms or representative groups of organisms can be exposed to contaminants by direct contact and/or ingestion of contaminated media and/or prey. Although several potential exposure scenarios can be identified for ecological receptors, it is most appropriate to focus the assessment on critical exposure scenarios or those most likely to contribute to risk. This SLERA focuses on the direct contact exposure scenario identified in the CSM.

300029

A 4-1


Section 4 Effects Assessment An effects assessment includes an evaluation of the available types and sources of effects data and presents media- and chemical-specific screening levels that serve as conservative effects concentrations for the SLERA. Effects data were limited to screening level or benchmark concentrations. 4.1 Literature-Based Effects Data This section of the SLERA describes and provides support for the sources and types of effects data selected for use in this evaluation. As appropriate for a SLERA, effects data are limited to ESLs. Screening values from the following references were applied in a hierarchical fashion to the maximum site-specific COPC concentrations as follow:

Soil Primary Source • EPA Ecological Soil Screening Levels (EcoSSLs) (2003-2008); most

conservative value used Secondary Source • Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological Endpoints (Efroymson et al.,

1997) • EPA Region 5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Ecological

Screening Levels (2003)

Sediment Primary Source • NJDEP Guidance for Sediment Quality Evaluations, Freshwater Sediment

Screening Guidelines (2003) Secondary Source • Development and Evaluation of Consensus-Based Sediment Quality

Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems (MacDonald et al., 2000) • EPA Region 3 Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) Freshwater

Sediment Screening Benchmarks (2006a) • EPA Region 5, RCRA Ecological Screening Levels (2006)

Surface Water

Primary Source • NJDEP Surface Water Quality Standards (2006)

Secondary Source • National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (2006)

Tertiary Source • EPA Region 3 BTAG Freshwater Screening Benchmarks (2006b)

In this SLERA, EPA EcoSSLs for soil and NJDEP sediment benchmarks were examined first to determine if a screening value was available for a particular compound. If a value was available, it was utilized. If no EcoSSL or NJDEP

300030

Section 4 Effects Assessment

A 4-2


benchmark was available, secondary sources listed were examined and the lowest value located was used in the screening. If a selected screening level was exceeded, or no screening level was located, contaminants were retained as COPCs. The selection of surface water criteria followed a similar approach. First, NJDEP values were selected followed by the national criteria if none were available. If neither source provide a specific surface water benchmark value the EPA Region 3 BTAG value was considered. Criteria for cadmium, chromium, copper, and zinc were adjusted for site-specific hardness. To be conservative, these criteria were adjusted using the lowest site-specific hardness value of 33 mg/L.

300031

A 5-1


Section 5 Risk Characterization The risk characterization integrates information from the exposure and effects assessments and estimates risk to representative ecological receptors. This SLERA relies on the HQ approach, supplemented by site observations to assess ecological risks at the site.

5.1 Hazard Quotient Approach The HQ approach for estimating risk is based on the ratio of a selected EC to a selected ESL or effects concentration. The equation is as follow:

Maximum Detected Concentration of a COPCESL

Hazard Quotient =

In general, the information derived through this approach contributes to the risk characterization for the assessment endpoints listed in Section 2.4.3.

Following EPA guidance for conducting SLERAs, the maximum detected COPC concentration in soil, sediment, and surface water serves as the EC. The chemical-specific and media-specific screening levels serve as the effects concentration. The comparison of these two values allows calculation of the HQ, which in turn is used to quantify risk estimation. HQs greater than 1.0 indicate a potential for adverse effects. HQs less than 1.0 are considered insignificant and therefore risks are not expected.

It should be noted that higher HQs between COPCs are not necessarily indicative of more severe effects because of varying degrees of uncertainty in the ESLs used to calculate HQs. There are also differences in toxicity endpoints (e.g., body weight reduction vs. reproduction effects) and measurement endpoints (e.g., no-observed- adverse-effect level [NOAEL] vs. lowest-observed-adverse-effect level [LOAEL]). Resultant HQs should not be compared unless the confidence, toxicity endpoints, and measurement endpoints are equal. Where the confidence in ESLs is equal, a higher HQ suggests a greater likelihood of adverse effects.

5.2 HQ-based Risk Estimates The reliability of HQs to predict actual risks is dependent on the quality of the exposure and effects concentrations used to calculate HQs. There is greater confidence in HQ-based risk estimates when exposure and effects data are based on large databases reflecting extensive sample collection (exposure data) and toxicological information (effects data). The data collected provide adequate confidence that detected COPC concentrations represent actual conditions relative to chemical contamination.

Similarly, screening levels based on a large toxicity database comprised of a wide variety of organisms are preferred over concentrations from a limited database or those not directly linked to adverse effects. As discussed previously, all screening

300032

Section 5 Risk Characterization

A 5-2


levels are biased towards over-protection, and it is, therefore, unlikely that risks are underestimated using these conservative screening levels.

5.3 Evaluation of Site-Specific Data Data collected in support of this SLERA were used to describe the magnitude and distribution of contaminants in site soil and Tippin’s Pond sediment and surface water. Following ERAGS (EPA 1997), the maximum detected concentration for each chemical was used to evaluate potential risk for this SLERA. Maximum concentrations of detected chemicals, the sample location where the maximum contaminant concentration was measured, the frequency of detected chemicals, and maximum HQs calculated are presented in Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 for soil, sediment, and surface water, respectively. If a maximum contaminant concentration exceeds the screening level for that contaminant (i.e., HQ > 1.0), then the potential for adverse ecological effects may exist.

5.4 Evaluation Approach The following approach was used to identify and evaluate COPCs for this SLERA.

An HQ > 1.0 (i.e., where the maximum concentration exceeds the ESL) indicates the potential for adverse effects. An HQ < 1.0 is considered insignificant as risks are not expected because ESLs are the lowest measurable concentration that is protective of the most sensitive organism.

The exposure value for each contaminant is assumed to be present throughout the site at the measured concentration all of the time.

Maximum concentrations of contaminants are used for the risk calculations. The bioavailability of each contaminant is assumed to be 100 percent. No assumptions are considered regarding partitioning or, in the case of metals, ionic species present.

5.5 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern Chemicals with maximum detected values above their selected ESLs (i.e., HQ > 1.0) were identified as COPCs, as were detected contaminants for which screening-level benchmarks could not be identified unless otherwise noted below. The HQs and identified COPCs, and the rationale for their selection, are shown below (see also Tables 5-1 through 5-3).

Contaminants with maximum concentrations exceeding ESLs (HQs >1.0):



300033


A 5-3


Sediment SVOCs: benzo(k)fluoranthene Pesticides: 4,4’-DDE and 4,4’-DDD PCBs: Aroclor 1260 Inorganics: antimony, cadmium, copper, lead, and mercury

Surface Water

Inorganics: aluminum, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, vanadium, and zinc

Contaminants retained as COPCs because no ESLs could be identified:

Soil SVOCs: carbazole Inorganics: aluminum

Sediment

Inorganics: aluminum, barium, beryllium, thallium, and vanadium

The above contaminants were retained as COPCs for this SLERA; however, with the exception of chromium and hexavalent chromium, other COPCs identified are most likely not site-related. The fate, transport, and toxicity of these COPCs are discussed in Appendix C. An HQ of 33 was calculated for iron in surface water; however, it is not retained as a COPC. The greatest environmental threat posed by high iron concentrations typically relates to the precipitation of iron oxides in aquatic systems, resulting in the smothering and embedding of the bottom substrate of the water body. No such observations of iron precipitate were noted during the ecological reconnaissance. Thus, it is likely that iron concentrations in surface water of Tippin’s Pond pose no ecological risk and is eliminated from further evaluation. Finally, acetone and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were not retained as COPCs even though in some cases media-specific values were not located or exceedances of the screening criteria were noted. Both can be classified as common laboratory contaminants, as in the case of acetone which was detected in field blanks. Therefore, both compounds were eliminated from further evaluation. 5.6 Risk Summary This section of the SLERA discusses the potential ecological significance of the estimated risks and provides conclusions. Ecological significance considers the limitations and uncertainties (see Section 6) with the quantitative HQ risk estimates. An important first step to understand the results of this SLERA is to answer the risk questions initially presented in Section 2, Problem Formulation. The following risk questions were identified as important to the SLERA. The results of

300034


A 5-4


the SLERA are used to respond to these questions and to help form conclusions. The risk questions and associated responses are presented below. ■ May ecological receptors be exposed to site-related contaminants present in site media?

Response: Yes. Analytical data show that site-related contaminants chromium, hexavalent chromium, TCE, and PCE were detected in site media. However, TCE and PCE were not retained as COPCs because levels detected were orders of magnitude below their respective screening levels.

■ Where present, are the concentrations of site-related contaminants sufficiently elevated to

impair the survival, growth, or reproduction of sensitive ecological receptors?

Response: Yes. Concentrations of chromium and hexavalent chromium detected in surface soils, and chromium in surface water were measured at concentrations that may cause adverse ecological effects in sensitive receptors.

■ Are known or potential ecological receptors sufficiently exposed to site-related

contaminants to cause adverse population-level or community-level effects?

Response: Unknown. With the exception of the ecological reconnaissance, no biological or ecological survey data were collected to support this SLERA. Observations indicated the presence of receptors; however, no adverse impacts were noted. It is assumed that some sensitive organisms may experience localized community-level effects in areas where levels of contamination are most elevated especially in soil collected from the SGL area.

300035

A 6-1


Section 6 Uncertainty Assessment The potential risks from contaminants in site media to ecological communities or populations at the site were evaluated by comparing maximum exposure concentrations to ecological screening values, representing the lowest level at which harmful effects would be predicted to occur. Some degree of uncertainty inherent in these comparisons is introduced during various steps in the evaluation. The sources of uncertainty are discussed below, as well as whether the assumptions used are likely to over- or under-represent ecological risks from contaminants at the site. In general, because this SLERA used conservative assumptions, risks are likely overestimated.

The main sources of uncertainty include natural variability, error, and insufficient knowledge. Natural variability is an inherent characteristic of ecological systems, their stressors, and their combined behavior in the environment. Biotic and abiotic parameters in these systems may vary to such a degree that the exposure and response of similar assessment endpoints in the same system may differ temporally and spatially. Factors that contribute to temporal and spatial variability include differences in individual organism behavior (within and between species), changes in the weather or ambient temperature, unanticipated interference from other stressors, interactions with other species in the community, differences between microenvironments, and numerous other factors.

6.1 Problem Formulation Sources of uncertainty within the problem formulation phase of the SLERA relate to the selection of assessment endpoints and assumptions within the CSM.

The selection of appropriate assessment endpoints to characterize risk is a critical step within the problem formulation of an ecological risk assessment. If an assessment endpoint is overlooked or not identified, environmental risk at the site will be underestimated. Within this SLERA, the selection of assessment endpoints was performed with the intent of being inclusive. However, given the complexity of the environment and the state of knowledge of organism interactions, it is possible that unique exposure pathways or assessment endpoints exist that were not acknowledged within the problem formulation. If additional pathways or assessment endpoints exist, risk may be underestimated.

The CSM presents the pathways by which contaminants are released from source areas to expose receptors. However, some exposure pathways are difficult to evaluate or cannot be quantitatively evaluated based on available information. Within this SLERA only the direct contact pathway was evaluated. Use of such a conservative endpoint may result in overestimating potential risk.

Potential receptors represent a variety of organisms with different feeding and behavioral strategies. For this SLERA, the evaluation optimizes exposure of receptors by assuming a significant portion of their life cycles is restricted to areas of

300036

Section 6 Uncertainty Assessment

A 6-2


contamination. For example, the assumption that avian and mammalian receptors spend a significant portion of their life cycles at the site or a particular area may be conservative.

6.2 Exposure Assessment All exposure assessments have a degree of uncertainty due to necessary simplifications and assumptions, which must be made as part of the evaluation. Major sources of uncertainty in the exposure assessment are discussed below.

Concentrations used to represent exposure point concentrations and characterizations of the distributions of COPCs can be a source of uncertainty. These issues relate to the adequate characterization of the nature and extent of chemical contamination. It is assumed that sufficient samples have been collected from site media and appropriately analyzed to adequately describe the nature and extent of chemical contamination resulting from the release of site-related chemicals.

When potential levels of uncertainty could adversely affect the results of the assessment, conservative approaches are taken that may result in over-protection of sensitive receptors. Such an approach is prudent where uncertainties are high and is in line with regulatory guidance for conducting SLERAs. For example, maximum detected concentrations of COPCs are used to assess potential risk at the SLERA stage, and this approach likely overestimated the average concentrations to which receptors may be exposed.

In this risk assessment, it was assumed that COPCs in environmental media were 100 percent bioavailable. This is a conservative assumption that will overestimate risk. Bioavailability can be affected by factors including chemical speciation, sorption onto soils or sediment, complexation, aging, competition with environmental ligands, or precipitation in anoxic environments in the presence of sulfides (Chapman et al. 2003). Soil and sediment particle size can also influence exposure concentrations and bioavailability; soil/sediment comprised of fine particles will tend to have higher COPC concentrations than coarser textured ones due to the larger surface area and increased number of potential adsorption sites.

6.3 Effects Assessment Uncertainties associated with the effects assessment relate to estimations of ESLs, the use of conservative assumptions, and the degree of interaction between site contaminants. Not all ESLs have the same degree of confidence. For some COPCs, information on toxicity is limited or not available. Additionally, many ESLs were derived from laboratory animal studies that evaluated exposure to a single chemical under controlled conditions. Wildlife species using the site may be exposed to a mixture of COPCs under sometimes stressful environmental conditions, which may affect the toxic impact of a contaminant. Additionally, extrapolation of an ESL derived from populations or species different from those at the site may introduce error because of differences in pharmacokinetics or population and species variability. Further, where

300037


A 6-3


ESLs were statistically determined, they do not represent absolute thresholds; they are reflective of the experimental design. Finally, ESLs incorporate error contributed by the use of results from many studies incorporating different methods of sample collection, preparation, and analysis. These factors may result in over- or underestimating ecological risk. Uncertainties can be introduced by use of unrealistic assumptions in the CSM. In SLERAs, conservative assumptions are generally made in light of the uncertainty associated with the risk assessment process. This minimizes the possibility of concluding that no risk is present when a threat actually does exist (e.g., minimizes false negatives). However, the accuracy with which risk was predicted is not known. The use of conservative assumptions likely overestimates potential risk. There is also the potential of cumulative stress from exposure to additional stressors (e.g., habitat degradation); however, this was not evaluated in this SLERA. If other stressors exist at the site, and if the effects of those stressors and the effects of exposure to site-related contaminants are cumulative, ecological risks at the site may be underestimated. 6.4 Risk Characterization By definition, uncertainties in risk characterization are influenced by uncertainties in exposure assessment and effects assessment. The adequate sampling and analysis of site soil, sediment, and surface water minimize the uncertainties in the exposure assessment of these media. Descriptions of the magnitude and distribution of COPCs at the site are considered to be generally representative of current conditions. Since only the maximum-detected concentrations are used at this stage of the ecological risk assessment, the range of exposure concentrations is less critical to the results of the SLERA.

The frequency of a specific chemical in exceedance of its criteria was not taken into consideration as part of the COPC identification process. In several instances, chemicals were retained as COPCs; however, they were often detected in a fraction of the samples and in several cases were only found in one.

Effects data can also contribute to overall uncertainty in risk characterization. Science and scientific investigations cannot prove any hypothesis beyond doubt. The scientific method is instead based on stating the hypotheses, testing the hypotheses, and either accepting or rejecting the hypotheses based on the weight-of-evidence provided by test data. Confidence in the ability of selected ESLs to assess ecological risks varies for each data value selected. While all ESLs used in this SLERA are associated with some degree of uncertainty, it is the general trend described by the comparisons between exposure concentrations and effects concentrations, and the overall confidence in such comparisons, that are most important. Available information suggests that the ESLs selected for use in this SLERA are generally similar to other ESLs, are commonly accepted for screening, and adequate for estimating risk using conservative assumptions.

300038


A 6-4


Detected concentrations of COPCs may not be indicative of bioavailable concentrations. All contaminant data used in the assessment were based upon the total concentration of the chemical present, as opposed to the bioavailable fraction. Both metals and organic compounds may bind to the sediment, making them less available to ecological receptors, particularly higher trophic level receptors. Thus, risk may be overestimated in some cases.

Another potential source of uncertainty is the small amount of biological or ecological survey data to support this SLERA. The types of surveys needed to aid in the determination of cause and effect relationships, especially at the community or population level, are highly dependent on data quality and data quantity. Such data, however, are not typically included in a SLERA. Recent observations based on a more general site visit/survey are used to qualitatively evaluate habitat quality, habitat use, presence of receptors, and observations of adverse impacts.

Finally, the risk characterization method itself can contribute to uncertainty. HQs depend on a single value for both exposure concentration and effects concentration. Selecting a single screening level, only after consulting multiple sources to ensure some degree of consistency, minimizes the uncertainty associated with any single value. Incorporating site observations into final conclusions also reduces the dependence on strict quantitative risk estimates that, in some cases, can be highly uncertain.

300039

A 7-1


Section 7 Summary and Conclusions Based on a comparison of maximum detected concentrations of contaminants in site soil, sediment, and surface water to conservatively derived ESLs, the potential for ecological risk may occur. Specifically, HQs > 1.0 were calculated, which indicate potential risk from exposure to the following media-specific contaminants.



Sediment SVOCs: benzo(k)fluoranthene Pesticides: 4,4’-DDE and 4,4’-DDD PCBs: Aroclor-1260 Inorganics: antimony, cadmium, copper, lead, and mercury

Surface Water Inorganics: aluminum, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese,

vanadium, and zinc

Potential risk from the following media-specific contaminants cannot be concluded as ESLs are not available for these compounds:

Soil: aluminum and carbazole Sediment: aluminum, barium, beryllium, thallium, and vanadium

COPCs were comprised of different classes of contaminants in this SLERA; however, it is unlikely that all are site-related. Review of site background and historical information (Section 2.1.2) show the primary contaminants for the site are chromium, hexavalent chromium, and VOCs, primarily TCE, 1,2-DCA, 1,1,1-TCA, and PCE.

Responses to risk questions identified in Section 2, Problem Formulation, of this SLERA indicate risk to ecological receptors from site-related contaminants chromium and hexavalent chromium. Concentrations of chromium in soil and surface water exceeded their respective ecological screening criteria; however, the exceedance in surface water was noted for only one location, SW-201 with a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1.3. Concentrations of chromium that exceeded the soil screening criterion were limited to four samples from the SGL property: SGL-SB203-00, SGL-SB204-00, SGL-SB206-00, and SGL-SB207-00. HQs calculated for chromium in these samples were 2.5, 18.5, 41.5, and 27.3, respectively. Concentrations of hexavalent chromium exceeded the soil criterion at location SGL-SB206-00, with an HQ of 1.5. TCE and PCE were detected; however, concentrations were orders of magnitude below their respective screening criteria.

300040

Section 7 Summary and Conclusions

A 7-2


Other constituents detected such as PAHs, pesticides, and other metals are typically associated with urbanized/industrialized areas such as those within the study area and may not be site-related. In addition, HQs for these contaminants were relatively low. The majority of sediment and soil-based HQs, in general, were less than 3.0 and 4.0, respectively. Surface water HQs were some of the highest calculated; however, most were limited to contaminants detected in sample SW-201. In conclusion, results of the SLERA, which utilized the most conservative assumptions, indicate potential risk to ecological receptors from site-related contaminants chromium and hexavalent chromium.

300041

A 8-1


Section 8 References CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM). 2008a. Final Work Plan, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Puchack Well Field Superfund Site, OU2, Pennsauken Township, New Jersey. CDM. 2008b. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan, Puchack Well Field Site, OU2, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Pennsauken Township, New Jersey. CDM. 2005. Final Operable Unit 1 Remedial Investigation Report, Puchack Well Field Superfund Site, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), Pennsauken Township, New Jersey. Chapman, P. M., F. Wang, C. R. Janssen, R. R. Goulet, and C. N. Kamunde. 2003. Conducting ecological risk assessments of inorganic metals and metalloids: Current status. Human Ecol. Risk Assess. 9(4): 641-697. Efroymson, R.A., G.W. Suter II, B.E. Sample, and D.S. Jones. 1997. Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological Endpoints. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management Contract No. DE-AC05-84OR21400 Farlekas, G.M.; Nemicas B., and Gill, H.E. 1976. Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Camden County, New Jersey. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report. 76-76:146. MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, and T.A. Berger. 2000. Development and Evaluation of Consensus-Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39, 20-31 Markley, Marco.1966. Soil Survey of Camden County, New Jersey, Series 1961. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 42(94), 34 pl. NewJersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2006. Surface Water Quality Standards. October. New Jersey Site Remediation Program. 2003. Freshwater Sediment Screening Guidelines. February. Owens, J.P. and Denny, C.S. 1979. Upper Cenozoic Deposits of the Central Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1067-A:27. Owens, J.P. and Sohl, N.F. 1969. Shelf and Deltaic Paleoenvironments in the Cretaceous-Tertiary Formations of the New Jersey Coastal Plain. In: Geology of Selected Areas in New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania and Guidebook of

300042

Section 8 References

A 8-2


Excursions. Edited by Seymour Subitsky. New Brunswick, New Jeresy: Rutgers University Press. 235-278. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Ecco-SSLs). (years 2003 through 2008 updated).Washington, D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/ EPA. 2006a. EPA Region 3 BTAG Screening Benchmarks, Mid-Atlantic Risk Assessment: Ecological Risk Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/eco/index.htm. EPA. 2006b. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. EPA-822-R-02-047. EPA. 2003. Ecological Soil Screening Level for Aluminum, Interim Final, OSWER Directive 9285.7-60, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460. EPA. 2003. EPA Region 5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Ecological Screening Levels. August. EPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630-R-95/002F. April. EPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. EPA 540-R-97-006. June. Walker, R.L., and Jacobsen, Eric. 2003. Reconnaissance of Hydrogeology and Groundwater Quality in Pennsauken Township and Vicinity, Camden County, New Jersey, 1996-1998. West Trenton, New Jersey: United States Geological Survey.

300043

Table 2-1Plant Species Observed

Puchack Well Field Site, Operable Unit 2Pennsauken Township, New Jersey

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name American beech Fagus grandifolia Mulitflora rose Rosa mulitfloraAmerican elm Ulmus americana Norway maple Acer platanoidesArrowwood Viburnum dentatum Plantain Plantago spp.Asiatic bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicansAsiatic dayflower Commelina communis Princess-tree Paulownia tomentosaAster Aster spp. Rabbitfoot clover Trifolium arvenseBigtooth aspen Populus grandidentata Red cedar Juniperus virginianaBlack gum Nyssa sylvatica Red maple Acer rubrumBlack locust Robinia pseudoacacia Red mulberry Morus rubraBlackberry Rubus spp. Red oak Quercus rubraBlackjack oak Quercus marilandica Roundleaf greenbriar Smilax rotundifoliaBladder campion Silene vulgaris Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifoliaBoxelder Acer negundo Sassafras Sassafras albidumButtonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis Scarlet oak Quercus coccineaCatalpa Catalpa speciosa Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilisCattail Typha latifolia Silk tree Albizia julibrissinCherry Prunus spp. Silver maple Acer saccharinumChestnut oak Quercus prinus Staghorn sumac Rhus typhinaCinquefoil Potentilla spp. Sweetgum Liquidambar styracifluaColtsfoot Tussilago farfara Sweetpepper bush Clethra alnifoliaCommon mullein Verbascum thapsus Sycamore Platanus occidentalisCommon pokeweed Phytolacca americana Tatarian honeysuckle Lonicera tataricaCommon reed Phragmites australis Tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissimaDaisy fleabane Erigeron annuus Trumpetcreeper Campsis radicansDandelion Taraxacum officinale Tulip tree Liriodendron tulipiferaEastern cottonwood Populus deltoidea Vetches Vicia spp.English ivy Hedera helix Viburnum Viburnum spp.False nettle Boehmeria cylindrica Violet Viola spp.False Solomon's seal Smilacina racemosa Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefoliaGarlic mustard Alliaria officinalis Weeping willow Salix babylonicaGoldenrod Solidago spp. White clover Trifolium repensGrape Vitis spp. White mulberry Morus albaGrasses unknown White oak Quercus albaGrey birch Betula populifolia White snakeroot Eupatorium rugosumHickory Carya spp. White snakeroot Eupatorium rugosumJapanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Wild garlic Allium vinealeJapanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum Wild grape Vitis spp.Japanese stiltgrass Microstegium viminieum Willow Salix spp.Lily of the Valley Convallaria majalis Yellow flag Iris pseudacorusMugwort Artemisia vulgaris Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris

spp. - species not identified

A Final Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Page 1 of 1

300044

Table 2-2Wildlife Species Observed


American robin Turdus migratoriusBaltimore oriole Icterus galbulaBullfrog Rana catesbeianaCarp Cyprinus carpioChipmunk Tamias striatusCommon grackle Quiscalus quisculaEastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanusEuropean starling Sturnus vulgarisGarter snake Thamnophis sirtalisGreen frog Rana clamitansGrey squirrel Sciurus carolinensisMallard duck Anas platyrhynchosMocking bird Mimus polyglottosMourning dove Zenaida macrouraSunfish Lepomis spp.Turtle NIWhitetail deer Odocoileus virginianus

NI - Not identified to genus or speciesspp. - species not identified


300045

Table 5-1Contaminants of Potential Concern Detected in Soil


Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/kg)Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 ND 1.8 J SS-205 1 / 14 39500 c 0.00005 No BSLTrichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 1.1 J 7 KA-SB202-00 2 / 14 16400 c 0.0004 No BSLAcetone 67-64-1 5.9 J 25 SGL-SB209-00 9 / 14 2500 c 0.01 No BSL, FBMethylene Chloride 75-09-2 0.71 J 1.3 J SGL-SB201-00 3 / 14 4050 c 0.0003 No BSLTrichloroethene 79-01-6 0.89 J 7.6 SGL-SB203-00 3 / 14 12400 c 0.0006 No BSLToluene 108-88-3 ND 0.59 J SGL-SB208-00 1 / 14 200000 b 0.000003 No BSLTetrachloroethene 127-18-4 0.36 J 1.5 J SGL-SB203-00 3 / 14 9920 c 0.0002 No BSL1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 ND 0.49 J SGL-SB207-00 1 / 14 546 c 0.0009 No BSLSemi-Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/kg)Acetophenone 98-86-2 66 J 170 J SGL-SB208-00 2 / 14 300000 c 0.0006 No BSLNaphthalene 91-20-3 ND 350 J SGL-SB203-00 1 / 14 99.4 c 3.5 Yes ASLAcenaphthylene 208-96-8 ND 39 J SGL-SB201-00 1 / 14 682000 c 0.0001 No BSLAcenaphthene 83-32-9 ND 2000 SGL-SB203-00 1 / 14 20000 b 0.10 No BSLFluorene 86-73-7 ND 1000 J SGL-SB203-00 1 / 14 122000 c 0.01 No BSLPhenanthrene 85-01-8 41 J 10000 SGL-SB203-00 9 / 14 45700 c 0.22 No BSLAnthracene 120-12-7 38 J 2000 SGL-SB203-00 4 / 14 1480000 c 0.001 No BSLCarbazole 86-74-8 77 J 2300 SGL-SB203-00 2 / 14 NV NC Yes NVDi-n-butylphthalate 84-74-2 ND 46 J SS-201 1 / 14 150 c 0.31 No BSLFluoranthene 206-44-0 43 J 15000 SGL-SB203-00 11 / 14 122000 c 0.12 No BSLPyrene 129-00-0 310 9900 SGL-SB203-00 3 / 14 78500 c 0.13 No BSLButylbenzylphthalate 85-68-7 ND 34 J SS-202 1 / 14 239 c 0.14 No BSLBenzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 36 J 6400 SGL-SB203-00 10 / 14 5210 c 1.2 Yes ASLChrysene 218-01-9 34 J 6800 SGL-SB203-00 11 / 14 4730 c 1.4 Yes ASLbis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 117-81-7 91 J 590 SGL-SB208-00 6 / 14 NV NC No LCBenzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 44 J 6500 SGL-SB203-00 9 / 14 59800 c 0.11 No BSLBenzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 52 J 4800 SGL-SB203-00 8 / 14 148000 c 0.03 No BSLBenzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 47 J 5600 SGL-SB203-00 10 / 14 1520 c 3.7 Yes ASLIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 29 J 4000 SGL-SB203-00 8 / 14 109000 c 0.04 No BSLDibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 ND 1100 J SGL-SB203-00 1 / 14 18400 c 0.06 No BSLBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 191-24-2 57 J 2800 SGL-SB203-00 4 / 14 119000 c 0.02 No BSLPesticides/PCBs (µg/kg)Heptachlor epoxide 1024-57-3 ND 0.6 J SS-201 1 / 14 152 c 0.004 No BSLEndosulfan I 959-98-8 ND 0.72 J KA-2B201-00 1 / 14 119 c 0.01 No BSLDieldrin 60-57-1 1.3 J 5.9 NJ SGL-SB206-00 4 / 14 4.9 a 1.2 Yes ASL4,4'-DDE 72-55-9 1.0 J 9.1 SS-203 6 / 14 21 a 0.43 No BSL4,4'-DDT 50-29-3 1.7 J 23 SGL-SB206-00 5 / 14 21 a 1.1 Yes ASLEndrin ketone 53494-70-5 ND 12 SGL-SB203-00 1 / 14 10.1 c 1.2 Yes ASLEndrin aldehyde 7421-93-4 1.5 J 7.5 SGL-SB203-00 3 / 14 10.5 c 0.71 No BSLalpha-Chlordane 5103-71-9 0.44 J 6.8 J SGL-SB203-00 2 / 14 224 c 0.03 No BSL

RationaleChemical Name CAS Number

Sample Location of Maximum

Concentration

Frequency of Detection

Soil Screening

Value 1

Maximum Concentration

Detected

Minimum Concentration

Detected

Hazard Quotient COPC


Table 5-1Contaminants of Potential Concern Detected in Soil


RationaleChemical Name CAS Number


Concentration


Soil Screening

Value 1


Detected


Detected

Hazard Quotient COPC

gamma-Chlordane 5103-74-2 ND 0.77 J SGL-SB207-00 1 / 14 224 c 0.00 No BSLAroclor-1254 11097-69-1 ND 83 SGL-SB209-00 1 / 14 371 b 0.22 No BSLAroclor-1260 11096-82-5 19 J 79 SS-202 5 / 14 371 b 0.21 No BSLInorganic Analytes (mg/kg)Aluminum 7429-90-5 1870 7990 SGL-SB206-00 14 / 14 NV NC Yes NVAntimony 7440-36-0 0.35 33 SGL-SB206-00 9 / 14 0.27 a 122 Yes ASLArsenic 7440-38-2 1.1 12.8 KA-SB201-00 14 / 14 18 a 0.71 No BSLBarium 7440-39-3 8.3 J 116 SGL-SB206-00 14 / 14 330 a 0.35 No BSLBeryllium 7440-41-7 0.17 J 0.61 SS-205 14 / 14 21 a 0.03 No BSLCadmium 7440-43-9 0.18 J 7.3 SGL-SB206-00 11 / 14 0.36 a 20 Yes ASLCalcium 7440-70-2 294 J 31500 SS-204 13 / 14 EN NA No ENChromium 7440-47-3 4.1 1080 J SGL-SB206-00 14 / 14 26 a 42 Yes ASLChromium (hexavalent) 18540-29-9 1.5 J 200 SGL-SB206-00 5 / 14 130 a 1.5 Yes ASLCobalt 7440-48-4 0.23 J 4.6 SGL-SB209-00 14 / 14 13 a 0.35 No BSLCopper 7440-50-8 3.5 J 63.2 SGL-SB203-00 14 / 14 28 a 2.3 Yes ASLIron 7439-89-6 5900 47400 KA-SB202-00 14 / 14 NV NC No NTLead 7439-92-1 10.5 J 1040 J SGL-SB206-00 14 / 14 11 a 95 Yes ASLMagnesium 7439-95-4 271 J 17800 SS-204 14 / 14 EN NA No ENManganese 7439-96-5 4.6 J 219 J SS-205 13 / 14 220 a 1.0 No BSLMercury 7439-97-6 0.068 J 0.81 SGL-SB209-00 7 / 14 0.1 c 8.1 Yes ASLNickel 7440-02-0 0.26 J 31.1 J SGL-SB204-00 14 / 14 38 a 0.82 No BSLPotassium 7440-09-7 240 J 2540 SS-205 14 / 14 EN NA No ENSilver 7440-22-4 0.05 J 0.43 J SGL-SB206-00 9 / 14 4.2 a 0.10 No BSLSodium 7440-23-5 215 J 341 J SS-205 3 / 14 EN NA No ENThallium 7440-28-0 0.02 J 0.14 SS-205 12 / 14 1 b 0.14 No BSLVanadium 7440-62-2 4.0 J 19.2 J KA-SB202-00 14 / 14 7.8 a 2.5 Yes ASLZinc 7440-66-6 3.1 J 177 J SS-202 14 / 14 46 a 3.8 Yes ASLBold - retained as COPCµg/kg - micrograms per kilogram mg/kg - milligrams per kilogramASL - above screening level BSL - below screening levelCOPC - contaminant of potential concern EN - essential nutrientFB - detected in field blank J - estimatedLC - common laboratory contaminant N - presumptive evidence of a compoundNA - not applicable NC - no hazard quotient calculatedND - not detected NV - no screening value locatedNT - not toxic; adverse effects, if any, associated with iron precipitate in aquatic systems 1 - Sourcea - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Ecological Soil Screening Levels (EcoSSLs). http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/b - Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological Endpoints (Efroymson et. al 1997)c - EPARegion . 2003. Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act (RCRA) Ecological Screening Levels


Table 5-2Contaminants of Potential Concern Detected in Sediment


Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/kg)Acetone 67-64-1 7.6 10 SD-203 2 / 3 9.9 c 1.01 No LC, FBCarbon Disulfide 75-15-0 ND 0.58 J SD-203 1 / 3 0.851 b 0.68 No BSLToluene 108-88-3 ND 0.23 J SD-202 1 / 3 2500 a 0.000092 No BSLSemi-Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/kg)Phenanthrene 85-01-8 ND 230 J SD-201 1 / 3 560 a 0.41 No BSLAnthracene 120-12-7 ND 55 J SD-201 1 / 3 220 a 0.25 No BSLFluoranthene 206-44-0 ND 340 SD-201 1 / 3 750 a 0.45 No BSLPyrene 129-00-0 ND 470 SD-201 1 / 3 490 a 0.96 No BSLBenzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 ND 210 J SD-201 1 / 3 320 a 0.66 No BSLChrysene 218-01-9 ND 310 SD-201 1 / 3 340 a 0.91 No BSLbis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 117-81-7 ND 360 SD-201 1 / 3 180 b 2.0 No LCBenzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 ND 250 J SD-201 1 / 3 240 a* 1.0 No UBenzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 ND 280 J SD-201 1 / 3 240 a 1.2 Yes ASLBenzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 ND 220 J SD-201 1 / 3 370 a 0.59 No BSLIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 ND 150 J SD-201 1 / 3 200 a 0.75 No BSLPesticides/PCBs (µg/kg)Heptachlor epoxide 1024-57-3 ND 1 J SD-201 1 / 3 5.0 a 0.20 No BSL4,4'-DDE 72-55-9 2.2 J 14 SD-203 3 / 3 5.0 a 2.8 Yes ASL4,4'-DDD 72-54-8 7.4 13 SD-201 2 / 3 8.0 a 1.6 Yes ASL4,4'-DDT 50-29-3 ND 6.4 NJ SD-201 1 / 3 8.0 a 0.80 No BSLalpha-Chlordane 5103-71-9 1.8 J 2.6 J SD-201 2 / 3 7.0 a# 0.37 No BSLAroclor-1260 11096-82-5 35 J 62 SD-201 2 / 3 5.0 a 12 Yes ASLInorganic Analytes (mg/kg)Aluminum 7429-90-5 879 4110 SD-201 3 / 3 NV NC Yes NVAntimony 7440-36-0 0.45 5.5 SD-201 2 / 3 2.0 b 2.8 Yes ASLArsenic 7440-38-2 1.50 J 6.20 SD-201 3 / 3 6.00 a 1.0 No UBarium 7440-39-3 3.8 38.3 SD-201 3 / 3 NV NC Yes NVBeryllium 7440-41-7 0.08 J 0.43 SD-201 3 / 3 NV NC Yes NVCadmium 7440-43-9 ND 0.63 SD-201 1 / 3 0.6 a 1.1 Yes ASLCalcium 7440-70-2 510 J 1070 SD-201 2 / 3 EN NA No ENChromium 7440-47-3 2.5 J 9.2 SD-201 3 / 3 26 a 0.35 No BSLCobalt 7440-48-4 0.46 J 1.9 SD-201 3 / 3 50 b 0.04 No BSLCopper 7440-50-8 4.1 J 60 SD-201 3 / 3 16 a 3.8 Yes ASLIron 7439-89-6 2530 7090 SD-201 3 / 3 20000 b 0.35 No BSL, NTLead 7439-92-1 14 J 200 SD-201 3 / 3 31 a 6.5 Yes ASLMagnesium 7439-95-4 523 J 679 SD-201 2 / 3 EN NA No ENManganese 7439-96-5 6.4 J 21.6 SD-201 3 / 3 460 b 0.05 No BSLMercury 7439-97-6 0.06 J 0.42 SD-201 2 / 3 0.20 a 2.1 Yes ASLNickel 7440-02-0 0.89 J 6.9 SD-201 3 / 3 16 a 0.43 No BSL

Chemical Name Frequency of Detection

Hazard Quotient COPC Rationale


Concentration


Detected


DetectedCAS Number

Sediment Screening

Value 1

AFinal Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Page 1 of 2300048

Table 5-2Contaminants of Potential Concern Detected in Sediment


Chemical Name Frequency of Detection

Hazard Quotient COPC Rationale


Concentration


Detected


DetectedCAS Number

Sediment Screening

Value 1

Potassium 7440-09-7 ND 290 SD-201 1 / 3 EN NA No ENSelenium 7782-49-2 ND 0.33 SD-201 1 / 3 2.0 b 0.17 No BSLSilver 7440-22-4 ND 0.13 SD-201 1 / 3 1.0 a 0.13 No BSLSodium 7440-23-5 ND 3480 SD-201 1 / 3 EN NA No ENThallium 7440-28-0 ND 0.1 SD-201 1 / 3 NV NC Yes NVVanadium 7440-62-2 3.7 J 26.6 SD-201 3 / 3 NV NC Yes NVZinc 7440-66-6 8.4 J 111 SD-201 3 / 3 120 a 0.93 No BSLBold - retained as COPCµg/kg - micrograms per kilogram mg/kg - milligrams per kilogramASL - above screening level BSL - below screening levelCOPC - contaminant of potential concern EN - essential nutrientFB - detected in field blank J - estimatedLC - common laboratory contaminant N - presumptive evidence of a compoundNA - not applicable NC - no hazard quotient calculatedND - not detectedNT - not toxic; adverse effects, if any, associated with iron precipitate in aquatic systems. No such observations notedNV - no screening value located U - hazard quotient equals unity (1.0)* - value for benzo(k)fluoranthene # - values for chlordane1 - Sourcea - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2003. Guidance for Sediment Quality Evaluations, Freshwater Sediment Screening Guidelines b - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Region 3 Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) Freshwater Sediment Screening Benchmarksc - EPA Region V, Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act (RCRA) Ecological Screening Levels, August, 2003.

AFinal Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Page 2 of 2300049

Table 5-3Contaminants of Potential Concern Detected in Surface Water


Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/L)Acetone 67‐64‐1 ND 8.3 SW-201 1 / 3 1500 0.006 No BSLSemi-Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/L)Di‐n‐octylphthalate 117‐84‐0 ND 6.3 SW-201 1 / 3 22 0.29 No BSLInorganic Analytes (µg/L)Aluminum 7429-90-5 110 4500 SW-201 3 / 3 87 b 52 Yes ASLArsenic 7440-38-2 3.9 10 SW-201 3 / 3 150 a 0.07 No BSLBeryllium 7440-41-7 ND 0.49 SW-201 1 / 3 0.66 b 0.74 No BSLCadmium 7440-43-9 ND 2.3 SW-201 1 / 3 0.094 a 24 Yes ASLCalcium 7440-70-2 9500 12000 SW-201 3 / 3 EN NA No ENChromium 7440-47-3 0.73 15 SW-201 3 / 3 12 a 1.3 Yes ASLCopper 7440-50-8 2.5 120 SW-201 3 / 3 4.1 a 29 Yes ASLIron 7439-89-6 1100 10000 SW-201 3 / 3 300 b 33 No NTLead 7439-92-1 8 230 SW-201 3 / 3 5.4 a 43 Yes ASLMagnesium 7439-95-4 2200 3100 SW-201 3 / 3 EN NA No ENManganese 7439-96-5 69 220 SW-201 3 / 3 120 b 1.8 Yes ASLPotassium 7440-09-7 2500 J 3300 SW-201 3 / 3 EN NA No ENSodium 7440-23-5 37000 38000 SW-202 3 / 3 EN NA No ENVanadium 7440-62-2 ND 42 SW-201 1 / 3 20 b 2.1 Yes ASLZinc 7440-66-6 ND 350 SW-201 1 / 3 56 a 6.3 Yes ASLBold - retained as COPCµg/L - micrograms per liter ASL - above screening levelBSL - below screening level COPC - contaminant of potential concernEN - essential nutrient J - estimatedNA - not applicable ND - not detectedNT - not toxic; ecological affects from high iron is attributed to the precipatation of iron oxides and the smothering/embeddings of benthic organisms.No such observation were noted in Tippin's Pond.1 - Sourcea - New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2006. Surface Water Quality Standards b - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Region 3 Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) Freshwater Screening Benchmarks

Surface Water

Screening Value 1

Hazard Quotient COPC RationaleChemical Name CAS

Number


Detected


Detected


Concentration



Site LocationRoute 90

Betsy Ross Bridge

Inters

tate 9

5

Route 73

Philadelphia

Tippin's Pond

Figure 2-1Site Location Map

Puchack Well Field Site, OU2Pennsauken Township, New Jersey

Source: USGS Frankford and Camden 7.5 minute quadrangles

E:\IMS\GIS\Puchack\Projects\OU2-RI\Site_Location_Map.mxd

Site Location

0 1,000500Feet

300051

Rive

r Roa

d

Cove Road

Arlington CemeteryTippin's Pond

King Arthur

SGL Modern Hard Chrome

SGL-SB209-00SGL-SB208-00

SGL-SB207-00SGL-SB206-00

SGL-SB204-00

SGL-SB203-00

SGL-SB201-00

KA-SB202-00

KA-SB201-00

SD\SW-203

SD\SW-202

SD\SW-201

SS-205

SS-204SS-203

SS-202SS-201

Figure 2-2Sample Location Map

Puchack Well Field Site, OU2Pennsauken Township, New Jersey

0 200 400100Feet

Soil Sampling Locations

Sediment/Surface Water Sampling Locations

E:\IMS\GIS\Puchack\Projects\OU2-RI\basemap_for_SLERA.mxd

300052

Primary Source Secondary Source

Exposure Route

Potential ReceptorsPrimary Release

Mechanism

Secondary Release

MechanismInvertebrate

= Pathways (current, historical, and future)

Wind Erosion Resuspension

Infiltration/Leaching

Surface Runoff, Erosion

Dust Fugitive Dust Generation

Uptake by Fish

Ingestion by Animals

Ingestion

Dermal Contact/Uptake

Inhalation

Ingestion


LEGEND

= Complete pathways quantitatively assessed

Birds

Ingestion


Ingestion


Ingestion

Ingestion

Surface Soil

Particulates in Outdoor Air

Subsurface Soil

Surface Water: Tippin’s Pond

Sediment: Tippin’s Pond

Fish

Prey

Exposure Medium

Groundwater

Surface Water:Tippin’s Pond

Sediment: Tippin’s Pond

Soil

SGL Modern Hard Chrome

and King Arthur

Properties

Terrestrial Aquatic

Mammals

Figure 2-3Conceptual Site Model

Puchack Well Field Site, OU 2Pennsauken Township, New Jersey

Reptiles/Amphibians

Vegetation

Invertebrate Birds

MammalsReptiles/

Amphibians

Vegetation Fish

300053

Appendix A

Letters from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

300054

300055

OCT 011008 DATE:

• • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 2

UBJECT: Puchack Well Field Superfund Site - OU2 Endangered Species Act - Information Request

FROM: Nikolaus Wirth, Environmental Engineer /'J1. i ~ Environmental Review SectiQn / /~

TO: Jonathan Gorin, Remedial Project Manager New Jersey Remediation Branch

Per CDM's June 4, 2008 request, attached is coinpilation of information on the presence or absence of threatened/endangered speCies in the vicinity ofOU2 of the Puchack Well Field Superfund Site, located in Pelll1sauken Township, Camden County, New Jersey. .

The first list provided shows the federally listed threatened/endangered and candidate species for the entire state of New Jersey and the other list (partial) shows the threatened/endangered species categorized by occurrences by county and municipality. Note that there are no threatened! endangered species listed for Pelll1sauken Township in Camden County. Both lists provided are current, which could be used for the OU2 remedial investigation and feasibility study, as well as, the screening level ecological risk assessment. Additionally, I have also attached the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) arid National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) response letters dated May 7, 2004 and June 25, 2004, respectively. .

According to the current information provided and as supported by the FWS' letter, it is determined that except for the occasional transient bald eagle (Haliaeetus /eucocepha/us), no federally-listed or proposed threatened or endangered species is known to occur within the vicinity of the project area. Although federally delisted, the bald eagle is still protected under the Eagle Act and the Migratory Bird Treat Act. As the project specifics are developed for OU2, it may be required to re-initiate informal Section 7 consultation with the FWS to comply with the Endangered Species Act.

The NMFS has indicated in their letter that the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is known to occur in the Delaware River. Observing the "Site Location (OU2)" figure with the study area boundary, which was provided by CDM, it appears that the shortnose sturgeon will not be impacted. However, when the project specifics are developed for OU2, it is imperative to revisit the issue to ·ensure that the shortnose sturgeon will not be impacted and to keep the NMFS informed of this project. .

I look forward to working with you as this project progresses to ensure that all environmental concerns are adequately addressed. If you have any questions concerning these comments or require additional information, please contact me at x-3902.

Attachment

cc: Chuck Nace, DESA-HWSB (w/out attach)

300056

FISHES

REPTILES

BIRDS

MAMMALS

INVERTEBRATES

PLANTS

• • FEDERALLY LISTED AND CANDIDATE

SPECIES IN NEW JERSEY

SCIENTIFIC NAME

Acipenser brevirostrum

Clemmys muhlenbergii

Caretta caretta

Charadrius rnelodus

Calidris canulUS rufa

Sterna dougal/it dougallii

Picoides borealis

Puma concolor couguar

Myotis sodalis

Canis lupus

Sciurus niger cinereus

Alasmidonta heterodon

Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis

Lycaeides melissa samuelis

Neonympha m. mitchellii

Nicrophorus americanus

[sotria medeoloides

Narlhecium americanum

Dichanthelium hirstii

Schwalbea americana

Aeschynomene virginica

Amaranthus pumilus

STATUS

E

T

T

T

C

E

E+

E+

E

E+

E+

E

T

E+

E+

E+

T

T

C

T

C

E

T

T

300057

E

T

C

•

Note:

•

Endangered Species

Threatened Species

Candidate Species

•

or a Any that is to b~come an species within the-foreseeable future throughout all or a of its . Species appear to warrant IJs~lng. species receive no substantive or procedural protection under the Endangered Species Act, Federal agencies and other planners are encouraged to consider these species in

Except for sea turtle nesting habitat, principal responsibility for these species is vested with the National Marine Fisheries Service

For a complete listing of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, refer to 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12. For complete listings of taxa under review as candidate species, reftr to Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 234, December 6, 2007 (Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species that are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened).

For further information, please visit our website at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/Endangeredl

or contact: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New Jersey Field Office 927 N. Main Street, Building D Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 Phone: (609) 646-93 IO Fax: (609) 646-0352

Revised 04/0212008

"

\

300058

, , • • Federally Listed and Candidate Species Occurences in New Jersey by County and Municipality

Page 2 at 10

i i

June 2008

300059

• • Federally Listed and Candidate Species Occurences in New Jersey by County and Municipality

.c::~';1!''''

CAMDEN

CAMDEN r.AMnFN

N

Ir.AMnFN Ir.AMnFN

CAPE MAY CAPE MAY CAPE MAY CAPE MAY CAPE MAY

"

M"n; .1 • , '

::H 'Hil

Pine Hill Pine Valley

T

I

Cape May City Cape May Point

' T Lower IMiddle

I '

CAPE MAY CAPE MAY, CAPE MAY CAPE MAY CAPE MAY ICAPE MAY CAPE MAY

I North I City

,PE MAY

jlAY)

CUM lJI

CUM~

City ISea Isle City Stone

T I City I Crest

~ City T i

T T

T C':l I '

r.1 AND T r.l , AND , River T

ANn City

) IStow Creek ~LAND Upper I T

I JMRFRl AND I City

Page 3 of 10

,

I~ ..

IH

X H

H

P

P

'f ::I I-

E E H

E

H

E ~ .. .2 Il.

~ ~ 11 1l .. m ::I

~

~ i .. g} ... '" I-

11 m s:. 3: M

m

IX

;::: ~ §:E ..

E ::I Q:

1l I i :5 '" " III

.. ~ .. E ~ E j m : §: '" ~

s:. 0 ~

.E 0 ' , ~

..., 3:

Il.

' IE

P p

H

E

H IH E IH

IP

~ IP

P P H P P

IE IE IP ,

H H

,e

x

,

IE E IXP IP

P IP IE

E E p

E IP P IE E IP P P IP E

IH IE

E E

IE IP H IE IE

E Ip H ' IE IE

'0 " If::

IP IP

~

~ s:. 0-..

oCt

June 2006

G' lJ! .. ~

(!)

.1!

" .. Il.

300060

•

Grace Musumeci • Chief, Environmental Review Section

• UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NORTHEAST REGION One Blackburn Drive Gloucesler, MA 01930-2298

JUN 25

Strategic Plan'ning and Multi-Media Program Branch US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 290 Broadway New York, NY 10007-1866

Dear Ms, Musumeci,

This is in ,response to your letter dated June 17, 2004 requesting information on the presence of any federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat in the vicinity of the 'Puchack Wellfield Superfund Site, located in Pennsauken Township, New Jersey. This site borders the Delaware River.

The only species listed under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service · (NOAA Fisheries) that occurs in 'the Delaware River is the federally endangered short nose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Shortnose sturgeon are known to occur in the Delaware River from the lower,bay upstream to at least Lambertville, New Jersey. Tagging studies by O'He(Ton et al. (1993) found that the most heavily used portion of the river appears to be between river 'mile 118 below Burlington Island and river mile 137 at the Trenton Rapids. From November throogh March, adult sturgeon overwiriter in dense sedentary aggregations in the upper tidal reaches of the Delaware between river mile 118 and 131. The areas around Duke Island and Newbold Island seem to be regions of intense overwinteringcqncentrations. However, unlike sturgeon in other river systems, short nose sturgeon in the Del(lware do not appear io remain. as stiltionary during overwintering periods. Overwintering fish have been found to be generally active, appearing at the surface and even breaching through the skim ice (O'Herron 1993). Due to the relatively acti,ve nature of these fish: the use of the river during the winter is difficult to predict. The overwintering location of juvenile shortnose sturgeon is not known but believed to be on the freshwater side of theoligohaline/fresh water interface (O'Herron .1 ,990). In the Delaware River, the oligohaline/freshwater interface occurs in the area between Wilmington, Delaware and Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania.

, "

300061

·--' Spawning in the Delaware River may occur from late March through early May, dependent on weather conditions. While actual spawning has not been documented in this area, the concentrated use of the Scudders Falls region in the spring by large numbers of mature male and female shortnose sturgeon indicate that this is a major spawning area (O'Herron et al. 1993). Adult shortnose sturgeon typically migrate to the spawning grounds when water temperatures reach 8°C. After spawning, typically when water temperatures reach 14-ISoC, shoI1[1ose sturgeon move rapidly downstream to the Philadelphia area .

. -Historically, sturgeon were relatively rare below Philadelphia due to poor water quality. In the past decade, the water quality in the Philadelphia area has improved leading 'to an increased use of the lower river by shortnose sturgeon. While the area above Philadelphia is of primary importance to shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River, short nose sturgeon are present below Philadelphia. Brundage and Mea~ows (1982) have reported incidental captures in commercial gillnets in the lower Delaware. During a study focusing on Atlantic sturgeon, Shirey et al. (1999) captured 9 shortnose sturgeon in 1998. During the June through September study period, Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon were found to use the area on the west side of the shipping channel between Deep Water Point, New Jersey and the DelawarePennsylvania line. The most frequently utilized areas within this section were off the northern and southern ends of Cherry Island Flats in the vicinity of the Marcus HookBar. Shortnose sturgeon have also been documented below Philadelphia as recently as the summer of 2003 and spring 2004. After adult sturgeon migrate to the area around Philadelphia, many adults return upriver to between river mile 127 and 134 within a few weeks, while others gradually move to the same area over the course of the summer (O'Herron 1993). By November, adult sturgeon have returned to the overwintering grounds around Duck Island and Newbold Island.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, states that each Federal agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary, insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat: Any discretionary federal action that may affect a listed species must undergo Section 7 consultation. The federal action agency is responsible for determining whether the proposed action is likely to affect any listed species and requesting that NOAA Fisheries concur with this determination. Without a description of the remediation activities proposed for the Superfund sile, it is difficult to determine whether any proposed action may affect the shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River. Once project details are developed, EPA should submit a letter NOAA Fisheries in which you make a determination of the project's impacts on shortnose sturgeon and request that NOAA Fisheries concur with this determination. Your office should submit their determination along with a request for concurrence, to the attention of the Endangered Species 'Coordinator, NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. After reviewing this information, NOAA Fisheries would be able to conduct a consultation under section 7 of the ESA.

..

300062

• • If you have any questions or concerns about these comments or about the consultation process in general, please contact Julie Crocker of my staff .at (978) 281-9328 ex!. 6530.

Cc: Ripol1eiJa. FlNER4

File Code: Sec 7 EPA Delaware River

Sincerely.

~~ Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources

300063

United • • States Department of the Interior

IN REPLY REFER TO:

ES-04/091

Grace Musumeci, Chief Environmental Review Section

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE New Jersey Field Office

Ecological Service 927 North Main Street, BUilding D

Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 Tel: 609-646-9310

Fax: 609-646-0352 http://njlieldoffice.fws.gov

MAY 072004 Strategic Planning and Multi-Media Programs Branch United States Environmental Protection Agency 290 Broadway New York, New York 10007-1866

Reference: Threatened and endangered species review within the vicinity of the Puchack Welllieid Superfund Site located within Pennsauken Township. Camden County. New Jersey.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the above-referenced proposed project pursuant to Section 7 of the E·.dangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 el seq.) to ensure the protection of federally listed endangered and threatened species. The following comments do not address all Service concerns for fish and wilJlife resources and do not preclude separate review and comment by the Service as afforded by other applicable environmental legislation.

Except for an occasional transient bald eagle (Haliaeelus leucocephalus), no other federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened flora or fauna under Service jurisdiction are known 'to occur within the vicinity of the proposed project site. Therefore, no further consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is required by the Service. This detennin.tion is based on the best avaiJable information. If additional information on federally listed species becomes available. or if project plans change, this determination may be reconsidered. Please be aware that this detennination is valid for 90 days; therefore, if the project is not initiated within this time, the Service should be contacted prior to project implementation to verify the accuracy of this information. The Service will review current information to ensure that no federally listed threatened or endangered species will be adversely affected by the proposed project.

Enclosed is current information regarding federally listed and candidate species occurring in New Jersey. The Service encourages federal agencies and other planners to consider candidate species in project planning. The addresses of State agencies that may be contacted for current site-specific information regarding federal candidate and State-listed species are also enclosed.

Enclosures:

Authorizing Supervisor: ~ ~ Current summaries of federally listed and candidate species in Neleisey Addresses for additional information on candidate and State-listed species

Sect 7 (es.NEeot7.fax) 11/24/03

300064

JON S. CORZINE Governor

George C. Molnar CDM Raritan Plaza One, Raritan Center Edison, NJ 08818

!Malr of Ntw Jltrsty DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Division of Parks and Forestry Office of Natural Lands Management

Natural Heritage Program P.O. Box 404

Trenton, NJ 08625-0404 Tel. #609-984-1339 Fax. #609-984-1427

June 13,2008

Re: Puchack Well Field Superfund Site

Dear Ml'. Molnar:

LtSA P. JACKSON Commissioner

Thank you for your data request regarding rare species information for the above referenced project site in Pelll1sauken Township, Camden County.

Searches of the Natural Heritage Database and the Landscape Project (Version 3 for the highlands region, Version 2.1 elsewhere) are based on a representation of the boundaries of your project site in our Geographic Information System (GIS). We make every effort to accurately transfer your project bounds from the topographic map(s) submitted with the Request for Data into our Geographic Information System. We do not typically verify that your project bounds are accurate, or check them against other sources.

We have checked the Natural Heritage Database and the Landscape Project habitat mapping for occurrences of any rare wildlife species or wildlife habitat on the referenced site. Please see Table 1 for species list and conservation stahlS.

Table I (on referenced site'. Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Grank Srank

batd eagle Haliaeetus /eucocepha/us E G4 S1B,S1N bald eagle foraging Haliaeetus /eucocepha/us E G4 S1B,S1N black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax TlSC G5 S2B,S3N great blue heron Ardea herodias SC/S G5 S3B,S4N peregrine falcon Fa/co peregrinus E G4 S1B,S1N

We have also checked the Natural Heritage Database and the Landscape Project habitat mapping for occurrences of any rare wildlife species or wildlife habitat within 1/4 mile of the referenced site, Please see Table 2 for species list and conservation status, This table excludes any species listed in Table I.

Table 2 (additional species within 114 mile of referenced site). Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Grank Srank

shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum LE E G3 S1 tidewater mucket Leptodea ochracea T G4 S2

We have also checked the Nahual Heritage Database for occurrences of rare plant species or ecological communities, The Nahlral Heritage Database has records for occurrences of freshwater tidal marsh complex that may be on the site and for Sidells bidelltoides, ClIscllta polygoJloruJIl and LeJll11a pelpusilla that may be in the immediate vicinity of the site. The attached lists provide more infonnation about these occurrences, Because some species are sensitive to disturbance or sought by collectors, this information is provided to you 011 the condition that no specific locational data are released to the general public. This is not intcnded to preclude your submission of this information to regulatory agencies from which YOll are seeking pcrmits.

Also attached is a list of rare species and ecological conullunities that have been documented from Camden County, If suitable habitat is present at the project site, these species have potential to be present.

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable

300065

Status and rank codes used in the tables and lists are defined in the attached EXPLANATION OF CODES USED IN NATURAL HERITAGE REPORTS.

The Natural Heritage Program reviews its data periodically to identify priority sites for natural diversity in the State. Included as priority sites are some of the State's best habitats for rare and endangered species and ecological communities. One of these si tes is located within or near the areas you have outlined, Please refer to the enclosed Natural Heritage Priority Site Map for the location and boundary of this site. On the back of each Priority Site Map is a report describing the significance of lhe site.

If you have questions concerning the wi ldlife records or wildlife species mentioned in this response, we recommend that you visit the interact ive I-Map-NJ website at the following URL, http://www.state.nj .us/dep/gis/depsplash.htm or contact the Division ofFish and Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program at (609) 292 9400.

PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED 'CAUTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON NHP DATA'.

Thank you for consulting the Natural Heritage Program. The attached invoice details the payment due for processing this data request. Feel free to contact us again regarding any future data requests.

Sincerely,

Herbert A. Lord Data Request Specialist

cc: Robert J . Cartica NHP File No. 08-3907581

300066

CAUTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON NATURAL HERITAGE DATA

The quantity and quality of data collected by the Natural Heritage Program is dependent on the research and observations of mariy individuals and organizations. Not

. all of this information is the result of comprehensive or site-specific field surveys. Some natural areas in New Jersey have never been thoroughly surveyed. As a result, new locations for plant and animal species are continuously added to the database. Since data acquisition is a dynamic, ongoing process, the Natural Heritage Program cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence, absence, or condition of biological elements in any part of New Jersey. Information supplied by the Natural Heritage Program summarizes existing data known to the program at the time of the request regarding the biological elements or locations in question. They should never be regarded as final statements on the elements or areas being considered , nor should they be substituted for on-site surveys required for environmental assessments. The attached data is provided as one source of information to assist others in the preservation of natural diversity.

This office cannot provide a letter of interpretation or a statement addressing the classification of wetlands as defined by the Freshwater Wetlands Act. Requests for such determination should be sent to the DEP Land Use Regulation Program, P.O. Box 401, Trenton, NJ 08625-0401.

The Landscape Project was developed by the Division of Fish & Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program in order to map critical habitat for rare animal species. Natural Heritage Database response letters will also list all species (if any) found during a search of the Landscape Project. However, this office cannot answer any inquiries about the Landscape Project. All questions should be directed to the DEP Division of Fish and Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program, P.O. Box 400, Trenton, NJ 08625-0400.

This cautions and restrictions notice must be included whenever information provided by the Natural Heritage Database is published.

eN} Departmenl of Environmental Prolection Division of Parks and Foreslry

m Natural Lands Management

300067

June 12, 2008 Page: I

Scientific Name

Terrestria l Community - Other Classification

Freshwater lidal marsh complex

I Records Selected

Possibly on Project Site Based on Search of Natura l Heritage Database

Ra re Plant Species and Ecological Communities Currently Recorded in the New Jersey Natural Heritage Database

Common Name

Freshwater Tidal Marsh Complex

Federa l Status

State Regiona l Status Status

G Rank S Rank Last Obs

G4? $3? 1999-11 -1 0

Ident Location

Y TIDAL MUDFLATS IN COVE OFF DELAWARE RIVER IMMEDIATELY NORTHEAST OF PETTY ISLAND.

300068

June 12,2008 Page: t

Scientific Na me

Vascular Plant

Bidens bidentoides

Cuscuta p olygonorum

Lemna perpusilla

3 Records Selected

Immediate Vicinity of Project Site Based on Sea rch of Natural Heritage Database

Rare Plant Species and Ecological Communities Currently Recorded in the New Jersey Natural Heritage Database

Common Na me Federal Sta te Regional G Rank S Rank Last Obs Status Status Stat us

Estuary Burr-marigold HL 03 S2 1971-09-22

Smartweed Dodder HL 05 S2 1903-08- 15

Minute Duckweed E LP, HL 05 SI 1910-05 -1 0

Ideot Location

Y CA. 0.3 MI. SW OF FISH HOUSE NEAR MIDDLE OF SILTED IN FISH- ERMANS COVE, DELAWARE R.

Y RIVER SHORE BELOW FISH HOUSE [:DELAIR JeT] .

Y LOWER REACHES OF POCHACK CREEK, DELAIRE.

300069•

NJ Department orEnvironmental Protection Division of Parks and Forestry

m, Natural Lands Management

Natural Heritage Priority Site

Fish House Cove Camden County

0 .• 5._==0 ...... 0.5 Miles 1:1 Priority Site

~ Public Land s

300070

LocatiollalIlljormatioll

Quad Name: Camden

County: Camden

Natural Heritage Priority Site Fish House Cove

Municipality Pennsauken Twp ; Camden City

Descriptioll oj Site

An expansive freshwater tidal mudflat dominated by wild rice and other perennial emergent vegetation bordered by shrub scrub marsh vegetation.

Boulldary J ustijicatioll

Primary bounds include the tidal marsh community and marsh habitat for rare plants. Secondary bounds include undeveloped upland buffer and open water outside the main channel of the Delaware River sheltered by Petty Island and a groin at an adjacent oil facility.

Biodiversity Rallk '!ill Contains an occurrence of a globally rare natural community. '

9 NJ o.jW\IIIUII 0( £",,; ........ .. 01 P'OIeD1iooo Divilio:orPIIIb..,d FO<aUy

. . Natural Lands Management July, 2001

Site Code: S.USNJHPI *229

300071

·EXPLANATIONS OF CODES USED IN NATURAL HERITAGE REPORTS

FEDERAL STATUS CODES

The following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service categories and their definitions of endangered and threatened p lants and anima ls have been modified from the

U.S. Fish and Wi ldlife Service (F·.R. Vo l. SO No. 188: Vo l. 61, No. 40; F.R. 50 CFR Part 17). Federal Sta~ur codes reported for sp~cies follow the most recent

listing.

LE Taxa formally listed as endangered.

LT Taxa formally listed as threatened .

PE Taxa already proposed to be fo rmally listed as endangered.

PT Taxa already proposed to be formally listed as threatened.

C Taxa for whic h the Service currently has on file sufficient information on biological vu lnerability and threat(s) to support proposa ls to lis t

them as endangered or threatened species.

S/A Simila rity of appea rance species.

STATE STATUS CODES

Two anima l lists provide state status codes afte r the Endangered and Nongame Species Conserva lion Act of 1973 (NSSA 23:2A- 13 et. seq.): the li s t of

endangered species (NJ.A.C. 7:25-4.13) and the li st defining sta tus of indigenous, nongame wildlife species of New Jersey (NJ.A.C. 7:25 - 4. 1 7{a» . The statl~s

of animal species is determined by the Nongame and Endangered Species Program (ENSP). The state status codes and de fi nitions provided reflect the most

. recent lists that were r~vised In the New Jersey Reg ister, Monday, june 3, 1991.

o Declining species-a species which has exhibited a continued decline in popu lation numbers ove r the years.

E Endangered species - an endangered species Is one whose prospec ts fo r survival within the s tate are in Immediate dange r due to one or

many facto rs - a loss of hab itat, over exp lo itation, predat ion, competition, disease. An endangered species require s Immediate

assistance or extinction will probably follow .

EX Extirpated species - a species that fo rmerly occurred in New Jersey, but is not now known to exis t withi n the stale.

Introduced species-a species not na tive to New jersey that cou ld not have established itself here without the assistance of man.

INC Increasing species - a species whose popu lation ha s exhibited a significant increase , beyond the normal range of its life cycle, over a long

term period.

T Th reatened species-a species that may become endangered if conditions surrounding the species begin to or continue to deteriorate.

P Periphera l species - a species whose occurrence in New jersey is at the extreme edge of its prese nt natural range.

S Stab le species-a species whose popu lation is not undergoing any long - term Increase/decrease within its natura l cycle.

U Unde termined specles-a species about which there is not enough Information available to determine the status.

StalUS for an imals separated by a slas h(J) indicate a du el s tatus. First status refers to th e state breeding popu lation, and the second status refers to the

migratory or winter popula tion.

300072

Page 2

SC Special Concern - app lies to an imal species that warrant special attention because of some evidence of decline. inherent vulnerabil ity to

enviro~mental deterioration, or habitat modification that would result in their becoming a Threatened species. Th is category would also be

appl ied to species that meet the foregoing criteria and for which there is little understanding of their current population status in the state.

Plant taxa listed as endangered are from New Jersey's official Endangered Plant Species Ust N.J.S.A. 1318-1 5.1 51 et seq.

E Native New Jersey plant species whose survival in the State or nation is in jeopardy.

REGIONAL STATUS CODES FOR PLANTS AND ECOLOG ICAL COMMUNITIES

LP Indica tes taxa listed by the Pine lands Commission as endangered or threatened within the ir legal jurisdicti on. Not all s pecies current ly

tracked by the Pinelands Commission are tracked by the Natural Heritage Program . A comp le te list of endangered and threatened

Pineland species is included in the New Jersey Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan.

HL Ind icates taxa or eco logica l communities protected by the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act within the jurisdiction of the

Highlands Preservation Area.

EXPLANATION OF GLOBAL AND STATE ELEMENT RANKS

The Nature Conservancy developed a ranking system fo r use In identifying elements (rare species and eco logi ca l communities) of natural divers ity most

endangered with extinction . Each element Is ranked according to its global. nationa l, and state (or subnational in other coun tries) rarity. These ranks are used

to prioritize conservation work so that the most endangered elements receive atten tion first. Definitions for element ranks are after The Nature Conservancy

(1982 : Chapter 4, 4.1 - 1 throug h 4.4.1.3 - 3).

GLOBAL ELEMENT RANKS

G 1 Critically imperiled g lobally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or very few remainIng individuals o r acres) or because of

some faclor(s) making It especialJy vulnerab le to extinction.

G2 Imperil ed globally because o f rarity (6 to 20 ?"urrences or few remaini~g Individuals or acres) or because of some factor(s) making it

very vuln erable to extinction throughout Its range.

G3 Either very rare and loca l throughout Its range or found 10caJly (even abundantly at some of Its locations) In a restricted range (e.g., a

single western state, a physiograph ic reg ion in the East) or because of other factors making It vulnerable to extinction throughout it's

range; with the number o f occurrences in the range o f 2 1 to 100.

G4 Apparently secure globally ; although it may be quite rare In parts of its range, especially at the pe riphery.

GS Demonstrably secure globally; although it may be quite rare In parts of its range, especially at the periphery.

GH Of historical occurrence throughout its range i. e., fo rmerly part of the established biota, with the expectation that it may be rediscovered.

CU Possibly in peril range- wide but status uncertain; more Information needed.

GX Believed to be ex ti nct throughout rang e (e.g .• passenger pigeon) with virtually no likeli hood that it will be rediscovered.

G? Species has not yet been ra nked.

GNR SpeCies has no t ye t been ranked .

300073

Page 3

STATE ElEMENT RANKS

S I Critically imperiled in New Jersey because of extreme rarity (S or fewe r occurrences or very few remaining individuals or acres). Elements

so ranked are o ften restric ted to very specialized conditions o r hab itats and /o r restricted to an extreme ly sma ll geog raphi cal area of the

s tate. Also Included are ele ments wh ich were formerly more ab undant, but becau se of habitat destruction or some other critical factor o f

its bio logy, they have been de monstrably reduced in abundance . In essence, these are elements for whIch, even wIth intensive searching,

sizable additional occurrences are unlikely to be d iscovered.

S2 Imperiled in New Jersey because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences). Historically many of these elements may have been more frequen t but

are now known from very few ex tant occurrences, primarily because of habi ta t destruction. Diligent searching may yield additional

occurrences.

S3 Ra re in state with 2 1 to 100 occurrences (plan t species and ecologica l commun ities in this category have only 21 to SO occu rrences).

Incl udes eleme nts wh ich are widely d is tribu ted In the state but with small populations/acreage or elements with restricted di strib ution,

but locally ab undant. Not yet Imperiled in state but may soon be If current tre nd s continue . Search ing often yie lds additiona l

occ ur re nces.

54 Apparen tl y secure in state, with many occurrences.

S5 Demo nstrably secure in state and esse ntially ine radicable un der p resent conditions.

SA Accidental In s tate, includ in g species (usually birds or butterflies) recorded once or twice o r only at ve ry grea t Intervals, hundreds o r even

thousands of miles outside their usual range; a few of these species may even have bred on the one or two occas ions they were recorded ;

examples Include European st rays or western birds on the Ea st Coas t and vice-versa.

SE Elements that are clearly exotic In New Jersey including those taxa not nat ive to North Ame rica (introduced taxa) or taxa deliberately o r

aCCide ntally introduced into the 5tate from other parts of North Ameri ca (adven tive taxa). Taxa ranked SE are not a conservation priority

(viable in t roduced occurrences of G I or G2 elements may be exceptions).

SH Elements of histo rical occurrence In New Jersey . Despite some searching of hIstorical occurrences and/or potential habitat, no extant

occurrences are known . Since not all o f th e hi storical occurrences have been field surveyed, and unsearched potentIal habitat remains,

histo ri callv ranked taxa are considered possib ly extant, and remain a conservation p ri ority for contInued field work.

5P Eleme nt has potential to occu r in New Jersey, but no occu rrences have been report ed.

5R Elements reported from New Jersey , but without persuas ive documentation which would provIde a basis for either accepting or rejecting

the repo rt . In some instances documentation may exis!, but as of yet , its source or loca tion has not been determined.

SRF Eleme nt s erroneously reported from New Jersey, but this error pe rsists in th e literature.

su Elements believed to be in peri l but the degree of ra ri ty uncertai n. Also Included are rare taxa of uncertain taxonomical s tand ing. More

information is needed to resolve rank.

SX Eleme nt s that have been determined or are presumed to be ex tirpated from New Jersey. All h is torical occu rrences have been searched

and a reasonable search of potent ial ha bilat has been completed. Ex tirpated taxa are not a cu rrent conservation priority.

5XC Eleme nts presumed extirpated from New Jersey, bu t native popu lations collected from the wild ex ist in cultiva tion.

300074

Note ;

Page 4

S2 Not of practical conservation concern in New Jersey, because there are no defi nab le occurrences, although the taxo.n Is native and

appears regularly In the state. An S2 rank will genera lly be used for long distance migrants whose occurrences during their migrations

are too irregular (In terms of repeated visitation to the same locat Ions), trans itory, and dispersed to be reliably identified , mapped and

protec ted. In other words, th e migrant regularly passes th rough the state, but enduring, mappable elemen t occurrences canno t be

defined .

Typically, the SZ rank applies to a non- breeding populat ion (N) in the state - for example, bi rds on migration. An S2 rank may in a few

instances also apply to a breeding popu lation (B), fo r example certain lepldoptera which regu larly die ou t every year with no significant

return migration.

Althoug h the SZ rank typically applies to mig rants, it should not be used ind iscriminately. Just because a species is on mig ration does

not mean it rece ives an SZ rank. SZ will only apply whe n the mig rants occur in an irregular, transitory and dispersed manner.

B Refers to the breeding popu lat ion of the element In the state,

N Refe rs to the non-breeding population of the element in the state.

T Element ranks conta ining a "r indica te that the infraspecific taxon is being ranked differenlly than the fu ll species. For example 5tachys

palustris var. homotricha is ranked "CST? SH" meaning the fu ll species is globally secure but the global rarity of the var. homotrif.:ha has

not been determined; in New Jersey the variety is ranked historic.

Q Elements contain ing a "Q" In the global ponion of Its rank indicates that the taxo n is of questionable, or uncertain taxonomica l stand in g,

e.g., some authors regard it as a full species, while others treat it at the subspecific level.

.1 Elements documented from a si ngle loca tion .

To express uncertainty, the most likely rank Is assIgned and a question mark added (e.g., G2?). A range Is Indicated by combining two ranks (e.g.,

G1G2.5153).

IDENTIFICATION CODES

These codes refer to whether the identification of the species or community has been checked by a reliable individual an d Is indicative of significan t habitat.

y

BLANK

Identification has been verified and is ind icative of significant habitat.

Identification has not been veri fied but the re is no reason to believe it is no t indicative of significant habitat.

Either it has not been determined i f the record is indicative of significant habitat or the identification of the species or

community may be confus ing or dispu ted.

Revi sed November 2007

300075

6

30 AUC; 2004

NAME

SCHWALBEA AMERICANA

SCIRPUS LONGII

SCIRPUS MARITlMUS

SESUVIUM MARITIMUM

SETARIA MAGNA

SISYRINCHIUM FUSCA'l1JM

SPHENOPHOLIS PENSYLVANlCA

5PlRANTHES ODORATA

STACHYS HYSSOPlFOLIA

STACHYS TENUIFOLIA

STELLARIA PUBERA

THASPIUM BARBINODE

TRIADENUM WALTERI

TRICHOSTEMA SETACEUM

UTRICt1I..ARIA GlSBA

UTRIC1.JLARIA INTERMEDIA

VERBENA SIMPLEX

VULPIA ELLIOTEA

XYRIS FIMSRIATA

149 Records Processed

CAMDEN COUNTY

RARE SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES PRESENTLY RECORDED IN

THE NEW JERSEY NATURAL HERITAGE DATABASE

COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATE REGIONAL

STATUS STATUS STATUS

CHAFFSEED LE E L.

LONG' 5 WOOLGRASS E L.

SALTMARSH BULRUSH E

SEABEACH PURSLANE

GIANT FOX-TAIL

SAND-PLAIN BLUE·EYED GRASS

SWAMP OATS

FRAGRANT LADIES' - TRESSES

HYSSOP HEDGE-NETTLE

SMOOTH HEDGE-NEITLE

STAR CHICKWEED E

HAIRY-JOINT MEADOW - PARSNIP

WALTER ' S ST. JOHN ' S-WORT E

NARROW-LEAF BLUECURLS

HUMPED BLADDERWORT L.

FLAT -LEAF BLADDERWORT

NARROW-LEAF VERVAIN E

SQUIRREL-TAIL SIX- WEEKS GRASS E

FRINGED YELLQW - EYED-GRASS E

GRANK SRANK

G2 Sl

G2 S2

GS SH

GS S2

G4GS S2

GS? S2

G4 S2

GS S2

GS S2

GS S3

GS SH

GS SX

GS Sl

GS S2

GS S3

GS S3

GS Sl

GS SH

GS Sl

300076

AUG 2004

NAME

NELUMBO LUTEA

NUPHAR MICROPHYLLUM

ONOSMQDIUM VIRGINIANUM

PHASEOLUS POLYSTACHIOS VAR

POLYSTACHIOS

PHLOX MACULATA VAR MACULATA

PHORADENDRON LEUCARPUM

PLANTAGO PUSILLA

PLATANTHERA CILIARIS

PLATANTHERA FLAVA VAR FLAVA

PLATANTHERA FLAVA VAR

HERBIOLA

PLUCHEA. FOETIDA

POLYGALA INCARNATA

POTAMOGETON OAKESIANUS

PRENANTHES AUTUMNALIS

PRUNUS ANGUSTIFOLIA

PUCCINELLIA FASClCULATA

PYCNANTHEMUM CLINOPODIOIDES

RANUNCULUS AMBIGENS

RANUNCULUS LONGIROSTRIS

RHYNCHOSPORA GLOBULARIS

RHYNCHOSPORA INUNDATA

RHYNCHOSPORA KNIESKERNII

RHYNCHOSPORA PALLIDA

ROTALA RAMOS lOR

SAGITTARIA SUBtJUl.TA

SAGITTARIA TERES

SCHEUCHZERIA PALUSTRIS

SCHIZAEA PUSILLA

CAMDEN COtmTY

RARE SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITI ES PRESENTLY RECORDED IN


COMMON NAME

AMERICAN LOTUS

SMALL YELLOW POND-LILY

VIRGINIA FALSE - GROMWELL

WILD KIDNEY BEAN

SPOTTED PHLOX

Jl.MERlCAN MISTLETOE

DWARF PLANTAIN

YELLOW FRINGED ORCHID

SOUTHERN REIN ORCHID

TUBERCLED REIN ORCHID

STINKING FLEABANE

PINK MILKWORT

OAKES I PONDWEEO

PINE ~ RATTLESNAKE-ROOT

CHICKASAW PLUM

SALTMARSH ALKALI GRASS

BASIL MOUNTAIN- MINT

WATER-PLANTAIN SPEARWQRT

LONG-BEAK WATER BUTTERCUP

COARSE GRASS-LIKE BEAKED-RUSH

SLENDER HORNED-RUSH

KNIESKERN ' S BEAKED - RUSH

PALE BEAKED-RUSH

TOOTHCUP

AWL-LEAF ARROWHEAD

SLENDER ARROWHEAD

ARROW - GRASS

CURLY GRASS FERN

FEDERAL

STA11JS

LT

STATE

STATUS

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

REGIONAL

STATUS

LP

LP

LP

LP

LP

LP

GRANK

G4

GST4TS

G4

G4T?

GST?

GS

GS

GS

G4T4?O

G4T40

GSTS

GS

G4

G4GS

GST4TS

G3GS

G2

G4

GS

G5?

G3G4

G2

G3

GS

G4

G3

GSTS

G3

SRANK

Sl

SR

Sl

S2

S3

S2

SR

S2

Sl

S2

Sl

SR

S?

S2

S2

S2

Sl

S2

S2

Sl

S2

S2

S3

S3

S2

Sl

SH

S3

300077

3 0 AUG 2 00 4

NAME

ERIOCAULON PARKER I

ERIOPHORUM TENELLUM

ERYNGIUM YUCCIFOLIUM VAR

YUCCIFOLIt)M

EUPATORIUM CAPILLI FOLIUM

EUPATORIUM HYSSOPIFOLIUM VAR

LACINIATUM

EUPATORIUM RESINOSUM

GENTIANA AUTUMNALIS

GLYCERIA GRANnIS

GNAPHALIUM HELLERI

HELONIAS BULLATA

HEMlCARPHA MICRANTHA

HETERANTHERA MULTIFLORA

HYDRASTIS CANADENSIS

JUNCUS CAESARIENSIS

JUNCUS TORREYI

KUHNIA EUPATORIOIDES

LEMNA PERPUSILLA

LESPEDEZA STUEVE I

LIMOS£LLA SUBULATA

LlNUM INTERCURSUM

LISTERA AUSTRALIS

LYGODIUM PALMATUM

LYSlMACHIA HYBRIDA

MALAXIS UNIFOLIA

MELANTHIUM VIRGINICUM

MICRANTHEMUM MICRANTHEMOIDES

MUHLENBERGIA TORREYANA

MYRIOPHYLLUM TENELLUM

CAMDEN COUNTY



COMMON NAME

PARKER'S PIPEWORT

ROUGH COTTON-GRASS

TALL RATTLESNAKE-MASTER

DOG - FENNEL THOROUGHWORT

TORREY'S BONESET

PINE BARREN BONESET

PINE BARREN GENTIAN

AMERICAN MANNA GRASS

SMALL EVERLASTING

SWAMP - PINK

SMALL-FLOWER HALFCHAFF SEDGE

BOUQUET MUD-PLANTAIN

GOLDEN SEAL

NEW JERSEY RUSH

TORREY'S RUSH

FALSE BONESET

MINUTE DUCKWEED

STUEVE'S DOWNY BUSH-CLOVER

AWL- LEAF MUDWQRT

SANDPLAIN FLAX

SOUTHERN TWAYBLADE

CLIMBING FERN

LOWLAND LOOSESTRIFE

GREEN ADDER'S - MOUTH

VIRGINIA BUNCHFLOWER

NUTTALL'S MUDWQRT

PINE BARREN SMOKE GRASS

SLENDER WATER- MILFOIL

FEDERAL

STATUS

LT

STATE

STATUS

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

REGIONAL

STATUS

LP

LP

LP

LP

LP

LP

LP

GRANK

G3

GS

GSTS

G5

GST4TS

G3

G3

GSTS

G4GST3?

G3

G.

G.

G.

G2

GS

GSTS

GS

G4?

G4GS

G.

G'

G.

GS

GS

GS

GH

G3

GS

8RANK

82

81

8X

81

82

82

83

82

8H

83

81

82

SH.l

82

81

81

81

82

81

81

82

82

83

82

81

8H

8 3

81

300078

) AUG 2004

NAME

CALAMOVILFA BREVI PILlS

CALYSTEGIA SPITHAMAEA

CAAEX AQUATILIS

CAREX BAAR.A.TI'II

CAREX BUSHII

CAREX CUMULA.TA

CAREX MITCHELLIANA

CAREX lITRIC1.ILATA

CASTILLEJA COCClNEA

CERCIS CANADENSIS

CHENOPODIUM RUBRUM

COELOGLOSSUM VIRIDE VAA

VIRESCENS

COMMELINA ERECTA

COREOPSIS ROSEA

CROTON WILLDENOWII

CUPHEA VISODSISSIMA

CUSCUTA POLYGONORUM

CYPERUS ENGELMANNII

CYPERUS LANCASTRIENSIS

CYPERUS RETROFRACTUS

DESMODIUM STRICTUM

OESMODIUM VIRIOIFLORUM

0100111. VIRGINIANA

DOELLINGERIA INFIRMA

DRABA REPTANS

ELATINE AMERICANA

EPILOBIUM ANGUSTIFOLIUM SSP

CIRCUMVAGUM

EPILOBIUM STRICTUM

CAMDEN COUNTY



COMMON NAME

PINE BARREN REEOGRASS

ERECT BINDWEED

WATER SEOGE

BARRATI" S SEOGE

BUSH'S SEDGE

CLUSTERED SEDGE

MITCHELL'S SEDGE

BOTTLE - SHAPED SEDGE

SCARLET INDIAN- PAINTBRUSH

REDBUD

REO GOOSEFOOT

LONG-BRACT GREEN ORCHID

SLENDER DAYFLOWER

ROSE-COLOR COREOPSIS

ELLIPTICAL RUSHFOIL

BLUE WAXWEED

SMARTWEED OODDER

ENGELMANN'S FLAT SEDGE

LANCASTER FLAT SEOGE

ROUGH FLATSEOOE

PINELAND TICK- TREFOIL

VELVETY TICK-TREEFOIL

LARGER BUTTONWEED

CORNEL-LEAF ASTER

CAROLINA WHITLOW- GRASS

AMERICAN WATERWORT

NARROW - LEAF FlREWEED

DOWNY WI LLCWHERB

FEDERAL

STATUS

STA.TE

STATUS

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

REGIONAL

STATUS

LP

LP

LP

LP

LP

GRANK

G4

G4GST4TS

G5

G4

G4

G4?

G3G4

G5

G5

GSTS

GS

GSTS

GSTS

G3

GS

GS?

GS

G4Q

GS

GS

G4

GS?

GSTS

GS

GS

G4

GSTS

GS?

5RANK

54

51

51

54

51

5R

52

52

52

51

51

52

SH.l

52

52

53

52

52

51

5R

52

52

51

52

5R

52

51

52

300079

2

30 AUG 200 ..

~ •• Vascular planes

NAME

GOMPHUS APOMYIUS

HELlCODISCUS SINGLEYANUS

HESPERIA ATTALUS SLOSSQNAE

LAMPS ILlS RADIATA

LEPTODEA OCHRACEA

LIBELLULA AXlLENA

LIGUMIA NASUTA

NICROPHQRUS AMERICANUS

PIERIS VIRGINIENSIS

POLYGONIA PROGNE

PONTIA PROTQDICE

SPARTINIPHAGA CARTERAE

AESCHYNOMENE VIRGINICA

AGASTACHE SCROPHULARIIFOLIA

AMIANTHIVM MUSClTOXlCUM

ARISTIDA DICHOTOMA VAR

CURTISSII

ARISTIDA LANOSA

ARISTlDA VIRGATA

ARNOGLOSSUM MUEHLENBERGI I

ASCLEPIAS RUBRA

ASCLEPIAS VARIEGATA

ASCLEPIAS VERTICI LLATA

ASTER CONCOLOR

ASTER RADULA

BIOENS BIDENTOIDES

BOTRYCHIUM ONEIDENSE

CACALIA ATRIPLIClFOLIA

CAMDEN COUNTY



COMMON NAME

BANNER CLUBTAIL

SMOOTH COIL

DOTTED SKI PPER

EASTERN LAMPMUSSEL

TIDEWATER HUCKET

BAR-WINGED SKIMMER

EASTERN PONDMUSSEL

AMERICAN BURYING BEETLE

WEST VIRGINIA WHITE

GRAY COMMA

CHECKERED WHITE

CARTER ' S NOCTUID MOTH

SENSITIVE JOINT- VETCH

PURPLE GIANT - HYSSOP

FLY POISON

CURTISS ' THREE - AWN GRASS

WOOLLY THREE-AWN GRASS

WAND - LIKE THREE-AWN GRASS

GREAT INDIAN PLANTAIN

RED MILKWEED

WHITE MILKWEED

WHORLED MILKWEED

EASTERN SILVERY ASTER

LOW ROUGH ASTER

ESTUARY BURR - MARIGOLD

BLUN'I'-LOBE GRAPE FERN

PALE INDIAN PLANTAIN

FEDERAL

STATUS

LE

LT

STATE

STATUS

T

T

T

E

T

E

E

E

E

REGIONAL

STATUS

LP

LP

LP

GRANK

G.

G4GS

G3G4T3

G5

G.

G5

G4GS

G2G3

G)G4

G5

G.

G2G)

G2

G.

G4GS

GSTS

G5

GST4TS

G'

G4GS

G5

G5

G4?

G5

G3

G'Q

G4GS

5RANK

51

S2S3

5253

53

51

538, S2N

51

5H

5H

5H

51

52

51

52

52

52

51

52

SX.l

52

52

52

52

51

52

52

51

300080

AUG 2004

NI>.M,

* .. Vertebrates

ARDEll. HERODIAS

CLEMMYS MUHLENBERGII

CROTALUS HORRIDUS HORRIDUS

FALCO PEREGRINUS

HYLA ANDERSONII

MELANERPES ERYTHROCEPHALUS

PITUOPHIS MELANOLEUCUS

MELANOLEUCUS

STRIX VARIA

-** Ecosystems

CAREX STRIATA VAR BREVIS

HERBACEOUS VEGETATION

COi\STAL PLAIN INTERMITTENT

POND

FRESHWATER TIDAL MARSH

COMPLEX

PINUS RIGIDA SATURATED

WOODLAND ALLIANCE

••• Invertebrates

ANAX LONGI PES

CALLOPHRYS IRUS

CELITKEMI5 MARTHA

ENALLAGMA PICI'UM

ENALLAGMA RECURVATUM

EPITHECi\ SPINOSA

ERYNNIS MARTIALIS

CAMDEN COUNTY



COMMON NAME FEDERAL STATE REGIONAL

STATIJS STATUS STATIJS

GREAT BLUE HERON sis BOG TURTLE LT • TIMBER RATTLESNAKE • PEREGRINE F~N E

PINE BARRENS TREEFROG T

RED- HEADED WOODPECKER TIT NORTHERN PINE SNAKE T

BARRED OWL TIT

WALTER I S SEDGE COASTAL PLAIN

INTERMITTENT POND HERBACEOUS

VEGETATION

VERNAL POND

FRESHWATER TIDAL MARSH COMPLEX

PITCH PINE LOWLANDS

(UNDIFFERENTIATED)

COMET DARNER

FROSTED ELFIN T

MARTHA'S PENNANT

SCARLET BLUET

PINE BARRENS BLUET

ROBUST BASKETTAIL

MOTTLED DUSKYWING

GRANK SRANK

G5 S2B,S4N

G3 S2

G4T4 S2

G4 SlB, S?N

G4 S3

G5 S2B,S2N

G4T4 S3

G5 S3.

G? SlS]

G3? S2S3

G4? S3?

G3 53

G5 S2S3

G3 S2S3

G4 53S4

G3 53

G3 53

G4 51

G3G4 5H

Appendix B

Analytical Results

300081

TABLE B-1SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Puchack Well Field Site Operable Unit 2Pennsauken Township, New Jersey

KA-SB201-01 KA-SB202-01 SGL-SB201-01 SGL-SB203-01 SGL-SB204-01 SGL-SB206-01 SGL-SB207-01 SGL-SB208-01 SGL-SB209-016/18/2008 6/17/2008 6/10/2008 6/11/2008 6/12/2008 6/12/2008 6/16/2008 6/13/2008 6/16/2008

0 to 3 ft bgs 0 to 0.5 ft bgs 0 to 2 ft bgs 0 to 2 ft bgs 0 to 2 ft bgs 0 to 2 ft bgs 0 to 2 ft bgs 0 to 2 ft bgs 0 to 2 ft bgs1-TCL-S-VOC Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/kg)75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U74-87-3 Chloromethane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U74-83-9 Bromomethane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U75-00-3 Chloroethane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane 5.3 U 7 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U76-13-1 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U67-64-1 Acetone 6.2 J 12 U 6.3 J 8.5 J 5.9 J 12 U 10 U 11 U 25 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U79-20-9 Methyl Acetate 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U75-09-2 Methylene Chloride 5.3 U 6 U 1.3 J 0.71 J 0.77 J 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U1634-04-4 Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U78-93-3 2-Butanone 11 U 12 U 9.9 U 10 U 9.7 U 12 U 10 U 11 U 9.6 U74-97-5 CHLOROBROMOMETHANE 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U67-66-3 Chloroform 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U110-82-7 Cyclohexane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U71-43-2 Benzene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U123-91-1 1,4-Dioxane 110 R 120 R 99 R 100 R 97 R 120 R 100 R 110 R 96 R79-01-6 Trichloroethene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 7.6 0.89 J 2 J 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U108-87-2 Metylcyclohexane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 11 U 12 U 9.9 U 10 U 9.7 U 12 U 10 U 11 U 9.6 U108-88-3 Toluene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 0.59 J 4.8 U10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 1.5 J 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U591-78-6 2-Hexanone 11 U 12 U 9.9 U 10 U 9.7 U 12 U 10 U 11 U 9.6 U124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U108-90-7 Chlorobenzene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 UJ 4.8 U100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U95-47-6 O-XYLENE 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U179601-23-1 m,p-Xylenes 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U100-42-5 Styrene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U75-25-2 Bromoform 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 R 5.3 U 4.8 R98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 U 5.3 U 4.8 U541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 R 5.3 UJ 4.8 R106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 0.49 J 5.3 UJ 4.8 R95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 R 5.3 UJ 4.8 R96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 R 5.3 U 4.8 R120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 R 5.3 UJ 4.8 R87-61-6 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 5.3 U 6 U 5 U 5 U 4.8 U 6 U 5.1 R 5.3 UJ 4.8 R

CAS No. Chemical Name

King Arthur SGL

AFinal Screening Level Ecological Assessment Page 1 of 8

300082




0 to 3 ft bgs 0 to 0.5 ft bgs 0 to 2 ft bgs 0 to 2 ft bgs 0 to 2 ft bgs 0 to 2 ft bgs 0 to 2 ft bgs 0 to 2 ft bgs 0 to 2 ft bgs


King Arthur SGL

2-SV-1-s SemiVolatile Organics (µg/kg) - Page 1100-52-7 Benzaldehyde 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U108-95-2 Phenol 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U111-44-4 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U95-57-8 2-Chlorophenol 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U95-48-7 2-Methylphenol 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U108-60-1 2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U98-86-2 Acetophenone 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 170 J 66 J106-44-5 4-Methylphenol 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U621-64-7 N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U67-72-1 Hexachloroethane 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U98-95-3 Nitrobenzene 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U78-59-1 Isophorone 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U88-75-5 2-Nitrophenol 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U120-83-2 2,4-Dichlorophenol 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U91-20-3 Naphthalene 210 U 220 U 180 U 350 J 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U106-47-8 4-Chloroaniline 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 UJ 180 U 190 UJ87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U105-60-2 Caprolactam 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U59-50-7 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U77-47-4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 UJ 180 U 190 UJ88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U95-95-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U92-52-4 1,1'-Biphenyl 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U91-58-7 2-Chloronaphthalene 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U88-74-4 2-Nitroaniline 410 U 420 U 360 U 2900 U 350 U 370 U 360 U 350 U 360 U131-11-3 Dimethylphthalate 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 210 U 220 U 39 J 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U99-09-2 3-Nitroaniline 410 U 420 U 360 U 2900 U 350 U 370 U 360 U 350 U 360 U83-32-9 Acenaphthene 210 U 220 U 180 U 2000 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol 410 U 420 U 360 U 2900 U 350 U 370 U 360 U 350 U 360 U100-02-7 4-Nitrophenol 410 U 420 U 360 U 2900 U 350 U 370 U 360 U 350 U 360 U132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U84-66-2 Diethylphthalate 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U86-73-7 Fluorene 210 U 220 U 180 U 1000 J 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U7005-72-3 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U100-01-6 4-Nitroaniline 410 U 420 U 360 U 2900 U 350 U 370 U 360 U 350 U 360 U534-52-1 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 410 U 420 U 360 U 2900 U 350 U 370 U 360 U 350 U 360 U86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U101-55-3 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U1912-24-9 Atrazine 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 410 U 420 U 360 U 2900 U 350 UJ 370 U 360 U 350 U 360 U85-01-8 Phenanthrene 210 U 220 U 180 U 10000 180 U 48 J 180 U 57 J 120 J120-12-7 Anthracene 210 U 220 U 310 2000 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U86-74-8 Carbazole 210 U 220 U 77 J 2300 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U84-74-2 Di-n-butylphthalate 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U


300083






King Arthur SGL

3-SV-2-s SemiVolatile Organics (µg/kg) - Page 2206-44-0 Fluoranthene 210 U 220 U 95 J 15000 180 U 76 J 43 J 160 J 120 J129-00-0 Pyrene 210 U 220 U 180 U 9900 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U85-68-7 Butylbenzylphthalate 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U91-94-1 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 180 UJ 180 U 190 UJ56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 210 U 220 U 36 J 6400 180 U 42 J 180 U 98 J 60 J218-01-9 Chrysene 210 U 220 U 67 J 6800 180 U 83 J 34 J 130 J 65 J117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 120 J 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 U 100 J 590 190 U117-84-0 Di-n-octylphthalate 210 U 220 U 180 U 1500 U 180 U 190 R 180 U 180 U 190 U205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 210 U 220 U 61 J 6500 180 U 75 J 180 U 110 J 190 U207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 210 U 220 U 58 J 4800 180 U 190 R 180 U 110 J 64 J50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 210 U 220 U 52 J 5600 180 U 54 J 180 U 98 J 56 J193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 210 U 220 U 85 J 4000 180 U 190 R 180 U 58 J 34 J53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 210 U 220 U 180 U 1100 J 180 U 190 R 180 U 180 U 190 U191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 210 U 220 U 120 J 2800 180 U 190 R 180 U 57 J 190 U

4-P/PCBs-s Pesticides/PCB Organics (µg/kg)319-84-6 alpha-BHC 2.1 U 2.2 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U319-85-7 beta-BHC 2.1 U 2.2 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U319-86-8 delta-BHC 2.1 U 2.2 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U58-89-9 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 2.1 U 2.2 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U 1.8 R 1.8 R 1.9 R76-44-8 Heptachlor 2.1 U 2.2 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U309-00-2 Aldrin 2.1 U 2.2 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 2.1 R 2.2 R 1.8 U 1.8 R 1.8 R 1.9 U 1.8 R 1.8 R 1.9 UJ959-98-8 Endosulfan I 0.72 J 2.2 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U60-57-1 Dieldrin 4.1 U 4.2 U 3.6 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 5.9 NJ 1.3 J 3.5 U 3.6 U72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 4.1 U 4.2 U 3.6 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 4 J 3.6 U 3.5 U 3.6 U72-20-8 Endrin 4.1 U 4.2 U 3.6 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 3.7 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 3.6 U33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 4.1 U 4.2 U 3.6 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 3.7 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 3.6 U72-54-8 4,4'-DDD 4.1 U 4.2 U 3.6 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 3.7 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 3.6 U1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 4.1 U 4.2 U 3.6 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 3.7 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 3.6 U50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 4.1 U 4.2 U 3.6 U 3.7 R 3.5 U 23 3.8 NJ 3.5 U 4 R72-43-5 Methoxychlor 21 U 22 U 18 U 18 U 18 U 19 U 18 U 18 U 19 U53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 4.1 U 4.2 U 3.6 U 12 3.5 U 3.7 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 3.6 U7421-93-4 Endrin aldehyde 4.1 U 4.2 U 3.6 U 7.5 3.5 U 3.7 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 3.6 U5103-71-9 alpha-Chlordane 2.1 U 2.2 U 3.6 U 6.8 J 1.8 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 0.44 J 1.9 U5103-74-2 gamma-Chlordane 2.1 U 2.2 U 3.6 U 1.8 U 1.8 U 1.9 U 0.77 J 1.8 U 1.9 U8001-35-2 Toxaphene 210 U 220 U 180 U 180 U 180 U 190 U 180 U 180 U 190 U12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 41 U 42 U 36 U 36 U 35 U 37 U 36 U 35 U 36 U11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 41 U 42 U 36 U 36 U 35 U 37 U 36 U 35 U 36 U11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 41 U 42 U 36 U 36 U 35 U 37 U 36 U 35 U 36 U53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 41 U 42 U 36 U 36 U 35 U 37 U 36 U 35 U 36 U12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 41 U 42 U 36 U 36 U 35 U 37 U 36 U 35 U 36 U11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 41 U 42 U 36 U 36 U 35 U 37 U 36 U 35 U 83 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 41 U 42 U 36 U 36 U 35 U 37 U 36 U 35 U 19 J


300084






King Arthur SGL

5-Met-icp-23 Inorganic Analytes (mg/kg)7439-97-6 Mercury 0.12 U 0.13 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.11 U 0.12 0.055 U 0.1 U 0.81 7440-22-4 Silver 0.13 UJ 0.13 UJ 0.22 UJ 0.05 J 0.11 UJ 0.43 J 0.2 J 0.21 UJ 0.09 J7429-90-5 Aluminum 4250 6360 4060 6100 4030 7990 2460 J 2720 J 2600 J7440-38-2 Arsenic 12.8 5.4 1.1 2.1 1.4 J 4.7 J 3.8 J 2.3 2.5 7440-39-3 Barium 8.3 J 10.5 J 16.1 47.6 16.3 116 38.4 J 15.7 33.9 7440-41-7 Beryllium 0.28 0.44 0.26 0.36 0.19 0.54 0.22 J 0.17 J 0.38 7440-70-2 Calcium 626 U 294 J 6820 26400 3100 20300 449 J 319 J 1890 7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.5 U 0.36 J 0.88 U 3.2 0.18 J 7.3 0.42 J 0.84 U 1.6 7440-48-4 Cobalt 0.23 J 0.55 J 2.5 1.6 J 2 J 1.6 J 2.2 3.4 4.6 7440-47-3 Chromium 4.7 J 9.5 J 4.1 64.2 J 481 J 1080 J 710 J 5 15.7 7440-50-8 Copper 3.5 J 3.8 J 5 63.2 J 29.4 J 59.8 J 32.1 J 5.6 39.9 7439-89-6 Iron 17000 47400 14600 15600 11500 18500 8940 7240 9040 7440-09-7 Potassium 934 1170 506 J 1580 405 J 871 271 J 278 J 288 J7439-95-4 Magnesium 271 J 310 J 4480 6160 2320 4960 531 J 843 600 7439-96-5 Manganese 4.6 J 17 J 115 J 116 R 98.8 J 146 J 84.5 J 90.2 J 150 J7440-23-5 Sodium 626 U 626 U 555 U 221 J 529 U 215 J 669 U 522 U 549 U7440-02-0 Nickel 0.26 J 0.52 J 1.9 J 5.6 J 31.1 J 18.7 J 19.3 J 2.8 J 4 J7439-92-1 Lead 10.5 J 11.1 J 12 J 68.1 J 26.5 J 1040 J 227 J 13.7 J 74.8 J7440-36-0 Antimony 0.37 U 0.38 U 0.68 U 0.88 0.91 33 4.2 J 0.63 U 0.66 U7782-49-2 Selenium 0.63 U 0.64 U 1.1 U 0.54 U 0.53 U 0.54 U 1.4 U 1 U 1.1 U7440-28-0 Thallium 0.04 J 0.06 0.05 J 0.06 0.02 J 0.04 UJ 0.04 J 0.08 U 0.04 J7440-62-2 Vanadium 13.5 J 19.2 J 7.3 5.7 J 4 J 5.5 J 9.9 J 5.3 10.5 7440-66-6 Zinc 3.1 J 9.5 J 12.6 J 23 J 15.2 J 109 J 36.9 15 40.4 18540-29-9 CHROMIUM (Hexavalent Compounds) (mg/kgdrywt) 1.5 J 0.75 U 0.65 U 120 J 62 200 25 0.62 U 0.66 U

Soil-Percents Add'l ParametersTot-Solids Total Solids (%) 79 78 92 86 95 91 90 95 90 pct-moist Percent Moisture (%) 19 21 8 8 6 11 8 5 9 pH pH (s.u.) 4.6 4.7 12 7.2 8.4 6.9 6.4 7.4 TOC Total Organic Carbon (ug/gdrywt) 5000 2900 12000 8800 41000 7000 4200 20000


300085



SS-201 SS-202 SS-203 SS-204 SS-2056/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008

0 to 0.5 ft bgs 0 to 0.5 ft bgs 0 to 0.5 ft bgs 0 to 0.5 ft bgs 0 to 0.5 ft bgs1-TCL-S-VOC Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/kg)75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 U 1.8 J74-87-3 Chloromethane 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 U 4.8 U75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 U 4.8 U74-83-9 Bromomethane 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 U 4.8 U75-00-3 Chloroethane 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 U 4.8 U75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 UJ 1.1 J75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 U 4.8 U76-13-1 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ67-64-1 Acetone 15 J 8.8 J 9.4 J 13 J 9.7 U75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 U 4.8 U79-20-9 Methyl Acetate 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ75-09-2 Methylene Chloride 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 U 4.8 U1634-04-4 Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 U 4.8 U78-93-3 2-Butanone 13 UJ 12 UJ 11 UJ 13 UJ 9.7 U74-97-5 CHLOROBROMOMETHANE 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ67-66-3 Chloroform 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 6.6 R 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ110-82-7 Cyclohexane 6.6 R 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 U 4.8 U56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride 6.6 R 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ71-43-2 Benzene 6.6 R 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 6.6 U 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ123-91-1 1,4-Dioxane 130 R 120 R 110 R 130 R 97 R79-01-6 Trichloroethene 6.6 R 5.9 UJ 5.6 UJ 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ108-87-2 Metylcyclohexane 6.6 R 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 U 4.8 U78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane 6.6 R 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 U 4.8 U75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane 6.6 R 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 U 4.8 U10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 6.6 R 5.9 UJ 5.6 UJ 6.7 R 4.8 UJ108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 13 R 12 UJ 11 UJ 13 UJ 9.7 U108-88-3 Toluene 6.6 R 5.9 UJ 5.6 UJ 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 6.6 R 5.9 UJ 5.6 UJ 6.7 R 4.8 UJ79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 6.6 R 5.9 UJ 5.6 UJ 6.7 R 4.8 UJ127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene 6.6 R 0.43 J 5.6 UJ 6.7 UJ 0.36 J591-78-6 2-Hexanone 13 R 12 UJ 11 UJ 13 UJ 9.7 U124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane 6.6 R 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane 6.6 R 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ108-90-7 Chlorobenzene 6.6 R 5.9 UJ 5.6 UJ 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 6.6 R 5.9 UJ 5.6 UJ 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ95-47-6 O-XYLENE 6.6 R 5.9 UJ 5.6 UJ 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ179601-23-1 m,p-Xylenes 6.6 R 5.9 UJ 5.6 UJ 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ100-42-5 Styrene 6.6 R 5.9 UJ 5.6 UJ 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ75-25-2 Bromoform 6.6 R 5.9 R 5.6 R 6.7 R 4.8 R98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene 6.6 R 5.9 UJ 5.6 UJ 6.7 UJ 4.8 UJ79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 6.6 R 5.9 U 5.6 U 6.7 UJ 4.8 U541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 6.6 R 5.9 R 5.6 R 6.7 R 4.8 R106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 6.6 R 5.9 R 5.6 R 6.7 R 4.8 R95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 6.6 R 5.9 R 5.6 R 6.7 R 4.8 R96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 6.6 R 5.9 R 5.6 R 6.7 R 4.8 R120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 6.6 R 5.9 R 5.6 R 6.7 R 4.8 R87-61-6 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 6.6 R 5.9 R 5.6 R 6.7 R 4.8 R


Tippin's Pond




SS-201 SS-202 SS-203 SS-204 SS-2056/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008

0 to 0.5 ft bgs 0 to 0.5 ft bgs 0 to 0.5 ft bgs 0 to 0.5 ft bgs 0 to 0.5 ft bgs


Tippin's Pond

2-SV-1-s SemiVolatile Organics (µg/kg) - Page 1100-52-7 Benzaldehyde 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U108-95-2 Phenol 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U111-44-4 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U95-57-8 2-Chlorophenol 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U95-48-7 2-Methylphenol 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U108-60-1 2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U98-86-2 Acetophenone 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U106-44-5 4-Methylphenol 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U621-64-7 N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U67-72-1 Hexachloroethane 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U98-95-3 Nitrobenzene 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U78-59-1 Isophorone 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U88-75-5 2-Nitrophenol 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U120-83-2 2,4-Dichlorophenol 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U91-20-3 Naphthalene 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U106-47-8 4-Chloroaniline 200 UJ 190 UJ 180 U 200 UJ 170 U87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U105-60-2 Caprolactam 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U59-50-7 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U77-47-4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 200 UJ 190 UJ 180 U 200 UJ 170 U88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U95-95-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U92-52-4 1,1'-Biphenyl 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U91-58-7 2-Chloronaphthalene 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U88-74-4 2-Nitroaniline 400 U 360 U 350 U 390 U 340 U131-11-3 Dimethylphthalate 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U99-09-2 3-Nitroaniline 400 U 360 U 350 U 390 U 340 U83-32-9 Acenaphthene 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol 400 U 360 U 350 U 390 U 340 U100-02-7 4-Nitrophenol 400 U 360 U 350 U 390 U 340 U132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U84-66-2 Diethylphthalate 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U86-73-7 Fluorene 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U7005-72-3 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U100-01-6 4-Nitroaniline 400 U 360 U 350 U 390 U 340 U534-52-1 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 400 U 360 U 350 U 390 U 340 U86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U101-55-3 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U1912-24-9 Atrazine 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 400 U 360 U 350 U 390 U 340 U85-01-8 Phenanthrene 170 J 150 J 47 J 76 J 41 J120-12-7 Anthracene 38 J 41 J 180 U 200 U 170 U86-74-8 Carbazole 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U84-74-2 Di-n-butylphthalate 46 J 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U




SS-201 SS-202 SS-203 SS-204 SS-2056/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008



Tippin's Pond

2-SV-1-s SemiVolatile Organics (µg/kg) - Page 2206-44-0 Fluoranthene 370 280 78 J 150 J 88 J129-00-0 Pyrene 430 310 180 U 200 U 170 U85-68-7 Butylbenzylphthalate 200 U 34 J 180 U 200 U 170 U91-94-1 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 200 UJ 190 UJ 180 U 200 UJ 170 U56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 200 J 150 J 40 J 71 J 45 J218-01-9 Chrysene 280 230 62 J 100 J 56 J117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 91 J 400 180 U 150 J 170 U117-84-0 Di-n-octylphthalate 200 U 190 R 180 U 200 U 170 U205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 300 260 J 54 J 93 J 44 J207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 310 J 240 J 180 U 93 J 52 J50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 270 180 J 47 J 80 J 47 J193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 110 J 70 J 180 U 42 J 29 J53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 200 U 190 R 180 U 200 U 170 U191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 74 J 190 R 180 U 200 U 170 U

4-P/PCBs-s Pesticides/PCB Organics (µg/kg)319-84-6 alpha-BHC 2 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 2 U 1.7 U319-85-7 beta-BHC 2 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 2 U 1.7 U319-86-8 delta-BHC 2 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 2 U 1.7 U58-89-9 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 2 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 2 U 1.7 U76-44-8 Heptachlor 2 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 2 U 1.7 U309-00-2 Aldrin 2 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 2 U 1.7 U1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 0.6 J 1.9 U 1.8 U 2 U 1.7 U959-98-8 Endosulfan I 2 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 2 U 1.7 U60-57-1 Dieldrin 4 U 2.6 J 3.5 U 1.4 J 3.4 U72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 2.3 J 1 J 9.1 1.8 J 3.4 J72-20-8 Endrin 4 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 3.9 U 3.4 U33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 4 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 3.9 U 3.4 U72-54-8 4,4'-DDD 4 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 3.9 U 3.4 U1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 4 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 3.9 U 3.4 U50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 4 U 4 R 5.1 J 3.8 J 1.7 J72-43-5 Methoxychlor 20 U 19 U 18 U 20 U 17 U53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 4 U 3.6 U 3.5 U 3.9 U 3.4 U7421-93-4 Endrin aldehyde 4 U 3.6 U 1.5 J 2.1 J 3.4 U5103-71-9 alpha-Chlordane 2 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 2 U 1.7 U5103-74-2 gamma-Chlordane 2 U 1.9 U 1.8 U 2 U 1.7 U8001-35-2 Toxaphene 200 U 190 U 180 U 200 U 170 U12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 40 U 36 U 35 U 39 U 34 U11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 40 U 36 U 35 U 39 U 34 U11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 40 U 36 U 35 U 39 U 34 U53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 40 U 36 U 35 U 39 U 34 U12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 40 U 36 U 35 U 39 U 34 U11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 40 U 36 U 35 U 39 U 34 U11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 54 79 21 J 54 J 34 U




SS-201 SS-202 SS-203 SS-204 SS-2056/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008



Tippin's Pond

5-Met-icp-23 Inorganic Analytes (mg/kg)7439-97-6 Mercury7440-22-4 Silver 0.14 J 0.08 J 0.16 J 0.05 J 0.05 J7440-38-2 Arsenic 2.4 J 3.5 3.7 2.9 J 3.8 7440-39-3 Barium 42.4 30.5 17.6 36.2 78.6 J7440-41-7 Beryllium 0.28 0.3 0.29 0.37 0.61 7440-43-9 Cadmium 1.1 0.98 0.24 J 0.68 0.25 J7440-48-4 Cobalt 3 J 3.6 J 2.6 J 3.1 J 3.5 J7440-47-3 Chromium 9 J 8.3 J 5.6 J 6.3 J 6.9 J7440-50-8 Copper 53.6 J 48.3 J 17.5 J 34.9 J 12.2 J7439-96-5 Manganese 137 J 178 J 81.7 J 193 J 219 J7440-02-0 Nickel 6.6 J 8 J 3.6 J 6.8 J 6 J7439-92-1 Lead 150 J 70 J 37.9 J 45.9 J 27 J7440-36-0 Antimony 1.6 1.1 0.89 0.79 0.35 7782-49-2 Selenium 1.1 U 1.1 U 0.53 U 0.58 U 0.51 U7440-28-0 Thallium 0.05 J 0.04 J 0.04 J 0.05 0.14 7440-62-2 Vanadium 9.9 J 11 J 10.2 J 14.4 J 8.9 J7440-66-6 Zinc 157 J 177 J 38.9 J 127 J 34.7 J18540-29-9 CHROMIUM (Hexavalent Compounds) (mg/kgdrywt) 0.69 UJ 0.61 UJ 0.61 UJ 0.71 UJ 0.59 UJ

2007-DESA-MET-S Inorganic Analytes (mg/kg)7439-97-6 Mercury 0.38 0.15 0.12 0.15 0.068 J7429-90-5 Aluminum 1870 2220 2370 3190 6980 7440-70-2 Calcium 3370 3940 884 31500 21700 7439-89-6 Iron 5900 8190 8800 12300 21300 7440-09-7 Potassium 240 J 434 J 294 J 588 2540 7439-95-4 Magnesium 601 1960 599 17800 9040 7440-23-5 Sodium 541 U 549 U 534 U 559 U 341 J

Soil-Percents Add'l ParametersTot-Solids Total Solids (%) 86 92 93 84 98 pct-Moist Percent Moisture (%) 17 9 7 16 2 pH pH (s.u.) 6.6 6.9 6.4 7.2 7.5 TOC Total Organic Carbon (ug/gdrywt) 82000 J 46000 J 33000 J 90000 J 28000 J


300089

TABLE B-2SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTSPuchack Well Field Site, Operable Unit 2

Pennsauken Township, New Jersey

SD-201 SD-202 SD-203

6/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/20080 to 0.5 ft bgs 0 to 0.5 ft bgs 0 to 0.5 ft bgs

1-TCL-S-VOC Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/kg)75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U74-87-3 Chloromethane 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U74-83-9 Bromomethane 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U75-00-3 Chloroethane 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane 1.8 UJ 1.6 U 2.4 U75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U76-13-1 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 1.8 UJ 1.6 U 2.4 U67-64-1 Acetone 7.6 3.3 U 10 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide 1.8 U 1.6 U 0.58 J79-20-9 Methyl Acetate 1.8 UJ 1.6 U 2.4 U75-09-2 Methylene Chloride 1.8 UJ 1.6 U 2.4 U156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U1634-04-4 Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether 1.8 UJ 1.6 U 2.4 U75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U78-93-3 2-Butanone 3.7 U 3.3 U 4.7 U74-97-5 CHLOROBROMOMETHANE 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U67-66-3 Chloroform 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1.8 UJ 1.6 U 2.4 U110-82-7 Cyclohexane 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride 1.8 UJ 1.6 U 2.4 U71-43-2 Benzene 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 1.8 UJ 1.6 U 2.4 U123-91-1 1,4-Dioxane 37 R 33 R 47 R79-01-6 Trichloroethene 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U108-87-2 Metylcyclohexane 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 1.8 UJ 1.6 U 2.4 U108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 3.7 U 3.3 U 4.7 U108-88-3 Toluene 1.8 U 0.23 J 2.4 U10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 1.8 UJ 1.6 U 2.4 U79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1.8 UJ 1.6 U 2.4 U127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U591-78-6 2-Hexanone 3.7 U 3.3 U 4.7 U124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane 1.8 UJ 1.6 U 2.4 U108-90-7 Chlorobenzene 1.8 UJ 1.6 UJ 2.4 U100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U95-47-6 O-XYLENE 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U179601-23-1 m,p-Xylenes 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U100-42-5 Styrene 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U75-25-2 Bromoform 1.8 R 1.6 R 2.4 U98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.8 U 1.6 U 2.4 U541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1.8 R 1.6 R 2.4 U106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1.8 R 1.6 R 2.4 U95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1.8 R 1.6 R 2.4 U96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1.8 R 1.6 R 2.4 U120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1.8 R 1.6 R 2.4 U87-61-6 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 1.8 R 1.6 R 2.4 U





SD-201 SD-202 SD-203



2-SV-1-s SemiVolatile Organics (µg/kg) - Page 1100-52-7 Benzaldehyde 300 U 210 U 220 U108-95-2 Phenol 300 U 210 U 220 U111-44-4 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 300 U 210 U 220 U95-57-8 2-Chlorophenol 300 U 210 U 220 U95-48-7 2-Methylphenol 300 U 210 U 220 U108-60-1 2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 300 U 210 U 220 U98-86-2 Acetophenone 300 U 210 U 220 U106-44-5 4-Methylphenol 300 U 210 U 220 U621-64-7 N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 300 U 210 U 220 U67-72-1 Hexachloroethane 300 U 210 U 220 U98-95-3 Nitrobenzene 300 U 210 U 220 U78-59-1 Isophorone 300 U 210 U 220 U88-75-5 2-Nitrophenol 300 U 210 U 220 U105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol 300 U 210 U 220 U111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 300 U 210 U 220 U120-83-2 2,4-Dichlorophenol 300 U 210 U 220 U91-20-3 Naphthalene 300 U 210 U 220 U106-47-8 4-Chloroaniline 300 U 210 U 220 U87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 300 U 210 U 220 U105-60-2 Caprolactam 300 U 210 U 220 U59-50-7 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 300 U 210 U 220 U91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 300 U 210 U 220 U77-47-4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 300 U 210 U 220 U88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 300 U 210 U 220 U95-95-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 300 U 210 U 220 U92-52-4 1,1'-Biphenyl 300 U 210 U 220 U91-58-7 2-Chloronaphthalene 300 U 210 U 220 U88-74-4 2-Nitroaniline 590 U 410 U 420 U131-11-3 Dimethylphthalate 300 U 210 U 220 U606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 300 U 210 U 220 U208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 300 U 210 U 220 U99-09-2 3-Nitroaniline 590 U 410 U 420 U83-32-9 Acenaphthene 300 U 210 U 220 U51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol 590 U 410 U 420 U100-02-7 4-Nitrophenol 590 U 410 U 420 U132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 300 U 210 U 220 U121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 300 U 210 U 220 U84-66-2 Diethylphthalate 300 U 210 U 220 U86-73-7 Fluorene 300 U 210 U 220 U7005-72-3 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether 300 U 210 U 220 U100-01-6 4-Nitroaniline 590 U 410 U 420 U534-52-1 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 590 U 410 U 420 U86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 300 U 210 U 220 U101-55-3 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether 300 U 210 U 220 U118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 300 U 210 U 220 U1912-24-9 Atrazine 300 U 210 U 220 U87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 590 U 410 U 420 U85-01-8 Phenanthrene 230 J 210 U 220 U120-12-7 Anthracene 55 J 210 U 220 U




SD-201 SD-202 SD-203



2-SV-1-s SemiVolatile Organics (µg/kg) - Page 286-74-8 Carbazole 300 U 210 U 220 U84-74-2 Di-n-butylphthalate 300 U 210 U 220 U206-44-0 Fluoranthene 340 210 U 220 U129-00-0 Pyrene 470 210 U 220 U85-68-7 Butylbenzylphthalate 300 U 210 U 220 U91-94-1 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 300 U 210 U 220 U56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 210 J 210 U 220 U218-01-9 Chrysene 310 210 U 220 U117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 360 210 U 220 U117-84-0 Di-n-octylphthalate 300 U 210 U 220 U205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 250 J 210 U 220 U207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 280 J 210 U 220 U50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 220 J 210 U 220 U193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 150 J 210 U 220 U53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 300 U 210 U 220 U191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 300 U 210 U 220 U4-P/PCBs-s Pesticides/PCB Organics (µg/kg)319-84-6 alpha-BHC 3 U 2.1 U 2.2 U319-85-7 beta-BHC 3 U 2.1 U 2.2 U319-86-8 delta-BHC 3 U 2.1 U 2.2 U58-89-9 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 3 U 2.1 U 2.2 U76-44-8 Heptachlor 3 U 2.1 U 2.2 U309-00-2 Aldrin 3 U 2.1 U 2.2 U1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 1 J 2.1 U 2.2 U959-98-8 Endosulfan I 3 U 2.1 U 2.2 U60-57-1 Dieldrin 5.9 U 4.1 U 4.2 U72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 12 2.2 J 14 72-20-8 Endrin 5.9 U 4.1 U 4.2 U33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 5.9 U 4.1 U 4.2 U72-54-8 4,4'-DDD 13 4.1 U 7.4 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 5.9 U 4.1 U 4.2 U50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 6.4 NJ 4.1 U 4.2 U72-43-5 Methoxychlor 30 U 21 U 22 U53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 5.9 U 4.1 U 4.2 U7421-93-4 Endrin aldehyde 5.9 U 4.1 U 4.2 U5103-71-9 alpha-Chlordane 2.6 J 1.8 J 2.2 U5103-74-2 gamma-Chlordane 3 U 2.1 U 2.2 U8001-35-2 Toxaphene 300 U 210 U 220 U12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 59 U 41 U 42 U11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 59 U 41 U 42 U11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 59 U 41 U 42 U53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 59 U 41 U 42 U12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 59 U 41 U 42 U11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 59 U 41 U 42 U11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 62 35 J 42 U




SD-201 SD-202 SD-203



5-Met-icp-23 Inorganic Analytes (mg/kg)7440-22-4 Silver 0.13 J 0.26 UJ 0.13 UJ7440-38-2 Arsenic 6.2 1.5 J 1.6 J7440-39-3 Barium 38.3 3.8 6.5 7440-41-7 Beryllium 0.43 0.15 J 0.08 J7440-43-9 Cadmium 0.63 1 U 0.5 U7440-48-4 Cobalt 1.9 J 0.74 J 0.46 J7440-47-3 Chromium 9.2 J 4.3 J 2.5 J7440-50-8 Copper 60 J 6.7 J 4.1 J7439-96-5 Manganese 21.6 J 10.1 J 6.4 J7440-02-0 Nickel 6.9 J 1.9 J 0.89 J7439-92-1 Lead 200 J 14 J 15.3 J7440-36-0 Antimony 5.5 0.79 U 0.45 7782-49-2 Selenium 0.33 J 1.3 U 0.63 U7440-28-0 Thallium 0.1 0.1 U 0.05 U7440-62-2 Vanadium 26.6 J 3.7 J 8.3 J7440-66-6 Zinc 111 J 25.4 J 8.4 J18540-29-9 CHROMIUM (Hexavalent Compounds) (mg/kgdrywt) 0.94 UJ 0.78 UJ 0.68 UJ

2007-DESA-ME Inorganic Analytes (mg/kg)7439-97-6 Mercury 0.42 0.13 U 0.06 J7429-90-5 Aluminum 4110 922 879 7440-70-2 Calcium 1070 510 J 586 U7439-89-6 Iron 7090 3140 2530 7440-09-7 Potassium 290 J 610 U 586 U7439-95-4 Magnesium 679 J 523 J 586 U7440-23-5 Sodium 3480 610 U 586 U

Soil-Percents Add'l ParametersTot-Solids Total Solids (%) 66 75 80 pct-Moist Percent Moisture (%) 44 20 21 pH pH (s.u.) 6.5 6.8 6.5 TOC Total Organic Carbon (ug/gdrywt) 52000 J 11000 J 6000 J


TABLE B-3SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS


SW-201 SW-202 SW-203

6/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008

1-TCL-TRACEVOC Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/L)75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U74-87-3 Chloromethane 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ74-83-9 Bromomethane 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U75-00-3 Chloroethane 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U76-13-1 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U67-64-1 Acetone 8.3 5 U 5 U75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U79-20-9 Methyl Acetate 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U75-09-2 Methylene Chloride 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U1634-04-4 Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U78-93-3 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 5 U74-97-5 CHLOROBROMOMETHANE 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U67-66-3 Chloroform 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U110-82-7 Cyclohexane 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U71-43-2 Benzene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ79-01-6 Trichloroethene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U108-87-2 Metylcyclohexane 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U 5 U108-88-3 Toluene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U591-78-6 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 5 U108-90-7 Chlorobenzene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U95-47-6 O-Xylene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U1330-20-7 m,p-Xylene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U100-42-5 Styrene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U75-25-2 Bromoform 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U87-61-6 1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U





SW-201 SW-202 SW-203

6/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008


2-SV-1-w SemiVolatile Organics (µg/L)- Page 1100-52-7 Benzaldehyde 5 U 5 U 5 U108-95-2 Phenol 5 U 5 U 5 U111-44-4 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 5 U 5 U 5 U95-57-8 2-Chlorophenol 5 U 5 U 5 U95-48-7 2-Methylphenol 5 U 5 U 5 U108-60-1 2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 5 U 5 U 5 U98-86-2 Acetophenone 5 U 5 U 5 U106-44-5 4-Methylphenol 5 U 5 U 5 U621-64-7 N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 5 U 5 U 5 U67-72-1 Hexachloroethane 5 U 5 U 5 U98-95-3 Nitrobenzene 5 U 5 U 5 U78-59-1 Isophorone 5 U 5 U 5 U88-75-5 2-Nitrophenol 5 U 5 U 5 U105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol 5 U 5 U 5 U111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 5 U 5 U 5 U120-83-2 2,4-Dichlorophenol 5 U 5 U 5 U91-20-3 Naphthalene 5 U 5 U 5 U106-47-8 4-Chloroaniline 5 U 5 U 5 U87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene 5 U 5 U 5 U105-60-2 Caprolactam 5 UL 5 UL 5 UL59-50-7 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 5 U 5 U 5 U91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene 5 U 5 U 5 U77-47-4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 5 UL 5 UL 5 UL88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 5 U 5 U 5 U95-95-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 5 U 5 U 5 U92-52-4 1,1'-Biphenyl 5 U 5 U 5 U91-58-7 2-Chloronaphthalene 5 U 5 U 5 U88-74-4 2-Nitroaniline 5 U 5 U 5 U131-11-3 Dimethylphthalate 5 U 5 U 5 U606-20-2 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 5 U 5 U 5 U208-96-8 Acenaphthylene 5 U 5 U 5 U99-09-2 3-Nitroaniline 5 U 5 U 5 U83-32-9 Acenaphthene 5 U 5 U 5 U100-02-7 4-Nitrophenol 5 U 5 U 5 U132-64-9 Dibenzofuran 5 U 5 U 5 U121-14-2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 5 U 5 U 5 U84-66-2 Diethylphthalate 5 U 5 U 5 U86-73-7 Fluorene 5 U 5 U 5 U7005-72-3 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether 5 U 5 U 5 U100-01-6 4-Nitroaniline 5 U 5 U 5 U534-52-1 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 5 U 5 U 5 U86-30-6 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 5 U 5 U 5 U101-55-3 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether 5 U 5 U 5 U118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 5 U 5 U 5 U1912-24-9 Atrazine 5 U 5 U 5 U87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol 5 U 5 U 5 U85-01-8 Phenanthrene 5 U 5 U 5 U120-12-7 Anthracene 5 U 5 U 5 U86-74-8 Carbazole 5 U 5 U 5 U




SW-201 SW-202 SW-203

6/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008


2-SV-1-w SemiVolatile Organics (µg/L)- Page 284-74-2 Di-n-butylphthalate 5 U 5 U 5 U206-44-0 Fluoranthene 5 U 5 U 5 U129-00-0 Pyrene 5 U 5 U 5 U51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol 5 U 5 U 5 U91-94-1 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 5 U 5 U 5 U56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene 5 U 5 U 5 U218-01-9 Chrysene 5 U 5 U 5 U117-81-7 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 5 U 5 U 5 U117-84-0 Di-n-octylphthalate 6.3 5 U 5 U205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 5 U 5 U 5 U207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5 U 5 U 5 U50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 5 U 5 U 5 U193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 5 U 5 U 5 U53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 5 U 5 U 5 U191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 5 U 5 U 5 U

4-P/PCBs-w Pesticides/PCB Organics (µg/L)319-84-6 alpha-BHC 0.0024 UL 0.0024 UL 0.0024 UL319-85-7 beta-BHC 0.0024 U 0.0024 U 0.0024 U319-86-8 delta-BHC 0.0024 UL 0.0024 UL 0.0024 UL58-89-9 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.0024 U 0.0024 U 0.0024 U76-44-8 Heptachlor 0.0024 U 0.0024 U 0.0024 U309-00-2 Aldrin 0.0024 UL 0.0024 UL 0.0024 UL1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 0.0024 U 0.0024 U 0.0024 U959-98-8 Endosulfan I 0.0024 U 0.0024 U 0.0024 U60-57-1 Dieldrin 0.0048 U 0.0048 U 0.0047 U72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 0.0048 U 0.0048 U 0.0047 U72-20-8 Endrin 0.0048 UL 0.0048 UL 0.0047 UL33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 0.0048 U 0.0048 U 0.0047 U72-54-8 4,4'-DDD 0.0048 U 0.0048 U 0.0047 U1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 0.0048 UL 0.0048 UL 0.0047 UL50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 0.0048 UL 0.0048 UL 0.0047 UL72-43-5 Methoxychlor 0.024 U 0.024 U 0.024 U53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 0.0048 U 0.0048 U 0.0047 U7421-93-4 Endrin aldehyde 0.0048 UL 0.0048 UL 0.0047 UL5103-71-9 alpha-Chlordane 0.0024 U 0.0024 U 0.0024 U5103-74-2 gamma-Chlordane 0.0024 U 0.0024 U 0.0024 U8001-35-2 Toxaphene 0.18 U 0.18 U 0.18 U12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 0.03 U 0.03 U 0.03 U11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 0.061 U 0.06 U 0.059 U11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 0.03 U 0.03 U 0.03 U53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 0.061 U 0.06 U 0.059 U12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 0.03 U 0.03 U 0.03 U11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 0.03 U 0.03 U 0.03 U11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 0.03 U 0.03 U 0.03 U


300096



SW-201 SW-202 SW-203

6/26/2008 6/26/2008 6/26/2008


2007-DESA-METS Inorganic Analytes (µg/L)7429-90-5 Aluminum 4500 110 120 7440-36-0 Antimony 20 U 20 U 20 U7440-39-3 Barium 100 U 100 U 100 U7440-70-2 Calcium 12000 9600 9500 7440-48-4 Cobalt 20 U 20 U 20 U7439-89-6 Iron 10000 1100 1200 7439-92-1 Lead 230 8 9.6 7439-95-4 Magnesium 3100 2200 2200 7439-96-5 Manganese 220 78 69 7439-97-6 Mercury 0.0002 U 0.0002 U 0.0002 U7440-02-0 Nickel 20 U 20 U 20 U7440-09-7 Potassium 3300 2500 J 2500 7440-22-4 Silver 5 U 5 U 5 U7440-23-5 Sodium 37000 38000 37000 7440-62-2 Vanadium 42 20 U 20 U7440-66-6 Zinc 350 20 U 20 U

OU2-ICP-MS Inorganic - MS (µg/L)7440-38-2 Arsenic 10 4.2 3.9 7440-41-7 Beryllium 0.49 0.4 U 0.4 U7440-43-9 Cadmium 2.3 0.2 U 0.2 U7440-47-3 Chromium 15 0.73 0.86 7440-50-8 Copper 120 2.5 3.2 7782-49-2 Selenium 2 U 2 U 2 U7440-28-0 Thallium 0.4 U 0.4 U 0.4 U

Add-l Additional ParametersALK ALKALINITY, TOTAL (AS CACO3), (mg/L) 41 32 32 TDS Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 150 150 150 TSS TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/L) 23 1500 21 CACOA-H Hardness as CaCO3 (mg/L) 43 33 33 18540-29-9 Chromium (Hexavalent Compounds), (µg/L 10 U 10 U 10 UTOC Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) 12 11 11


Appendix C

Fate, Transport, and Toxicity of Chemicals of Potential Concern

300098

A C-1


C.1 Metals Fate, transport and toxicity of 14 metals retained as COPCs are discussed in the following subsections.

C.1.1 Aluminum Fate and Transport: Because of its strong reactivity, aluminum is not found as a free metal in nature. Aluminum has only one oxidation state (+3), thus its behavior in the environment depends on its ordination chemistry and the surrounding conditions. In soils, a low pH generally results in an increase in aluminum mobility. In water, an equilibrium with a solid phase is established that controls the extent of aluminum dissolution (ATSDR 2008a).

Plants vary in their ability to remove aluminum from soils, although bioconcentration factors for plants are generally less than one. Biomagnification of aluminum in terrestrial food chains does not appear to occur. There is no data on the biomagnification of aluminum in aquatic food chains (ATSDR 2008a).

Toxicity: The nervous system may be a target area for aluminum. Aluminum may also interact with neuronal DNA to alter gene expression and protein formation. Mammalian studies do not indicate that aluminum affects reproduction although some developmental effects have been reported in mammals (ATSDR 2008a). In animals, ingestion of aluminum at levels of 1,400 ppm lowered levels of inorganic phosphorus in blood and bones (HSDB 2009). Severe aluminum intoxication, characterized by lethargy, anorexia, or death, was observed in rats following parenteral or oral administration of aluminum hydroxide, chloride, or sulfate. Other studies have found that intratracheal instillation of aluminum salts or metallic aluminum powder has produced pulmonary fibroses (HSDB 2009). LD50 values for aluminum ingestion are typically unavailable because aluminum is only sparingly absorbed from the gut, and because death occurs from intestinal blockage due to precipitated aluminum species rather than systemic aluminum toxicity (HSDB 2009).

C.1.2 Antimony Fate and Transport: Antimony is a silvery white metal of medium hardness and low solubility in water. Metallic antimony is stable under ordinary conditions and is not readily altered by air or water. Antimony displays four oxidation states, Sb(-3), Sb(0), Sb(+3), and Sb(+5); the +3 state is the most common and stable (ATSDR 1992). Very little antimony occurs free in nature, and most is derived from stibnite (Sb2S3), which contains 71 to 75 percent of this element when nearly pure. Mean antimony concentration in the earth’s crust has been estimated to be 0.2 ppm (NAS 1980). Antimony can be released from volcanic eruptions, sea spray, and forest fires. The majority of antimony released to the environment arises from anthropogenic sources including nonferrous metal mining, smelting and refining; the production, use and disposal of antimony alloys and compounds; coal combustion; and refuse and sludge combustion.

The speciation and physicochemical state of antimony are important to its behavior in the environment and availability to biota. Antimony that is incorporated into mineral lattices is inert and not bioavailable. Mobility of antimony released to the soil is determined by the nature of the soil, the form of antimony deposited, and the pH of

300099

Appendix C

A C-2


the soil. Antimony sorbs strongly to soil and sediment; its sorption is primarily correlated with the content of iron, aluminum and manganese in the soil with which it coprecipitates as hydroxylated oxides (ATSDR 1992, Lintschinger et al. 1998). Trivalent antimony sorbs to soil more strongly than the pentavalent form (Lintschiner et al. 1998).

Antimony is transported into aquatic systems via natural weathering of soil and from anthropogenic sources. Antimony released to water will generally end up in sediment where it is associated with iron, manganese and aluminum hydroxyoxides. Antimony in aerobic water mostly occurs as Sb(+5), although small amounts of Sb(+3) are present. Trivalent antimony is the dominant form present in anaerobic water. Antimony can be reduced and methylated by microorganisms in anaerobic sediment, thereby mobilizing the antimony (ATSDR 1992). Methylated antimony compounds are soluble and readily oxidized (HSDB 2009).

Toxicity: The majority of effects in animals resulting from the inhalation of antimony (Sb) is attributed to the accumulation of antimony dust in the lung (pneumoconiosis), which may progress to a proliferation of alveolar macrophages to fibrosis. The heart is another target organ in antimony exposure, resulting in altered blood pressure, increased heart rate, and decreased contractile force. Antimony is known historically for its emetic properties, causing vomiting, diarrhea, gastric discomfort, and ulcers. Dietary exposure studies have reported decreased hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, altered erythrocyte counts, and swelling of the hepatic cords (ATSDR 1992).

C.1.3 Arsenic Fate and Transport: Arsenic has four valence states (-3, 0, +3, and +5), rarely occurring in its free state in nature. It is usually a component of sulfidic ores, occurring as arsenides and arsenates, along with arsenic trioxide, which is a weathering product of arsenides. Biotransformations may occur, resulting in volatile arsenicals that normally are returned to land where soil adsorption, plant uptake, erosion, leaching, reduction to arsines, and other processes occur. Inorganic arsenic is more mobile than organic arsenic, and thus poses greater problems by leaching into surface waters and groundwater. The trivalent arsenic species (+3) are generally considered to be more toxic, more soluble, and more mobile than As (+5) species (Eisler 1988b).

Arsenic in water exists primarily as a dissolved ionic species. Particulates account for less than one percent of the total measurable arsenic. Arsenates are more strongly adsorbed to sediments than are other arsenic forms. In bodies of water that become stratified in summer, arsenic released from sediments accumulates in the hypolimnion until turnover, when it is mixed with epilimnetic waters. This mixing may result in a ten to twenty percent increase in arsenic concentrations (Eisler 1988b).

Toxicity: Eisler (1988b) reports the following points: (1) arsenic may be absorbed by ingestion, inhalation, or permeation of the skin or mucous membrane, (2) cells accumulate arsenic by using an active transport system normally used in phosphate transport, (3) arsenicals are readily absorbed after ingestion, most being rapidly

300100

Appendix C

A C-3


excreted in the urine during the first few days, (4) the toxicity of arsenicals conforms to the following order from greatest to least toxicity: arsines > inorganic arsenites > organic trivalent compounds (arsenoxides) > inorganic arsenates > organic pentavalent compounds > arsonium compounds > elemental arsenic, (5) solubility in water and body fluids appear to be directly related to toxicity, and (6) the mechanisms of arsenical toxicity differ considerably among arsenic species, although signs of poisoning appear similar for all arsenicals.

The primary mechanism of inorganic trivalent arsenic toxicity is through reaction with sulfhydryl groups of proteins and subsequent enzyme inhibition; inorganic pentavalent arsenic does not react as readily with sulfhydryl groups. Inorganic trivalent arsenic interrupts oxidative metabolic pathways and sometimes causes morphological changes in liver mitochondria. Methylation greatly reduces the toxicity of inorganic arsenic (both trivalent and pentavalent) and is usually the major detoxification mechanism (Eisler 1988b).

The mechanism of organic arsenic toxicity begins with its initial metabolism to the trivalent arsenoxide form, followed by its subsequent reaction with sulfhydryl groups of tissue proteins and enzymes, to form an arylbis (organylthio) arsine. This form inhibits oxidative degradation of carbohydrates and decreases cellular ATP (Eisler 1988b).

C.1.4 Barium Fate and Transport: Barium is widely distributed in both terrestrial and aquatic environments. Although it is found in most aquatic environments, most barium precipitates out in the form of insoluble salts (EPA 1986). Transport of barium by suspended sediments in lotic water bodies may be significant. Barium is not expected to bioconcentrate significantly in plants or freshwater aquatic organisms.

Barium occurs naturally in most surface water and groundwater. In groundwater and surface water, barium is likely to precipitate out of solution as an insoluble salt (EPA 1986). The chemical form of barium largely dictates its adsorption into soils and sediments. Barium in sediments is found largely in the relatively insoluble form of barium sulfate and also in the insoluble form of barium carbonate. Humid and fulvic acid have not been found to increase the mobility of barium (ATSDR 2007).

Toxicity: The oral toxicity of barium compounds depends on their solubility. The soluble compounds, which include the chloride, nitrate, and hydroxide are the most toxic. The insoluble sulfate and carbonate are relatively nontoxic. The cardiovascular system appears to be a primary target of barium toxicity in humans and laboratory animals (ATSDR 2007). Barium has no known function in vertebrates, although it has been reported that insufficient dietary barium may depress growth rate in laboratory animals (NRC 1980).

Barium interacts with potassium, calcium, and magnesium. It has been shown that barium produces hypokalemia (i.e., lowered blood potassium), possibly by causing the build-up of intracellular potassium, and that symptoms of cardiotoxicity, muscle weakness, and paralysis resulting from barium exposure can be reversed in humans

300101

Appendix C

A C-4


by potassium treatment (ATSDR 2007).

C.1.5 Beryllium Fate and Transport: Beryllium occurs naturally in the earth’s crust, in coal, and in minerals such as plagiocase feldspar and beryl Beryllium is found in the plant-derived organic component of coal (HSDB 2009). Beryllium is used in the manufacture of electrical components, in nuclear reactors, aerospace applications, ceramics and X-ray tubes. However, the majority of anthropomorphically produced beryllium in the environment is the result of coal and oil combustion.

If released to soil, beryllium is expected to be essentially immobile. Based on its geochemical similarity to aluminum, beryllium may be expected to adsorb onto clay surfaces at low pH, and it may remain precipitated as insoluble complexes at higher pH (ATSDR 2002). Beryllium enters aquatic systems through the weathering of rock and soil, deposition of atmospheric beryllium, and discharge from anthropogenic sources. Under typical environmental conditions, the hydroxo-complex BeOH+ and Be (+2) are expected to be the dominant dissolved forms present in aquatic systems. Be(OH)2 is expected to precipitate from water based on its low solubility at the pH range of most natural systems. Beryllium may adsorb to suspended mineral solids and to sediment. Beryllium is not expected to bioconcentrate in aquatic animals and no evidence for significant biomagnification within food chains has been found (ATSDR 2002).

Toxicity: The respiratory tract in humans and animals is the primary target of inhalation exposure to beryllium (Be) and its compounds. Inhalation exposure to beryllium has been associated with lung cancer in animals. Inhalation of some forms of beryllium can cause obstructive and restrictive diseases of the lung, known as chronic beryllium disease (berylliosis), and inhalation of high concentrations can cause chemical pneumonitis. The development of chronic beryllium disease appears to involve cell-mediated immune responses that are genetically regulated (ATSDR 2002).

Oral exposure to beryllium compounds has been shown to result in hepatic necrosis. Ingested soluble beryllium compounds may interact with phosphate to form insoluble beryllium phosphate particles that are sequestered in Kupffer cells of the liver. Diffusion of beryllium from the deposited particulates may cause damage to these cells and necrosis of the liver. Beryllium may also be taken up by lysosomes and cause release of lysosomal enzymes, and it may interfere with DNA synthesis in the nucleus (ATSDR 2002).

The degree of beryllium toxicity to freshwater fishes is related to hardness, with toxicity decreasing with increasing hardness (EPA 1980). This is partially due to the increasing buffering capacity of hard water and the antagonism of calcium to beryllium. It is also possible that beryllium may penetrate to vital organs more readily in soft water than hard water. Beryllium toxicity to fish appears to be a function of the effects on vital organs, rather than a function of total beryllium uptake. In an uptake study in guppies, beryllium levels were shown to be highest in the

300102

Appendix C

A C-5


gastrointestinal tract, followed by kidneys and ovaries. Pre-exposure to low levels of beryllium can increase the tolerance of fish to very high concentrations at a later time (Drury et al. 1978).

C.1.6 Cadmium Fate and Transport: Cadmium is a naturally occurring, rare, but widely distributed element. It may enter the environment through mining, ore processing, and smelting of zinc and zinc-lead ores; the recovery of metal by processing scrap; the casting of alloys for coating products (telephone cables, electrodes, sprinkling systems, fire alarms, switches, relays, circuit breakers, solder, and jewelry); the production of sewage-sludges and phosphate fertilizers; the combustion of coal and fossil fuels, and the use of paint, pigment, and batteries, (Eisler 1985a).

In the environment, cadmium occurs primarily as a divalent metal that is insoluble in water, but its chloride and sulfate salts are freely soluble (Eisler 1985a). If released or deposited on soil, cadmium is largely retained in the surface layers; it is adsorbed to soil but to a much lesser extent than most other heavy metals. Because adsorption increases with pH and organic content, solublization and leaching is more apt to occur under acid conditions in sandy soil.

The bioavailability of cadmium is dependent on a number of factors including pH, Eh (redox potential), concentration, and chemical speciation (Eisler 1985a). Cadmium enters the food chain through uptake by plants from soils; only cadmium in soil solution is thought to be directly available for uptake (Shore and Douben 1994, as cited in EPA 2003b, 2005). The main routes of cadmium absorption for mammals are via respiration and ingestion, including dietary transfer. Factors that appear to affect dietary cadmium absorption from the gastrointestinal tract include age, sex, chemical form, and protein concentration of the diet, and is inversely proportional to dietary intake of other metals, particularly iron and calcium (Friberg 1979).

Toxicity: Cadmium does not have any known essential or beneficial biological function (Eisler 1985a). It is classified as a B1, probable human carcinogen (IRIS 2009). Cadmium replaces essential metals (e.g., zinc) at critical sites on proteins and enzymes and may inhibit a variety of enzymatic reactions. Concentrations increase with the age of an organism and eventually act as a cumulative poison (Hammons et al. 1978).

Cadmium is readily taken up from soil through plant roots and interferes with root uptake of essential elements including iron, manganese, magnesium, nitrogen, and possibly calcium. Symptoms of cadmium toxicity in plants include poor root development, reduced conductivity of stems, tissue necrosis, reduced growth, and reduced photosynthetic activity due to impaired stomatal functioning (Bazzaz et al. 1974, as cited in EPA 2003b, 2005; Efroymson et al. 1997b). Mammals and birds are more resistant to effects of cadmium contamination than are aquatic organisms, but may show toxicological effects including growth retardation, anemia, impaired kidney function, poor reproductive capacity, and birth defects (Eisler 1985a).

300103

Appendix C

A C-6


C.1.7 Chromium Fate and Transport: Chromium is widely distributed in the earth’s crust. Major atmospheric emissions of chromium are from the chromium alloy and metal producing industries; lesser amounts come from coal combustion, municipal incinerators, cement production, and cooling towers (Towill et al. 1978, as cited in Eisler 1986a). Chromium in phosphates used as fertilizers may be an important source of chromium in soil, water, and some foods (Langard and Norseth 1979, as cited in Eisler 1986a).

Chromium can exist in oxidation states ranging from Cr (+2) to Cr (+6), but it is most frequently converted to the relatively stable chromium (+3) and chromium (+6) oxidation states (Eisler 1986a). The solubility and bioavailability of chromium are governed by soil pH and organic complexing substances, although organic complexes play a more significant role (James and Bartlett 1983a,b, as cited in Eisler 1986a). Hexavalent chromium is not strongly sorbed to soil components and may be mobile in groundwater; however, it is quickly reduced to chromium (+3) in poorly drained soils having a high organic content.

Chromium may biomagnify, although because of its relatively low membrane permeability, chromium (+3) generally does not have the biomagnification potential of chromium (+6). However, organo-trivalent chromium compounds may have very different bioaccumulation tendencies; some cases of large degrees of accumulation by aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals in lower trophic levels have been documented, though the mechanism of accumulation remains largely unknown (Eisler 1986a).

Toxicity: The biological effects of chromium depend upon the chemical form, solubility, and valence. Chromium (+3) is the form usually found in biological materials. Chromium is beneficial, but not essential, to higher plants (Eisler 1986a). It functions as an essential element in mammals and birds by maintaining vascular integrity and efficient glucose, lipid, and protein metabolism (Steven et al. 1976, as cited in Eisler 1986a). However, chromium may also be mutagenic, carcinogenic, and teratogenic. While EPA regards all chromium compounds as toxic, the most toxic tend to be strongly oxidizing forms of chromium (+6). Toxic effects of chromium in plants include the disruption of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and iron metabolism; inhibition of photosynthesis and reduced growth; poorly developed roots; and curled leaves. Chromium toxicity in birds and mammals is associated with abnormal histopathology, enzyme activity and blood chemistry; lowered resistance to pathogenic organisms; behavioral modifications; disrupted feeding; and alterations in population structure (Eisler 1986a). However, in mammalian species, chromium is considered one of the least toxic trace elements, because hexavalent chromium is converted to trivalent chromium under the normal stomach conditions of low pH (Irwin et al. 1997).

C.1.8 Copper Fate and Transport: Copper is an essential element and widely distributed in nature (Amdur et al. 1993). Naturally occurring concentrations of copper have been

300104

Appendix C

A C-7


calculated at 70 ppm in the earth’s crust and 0.001 to 0.02 ppm in seawater (HSDB 2009). Artificial sources of copper include smelting processes and non-ferrous metal production. The terrestrial fate of copper is related to degree of weathering, the nature and intensity of soil formation, drainage, pH, re-dox potential and organic content (HSDB 2009). The relationship between pH and copper determines the fate of copper where alkaline conditions in soil and surface water promote precipitation while acidic conditions favor solubility of copper.

Toxicity: Copper does not appear to have mutagenic properties and is not classified as a human carcinogen (IRIS 2009). Copper is caustic, and acute toxicity is primarily related to this property (Hatch 1978). Copper is an essential element for animals and is a component of many metalloenzymes and respiratory pigments (Demayo et al. 1982). It is also essential for iron utilization and functions in enzymes for energy production, connective tissue formation, and pigmentation. Excess copper ingestion leads to accumulation in tissues, especially in the liver. High levels of copper modify hepatic metabolism (Brooks 1988), which may lead to inability of the liver to store and excrete additional copper. When the liver concentration exceeds a certain level, the metal is released into the blood, causing hemolysis and jaundice. High copper levels also inhibit essential metabolic enzymes (Demayo et al. 1982). Toxic symptoms appear when the liver accumulates 3 to 15 times the normal level of copper (Demayo et al. 1982).

C.1.9 Lead Fate and Transport: Lead is present in the earth’s crust at a concentration of approximately 15 g/ton (HSDB 2009). Lead naturally enters the environment from lead bearing minerals and median lead concentrations in soil are 15 to16 µg Pb/soil (HSDB 2009). The processes of erosion and leaching may transfer lead from soil into surface waters and the atmosphere. Anthropogenic sources via smelting, mining, ore processing, refining use, recycling or disposal, are the most common release sources of lead into the environment (HSDB 2009). In soil, lead is typically in the upper 2 to 5 cm and leaching is not expected to be significant (HSDB 2009). In water, precipitation of lead is significant if the pH is relatively high where the amount of lead that can remain in water is related to pH and dissolved salt content. Metallic lead will simply sink into the sediment and will adsorb to organic matter and clay minerals or precipitate out as an insoluble salt (HSDB 2009). Bioconcentration does not appear to be high in fish although BCFs for various saltwater bivalves, molluscs, diatoms and phytoplankton have been found to range from 1.24 after 56 days in hard clams to 3.40 after 130 days in mussels (HSDB 2009).

Toxicity: Lead does not biomagnify to a great extent in food chains, although accumulation by plants and animals has been extensively documented (Wixson and Davis 1993; Eisler 1988a). Older organisms typically contain the highest tissue lead concentrations, with the majority of the accumulation occurring in the bony tissue of vertebrates (Eisler 1988a).

The toxic effects of lead on aquatic and terrestrial organisms are extremely varied and include mortality, reduced growth and reproductive output, blood chemistry

300105

Appendix C

A C-8


alterations, lesions, and behavioral changes. However, many effects exhibit general trends in their toxic mechanism. Generally, lead inhibits the formation of heme, adversely affects blood chemistry, and accumulates at hematopoietic organs (Eisler 1988a). At high concentrations near levels causing mortality, marked changes to the central nervous system occur prior to death (Eisler 1988a).

C.1.10 Manganese Fate and Transport: Manganese does not occur as a free metal in the environment but is a component of numerous minerals. Elemental manganese and inorganic manganese compounds have negligible vapor pressures, but may exist in air as suspended particulate matter derived from industrial emissions or the erosion of soil. Removal from the atmosphere is mostly through gravitational settling. The transport and partitioning of manganese in water are controlled by the solubility of the specific chemical form present. The metal may exist in water in any of four oxidation states (2+, 3+, 4+, or 7+). Divalent manganese (Mn+2) predominates in most waters (pH 4 to 7), but may become oxidized at a pH greater than 8 or 9. Manganese is often transported in moving water as suspended sediments. The tendency of soluble manganese compounds to adsorb to soils and sediments depends mainly on the cation exchange capacity (CEC). Cation exchange capacity is related to soil’s organic content and texture; where CEC increases with organic matter and in finer textured soils. Increasing pH also increases CEC. Adsorption of manganese and other metals to soil colloid particles increases with increasing CEC (Brady 1974). Manganese in water may be significantly bioconcentrated at lower trophic levels. However, biomagnification in the food chain may not be significant (ATSDR 2008b).

Toxicity: Manganese is a common element that is essential for normal physiologic functioning in all animal species. In most animals, the amount of manganese absorbed across the gastrointestinal tract is variable and less than 5 percent. There does not appear to be a marked difference between manganese ingested in food or in water. One of the key determinants of absorption appears to be dietary iron intake, with low iron levels leading to increased manganese absorption. This is probably because both iron and manganese are absorbed by the same transport system in the gut in aquatic and terrestrial species (ATSDR 2008b).

In studies where repeated oral doses were given to animals in an attempt to induce chronic manganese disease, moderate doses did not induce any injury (HSDB 2009). Female rats fed a concentration of 154 to 1004 mg/kg dry weight during pregnancy and weaning had fetuses with elevated concentrations of manganese in the liver although no gross malformations were observed (HSDB 2009). When manganese was administered orally to monkeys, degenerative, histological changes (demyelination of the posterior column) were observed in the chiasma and spinal cord (HSDB 2009).

C.1.11 Mercury Fate and Transport: Mercury has been used by man for thousands of years, most recently as a fungicide in agriculture, in the manufacture of chlorine, sodium hydroxide, electronics, and plastics, as a slime control agent in the pulp and paper industry, and in mining and smelting operations (Eisler 1987a). Mercury is persistent

300106

Appendix C

A C-9


in the environment, with organisms in contaminated habitats showing elevated mercury burdens for as long as 100 years after the pollution source has been removed (Eisler 1987a).

Mercury is present in the environment in both inorganic and organic forms. Inorganic mercury exists in three valence states: mercuric (Hg2+), mercurous (Hg1+), and elemental (Hg) mercury. Inorganic mercury compounds are less toxic than organomercury compounds; the mercuric ion is the most toxic inorganic chemical form (Clarkson and Marsh 1982). However, the inorganic forms are readily converted to organic forms by bacteria commonly present in the environment. The organomercury compound of greatest concern is methylmercury, due to its high stability, lipid solubility, and ability to penetrate membranes in living organisms (Beijer and Jernalov 1979). Mercury can become methylated biologically or chemically. Microbial methylation of mercury occurs most rapidly under anaerobic conditions, which are common in wetlands and aquatic sediments but may also be found in soils. Most mercury detected in biological tissues is present in the form of methylmercury (Huckabee et al. 1979), which is known to biomagnify in food chains.

Toxicity: Mercury is a highly toxic mutagenic and teratogenic compound with no known natural biological function. A number of toxic effects of mercury exposure have been reported, although little information is available regarding its effect on terrestrial plants. In birds, mammals, and fish, mercury acts as a potent neurotoxin, resulting in impaired muscular coordination, vision, and hearing; depressed growth and reproduction; weight loss; and apathy, with early developmental stages being the most sensitive (Eisler 1987a). Other effects include changes in enzyme activity levels and histopathology. In mammals, methylmercury irreversibly destroys the neurons of the central nervous system.

C.1.12 Thallium Fata and Transport: Thallium is a common element with a concentration of about 0.3 to 0.6 ppm in the earth crust (HSDB 2009). The metal cation commonly occurs in potash minerals, pyrites, and is a minor constituent of many iron, copper sulfide and selenite ore; in nature it does not occur in the elemental state. It is one of the most toxic of the heavy metals. Metallic thallium is soft and malleable, similar to lead in both appearance and physical properties. Freshly-prepared thallium oxidizes rapidly. Thallium is mainly used in the electrical and electronic industries, and in the production of special glasses. Thallium is also found in pyrites used to make sulfuric acid. Mining and smelting, sulfuric acid production, cement factories, and coal burning power plants are the major anthropogenic sources of thallium to the environment (Mulkey and Oehme 1993).

Toxicity: Thallium has been shown to adversely affect protein synthesis. Mammalian ribosomes are strictly dependent on K+ and Mg+2 for normal interactions between ribosomal subunits. Thallium (+) can replace K+ causing progressive destabilization and irreversible damage to ribosomes. Interactions between thallium and riboflavin may play a role in toxicity. Thallium may impair cell energy metabolism by causing a deficiency of riboflavin and riboflavin-derived cofactors (Mulkey and Oehme 1993).

300107

Appendix C

A C-10


Thallium is teratogenic in chick embryos, causing achondoplasia, leg bone curvature, parrot-beak deformity, microcephaly, and decreased fetal size. Teratological investigations in mammals have produced conflicting results (Mulkey and Oehme 1993).

C.1.13 Vanadium Fate and Transport: Elemental vanadium does not occur free in nature but is a component of dozens of different minerals and fossil fuels (EPA 2003b, 2005). Anthropogenic sources include acid-mine leachate, sewage sludge, and fertilizers. It is also a by-product of petroleum refining and the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels (EPA 2003, 2005). Vanadium is principally used as an alloy constituent, especially in steel, as well as in pigment manufacturing, photography, and insecticides.

Vanadium can take various valence states, from +2 to +5. It is found in rocks and soil in the relatively insoluble trivalent form, and as vanadates of a variety of metals in the +5 oxidation state. (EPA 2003, 2005). It can also form both cationic and anionic salts. The release of vanadium to soil occurs as a result of the weathering of rocks and from soil erosion, both of which generally convert the less-soluble trivalent form to the more-soluble pentavalent form. Mobility of vanadium in soils is determined by pH, Eh, and organic content. In contrast to most metals, vanadium is fairly mobile in neutral or alkaline soils and less mobile in acidic soils. Soluble vanadium in soils appears to be easily taken up by plant roots (Hopkins et al. 1977, as cited by EPA 2003b, 2005). Vanadium is not considered bioaccumulative.

Toxicity: Toxicity of vanadium has not been demonstrated in plants. In animals, the toxic action is largely confined to the respiratory tract, because inhalation is the most common route of exposure; absorption of vanadium through the gastrointestinal tract of animals is low. Inhalation of vanadium damages the alveolar macrophages by decreasing the macrophage membrane integrity; damaged macrophages inhibit the ability of the respiratory system to clear itself of other particles. However, ingestion of high concentrations of vanadium compounds (V2O5) may lead to acute poisoning characterized by marked effects on the nervous system, hemorrhage, paralysis, convulsions, and respiratory depression. Subacute exposures at high concentrations may adversely affect the liver, adrenals, and bone marrow (Klassen et al. 1986). In vitro experiments in mice indicate that the mechanism of toxicity of vanadium is by inhibiting sodium-potassium ATPase activity, which inhibits the sodium-potassium pump. This pump is necessary for the transport of material across cell membranes (Nechay and Saunders 1978).

C.1.14 Zinc Fate and Transport: Zinc occurs naturally in the earth’s crust. It is used primarily in the production of brass and other alloys, galvanization of iron and steel products, and formulation of white pigments. It is also used as a fungicide in agriculture and is applied to soils to prevent zinc deficiency (Eisler 1993). Anthropogenic releases of zinc in the environment occur through smelting and ore processing, mine drainage, sewage, combustion of solid wastes and fossil fuels, road surface runoff, corrosion of zinc alloys and galvanized surfaces, and erosion of agricultural soils (Eisler 1993).

300108

Appendix C

A C-11


Zinc is not found free in nature, but often occurs in the +2 oxidation state as zinc sulfide, zinc carbonate, or zinc oxide. Zinc compounds also exist in the particulate phase in the atmosphere and are physically removed from the air by wet or dry deposition. Zinc is strongly adsorbed to soil at pH 5 or greater, and zinc compounds have low mobility in most soils (Blume and Brummer 1991). Clay minerals, hydrous oxides, and pH are the most important factors controlling zinc solubility. Soluble forms of zinc are readily absorbed by plants. Uptake is dependent on soil type; for example, uptake is lower in coarse loamy soils than in fine loamy soils (Chang et al. 1983, as cited by Eisler 1993). Zinc is essential for normal growth and reproduction in plants and animals and is regulated by the body.

Toxicity: Because zinc is an essential element, maintaining a balance between excess and insufficient zinc is important. Zinc deficiency occurs in many species of plants and animals and has severe adverse effects on all stages of growth, development, reproduction, and survival (Eisler 1993). Zinc is a component of several essential enzymes that regulate the biosynthesis and catabolic rate of RNA and DNA.

A wide safety margin appears to exist between required and toxic zinc intakes. However, high levels of zinc can cause copper deficiency and interfere with metabolism of calcium and iron (Goyer 1986, as cited by Eisler 1993). Terrestrial plants growing in soil with high zinc concentrations (such as beneath corroded galvanized fencing or near zinc smelters) showed poor seedling establishment and decreased photosynthesis, respiration, and seedling root elongation, resulting in negative impacts on measures of species richness and abundance (Nash 1975, as cited by Eisler 1993). Zinc poisoning has also been documented in a variety of animal species, usually through the ingestion of zinc-containing products such as galvanized metal objects, zinc containing coins, and skin and sunblock preparations containing zinc oxide (Eisler 1993).

The pancreas and bone seem to be the primary targets of zinc toxicity in birds and mammals. Signs of acute poisoning include impaired reproduction, anorexia, depression, enteritis, diarrhea, decreased milk yield, decreased growth, excessive eating and drinking and, in severe cases, convulsions and death (Ogden et al. 1988, as cited in Eisler 1993). Zinc preferentially accumulates in bone, where it induces osteomalacia, a softening of bone caused by a deficiency of calcium, phosphorus, and other minerals (Kaji et al. 1988). Pancreatic effects include reduced activity of digestive enzymes, cytoplasmic vacuolation, cellular atrophy, and cell death (Lu and Combs 1988, Kazacos and Van Vleet 1989).

C.2 Volatile Organic Compounds Fate and transport and toxicity of acetone, the only VOC retained as a COPC, is discussed in the following subsections.

C.2.1 Acetone Fate and Transport: Acetone is one of the least hazardous industrial solvents, but it is highly volatile. It is also released naturally from volcanoes and forest fires, and it is a natural product of plant and animal metabolism. Acetone in soil will volatilize and

300109

Appendix C

A C-12


leach into the groundwater, whereupon it may biodegrade. Biodegradation and volatilization occur to acetone in water. Bioconcentration in aquatic organisms and adsorption to sediment are not considered to be significant. One experimental study reported a bioconcentration factor of 0.69 for adult haddock at 7 to 9oC in a static system (Howard 1990).

Toxicity: Most studies on the effects of acetone have focused on inhalation exposure where the primary result appears to be depression of the central nervous system (CNS). However, some single-dose oral lethality studies have reported the following results: 14-day oral LD50 of 10.7 mL/kg (8.5 grams per kilogram [g/kg]) for female rats; LD50 of 5.3 g/kg for an unstated sex and strain of rabbits; and LD50 between 4 and 8 g/kg for an unstated strain and sex of mouse (HSDB 2009).

C.3 Semi-volatile Organic Compounds Fate and transport and toxicity of SVOCs are discussed in the following subsections. With exception to acetophenone, all other SVOCs are discussed collectively as PAHs.

C.3.1 Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons Fate and Transport: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are organic substances made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms grouped into at least two condensed aromatic ring structures. These are divided into two categories: low molecular weight compounds composed of fewer than four rings and high molecular weight compounds of four or more rings.

PAHs can be introduced to the environment by residential wood burning, cooking foods, and combustion of fossil fuels, as well as discharges from industrial plants, waste water treatment plants, and escape from waste storage containers. Other industrial sources of PAHs are machine lubricating, cutting, and color printing oils. PAHs are found in creosote which is used as a wood preservative. PAHs are also found in coal tar which is used in roofing, surface coatings, and as a binder for aluminum smelting electrons in the aluminum reduction process. PAHs are released to the environment in nature by volcanic activity and forest fires. Only a few

PAHs are produced commercially. In general, PAHs are unintentionally generated during combustion or pyrolysis processes (HSDB 2009).

Toxicity: In general, it appears that toxicity associated with PAHs is due not to the initial compound, but rather to metabolized intermediates (Fourman 1989). The majority of the enzymatic activity associated with the metabolism of PAH compounds takes place in the liver (Fourman 1989). The first step in the metabolic process is the oxidation of PAHs by cytochrome P450 and P448 enzyme systems. The metabolic by-products go through a series of reactions, ultimately forming diol-epoxides and phenol-oxides, which are believed to be the carcinogenic intermediates of PAHs (Stein et al. 1990). These compounds have the ability to form DNA adducts by covalently bonding with genetic material (Varnasi et al. 1989). Metabolic activation of PAHs can also involve the formation of free radicals and carbonium ions as metabolized intermediates; these are potential carcinogens and will affect metabolic pathways (HSDB 2009).

300110

Appendix C

A C-13


PAHs are also potent immunotoxic compounds, suppressing humoral and cell-mediated immune response. Many PAHs have been shown to adversely affect host tumoricidal activities, resulting in tumor formation (Peakall 1993). For example, application of carcinogenic PAHs to skin leads to destruction of sebaceous glands, hyperplasia, hyperkeratosis, ulceration, and potential tumor induction (Eisler 1987b).

Target organs for PAH toxic effects are diverse because these compounds are extensively distributed in the body and they tend to selectively attack proliferating cells. Damage to the hematopoietic and lymphoid system in experimental animals is common. Target organs can also be species specific. In rats, the target organs for 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene are skin, small intestine, kidney and mammary gland, whereas in fish the primary target organ is the liver (Eisler 1987b).

C.3.2 Carbazole Fate and Transport: Release of carbazole into the environment occurs primarily by emissions from waste incineration; tobacco smoke; petroleum, coal and wood combustion; and in the effluents of wood treating facilities. Carbazole occurs naturally in coal, petroleum and peat and will be released into the environment through incomplete combustion of these materials (HSDB 2009). With an average Koc value of 637, it is assumed that carbazole is not very mobile in soil but may biodegrade in soil and water if specific degrading bacteria are present (HSDB 2009). Bioconcentration and volatilization are not important in aquatic systems.

Toxicity: An LD50 of greater than 5,000 mg/kg was calculated for rats in an oral dosing study (HSDB 2009). Male (50) and female (50) mice were fed a pellet diet containing technical grade carbazole (purity, 96 percent) at concentrations of 0.6, 0.3 or 0.15 or 0.0 (control) for 96 weeks. Upon examination, neoplastic lesions were found in the liver and forestomach, and the liver lesions were classified as neoplastic nodules and hepatocellular carcinomas (HSDB 2009). The incidence of lesions was significantly greater in the highest dosed animals

C.4 Pesticides/PCBs Fate and transport and toxicity of seven pesticides retained as COPCs are discussed in the following subsections.

C.4.1 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'DDT Fate and Transport: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and its metabolites (referred to collectively in this section as DDTr) are hydrophobic, and thus would not be expected to be present in surface waters at high concentrations. The majority of DDTr entering aquatic systems is expected to accumulate in sediments and biological tissues. DDTr is known to accumulate in biological tissues, particularly lipids, where they may be stored for extended periods of time and be passed on to higher trophic level organisms. Several studies have indicated that DDTr biomagnifies, or is found in biological tissues at increasing concentrations at higher trophic levels. Biologically accumulated DDT (or its metabolites) may be metabolized to another form (i.e., DDT may be transformed to DDE). When fat reserves are metabolized, the DDT or transformed metabolite is released into the system, where it may result in a toxic

300111

Appendix C

A C-14


response. DDTr may act as a direct toxin to some receptors; however, because of its tendency to concentrate in biological tissues, higher trophic level receptors may be at increased risk through ingestion of contaminated food sources (HSDB 2009).

Toxicity: DDT and its metabolites appear to affect the reproductive success of many receptors. One well documented response is eggshell thinning in birds exposed to p,p'-DDE, which affects the activity of Ca2+ ATP-ase systems in the shell gland, thereby interfering with the deposition of calcium in the shell (Lundholm 1987; Lundholm 1988; Miller et al. 1976). Eggshell thinning of greater than 20 percent has been associated with decreased nesting success due to eggshell breakage (Anderson and Hickey 1972, Dilworth et al. 1972). Because of the tendency of DDT to magnify in food chains, higher trophic level birds (i.e., piscivorous raptors) appear to be at greater risk for egg loss due to shell thinning.

Another well-defined effect of DDT exposure is inhibition of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity. Inhibition of this enzyme results in the accumulation of acetylcholine in the nerve synapses, resulting in disrupted nerve function. Chronic inhibition of 50 percent of brain AChE has been associated with mortality in birds.

The effects of DDT on other receptor groups are not as clearly defined as in birds. Recent studies indicate that DDT (especially o,p' isomers) may mimic estrogen, resulting in adverse reproductive effects. Observed effects include feminization and increased female:male population ratios for some receptors. Other responses include histopathological changes, alterations in thyroid function, and changes in the activity of various enzyme groups (Peakall 1993).

C.4.2 Dieldrin Fate and Transport: Dieldrin is a non-systemic and persistent cyclodiene insecticide. It was broadly used in the United States until 1974, when the EPA (EPA 1993) restricted its use to termite control via direct soil injection and for non-food seed and plant treatment. Dieldrin is no longer produced commercially in the United States (HSDB 2009).

Toxicity: In birds, the oral LD50 of dieldrin was determined to be 6.9 mg/kg bw using the sharp-tailed grouse. A variety of reproductive effects have also been observed in birds, including decreased egg production and fertility. Studies have shown that organochlorine insecticides induce liver enzymes that lower estrogen levels and result in late breeding and other related reproductive manifestations. A correlation has also been established between egg concentrations of dieldrin, eggshell thickness, and hatching success. In addition, studies in male chickens, pheasants and quail have indicated that dieldrin causes a reduction in testicular size and alters hormone metabolism (EPA 1976).

In mammals, dieldrin is rapidly absorbed from the GI tract upon ingestion. It is then transported from the liver to various tissues in the body, including the brain, blood, liver, and adipose tissue. Dieldrin is metabolized by the mixed function oxidase (MFO) enzyme system. For most species (rat, mouse, dog, monkey, and sheep), the acute oral toxicity is between 20 and 70 mg/kg. The toxicity appears to be related to

300112

Appendix C

A C-15


the central nervous system, with stimulation, hyperexcitability, hyperactivity, incoordination, and exaggerated body movement, ultimately leading to confusion, depression, and death (EPA 1980).

Dieldrin has been shown to cross the placental barrier, and for that reason has been studied for its teratogenic properties and reproductive effects. Dieldrin was added to the diet of mice for six generations, parameters such as fertility, gestation, viability, lactation, and survival of the young were adversely affected. When hamsters were fed one dose equivalent to one-half the LD50 of dieldrin, increased fetal death, decreased fetal growth, open eye, webbed feet, cleft palate, and other effects were observed. Two later studies were performed in which lower dosages of dieldrin were administered, and similar results were obtained (EPA 1980).

C.4.3 Endrin Fate and Transport: Endrin was used as an insecticide, avicide, and rodenticide. Its general toxic effects include ataxia, slowness, drowsiness, tremors, tracheal congestion, prostration, convulsions, wing-beat convulsions, and opisthotonos. Formulations of endrin generally contain impurities of related compounds, including endrin aldehyde and endrin ketone. These two chemicals are also known to be metabolites of the parent endrin compound.

When endrin is released into the soil, it is not expected to migrate into the groundwater due to its expected strong adherence to soil particles. However, the detection of small amounts of endrin in some samples of groundwater indicates that some migration is possible. Endrin will persist in soil for long periods of time (up to 14 years or more). Small amounts of endrin may volatilize, and it has been shown to photodegrade to endrin ketone. However, biodegradation and hydrolysis are not important removal mechanisms. When endrin enters aquatic systems, it is expected to adsorb strongly to sediments, thus providing a potential aquatic transport mechanism, and evaporation from water is not expected to be significant. Endrin aldehyde and endrin ketone are expected to have a very similar fate in the environment as endrin (HSDB 2009).

Toxicity: The toxic mechanism of endrin is believed to include inhibition of the brain-specific (35)S-t-butylbicyclophosphorothionate binding site. It has also been shown that endrin produces specific alterations in unmyelinated fiber bundles of peripheral nerves but does not affect myelinated fibers. A variety of metabolites of endrin have been identified, including endrin ketone (12-ketoendrin) and endrin aldehyde, as mentioned previously. Additional metabolites that are believed to be significant include 9-ketoendrin, 9-hydroxyendrin, 3-hydroxyendrin, and trans-4,5-dihydroisodirn-4,5-diol.

In birds, a diet including 20 ppm of endrin produced anorexia, ataxia, convulsions, and death. The 30-day empirical minimum lethal dose for mallards has been calculated to be 0.25 mg/kg BW/day for both sexes. The reproductive and developmental effects of endrin in birds, as in mammals, have also been shown to be similar. For example, reduced egg production in quail and pheasants as well as

300113

Appendix C

A C-16


reduced chick survival in pheasants have been observed as a result of exposure to endrin, but no reproductive effects were observed at similar concentrations in mallard ducks (HSDB 2009).

In mammals, the acute toxicity of endrin has been tested in a variety of species, and the oral LD50s ranged from 1.3 mg/kg in mice to 36 mg/kg in male Guinea pigs. Similar results have been obtained regarding the teratogenicity of endrin. For example, in one study in which one-half the LD50 was administered to pregnant hamsters and mice, increased fetal deaths, open eye, webbed foot, cleft palate, and fused ribs were observed in young hamsters, but not in young mice. Other studies have indicated that dietary levels that do not injure the parents do not adversely affect development of the offspring. Endrin aldehyde is slightly less toxic than endrin. Endrin ketone, however, has been shown to be more toxic than endrin. This indicates that endrin ketone may be responsible for much of the acute toxicity observed in mammals as a result of exposure to endrin (HSDB 2009).

Endrin has been shown to be extremely toxic to aquatic organisms. The toxicity of endrin has been tested in two species of water flea (Daphnia), resulting in 48-hour EC50s of 4.2 and 20 µg/L for Daphnia magna and Daphnia pulex, respectively. In addition, 96-hour LC50s for twelve species of benthic macroinvertebrates ranged from 0.08 to 62 µg/L. In eleven species of fish, the 96-hour LC50s ranged from 0.033 µg/L in Ophiocephalus punctatus to 1.8 µg/L in the fathead minnow (HSDB 2009).

C.4.4 PCBs Fate and Transport: PCBs are a group of 209 synthetic halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons that are extremely stable, bioaccumulate, and are resistant to most chemical and biological degradation processes (Eisler 1986b, Hornshaw et al. 1983). The persistence and stability of PCBs in the environment are due to chemical properties such as their lipophilicity and stable carbon-halogen bonds (Risebrough et al. 1968). In general, polychlorinated biphenyls have low aqueous solubility (Chou and Griffin 1986).

In terrestrial systems, PCBs are not readily leachable in soils and strongly sorb to soil constituents (Chou and Griffin 1986, Strek and Weber 1982). Their level in soil is proportional to the organic matter and clay content of the soil (Chou and Griffin 1986).

Upon entering an aquatic system, PCBs may partition between the water, sediment, air, particulate matter, and biota (Koslowski et al. 1994). The more lipophilic and hydrophobic a substance, the more concentrated it will be in the sediment and phytoplankton of an aquatic system (Loizeau and Menesguen 1993). While it has been shown that transport of PCBs in the dissolved phase can be important during the warmer low flow periods of summer, PCBs are extremely lipophilic, and they generally sorb strongly to sediment particles. It has been shown that PCBs discharged to aquatic environments rapidly sorb to sediment and are usually deposited in bottom sediments, often close to the area of discharge (Kalmaz and Kalmaz 1979). After this, dispersal and movement of PCBs in aquatic systems depends largely on the

300114

Appendix C

A C-17


movement of the associated sediments (Connell and Miller 1984).

Toxicity: Much of the toxicity caused by PCBs has been attributed to the planar congeners that resemble 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) (Geisy et al. 1994). The toxic nature of some prepared PCB mixtures may be associated with trace levels of compounds having four or more chlorine atoms at both the para and meta positions (Koslowski et al. 1994; Tanabe et al. 1987); the biphenyl structure may be substituted with one to ten chlorine atoms. These isostereomers of 2,3,7,8-TCDD are known to elicit toxic biological responses in animals such as hepatic damage, weight loss, thymic atrophy, dermal disorder, reproductive toxicity, immunosuppresion, teratogenicity, and functional effects to the spleen, adrenal and testis (Batty 1990, Sanders et al. 1974, Tanabe et al. 1987).

Chlorinated hydrocarbons such as PCBs have been implicated as a cause of reproductive dysfunction and mortality in wildlife species (Heaton et al. 1995, Hoffman et al. 1986, Langford 1979). Exposure to PCBs has been found to reduce litter sizes at birth, number of litters, and longer birthing intervals in mice (Linzey 1987, Merson and Kirkpatrick 1976) and reduce plasma concentrations of estradiol and progesterone in female rats (Johnson et al. 1976). Transplacental movement of PCBs has been reported for humans, rabbits, monkeys, and rats causing a dose-dependent reduction in the body weights and survival of pre-natally, as well as post-natally, exposed mammalian offspring (Barsotti et al. 1976, Brezner et al. 1984, Fein et al. 1984; Heaton et al. 1995, Wren et al. 1987a,b). PCB transfer to mammalian offspring continues via mother’s milk (Wren et al. 1987a). Polychlorinated biphenyls have been implicated as the cause of low embryonic weight in black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax) (Hoffman et al. 1986). PCBs have also been shown to transfer from the mother to her eggs in fish (Niimi 1982; Mac and Schwartz 1992) and have been implicated in reduced hatching success, larval mortality, and larval growth of

fish (Mac and Schwartz 1992; Mac and Edsall 1991; Mac et al. 1993). PCBs have also been associated with toxic effects on benthic invertebrates in freshwater systems (Smith et al. 1996).

C.5 Literature Cited

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2008a. Toxicological Profile for Aluminum. U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2008b. Toxicological Profile for Manganese. U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA.

ATSDR. 2007. Toxicological Profile for Barium and Compounds. U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA.

ATSDR. 2002. Toxicological Profile for Beryllium. U.S. Department of Health and

300115

Appendix C

A C-18


Human Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA.

ATSDR. 1992. Toxicological Profile for Antimony. U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA.

Amdur, M.O., J. Doull and C.D. Klaassen (eds.). 1993. Casarett and Doull’s Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. Fourth Edition. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Anderson, D.W. and J.J. Hickey. 1972. Eggshell changes in certain north American birds. In: Proceedings: XV International Ornithological Congress. Ed. K.H. Voous. The Hague. Netherlands. p. 514-540.

Barsotti, D.A., R.J. Marlor, and J.R. Allen. 1976. Reproductive Dysfunction in Rhesus Monkeys Exposed to Low Levels of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Aroclor® 1248). Fd. Cosmet. Toxicol., 14:99-103. In: Heaton, S.N., S.J. Bursian, J.P. Giesy, D.E. Tillitt, J.A. Render, P.D. Jones, D.A. Verbrugge, T.J. Kubiak, and R.J. Aulerich. 1995. Dietary Exposure of Mink to Carp from Saginaw Bay, Michigan. 1. Effects on Reproduction and Survival, and the Potential Risks to Wild Mink Populations. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 28:334-343.

Batty, J., R.A. Leavitt, N. Biondo, and D. Polin. 1990. An Ecotoxicological Study of a Population of the White Footed Mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) Inhabiting a Polychlorinated Biphenyls-Contaminated Area. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 19:283-290.

Bazzaz, F. A., R.W. Carlson, and G.L. Rolfe. 1974. The effect of heavy metals on plants: Part 1. Inhibition of gas exchange in sunflower by Pb, Cd, Ni, and Ti. Environ Pollut. 7:241-246.

Beijer, K., and A. Jernalov. 1979. Methylation of mercury in natural waters. Pages 201-210 in J.O. Nriagu (ed.). The Biogeochemistry of Mercury in the Environment. Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, New York.

Blume H.P. and G. Brummer. 1991. Prediction of heavy metal behaviour in soil by means of simple field tests. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 22:164-174.

Brady, N.C. 1974. The Nature and Property of Soils. 8th Edition. New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Co. On. 639 p.

Brezner, S., J. Terkel, and A.S. Perry. 1984. The Effect of Aroclor® 1254 (PCB) on the Physiology of Reproduction in the Female Rat - I. Comp. Biochem. Physiol., 77C(1):65-70. In: Heaton, S.N., S.J. Bursian, J.P. Giesy, D.E. Tillitt, J.A. Render, P.D. Jones, D.A. Verbrugge, T.J. Kubiak, and R.J. Aulerich. 1995. Dietary Exposure of Mink to Carp from Saginaw Bay, Michigan. 1. Effects on Reproduction and Survival, and the Potential Risks to Wild Mink Populations. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 28:334-343.

300116

Appendix C

A C-19


Brooks, L. 1988. Inhibition of NADPH-cytochrome c reductase and attenuation of acute diethylnitrosamine hepatotoxicity by copper. Ph.D. Dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.

Chang, A. C., A. L. Page, J. E. Warneke, M. R. Resketo, and T. E. Jones. 1983. Accumulation of cadmium and zinc in barley grown on sludge-treated soils: a longterm field study. Journal of Environmental Quality 12:391-397.

Clarkson, T.W. and D.O. Marsh. 1982. Mercury toxicity in man. Pp. 549-568 in: Prasad, A.S. (ed.). Clinical, Biochemical, and Nutritional Aspects of Trace Elements. Vol. 6. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, NY.

Chou, S.F.J. and R.A. Griffin. 1986. Solubility and Soil Mobility of Polychlorinated Biphenyls.” Pages 101-120 in "PCBs and the Environment, Volume I. (J.S. Waid, ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 228p.

Connell, D.W. and G.J. Miller. 1984. Chemistry and Ecotoxicology of Pollution. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 444 p.

Demayo, A., M.C. Taylor and K.W. Taylor. 1982. Effects of copper on humans, laboratory and farm animals, terrestrial plants and aquatic life. CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control, 12(3):183-255.

Dilworth, T.G., J.A. Keith, P.A. Pearce and L.M. Reynolds. 1972. DDE and eggshell thickness in New Brunswick woodcock. J. of Wild. Manage., 36(4):1186-1193.

Drury, J.S., C.R. Shriner, E.B. Lewis, L.E. Towill, and A.S. Hammons. 1978. Reviews of the environmental effects of pollutants: VI. Beryllium\rdblquote. Prepared for Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/1-78-028.

Efroymson, R.A., M. E. Will, G.W. Suter, and A.C. Wooten. 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

Eisler, R. 1993. Zinc Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 10. 106 pp.

Eisler, R. 1988a. Lead Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 85(1.14). 134 p.

Eisler, R. 1988b. Arsenic Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 85(1.12). 92 p.

Eisler, R. 1987a. Mercury Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.10).

Eisler, R. 1987b. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and

300117

Appendix C

A C-20


Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 85(1.11). 81 p.

Eisler, R. 1986a. Chromium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (1.6).

Eisler, R. 1986b. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, 85(1.7). 72 pp.

Eisler, R. 1985a. Cadmium Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (1.2).

EPA. 2009. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (on-line database of toxicity information). http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm.

EPA. 2003-2008. Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume I of II. Washington, DC, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.

EPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency Rep. 440-5-86-001

EPA. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Beryllium. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. PB81-117350.

EPA. 1976. Criteria Documents for Aldrin/Dieldrin. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Rep. U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency Rep. 440/9-76-008. 93 p

Fein, C.G., J.L. Jacobsen, S.W. Jacobsen, P.M. Schwartz, and J.K. Dowler. 1984. Prenatal Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Effects on Birth Size and Gestational Age. J. Ped., 105(2):315-320. In: Heaton, S.N., S.J. Bursian, J.P. Giesy, D.E. Tillitt, J.A. Render, P.D. Jones, D.A. Verbrugge, T.J. Kubiak, and R.J. Aulerich. 1995. Dietary Exposure of Mink to Carp from Saginaw Bay, Michigan. 1. Effects on Reproduction and Survival, and the Potential Risks to Wild Mink Populations. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 28:334-343.

Fourman, G.L. 1989. Enzymes involved in the metabolism of PAHs by fish and other aquatic animals: Part II, conjugative enzymes (or Phase II enzymes). In: Metabolism of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Aquatic Environment. Ed. U. Varnasi. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p. 185-202.

Friberg, L., G. F. Norberg, and V. B. Vouk (editors). 1979. Handbook of the Toxicity of Metals. Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam, NY. 748 pp.

300118

Appendix C

A C-21


Giesy, J.P., D.A. Verbugge, R.A. Othout, W.W. Bowerman, M.A. Mora, P.D. Jones, J.L. Newsted, C. Vandervoort, S.N. Heaton, R.J. Aulerich, S.J. Bursian, J.P. Ludwig, G.A. Dawson, T.J. Kubiak, D.A. Best, and D.E. Tillitt. 1994. "Contaminants in Fishes from Great Lakes-Influenced Sections and Above Dams of Three Michigan Rivers. II: Implications for Health of Mink. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 27:213-223.

Goyer, R.A. 1986. "Toxic effects of metals." In: Casarett and Doull's Toxicology. Eds. C.D. Klaussen, M.O. Amdur, and J. Doull. Third Edition. New York, NY: Macmillan. p. 582-635.

Hammons, A.S., J.E. Huff, H.M. Braunstein, J.S. Drury, C.R. Shriner, E.B. Lewis, B.L. Whitfield, and L.E. Towill. 1978. Reviews of the Environmental Effects of Pollutants: IV Cadmium. EPA 600/1-78-026. 251pp.

Hatch, R.C. 1978. "Poisons Causing Respiratory Insufficiency. In: Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics. L.M. Jones, N.H. Booth and L.E. McDonald (eds.). Ames Press, Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa.

Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB). 2009. National Library of Medicine, online database (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB)

Heaton, S.N., S.J. Bursian, J.P. Giesy, D.E. Tillitt, J.A. Render, P.D. Jones, D.A. Verbrugge, T.J. Kubiak, and R.J. Aulerich. 1995. Dietary Exposure of Mink to Carp from Saginaw Bay, Michigan. 1. Effects on Reproduction and Survival, and the Potential Risks to Wild Mink Populations. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 28:334-343.

Hoffman, D.J., B.A. Rattner, C.M. Bunck, H.M. Ohlendorf, and R.W. Lowe. 1986. Association Between PCBs and Lower Embryonic Weight in Black-Crowned Night Herons in San Francisco Bay. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, 19:383-391.

Hopkins, L. L., H.L. Cannon, A.T. Musch, R.M. Welch, and F.H. Neilsen. 1977. Vanadium. Geochem. Environ. 2: 93-107.

Howard, P.H. 1990. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic Chemicals, Volume II, Solvents. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.

Huckabee, J.W., J.M. Elwood, and S.G. Hildebrand. 1979. Accumulation of Mercury in Freshwater Biota. Pp. 277-302 in Nriagu, J.O. (ed). The Biogeochemistry of Mercury in the Environment. New York, NY: Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press.

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Risk Assessment.

Irwin, R.J., M. Van Mouwerik, L. Stevens, M.D. Seese, and W. Basham. 1997. Environmental Contaminants Encyclopedia. National Park Service, Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, Colorado.

300119

Appendix C

A C-22


James, B. R., and R. J. Bartlett. 1983a. Behavior of chromium in soils: V. Fate of organically complexed Cr (III) added to soil. J. Environ. Qual. 12:169-172.

James, B. R., and R. J. Bartlett. 1983b. Behavior of chromium in soils. VI. Interactions between oxidation-reduction and organic complexation. J. Environ. Qual. 12:173-176.

Johnson, H.T., J.E. Keil, R.G. Gaddy, C.B. Loadholt, G.R. Henigar, and E.M. Walker. 1976. Prolonged Ingestion of Commercial DDT and PCB: Effects on Progesterone Levels and Reproduction in the Mature Female Rat. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 3:479-490. In: Linzey, A.V. 1987. Effects of Chronic Polychlorinated Biphenyls Exposure on Reproductive Success of White-footed Mice (Peromyscus leucopus). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16:455-460.-95/R4.

Kaji, T., R. Kawatani, M. Takata, T. Hoshino, T. Miyahara, H. Konzuka, and F. Koizumi. 1988. The effects of cadmium, copper or zinc on formation of embryonic chick bone in tissue culture. Toxicology, 50:303-316.

Kalmaz, E.V. and Kalmaz, G.D. 1979. Transport, Distribution, and Toxic Effects of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Ecosystems: Review. Ecological Modelling, 6:223.

Kazacos, E.A. and J.F. Van Vleet. 1989. Sequential ultrastructural changes of the pancreas in zinc toxicosis in ducklings. American Journal of Pathology 134:581-595.

Klassen, C.D., M.O. Amdur and J. Doull. 1986. Casarett and Doull’s Toxicology. 3rd ed. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company. 974 p.

Koslowski, S.E., C.D. Metcalfe, R. Lazar, and G.D. Haffner. 1994. The Distribution of 42 PCBs, Including Three Coplanar Congeners, in the Food Web of the Western Basin of Lake Erie. J. Great Lakes Res. 20:260-270.

Langard, S. and T. Norseth. 1979. Chromium. Pages 383-397 in L. Friberg, G. F. Nordberg, and V. B. Vouk (eds.). Handbook on the toxicology of metals. Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press.

Langford, H.D. 1979. Looking at Polychlorinated Biphenyls as Environmental Object Lesson. News Rep., 29(9):1-5. In: Heaton, S.N., S.J. Bursian, J.P. Giesy, D.E. Tillitt, J.A. Render, P.D. Jones, D.A. Verbrugge, T.J. Kubiak, and R.J. Aulerich. 1995. Dietary Exposure of Mink to Carp from Saginaw Bay, Michigan. 1. Effects on Reproduction and Survival, and the Potential Risks to Wild Mink Populations. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 28:334-343.

Lintschinget, J. B. Michalke, S. Schulte-Hostede and P. Schramel. 1998. Studies on speciation of antimony in soil contaminated by industrial activity. Intern. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 72(1):11-25.

Linzey, A.V. 1987. Effects of Chronic Polychlorinated Biphenyls Exposure on Reproductive Success of White-footed Mice (Peromyscus leucopus). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16:455-460.

300120

Appendix C

A C-23


Loizeau, V. and A. Menesguen. 1993. A Steady-state Model of PCB Accumulation in Dab Food Web. Oceanologica Acta, 16:633-640.

Lu, J. and G.F. Combs. 1988. Effects of excess dietary zinc on pancreatic exocrine function in the chick. J. Nutrition 118:681-689.

Lundholm, E. 1987. Thinning of eggshells of birds by DDE: mode of action on the eggshell gland. Comp. Biochem. Physiol., 88C:1-22.

Lundholm, E. 1988. The effects of DDE, PCB and chlordane on the binding of progesterone to its cytoplasmic receptor in the eggshell gland mucosa of birds and the endometrium of the mammalian uterus. Comp. Biochem. Physiol., 89:361-368.

Mac, M.J., T.R. Schwartz, C.C. Edsall, and A.M. Frank. 1993. Polychlorinated biphenyls in Great Lakes lake trout and their eggs: Relations to survival and congener composition 1979-1988. J. Great Lakes Res., 19:752-765.

Mac, M.J. and T.R. Schwartz. 1992. Investigations into the Effects of PCB Congeners on Reproduction in Lake Trout from the Great Lakes. Chemosphere, 25:189-192.

Mac, M.J. and C.C. Edsall. 1991. Environmental Contaminants and the Reproductive Success of Lake Trout in the Great Lakes: An Epidemiological Approach. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 33:375-394.

Merson, M.H. and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1976. Reproductive Performance of Captive White-footed Mice Fed a PCB. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16:392-398.

Miller, D.S., W.B. Kinter, and D.B. Peakall. 1976. Enzymatic basis for DDE-induced eggshell thinning in a sensitive bird. Nature, 259:122-124.

Mulkey , J.P. and F.W. Oehme. 1993. A review of thallium toxicity. Vet. Human Toxicol., 35(5):445-453.

Nash, T. H., III. 1975. Influence of effluents from a zinc factory on lichens. Ecological Monograph 4,5: 183-198.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1980. Antimony. Pages 24- 39 in: Mineral Tolerance of Domestic Animals.

Nechay, B.R. and J.P. Saunders. 1978. Inhibition by vanadium of sodium and potassium dependent ATPase derived from animal and human tissues. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 2:247-262.

Niimi, A.J. 1982. Biological and Toxicological Effects of Environmental Contaminants in Fish and Their Eggs. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 40:306-312.

NRC. 1980. Drinking Water and Health, Volume 3. National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

300121

Appendix C

A C-24


Ogden, L., W. C. Edwards, and N. A. Nail. 1988. Zinc intoxication in a dog from the ingestion of copper clad zinc pennies. Veterinary and Human Toxicology 30:577-578.

Peakall, D. 1993. Animal Biomarkers as Pollution Indicators. Ecotoxicology Series 1. London, England: Chapman and Hall.

Risebrough, R.W., P. Rieche, D.B. Peakall, S.G. Herman, and M.N. Kirven. 1968. Polychorinated Biphenyls in the Global Ecosystem. Nature (Lond.) 220:1098-1102. In: Kluwe, W.M., C.L. Herrmann, and J.B. Hook. 1979. Effects of Dietary Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Polybrominated Biphenyls on the Renal and Hepatic Toxicities of Several Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Solvents in Mice. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 5:605-615.

Sanders, O.T., R.L. Zepp, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1974. Effect of PCB Ingestion on Sleeping Times, Organ Weights, Food Consumption, Serum Corticosterone and Survival of Albino Mice. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 12:394-398.

Shore, R. and P. Douben. 1994. The ecotoxicological significance of cadmium intake and residues in terrestrial small mammals. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safe. 29: 101-112.

Smith, S.L., D.D. MacDonald, K.A. Keenleyside, C.G. Ingersoll, and L.J. Field. 1996. A preliminary evaluation of sediment quality assessment values for freshwater ecosystems. J. Great Lakes Res., 22:624-638.

Stein, J.E., W.L. Reichert, M. Nishimoto and U. Varnasi. 1990. Overview of studies on liver carcinogenesis in English sole from Puget Sound: evidence for a xenobiotic chemical etiology. II: biochemical studies. Sci. Tot. Environment, 94:51-69.

Steven, J. D., L. J. Davies, E. K. Stanley, R. A. Abbott, M. Ihnat, L. Bidstrup, and J. F. Jaworski. 1976. Effects of Chromium in the Canadian Environment. Nat. Res. Coun. Canada, NRCC No. 15017. 168 pp. Avail. from Publications, NRCC/CNRC, Ottawa, Canada, K1A OR6.

Strek, H.J. and J.B. Weber. 1982. Behavior of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Soils and Plants. Environ. Poll. (Series A). 28:291-312.

Tanabe, S. 1988. PCB Problems in the Future: Foresight from Current Knowledge. Environ. Pollut., 50:5-28.

Towill, L. E., C. R. Shriner, J. S. Drury, A. S. Hammons, and J. W. Holleman. 1978. Reviews of the Environmental Effects of Pollutants: III Chromium. EPA 600/1-78-023. 287 pp.

Wixson, B.G. and B.E. Davis. 1993. Lead in Soil. Lead in Soil Task Force, Science Reviews, Northwood.132 p.

Wren, C.D., D.B. Hunter, J.F. Leatherland, and P.M. Stokes. 1987b. The Effects of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Methylmercury, Singly and in Combination on Mink.

300122

Appendix C

A C-25


II: Reproduction and Kit Development. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 16:449-454.

Varnasi, U., W.L. Reichert and J.E. Stein. 1989. 32P-Postlabeling Analysis of DNA adducts in liver of wild English sole (Parophrys vetulus) and winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus). Cancer Research, 49:1171-1177.

300123