,., ,. .... ,., ,.:;,.

tt

r:· , • .1

9 8

ES/ERITM-95/R4 ~

Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern

for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1997 Revision

Thi:o~ document hm1 ~'C.."Tl npprove<.l by lJlC En:rt Tcnncli!ICC T ... -chnology l'u.rk '!' ... ochnicnllnt'onnntion Ol'ficc for n.:lcu:~C lo the public, Dutc: 1116197

r·-------· ~- .... '

11111111111111111 1111111111 11111111 14417

i. ·~·~, ~ ,~~8 I l =-¥~"---1

"" 1

Toxicolo~ical Benchmarks for ScrecninJ:: Contaminants of Potential Concern

for Effects on Sediment-A.'\Sociated Biota: 1997 Rcvisjon

0. S. Jones, LMER G. W. Suter ll,l..MER.

R.N. Hull, Beak Consulumts, Ltd.

Dote Issued-November 1997

Prepared for t.he U.S. Depnrt:mcnLofEnc:rro·

Office ofEnvironmcnt:~l Management under budget and reporting code EW 20

LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. managing the

Environmcntoll Manngcmcnt Acti\'itic:s at the Enst Tennessee Technology Park

Onk Ridge Y-12 Plant. Oak Ridge Notional Lnbornt.ory Pnducah Gaseous DiiTusion ·rlnnt Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

under cont.rnet D E-ACOS-840 R.21400 for Lhc

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

...

• '::I -

AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS

D. S. Jones and G. W. Suter II arc members of the Environmcnutl Sciences Division of Oak Ridge Nalionnl Laboratory, Lockheed Martin Energy Re:;cnrch Corporation. R. N. Hull is currently :Ufilintcd with Bcnk ConsulunLo;, Ltd.. Brompton, Onlario.

Ill

.. , .... ") -6 .. 1:.:' -~ 9 0 u

.1 3 • 3

PREFACE

TI1c purpose of this report, To.'l:tcolo~ica/ Hl:nchmarksfor ScreentnJ.: Contaminants of Porcnua/ Concemfor Ef!t.:cts on S~tdtmf!nt·As.mciatf!d Bwra: /997 R~tviswn (ESIER!rM-95/R4), is tc present sediment benchmark dnw and discus,<; their usc llS benchmllrks for determining r.hc le\'el or toxicological clfccts on scdiment·a.<~soci<lled biota and lO briefly describe: lhree cnlcgorics of npproachc:s to the de\'clopmcnt of sediment quality benchmarks. This work wns performed under Work Brcnkdown Structure 1.4.12 . .2.3.04.05.04 (Activity Data Sheet X304, "Tcchnicnl lntc!;rnlion-Risk Assessment"). Publication of lhis document mccLo; u milestone for lhe En\'ironmcntal Restoration R.isk Assessment ?rogrnm. This report isM update of two prior rcpons (Jones el nl. ! 997~ Jones cL ul. 1996; nnd Hull and Suter 1994). IL contnins new bcnchmnrks for freshwater sediments. equilibrium partitioning benchmarks coJTCCicd to two signilicant li~:;urcs, und nil of the frcshwntcr and estuarine benchmarks included in the previous version.

.. . . '-·}

~:J \ .. 1

1 l

•..I ..

I..:,

CONTENTS

• r.:; ~) 8 1 _, ..!>

AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS I I I I I. I I I I I. I •• I I I •• I •••• I I I I. I I ••• I. I I I I I I'. I. I I I I. I' I. 111 •

PREFACE I' I I I I I I •• I' I I I I. I I I I ••• I •• I. I I I'' I I I I. I It I •• I' I I I I' I I' I I I I I I I' I I I' I I' v

TABLES ................... , ..... , , ......................... , , . , ............... ix

ABBREVJATJONS I • I • I I • I I ' I I I I • I I • I I I t I I I • I I ' I' I I ' • I I • I I ' I ••• I I I ' I •• I I I ••• I • I I • xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................ xiii

1, INTRODUCTION . I ' • I I I I. I ' I I I • I • I I I • I I • I I I I I I I I I • I I • I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I

2. REV!EW OF POSSIBI..E APPROACHES TO BENCHMARK DEVEI.O?MENT .......... 2 2.1 ANAL YTICAI.. CHEMISTRY APPROACHES .................................. 3

2.1.1 DirecL McllSurcmcnL of lntcrsliLial W:ucr . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. 1.2 Estimation orintcrsLitinl Water Conccntrntions: Scdimcni/Wntcr EqP Approach . . . 3

2.2 SEDIMENT TOXICITY TEST APPROACHES ................................. S 2.2.1 Bulk ScdimcnL ToxiciLy Tests ...... , ... , , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 2.2.2 Pore \Vater Toxicity Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S

2.3 FIEI..D SURVEY APPROACHES ...................•......................... S 2.3.1 Screening l..evcl Conccntrntion Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3.2 Apparent E!Tccts Threshold Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G

2.4 INTEGRATIVE APPROACHES .............................................. 6 2.4.1 Nntional Oceanic nnd Atmospheric AdminisLr:llion Approach ............•..... 6 2.4.2 Floridn Dcpnn.mcnl of Environmcnwl Protection Approach . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.5 BACKGROUND CON CENTRA TtONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. RECOMMENDED SEDIMENT BENCHMARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3,1 MAPJNEAND ESTUAR.INE SEDIMENTS .................................... X

3.1.1 lntcgraLivc Bcnchm:Jtks . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 3.1.2 Apparent Erfccts Thrcs.holds ................ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H

3.2 FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS .............................................. II 3.2. 1 EqP Bcnchmnrks .. , , , . , .. , . , , . , , , . , , .......... , .... , , .. , .. , ...... - . . . J 1 3.2.2 ScdimcnL E!Tcct ConccntroLions . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . I G 3.2.3 Sl.C Bcnchmo.rks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1M

3.3 EPA SCREENING VAI..UES ................................................ 19 3.3.1 Ecotox Thresholds ............................. , .............. , . . . . . . 19 3.3.2 Region IV Screening Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . I 9

3.4 BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS .......................•............... 22

4. BENCHMARK USE IN BASELINE ECOLOGICAl. RJSK ASSESSMENTS f I I •• ' I ' I •••• I t 4 I ' ' •• I I I • I I I •• ' ••• ' I • I ••• ' I •• ' ••• ' ' • I I I • I I • • • 22

\'II

5

S. CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC CONS lOERA TIONS ...................................... 23 5.1 METALS I • I I •• , " ' f I ' •• I I I I • I I I I ' I I I I I I I • I I • I I I I I • f I I I I I •••• I I •• I ••• I I • I I 23 5.2 ORGANICS ' I I I I I • I I I • I I I I I I • I I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I t I f f I • I I • I t ' I • I • I • I • I I I I •• I 25

G. UNCERTAINTIES/LIMITATIONS .............................................. 26

7. REFERENCES I I I ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I • I • I I • I I I • I I •• I I I. I I • I • I I ' I ••• I •• I I I • I I I I I ' ' ' • 27

APPENDIX. SUMMARY OF ALL. SEDIMENT EFFECT CONCENTRATIONS THAT MEET THE MJNlMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR RECOMMENDATION .... A·l

\'Ill

.... , ~ ') .... I' I;,J

• 1.:' ·-~ , ... , '1 8 :t ...... . !J .. (:;

--------------~-~-----~~ -- ------~ -- ··- ·--------··· ---· --~--------~ --------

TABLES

Summ!U)' of selected intesrntive sediment qunlity bcnchmnrks for marine nnd esluorinc scd.imcn~ • I I t I f f I I I I I • I I 0 0 f I i I I I t I t I I I I 0 I I I I t 1 I f I I I I I I I t t f I I I I I I I I I I I I I <I I I I I I

2 Washington st.:ltc sediment quality st.:lndnrds for ioni:t.nble organic compounds ........... . 3 Summnry ofEQP.Jcrivcd sediment qunlity benchmnrks ior non ionic

orsnnic chcmic<~ls corresponding to convcnlionru nqucous benchmarks ................. . 4 Summruy of selected toxicity test• nnd screening level conccntrnlion-bnscd

sediment qunlity bcnchmnrks for freshwater sediments . , , , . , , , • , , • , . , , •. , , . , , . , . , . , , , 5 EPA Region IV nnd OSWERscdimcntscrccningvnlues, .. ,,.,, .. , .. ,.,, .. ,.,, .. ,, .. ,

IX

9 11

12

17 20

~· -? -,. I;.')

• 5 9 8 1 ·~ ~

• 7

ABBREVIATIONS

AET apparent effecL-. threshold ARCS As!lcssmcnt ancl Remediation of Contnminatcd Sediment ASTM AmcricM Society for Testing nnd M;~tcrials AVS ocid \'Oiatilc: sulfide CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation. and Liability Act DOC dissol\'ed organic carbon DOE U.S. Dcpnnmcnt of Encr.~:.:· EPA U.S. Environmcnl:ll Protection Agency EqP equilibrium purtitioning ERA ecological risk assessment ER-L Ef'fccLo; Range-Low ER-M Effects Rnngc-Medi:tn ET Ecotox Threshold FDEP Florida Department oi'Environmcntal Protection r... fraction organic carbon K..,. orgnnic carbon/wntcr partition cocftieient K,.,. oct.1nol/watcr partition cocflicicnt K,, sediment/water pnrtition cocnicicnt NAWQC National Ambient W:ucr Qualitv Criteria NEC high No Effect Concentration NOAA ~ationnl Oceanic and ALmospheric Administration OC org:mic carbon OECD Orgnnii'..ation for Economic Coopcrntion and Development Ont..1rio MOE Ontario Ministry of ~1c En\'ironmcnl OR..'ll.. Onk Ridt,;c Nutionnl Laborator;.· ORR Oak Ridge Rcscl'\':llion OSWER Office of Solid Wnste and Emergency Response PAHs pol~·~·clic nromnlic hydrocarbons PCBs polyclllorinntcd biphenyl~ PEC probable cliccl concentration PEL Probable Effects Level PQL Pructic~l Qunntitalion Limit SEC sediment cLTccL concentration SEM simultaneously cxlnlctcd metal SLC screening level eoncentrnlion SQB sediment quality bl:nchmnrk SQC sediment quality criteria SSLC species screening level conccnLmLion TEC threshold ciTccl concentration TEL Threshold EffccL'l Level Tl E toxicity idcntilicntion cvnluntion TOC total orgnnic carbon WQB water quality benchmark WQC water quality criteria

XI

).:· ',I

~;;

Ct .... , ~

,.L. I • ,. I

EXECUTIVE SU~lMARY

A h•l4'.ardous waste site may cont..1in hundreds or chcmicnls; therefore, it is imt>ortant to screen contnminanL" of potential concern for the ecological risk t1sscssment. On en this screening is done a . .<; part of a screening as.~;Cssmcnt.t.he purpo~ of which is to ev.:tluate the available dnl.'l, identit~· d&Jl.'l gaps, and sc:n:cn contaminants ofpotcnlial concern. Screening may be nccomplishccl b~· using a set of toxicological benchmarks. 111ese benchmnrks urc helpful in determining whether contaminanL'> warrant. tunJ1er n.o;.'iCssmcnl or nrc ut n levelthul requires no further uttcntion. If n chemicttl concentration or the reported detection limit exceed" a proposed lower bcnchm<~rk, further ann lysis is needed to determine the h;v .. 1rds posed b:o' that chemical. 11: howc:,·cr, the chcmicnl conccntrntion falls below Lhc lower bcnchm11rk vnlue, the chemical mny be eliminated from funJ1er study.

111c usc of multiple benchmarks is recommended for screening chcmicnls or conccm in scdimenl't, Integrative bcnehmnrks developed l'or the Nution;~l Occnnic nnd At.mospheric Administmtion and the Florida Dcp<u"t.ment of Em·ironmcnl:ll Protection arc mcludcd for inorganic nnd orgun1c chcmicnls. Equilibrium partitioning benchmnrks LlTC included tbr screening nonionic organic chemicals. Frcshwntcr sediment cl1cct conecnt.r:1Lions de\'clopcd ns part of the U.S. EnvironmenUII Protection Agency's (EPA's) Asscs.'tmcnt and Remediation of Contanlin<~tcd Sediment Project arc included t'or inorgnnic nnd org:Ulic chemicals (EPA 1996). Field survey benchmarks dc\'elopcd l'or the Onwrio Min is~· of the Environment arc included for inorgw1ic and ort:anic chemicals. In nddition. EPA-proposed sediment qu:~lity critcrin arc included along with screening values from EPA Region IV and Ecotox 1iucshold values !'rom the EPA Office of Solid Wnstc nnd Emergency Response. Pore water analysis is recommended l'or ionic organic compounds: comparisons nrc then made against w:ttcr quality benchmarks.

1l1is report is nn updnte of three prior reports (Jones et nl. I'JIJ7; Jones ct nl. 191)(,; and Hullnnd Suter 1994). It contains new benchmarks for freshwater sedimcnL'i, equilibrium p<~rtitioning benchmarks corrected to two significant figures, and all of the: freshwater nnd estuarine benchmarks included in the previous version.

xiii

··,, ... ..... I .:...;

'' '.' '·~' ' I

~

I ~J ...

.. , .. ,

1. INTRODUCTION

A h:u.<~rdous wn!itC site rnily conLnin hundreds of chemicals: therefore, it is imponantto screen contaminants of potential concern lor tl1c ccologic:ll risk nsscssmcnt (ERA). Otlcn this screening is done as pan of a screening ilSsessmcnL. the purpose of which is to evnluutc U1e nvuilnble dnt.l. identify dal.n gups, and screen cont41minanLo; of potential concern (Suter 1995). Screening m<~y be :~ccomplishcd by using n set of toxicological benchmarks. These benchmarks nrc helpful in determining whether cont.aminants warrant funher nsscs.o,·mcnt or arc at a level that requires no further mtcntion. If a chemical concentration or the reported detection limit e:..eccd!< u lower benchmark, further analysis is needed to dctcnninc the h011.ru'ds poscc.i by that chemical. If, however, ilic chemical concentration fulls below the lower benchmark vnluc, tl1e chemical may be eliminated from funher stud~·. ConcenLrntions exceeding an upper screcnin,~; benchmark indicate that tl1c chemical in question is clearly of concern and Lhat remedial nctions arc likely to be needed.

The usc of multiple benchmarks nlso indic<tter.lhc likelihood and nnturc of cfTecl'>. For example, cxcccd;.mcc of only one conservative!~· estimated benchmark may provide weak evidence or real effccLo;, whcrea!' cxcecdance of multiple bcnchm<~rks of varying conscrvntism mny provide !:trong evidence of real ctl'ccts. Likewise, if a nonionic orgnnic chemical onl~· exceeds benchmarks that nrc not normalized to site-specific organic cnrbon contcnL. lhcn orgnnisms tl1at ingest sediment may be more exposed tl1an U1osc that do not These inferences can be used to reline future s:unplin~ nnd remcdinLion et'forLo;,

In recent years, protecting sedimcnL quality has been viewed usn logical and nccessru:v extension of water quality protection (Adams et nl. 1992). 111e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is autl1ori<~.cd to develop and implement sediment quality criterin (SQC) under Section 304-(a) of IJ1e Clc:m Water Act (EPA 19X9a). EPA released live SQC documcnLt; in 1993 (EPA 1993a~). ln addition, EPA Rcsion IV (I 995) and tl1c Office of Solid Wuste and Emergency Response (OSWER) (I 996) released !'oedimcnt screening values in 1995. Until EPA's L:lsk is complete, efTort.o; will continue nround tl1e United SUites and abroad (EPA 1996: MacDonald 1993~ Pcn~aud ct al. 199~) to develop SQC and bcnchmnrk values for the assessment of sediment quality uL hn1.nrdous waste sites.

Sediment quality benchmarks (SQBs) nrc necessary, in nddition to wntcr qunlit>' benchmark.-; (WQBs), because (I) various toxic conLnmin:mLo; found in only Lmce nmounts in the watcr column accumulate in sedimenL.; to elevated lc ... ·cls~ (2) sediments serve as botl1 a reservoir und a source of contaminants to the wntcr column~ (3) sediment.<; intc~rutc contaminnnt concentmtions O\'cr time, whcrc:~s wntcr column contaminant concentrations nrc much more variable und d:;n:unic; (4) scdimenL eont;uTJinnnLo; in nddiLion to water column contaminants affect benthic und other sedimcnl·nssociatcd orgMisms: and (S) scdimenl'l Me :u1 intcgr;tl part of the nqu<~tic cnvironmcnL. pro\'iding habitat. feed in!;, and rearing nrcos for many nquatic organisms (Chapman 19H9).

To make decisions as to whether a chemical or biologicnl measurement or sediment qu:uity indicates impainncnL. sitc-spccilic dnLn m",\' be compared with benchmarks tl1nt indicntc whcU1cr sediment qunlity is t~cccptable. Existing criteria and standards arc considered o type of benchmark. The purpose oi'U1is report is to present sediment benchmark data and discuss t.hcir usc as bcnchmnrks for determining the le\'el of toxicological cffcct.'i on sediment-associ:~ ted biot.1.

~ .. ... ·.·

, .. ~l ,-. ·' I

:J .... )

·t .... . , . . • ..1

., .. It is importlln~ to note that these benchmarks do not represent rcmcdiotion goals. Rcmcdiotion gools

mullt consider nd\'crsc ciTccts on hnbit.:lt and rcmobili1.ntion of cont:tmin:mts caused bv rcmo\'al or rcmcdintion of sediments. '

The benchmarks in this report nrc to be used ol tlte U.S. Department of Encrb:·'.s (DOE's) Onk Ridge Rescrvntion (ORR) and nt lhe Portsmoulh and Paducah gaseous din'usion plants os screening values only lO show the nature and extent or contamination and identify the need for additional site-specific investigation (e.g., biologicul and chemical testing),

Sediment benchmarks :~lso can be used for baseline ERAs. which <tre required under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen~tion, and Liability Act (CERCLA) nt Superfund sites. These nsscssmcnL-. cvalu<~tc the risks to the cm·iroMtcnt posed b~ the hazardous wnstc site. Sediment benchmarks must not be used as the sole measure of sediment toxicity. Field !>tudics and toxicity tests will be !.he primar:-· indicators of toxicity of scdimc:nL<~: benchmarks mny be used to dctenninc which chemicals present in the sediment nrc most likely cousins the toxic1ty. This intcgrntivc approach allows a more nccurntc evaluation of odv~:rsc ecological impact. which is ncecssnry in n baseline risk osscssmcnL

This report is an update ofthrce prior reports (Joncsct al. 1997: Joncsct nl. 19%: and Hull and Suter I ~4). It cont.1ins new benchmarks for freshwater scdimcnl<~, equilibrium partitioning benchmark..; corrected to two signilicontligurcs, and all of the freshwater and estuarine bcnchmnrks included in the previous version.

2. REVIEW OF POSSIBLE APPROACHES TO BENCHMARK DEVELOPMENT

Three distinct categories or approach~ c:m be used in the development of SQBs. These nppronchcs nrc ba.~d on annlyti~al chemistry, toxicity test rcsuiLo;, Md field sur\'cy dnl.1. A fourth intcgrotivc npproach incorporntcs nil three types of data. Rc~ardlcss of the mel hod, a numeric benchmark resuiLo;.

11,c scientific and n:gulntor:-• communities arc st.ilt debnt.inB the best methods to be used to develop sediment quality guidelines. This diversity of opinion is dcmonstr:ttcd by the wide vnricty of methods being studied and by the fact thotthc stntc of\Va.o;hington h:ts implemented sediment quality standards based on the nppnrcnt cticcts threshold (AEn npproach. whcrca.o; tl,c equilibrium partitioning (EqP) :tpprooch is fn\'orcd b~· tl,c EPA Office of Wnter (EPA 1996), Additional!~·. the Orgnnil'.ntion for Economic Coopcrotion and Development (OECD) recommended three methods for deriving sediment quality objectives: the Eq? nppronch. the mca...,'Urcmcnt ofintcrstitinl water. nnd spiked sediment toxicity tests (OECD 1992). Severn! of the possible uppronchcs to dcvclopins SQBs have been renewed (Adams ct al. 1992; MacDonald ct al. 1992; M;JcDonnld 1994; Chnpman 19H9) and nrc bricOy described in Lhc following sections.

. ., ·-

3

2.1 A."'AL \TICAL CHEMISTRY APPROACHES

2.1.1 Direct ~cusurcmcnt of lntcrstitinl Wntcr

The din:ct mca.o;un:mcnt of interstitial wnl.cr :1ppro;~ch compares lhc conccnlr:ltions of cont.'lmin:mt.o; in sediment intmtitinl (pore:) wntcrs witl1 the EPA water quality criteria (WQC) (EPA 19931) and other WQBs. WQBs of varying con.o;c"·atism ha\'C been developed at Onk Ridge N:nional L<~bormory (ORNL) (Suter Md Ts:~o 1996) bcenusc many chemicals do not have nntional ambient WQC. Mau~hnn ( 1993) susgcSL'i that Lhc analysis of sediment pore water is u more npproprilltc method for screening than using bulk sediment ehcmisuy. lie cites the :~dvanUlges of the nexibility and ncccpt:Ulce or pore water testing.

It can be ar~oucd thnt bcntl1ic organisms arc exposed to contaminants vin other exposure routes, such nsdcnnal absorption nnd ingc~tion of sediment particles. An analrsis of the feeding habits of rrcshwmcr benthic species concluded tll:Jtlhcsc species were not sediment ingesters, cscepL lor the oligochaetes (aquatic canhworms) and some chironomids U1:~turc botl1 filter feeders and occa.o;ional sediment ingcsters (Adams 19!<7), In contrnst to this, m:trine burrowing species frequently ingest sediment (Adnms 19M7). For the clam Macoma nasuta, uplllkc of highly lipophilic pollul.rulLo; occurred primarily by inccslion of solids (63-X4'Y..). followed by \'Cntilation of interstitial water across the gills (I !-12%,) (Boese ct :~I. 1990). This may be because Macoma nasura predominantly \'cnt.il ates O\'erlyin~ water, not interstitial water.

Such discrimination between overl~·ing and interstitial water nlso may be import:tnl for Lube dwellers (e.g .• chironomids. hc:Qgcnia) th:ll pump overlying water through their burrows (I.nndrum and Robbins 1990), Maugh:m (1993) argues that if the organism is in equilibrium with t.he pore water, then the conccntrution in the pore: water would renect the sum of all exposure routes. Therefore, nn organism that has accumul:~tcd conuuninnnts,through feeding, nt n higher conccntrat.ion than the equilibrium wiU1 pore wntcr would recsUlblish U1c equilibrium!):.· losing cont:uninants to the pore w:~ter (M:tugh:~n 1993). However, factors mosy innucnce whether t11e organism can cswblish an equilibrium witl1 tl1e pore water. For example. dim1sion within U1e intcrstitinl water may limit transfer or dcsorbcd compounds to the orgunism (Landn1m and Robbins 1990).

::.1.:: Estimntion of Interstitial Water Concentrations: ScdimcntJWntcr Eq P Appronch

~.1.:.1 Nonionic or~:unic:s

This appronch t.'llculntcs a bulk sediment chemical concentration benchmark. The cnlcui:~Lion uses the WQBs lO!;COlcrwith correction fnctors for tlle clfccLo; oforgnnic carbon (OC) (EPA 19931). By using this method, n SQB is calculated as follows (EPA 19931): lf01c WQB (micrograms per liter) is a w:llcr quality benchmark for the chemical of interest (Suter :md Tsno 1996), then the SQB (microgrnms per kilogr:un sediment) is computed by using t11e pnrtition coefficient ~,.(liters per kilogram !'cdimcnt) between !<edimcntund water:

SQB • K11 "' WQB .

The partilionins of nonionic chemicals between particles ond water depends on Lhc partition coefficient K.,. for t.hc particles' OC nnd the mn..;s fraction of OC (f ~kilo~rnms OC per kilogrnm sediment) of the particles:

K,. • f..., )( K,,. .

. ' / ...

..... ...... lo~ .• "!

·"'· ') ....

4

Whc:rc lhc K .. is unnvailable, it is estimated by the CICU!nol-wntcr partition coefficient K_ ol'thc chemical for sediments by using the following cquiltion (Di Toro 19HS):

Therefore.

SQB- roo)( KOG )( WQB .

The EqP nppronch requires four mnjor nssumptions: (I) pnrtitioning or t.hc organic chcmicnl between OC nnd inLCrstitinl wniCr is smble :ll equilibrium; (2) the scnsit.i\'ities or benthic species nnd species tested to dcri\'c WQBs. prcdominnntly wntcr column species, nrc simiiM; (3) the levels of protection :liTorded by WQBs arc nppropriniC for benthic organisms; and (4) c~posures arc similnr regardless oi feeding type or hnbitnt (EPA 1993n).

EqP can be used only if roo> 0.2%. At f001 <0.2%, the factors controlling second-order e!TccLS on pnrtitioning (e.g., particle si;-.c, sorpt.ion to nonorganic mineral fractions) become relnt.ivcly more importanL(EPA 19931i.

For both the direct measurement and EqP :~pproachcs for estimating pore water effects conccnlrnlions. it is assumed thntthc WQBs, when npplied to t.hc intcrst.itial water of sediments, would protect infnunnl organisms. EPA (19931) hns concluded thnt the sensitivities ofbcntl1ic species nrc suf1icicntJy similar lO those or wnt.cr column species lo tcnwtivcly pc:m1iL the usc of WQBs Cor the derivation ofSQBs.

The EqP approach is favored b~· the EPA over the direct measuring or pore water approach (EPA 19931). The free chemical concentration in pore wnt.cr cnn be estimated directly from ~1c OC nonnalb.cd scdimcnl conccnLrntion. :md the estimate is independent of the dissolved organic cnrbon (DOC) conccnlr.lt.ion. Using the pore water chcmicnl concentration to cstimntc the free pore wntcr chcmicul conccntrntion requires lhnt the DOC conc:cnlrnlion and the DOC pnrtition cocflicicnl be known; this is because the proportion of n chemical in pore water th:JL is complc:xc:d to DOC cru1 be subsl.rultial. However, it is the free, uncomplcxcd component thnt is bionvnilnblc and thnL is in equilibrium with the OC nonnnli1.cd sediment concentration. Therefore. for hishly hydrophobic chcmienls and where there is significMt DOC complcxing, the solid·phnsc chemic.~ I conccnl.r.ILion gi\'cs a more direct estimate or the bionv:~ilablc pore wntcr con~.Jminant concentration th:m do tl1c pore water conccnt.rntions (EPA 19931).

2.1.2.2 Mctnls

EqP approuch. Signilic!lllt complcxilics arc associated with inorganic chc.micols when using Lhc EqP approach. Uptnkc (<md lhcrcforc effects) or scdimcnt•assoeinlcd conlllminants is lnrgcly a function ofbioavnilnbility, Bioavailability is strongly influenced by n complex suite orphysicnl. chcmicnl, and biological factors in lhc scdimenLS. Trace mcwls cnn be adsorbed ut particle surfuccs, bound to cnrbonntes, occluded in iron and/or manganese O:\.)'hydroxides, bound to orgnnic mnttei, bound to sulphide, bound to n matrix. or dissolved in the intcrslilinl water. 11lc complexity of Lrncc metnl bionvnilnbility nssocintcd with these phnscs hinders tllc prediction of crrccts (Cnmpbcll and Tessier 1991).

Acid volatile sulfide mt.-thod. Acid volatile sullidc (AVS) is a reactive pool of solid-phase sulfide thn~ is nvailnblc lO bind mcwls nnd render that portion unnvnilnblc nnd nontoxic to bioLa (Di Toro ct :~1.

• ~;:· .::> 9 8 ., """ 3 .. 1 3

5

1992). The AVS is extracted from sediment using hydrochloric acid. The metal concentration UlaL is simultaneously extrnctcd is tcm1cd the simultaneously cxtr:1t:tcd metal (SEM). F'or I SEM !/IAVS I< I, no ocutc toxicity (mortality >50%) hns been obl:crvcd in any sediment for nny lx:nt.hic test org:mism. F'or ISEMl/JAVSJ >!,less sensitive organisms can tolerate inerc:L.o,;cd metal activity. However, the mortality of sensitive species (e.g., runphipods) incrcnscs in the rnngc of l.S to 2.5 ;.Jmol of SEM/.umol of AVS (Di Toro et ol. 1992). For this reason, the A VS method is used only to predict when n sediment in not neutcly toxic.

The AVS :1pproach requires the mc:L..;urcmcnt of all toxic SEMs Lh:1t arc present in nmount.s thol would contribute significantly to the SEM sum. F'ailurc to do so could lead to nn incorrect conclusion of lnck of acute toxicity (Oi Toro ct nl. 1992). U!>C or tJ1c A VS mctJlod would be invalid i r the sediment AVS content is \'Cry low. This would occur in fully oxidized sediments (Adams ct al. 1992). In addition. only five mctnls (Cd, Cu. Pb, N i, and Zn) currently can be cvoluatr.d using A VS (EPA 1994), and the AYS method has not been adapted for chronic toxicity.

2.2 SEDIMEI'tT TOXICITY TEST APPROACHES

2.2.1 Bulk Sediment Toxicity Tests

Org:misms .vc exposed to either conl:lminatcd licld·collcctcd scdimcnLc; or background scdimcnLo; spiked in the laboratory with known nmounLo; of single chcmicols or mixtures. Morutlity or sublcthol clrccts arc observed, and dose-response relationships :II'C determined (Ch:~pm:m 19H9; Long and Morgan 1991 ), A major advantage to this approach is that it follows the methods used to develop WQC: therefore. the procedure ond l':ll.ionalc rut u:chnically acccpwblc and lcgnlly defensible (Chopman 19!!9). The: usc of sediment toxicity tc:sLr; has become linnly entrenched in many dredged material pcm1iLtin~; and benthic survey programs (Burton and Scou 1992).

::.::.::Pore Wnter Toxicity Testo;

Sediment pore wru.er can be used in !>tundardizcd toxicity tcsLc;, and toxicity idcnlilicolion cvalunlion (TIE) procedures can be used to characterize. identify, and then conlirm the toxic componcnLc; of :1 complex aqueous solution. However, TIE procedures ma~· be difficult nnd coslly (Maughan 1993). Cum:ntly, no universally accepted method for extracting pore water from sediment cxisLo;. In addition. pore water is difficult to extract from sediment without potential!~· altering tl1c toxic it~· ot'L11c pore water (M:~ughan 1993).

2.3 FIELD SURVEY APPROACHES

2.3.1 Sc:rcenin~ Level Conccntrntion Appronch

The screening level conccntraLlon (SLC) appro:~ch cstimntcs the highest concentration of n particular contaminant in sediment that can be tolerated by <!pproxim:~tcly 9S'!In of benthic in fauna (Nell' ct at. 1988). The SLC is derived from !l"ynoptic dal:l on sediment chemical concentrations and bo.:nthic invertebrate distributions. Fi~t. the species screening level conccnt.rntion (SSLC) is culculatcd by plotting the frequency distribution of the contruninant coneentrntions over oil sites (otlcasl I 0) where the species is prcscnl. The 90th po.:rcc:ntilc of this di!ltribution is L:lkcn as the SSLC for L11o1 species. Nex~ a l:u-sc number of SSI..Cs arc plotted a.s a frequency distribution to dc1crn1ine U1c conr.nrninonl

.•' ... '.·' ....

.. , .... , .. ....,

concentration nbovc which 95'X• of the SSLCs occur. 111is lin a I concenlrntion is the SLC (Nefl' ct nl. 19H8).

The SLC npproac:h has scvernl:tdvMtagcs: it can be used with an>' chemical cont;tminant. iL can lx: developed using existing databases nnd mctl1odologics, and it docs not require a priOri assumptions concerning mcch:misms of interaction between organisms and toxic contnmmanLo; (Chnpman 19R9), Disndvrutl.1g~:~ include the following: nlnrge amount of field d:ttn is rcquired,n precise level ofinfnunnl t<~xonomic identification is required, calculation of SLCs is n!lectcd by the range nnd distribution of cont:uninMLconccntrations and species, selection criteria for species have not been established, and no mechanism has been established to scparntc single cont.runinnnt eiTccts from lhc ellccts of nil contaminants combined (Chapman 19!19).

2.3.::! Appnrcnt Effcct'i Threshold Appronch

The AET :1ppronch uses dntn from matched sediment chemistry nnd biologicnl ciTccL'i mcnsurr::s. Biological effects could be nsscsscd b~· either benthic community survey or sediment toxicity tests. An AET conccnLrntion is tl1c sediment conccntrmion or a selected chemical above which st41Listically significant biological cll'ccts nlwnys occur (EPA 19H9b). This conccnlration is nltcrnativcly identified as the high No Effect Concentration (NEC) (EPA 1996),

The major strcngtJ1s of the approoch arc that (I) combined chemical c!Tccts cru1 be considered (EPA 19H9b): (2) there nrc no constminLo; on the type of contaminant or biological ciTccts thnl c;~n be used; (3) contamin:mts th:tl arc mosL likely associmed with ob!lel'\'cd biological ciTccLo; nrc idcnlilicd on n sitc-.spccilic basis; :md (4) because ob.scl'\·cd biolosical effects alwny.s occur above ~1c AET, Lhc approach provides values bnscd on nonconl.radictory evidence of biological impncLo; (Chapman 19H9). Disad\'anl.1gcs to lhis approach include the following: (I) it. is sitc•spccific (EPA 19H9b). (2) it ma~· be undcrprotectivc bccnusc biological effects nrc obscr\'ed at chcmic:d conccnll':llions well below AET values, (3) it requires a lnrgc databn.o;c for chcmicnl varinblcs nnd ntlcnst one biologic:al indicator. and (4) combined conl:lminantciTccts cannot be scparntcd from single contamin:u1L el'fecLo; (Ch:tpman 19H9).

2.41NTEGRATIVE APPROACHES

2.4.1 Nntionnl Occnnic und Atmospheric Administrution Appronch

Be~u.o;c the EqP approach is imprnctienl for inorganies, ot.hcr benchmark values were needed. 111c Nntionnl Oceanic nnd Aunosphcric Administration (NOAA) nnnually collects nnd chcmienlly analyzes sediment SJmplcs from sites located in c~tal mnrinc and csluarinc environments tl1roughout the United States. These daUt were: used to evaluate three basic oppronchc:s to tl1e c:st..'lblishmcnl of c:ITccts·basc:d criteria: the EqP :~pproach, the spiked-sediment toxicity tc:-.t nppro:1ch. nnd various mctl1ods or ev:~luating synoptically collected biological and chemical dnt.:l in field SUI'\'C:.'S (Lon~; and Morgan 1991 ). Chemic:~! concentrations observed or predicted by tl1csc methods to be nssocintcd witl1 biologic:~! cfl'ccLo;; were ranked. nnd the lower lOth pcrccnlilc IEITccLo; Range-l.ow (ER·L)I and mcdi:~n jEITecLs !Wngc-Mcdinn (ER·M) I concentrations were idcnti fled.

The ER·L and ER-M v<~lucs were rccnlculatcd b~· Long cl nl. ( 1995) ancr omitting a small <~mount of freshwater dnl!l included in the Long and Morgan ( 1991) calculntions and adding more recent dnt:t

..

7

2.4.2 Florid"' Dcpnrtment o( Environmenual Protection Appronch

The Florida Ocpnrtmcnt of En\'ironmcntnl Protection (FOEP) uppronch (MncDonnld 1994) ill similar to the NOAA :~pproach. The updated :md revised dnt:l set used by Long ct al. ( 1995) also was w;cd by MacDonald ( 1994) to c;~lculatc Threshold EITccts Levels (TELs) 01nd Probable Effects Lc\'cls (PELs): these datu nrc presented by MacDonald ct al. ( 1994). However. unlike the ER·Ls and ER·Ms. the TELs und PELs also incorporate chemical conccntrJtions observed or predicted to be associntcd witl1 no advcn;e biological effects (no ciTccts dutn). Specifically, the TEL is the geometric mcnn of the 1501 percentile in the eiTecL'\ daUI set nnd the 50th percentile in the no e!TccL<~ data scL The PEL is the geometric mean ofthc 50th percentile in the eiTcc:ts datn set :~nd ll1c XSlh percentile in the no crrccL<~ dnt:~ sel. Therefore, the TEL rcprcscnLo; lllc upper limit of the rnngc of sed imcnt contaminant conccnt.rnlions dominutcd by no ciTects dllt:l. The PEL rcprcscnL-; the lower limit or the I"Jn!:C: or conl..'lminan~ conccntr:Jtions U1at :lTC Ll~nlly or nlwnys nssocintcd witl1 ndvcrsc biolot;ical efTccL~ (MncDonald 1994).

:!.S BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS

Comp;ui:;on ofsilc conwminnnt levels with background le\'cls is a simple screening method. The assumplion is thnl conccnl!utions '.hat arc not higher '.han background arc not hai'.ardous. Appropriate b:1ckground samples must be ob~incd for wa~te site samples. TI1c American Society lor Tcst.ing and Materials (ASTM) is current!~· developing suidclincs for ~lection ot' sediment and soil background s:1mpling locations (ASTM SecL E47.l3.0J, Task E).

This uppronch has two major disad\'ant.ngcs: it hn.~ no biological effccL-; basis. nnd it cnnnol be used for synthetic organic compounds, which should not be present in bnckground sediments. 11um::forc, it is notuppropriotc to usc lllis approach as Lhc only screening method. Howc\•cr. it is appropriate to usc lllc bncksround conccnt.rntions to screen U1c other sediment bcnchmark.'i, such thal sediment bcnchmnrk..; Lhnt nrc willlin the range of background concentrations nrc not used to idcnti(v chemicals of potential ccologicnl conccm.

3. RECOMMENDED SEDIMENT BENCHMARKS

The following section presents tl1c recommended sediment benchmarks for usc ~1L DOE's ORR nnd ut '.he Portsmouth nnd Paducah gaseous diffusion plants, TI1e rationale. intcrprct:llion. and scncrnl considcrntir,ns for using these bcnchmnrks in screening ~imcnt chcn1ical dn~ arc also bricny discussed. Chcmical-spccitic considerations arc presented in Chap. 4,

TI1is revision includes a new set ortoxicitv tcst·ba.-.cd benchmarks for freshwater scdimcnL-; (EPA 19%) and previously presented benchmarks for marine and estu.'ll"inc scdimenLo; (<:.!;. ·r-DEP TELs and PELs. NOAA ER-Ls and ER-Ms. Washington st.'ltc AET. EPA screening values). The frc!lhwntcr benchmark:; arc recommended for u:;c at the aforcmenLioncd DOE sites. The marine bcnc:hmnrks arc retained and recommended for usc bccnusc U1c pill'lies to tl1c Federal Facility Agreement have noL yet sanctioned tl1e usc of Lhc freshwater benchmarks nnd because freshwater bcnchmnrks nrc not availnblc for nJI chcmicnls. The usc of multiple benchmarks of vurying conscr\'nt.ism is recommended to provide a robuste\'aluation of01e chemical datu. ThoL is, n suite or benchmarks reduces the chances ol'missing a chemical ofJ,'IOlCntinl ecological concern and increases the intcrprcLivc value or Ulc chemical dat.1 SCL

... t: .. ...

.. .. ..... ::;

lt is strongly recommended thnL tJ1c suite or benchmarks, or the rules !'or selecting a subset of benchmarks, be explicitly included in the Dntn Quality Objectives procc~s to .get early and informed regul:ttor agreement for t11cir usc in a given projec:L

3.1 MARINE AND ESTUARI~E SEDIMENTS

3.1.1 lntc~:rntivc Benc:hmnrk.~

EPA Region IV (1995) has recommended tl1c NOAA and FDEP values as potential lower screening values, and EPA OSWER (1996) has recommended the NOAA values as j:IOtcntinl ccotoxicological threshold values. The NOAA and FDEP values also arc supported by ORNL as SQBs when bulk sediment chemical conccntrntions arc nvai!ab!c.

The data compiled by MacDonald ct al. ( 1994.) arc from marine and estuarine locations on I~·. TI1c usc of the NOAA and F'DEP values for t'rcshwntcr is approprinte in the absence of reliable freshwater sediment benchmarks. Kill pow and Lewis ( 1979) inveslisatcd the question of whether or not it was legitimate to combine freshwater and marine aqueous toxicity dnt:l to develop mnrinc water qunlily benchmarks. A statistical test of medians was applied to freshwater and marine acute toxicity dal.<l for nine metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Jig, Ni, Ag, nnd Zn) :md nonchlorinmcd phenolic compounds. In only one case (Cd) w:~s there a sl4llistically siL,'llific;mt difference in the median response of m:~rinc and freshwater organisms. The NOM and FDEP values were dc,·clopcd from daLa from several investigations t11roughout the United St;~tcs, and tl1cse studies used di trcrcnt approaches to evaluate sediment quality (e.g .. toxicity tcsl.t;, EqP, AET). It is assumed that tJ1e use of numerous dntannd the calculation of percentiles help eliminate tl1c inOuencc of a single (possibly outlier) daw point. thereby making the sediment quality values more credible (l..ong and Morgan 1991 ).

The NOM values may be u.c;cd to help identify sites with the potential to C('IUSC adverse biological ciTccLo;. TI1csc urc not NOAA criteria or standards and nrc not intended for usc in regulatory decisions or My other similar applications (Long nnd Morgan I 991 ). The available NOAA nnd FDEP vulucs arc presented in Table I.

3.1.2 Appnrcnt Effects Thresholds

The AET is the sediment chemical conccntrntion above which sLatistically signdicanl biologicul c!1ccLo; always occur (EPA 19X9b). Titereforc, th~ mny be undcrprotcetivc bcenusc biological cffccl.~ nrc observed at chemical concentrations well below AET values (Chapman 19~9). AET values for several ionic and polar organic chemienls arc retained in this revision because or the signili:anl complexities associated with using ~1e EqP appronch.

Organic compound.'llhntlli'C polnror ionic include: methyl Md thiocnrbnmntes, trinzincs. nmines nnd unalincs. Md ors:mic acid pesticides (uliphatic and aromatic neids and esters, phcno:oo.:y compounds, and urcns). Unlike nonpolar nnd non ionic organic conl4lmin:mts, both polar and ionic organic compounds mey odr.orb onto sediments by n vnriety of mechanisms, ineludin1: hydrophobic interaction. nonspecific ion a:;socintion, ion exchange, ion-dipole interactions, hydrogen bonding, and complex formation b~ surface mct:Jls (Shea l9SS). It is possible lhat a mulliplc·tenn model mi~ht account for polor organic partitioning between sediment and nqucous phn:;cs but such n model docs not exist (Shea 19~S).

, 1 -/

? .... ? .... 6

9 s ,., TKhk 1. Summllft or ~el«let.llnte~:rutlw "C!t.llment IJUilllty henchmark.tl "1

for m11rlne llnd e~tuKrlne 11elllmcntll• Q w ·s

NOAA• FDF:JJ-..... .. ,

Chemical .,:)

F.R·I. F.R.M TF.l. PF.I .. Antimony .,., 2S" :1. • Ar.lcnic X.:!. 70 7.24 41.6 8 Codmiwn I.:!. 9.6 0.61'1 4.::!.1 Chromium Kl 370 52.3 160

COJ'lJlCI' 34 270 IK.7 lOX l.clld 46.7 :!.11< 30.2 11:!.

Mercury 0.15 0.71 0.13 0.7 Nickel ::!.0.9 51.6 15.9 4:!..X

Silver 1.0 3.7 0.73 1.77 Zinc ISO 410 1~.4 271

Of'l:unic.f (JJi:/kJ: Jr)' ~WiJ:ht)

ACl.-nuphthcnc 16 soo 6.71 ~1<.9

Actmuphthylcnc: 44 640 S.H7 !:!.X

Anthrm:enc 1<5.3 1100 46.9 :!.45

Bcnz\u)unthruccnc 261 1600 74.X 693

Bcnzo(u)ryn:nc 430 1600 1<~.~ 763

BHC BHC, ulphu·

BHC, bl!tll·

Bi:o~(:!.-cthylh~l)phlhulntc 1M2 2647 Chlordane 0.5'' 6" 2.26 4.79

Chl)'lll.'tlC 31<4 :xoo lOX X46 DOD, o,p'· + p,p'· "'" :!i .. ODO,p,p'· 1.22 7.tH DOH, p,p'• .,., :!.7 2.07 374 ..... DDT, o,p'-+ p,p'· I" 7ol

DDT, p,p'· ll9 4.77 DDT, Total' I.SM 46,1 3.X9 51.7 Dilx"fllo(u,h)unthruccnc 63.4 260 6 .,., ·- 135 Dieldrin 0.02" X" 0.72 4.3 Endrin 0.02" 45" F'luomnthcnc 600 5100 113 1494

Fluorene 19 540 21.2 144

Lindnnc (gummu·BHC) 0.3: 0.99 2·Mcthyl naphthulcne 70 670 20.2 201 Nuphthahm~ 160 2100 34.6 391

10 T~thle t (~·ontlnuell)

NO~A• FDF.J'# ChcntlcaJ F.R·L f:R.M TF.L PF:L

PAH, Total LMW' ssz 3160 311 1442 PAH, Total HMW' 1700 9600 655 6676 PAI·I, Toto!' 4022 44792 16K4 16770

PCB, Totul 22.7 INO 21.6 IK9

Phcnonthrenc 240 1500 X6.7 544 Pvr ... ,c 665 2600 !53 139!<

-J3c:nchrnRrk vnluoorc rrc"cntcd herein wtth tl~<: !!lime nurnbc:rofNi~niliCIInt digiiH u~~ed in the source document.

"NOM - Nutionnl Occ:nnic nnd 1\tmo~Jlhcril: 1\dminintrntiun~ I!R·I. - Efl'e<:IH IU!nl!c-l.ow, ER·M- 111TcctH R~~np,e-Mcdinn; CXL'Cpl where noted, ciTe<:talevclH nrc the updntcd 11nd rcviHCd vulucs from Lon~t ct nl. ( IIJ'JS).

'FDE.P • Floridn Derurtmenl ofEnvironmcntul Protection; TEl. •thrcKhold ctrt:~:llllcvcl: P£1. - rrobl!blc cfl'~'Cili level: IIOUtcC document is MncDornlhl (1994).

•source document i~ Lon~t and Morgnn ( 199 I), 'Totnl DDT iK the MUm of the concentration~ ol'the o,p'-and fl•l''· i11or~r~ ofDDD, Dl)r:. nnd

DD'I'. 'L.MW •low molcculllr ~ighlnnd iathc Hum of the concentrntionN ofn~cnHphthcnc,

1\CCI\IIphtltylcnc, nnlhrncenc, fluorene, :•mcthy!Mphthulcnc, 1\Rflhlhulenc, 111\d flhenl\nthrenc; HMW • hip,h molccuh1r wci~tht nnd is the anm of the concc:ntrntionM ofbcnt~n)anthrnccnc, bc:nw(n)pyrcne, chryHCnc, dibc:lllO(II,h)Anthrnccnc, nuornnthctl<:. Hnd pyrcnc: Totnl ill the HUm of the conccntrntionx of the uforemcntioncd low nnd hil(h motccuiHr wcil(hl Pl\l·t.,

The behavior of ionic organic pollutMts hns not been c.xtcnsivcl~· studied. As with Lhc non ionic organic chcmicnls, OC appears to be n criticnl foetor in the pnnitioning behavior in scdimenL.; (Jnfvcrt 1990). The criticnl micelle conccnU'ation (Oi Toro cL al. 1990) nnd pH (Jnfvcn. 1990) also nppcnr to be dominntins factors.

The stale of Washington has developed sediment quality st.nndards for some polar and ionic orgnnic compounds (Table 2). AET nrc sitc-spccilic and should be used cnutiously. Bcc01usc little inConnation is avni!nble for ionic orgnnics, these contwninants should not be eliminated in n screening risk assessment. Prclimin:uy comparisons can be nlade to the Washington sUite sediment quality standards to give an indication ofthe magnitude of the cont.:tmination. tn addition, EqP SQBs for two of the polar chemicals (2·mcthylphcnol :md phenol) nrc presented in T:~blc 3.

WQBs do c.xist for scvcrnl of these chemicals (Suter and Tsao 1996). I r pore water conecntrolions of these chcmicnls arc nvniloble, they should be screened ngninst those benchmarks~ this wns the melhodolo~ followed in the Phase I Screening ERA for the Clinch River (Cook et nl. 1992).

,,.,, . .::. ·•; .. .... I' I;)

• t.:' , .. I .. , "'' Q w 1 .... ./ ... ~

:1. Cl .

II

TMhlc:. W~t.~hln)!ton ~bite ~c:uimcnt quullty ~tunu1mh ror lonl1.11hlc ()~llnlc comrounu~

(micro~:r~tm~ pe!r kllnJ:rHm dry w\!l~:hl)

Compnund

Benzoic ucid

13Lonzylulcohol

11cntm:hlorophcnol

Phenol

2·Mcthyl phenol

4·Mcthyl plH:nul

:!.4·Dimcthvl phcnol

3.2 FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS

3.2.1 EqP Bcnehmurks

WM~hln~:ton •Me "culml'nt (JUIIIItv ~hlnlh.rtl

650

57

3(10

4~0

63

670

The EPA has chosen the EqP approach for devclopins SQC for nonionic organics (EPA 1993f). This is also n methodolo~ U1at OR'NI.. supports for developing SQBs when bulk sedimcnL concentrations and WQBs arc av:tilnblc.

The EqP approach requires u WQB. o K,.., value, and n rnc<~sured or nssumcd sitc-spcc:ilic totnl orgunic cnrbon (TOC) value. Because many chemicals do not hnvc: National Ambient Water Qu\llity Criteria (NAWQC). sets ofWQBs of varying conservatism have been developed nt ORNL (Suter and Tsno 19%): com;uiL Lhis publication. or iL<> mo!lt recent revision. for n complete discussion of Lhc nquntic benchmarks and ~1cir uses. Secondary chronic values arc intended to be conscrvntivc predictors of effects. If concentrations exceed bcnchmnrks that used the NAWQC. the chemicals must be cont.runinnnts ofcon~m bccau..:.c lhc NAWQC arc npplicablc or relevant nnd appropri:~tc rcquircmcnLS. Conccntrnlions tbal exceed Lowest Chronic Value bcnchmnrk.., indicm.c n risk ot' real effects. Tnblc 3 lists avuilablc log K.,.. values for selected nonionic organic contaminnnls, sources oft.hesc values, calculntcd log K"" values. nnd estimated SQBs corresponding to ilie convcnlionnl aqueous benchmarks: t11csc SQBs arc nonnnlizcd assuming 1% TOC.

For polnr organic chemicals, ndsorp1.ion mcchnnisms other than h~·drophobicity m:1y significantly increase the frnction of the chemicnl sorbed to the sediment particles (EPA 19931). TI1crcrorc, tl1c K..,·bnscd model is likely to ovcrcslimntc Lhc free, nnd therefore bioavnilablc. chemical concentration. SQBs for selected polar non ionic orgnnic chcmicnls nrc included in Tnblc 3 ns conscr.·<~tive benchmarks and arc denoted nppropriutcly.

The bulk scaiment contaminanl concentrations measured nt a site can be comparcd dircclly to tl1e SQBs presented in Table 3. It is recommended, however, tl1nl these benchmarks be adjusted by multiplying ~1c SBQ by Lhc site-spccilic pcrecnl TOC. For example, lhc SQC !'or ncenapht.hcne is 1300 ~,glkg :1ssuming l'Jin TOC and 13.000 .ug/kg nssuming I 0% TOC (EPA 1993n). liowcvcr, the

-· ,;.. ,., .,.:.., I •.:J .. ,. .... ':I

9 .;:1 ...... o4 ..i. ... .,!) .,. 'i' -0

Tabk J. Summuyof £qP-duhtd stdimrnt quilitJ btnchn•arl..s for norJook organic cbtmkab rornsponding to CQD\ rntion&laqutvus btncbmnl..s"

low n1 drr .. l,!k: ufut-

St<oa4ary ~oa••pllnl.l U.unlnd IA&K""' ...,, .. .., ~.\\\QCclu-.onk ,ru-oruc '.du.t JNo D•phal.l• la.urtc .. nhs

"'~""" J.91 JU UOO' U.» H11,000 16.0()0

. .\."do.~ -on -OU 1.7 3000 ,.I

.~ ... .,.. ... 'tt.C U5 H7 110 11 q;:zo

B.-nr= liJ l09 160 "120,000

1\:M!i.-.:' H6 16] 1.7 51

1\:,-.:o(a}>rthno..-=< PO sro 110 }(,()()

R.-..-:(o'f)>=< 611 6GI '"' 3000

Ikr."}lal<<h>l" Ill 109 II 1J j:::;

BUC (tr,.h,<) ].1J )67 H 6n 6N ·~ BIIC(O<b:l) HtT lU 129 52\.1()

Br~' 196" )11 1100

lli( 2-cljlln) I '"-lu!.!• Hn H7 M,OOO

.. f\X>~)'~~· ... ...,. soo Ul 1200

B.l:)lb<lll)l~ Ul 476 11.000

1-B>..tn.'"' Ol'l' Olt no HOO 17,000

C~o!is-.J!fol< 100 197 OIS uoo Ul

C~t.1ra.U...->!< 1.7J 161 n 9X.O 27,000

Ub!.r.c 6.H 611 n~ l6.oro 2(,0,000 ... ~)) ru .. ot.=are 116 lll lJO noo 91,@

(1-,!,:rJor.:o J9Z Jl') u %I) JX.O

p.p'-DOO 610 600 110 17,000

~,

.~ •;. -{:; ..

13 ~~ 9 8 •I ..... .. , ..:.. .. .... 'I

]i ..... ··-. ...... -.. ..

1'§ '-.S ..

.2 .. -.:.t. i II

I e ~ § ~ ~ ~ ~

~ §. §. -e ., ,... ... .. ~ ~

... ., ~

(; Q ... .... - -~

~ ~ § ~ §, ~ ~ 0 e §_ §. N

"' 1 .. ... .... ... II 1\ ... ... - "' -....

..... .. :;:; ~ !:'.2 Q

"' .. .. ~ 0 .... ::t

lj ~ §. §. :G s: ~ s .... ~ - 5 § ...; ~ ... § .5 ... ... ..:. ... ... ... .... .... 'E "" -.,. -g .., .,!!

1 .t:J • ~ ;... ~ """

... ,... g ~

::: ~ ...

~ .... "' ... ~ ... "" ... 10 10 "' s ,., ""' 00 ~ ... ... $ ... ... 8 ... .. "" go. ., 0 ., ., ,.,

~ ~ .. 0' .... 0 go. <::! - ~

.! ..0 ... .... "' ... ... ... "" - ... - - ... ... ... .., ... .... ... l4i ...

• ~ .., .. - ~ ;t.. ... ..... ...

~ ,.. ..,

~ 8 ,..

~ 2 :s .. ... - ~ 8 -.... 0 .0 - ... • .,. "t: - ., - ... .. .., ., ... ..; .... ...; ,.; ,.; - ... - ,.. ... ... ... ... JOi ...; ... l4i ... ~

".:1 ~ ~ M l G .. . . ... .., .. .a -a ... ..

i ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ,.1

~ .~ ~ ij !;- ~

ltj ~ ~ ~ ""' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

r' ~ j .. ...

~ j ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .p .. ~ ..

t ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~' .; ... ...

1- o!:J ~ t:i ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' Q ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ .... - :- ~ ...... ~ i5 .:l Q - - - -

';• ..... .. , Joot

•: . ..., ·•

I* i"' .~

9 8 i .... ~

...,J ..

lf -:~ ....

§ ...

.... -~ .:t: ~ !! : '-.s

~ .. ~ j ~ ~ ~ g § :< ~ -e ...

....

' c: - ... ,: ... ... ...., ... ~ -

§.

~

2 ~ §. §. s §, ~ §. ~ § ~ a ... ~ ~ .... ., v

~ . .... ... .... !:: ... .... ~· ~

.... ..., - - ... :: ..,

... "

-. col ..

"::

.. .. .. . 0

:r ]j s ... e. 0 ... ... ~ s .. ~ § re § 0

i ~ -0 s

·E ... - :: ..., - - - ...,

... .... - - .. .:::.

~ ... ... ,., .!t 1 .;J

~ ~ -

oil

... ..

1;.1 -

0' :! ~

~ ... "' ~ <:'1 ~ ~ ... 0 .... .... - - ~ I" M !: .. .... ~ "' ..... .. ., .. ... .... ., -.o 0 ... .... "' -.: ... 0 ... .. ..; - ... ..., - - .. ... ... ... ..... ..; -.o .0 .. .... .. ... .. Cl ...

.s

·~ ~ r.. ..

"" ..

~ ..... "' 1&. ~ ~ $ 'b 'i ~ 'I> ~ .... ... .... eo

:.: -., 0 .. ., ... .., .... .... ... .... ..., .... ... 0 .., .. .... - .,; ... - - - ... ... ... .,; "' .., .0 .., .,; - ... ,.; 0 ...

~

i ~ l ~ ~

~ ;. ~ - ... ~ M ... ~ i ... ::1

..p '" ~ .. ~ ~

... ... ... ... ,a

l .. - - - - - - ~ ... 't3 t ... ~ ] l l Ji ... ]

... .. ... .. ... .. 1 .. ~ { f { ~ J ] J J ~

t-o

l ,..

9 ~ ~· ~ !~ ~ ~ 1$ i! ~ ~ :; ~ ::; ..... :;; ~ :t~ ~ ~ ~ "'" !!::

= ;::: ~ - .... ,.:, :; "· ,.. "" ... ~ .... ..;

T~brC'J (continutd)

·-- t .. rnrvnk .. 'lur

f114'tmcsl I..oe ~.:..,..• I..o.: 1\:o.c

Tctr~f~1.~c 1.61 261

Tob,~ 2.75 2.70

T~t·ca.:>m.:t.'=e Zn' 2.11

1.2.-1-Trit.Jvr,~a-.c 401 ).91

1.1.1 • Tri..U.~-'cth.lr:e z.n Z.H

1,1,1-Tri.tl.~~ 20.S 102

Trid-.k..-~Xt.'lr::2lc 2.71 166

\"in)' a.--ctlU o.n 072

X)i.:n< Jl)' lOS

m-X:Jot.:.y )20 l.U

S«or-.Au)· :S. \\\ QC Brook duvokulut

·UO

.so

6~

9600

JO

1100

220

ou 160

H

l'hh lhphnHs

JWG JlOO

6t00 UO,GOO

9600

9700

51.000

-12

7H,(I.)()

19.000

n,ooo

:Soo4~fhnW

""' ..... I> r-at tot

"C«l'".:r«i.Jr...t ~.JOO<S t-.:h:f.-... 1:\.s ~ JCa<:r~J in So..IH a. 'lot Tu.> (19?6). f.<&P • OJ-:=1.!:rilr.l (Qlti..xin&-All~ bc:lll:f:rnd.s arc in.,'\.& mJ a.~ nti:r..J!~J b

NO ~S'd figo..rrtS IS5~J l ~. TOC. Estr.u!.:d sc.!::nm: q.:1!ity t.mct_-nru lfCJ!a !1-..... , I u• i ( 100.000.000 ~&\&}arc Doll D..-bW t.:.."1l5e su..ft «n.'cr:n:io.r.s

xc asstrn<'d w k n."'tN;::gfy rrJldpnb n.t.nl ~ [l(',.CM::lt.J t-i!.(l-<t!l} rho: i.) f\'!d-..ilite ~ ~1) 'rf-.th!!.114 'll-g K\J'\0( ub .. -s arc ft<r.~ fJ'.-\ (19?!1~}. c~,. hae oote.J ot.'Jo.,....~ 'Ot-oce.:s ~ [P,\ sc..f.m.T.f ..,Wiry ait.rU 10t-;,.Jt.:-.~ rowo...'l:..w.i: cqrk <>..'C>p..~. f.x ,.hidJ J!)C E<tPm-:d..i is llil) L:l rro~i& • c~J!iu~ atlr.uLe cl c~e. 'lf.:..t c.:rl!'<."n·Oiti,~ (ie~l....,.~)rn:un:rxn<J..-.1 nlle f.:-rr~ cori.g-..-rir.s. IDIC (oea) is t_,.,.nl oh.\fu-. b.u., :n! &bBI!C,ody.

·'S<--J~c is fPA (l9'J~b). •s.....,_, is 1<11" ..h ('( Syn .. "\M Reu:~r~b CCIIp-'O!i:oa. £.11\ir,"RYlLTL>I S.-lom:cs cm.:r·s on-line E.~ l.cg P 0-LtN.<.e C«>J~u.f oa l..-..: 7, 19?6..

•Satr-e is,\ TSDR (1937)

..,

~t: i~ • l--.1!-=-CQ...Ol.n-. C·"t>JF-.J

I 6

EqP methodolo~. nnd therefore these bcnchmnrks, is not nppropri:lle for scdimenLS with less lhnn 0.2%. TOC (EPA 1993f).

3.Z.:! Sediment Effect Conccntrntions

11tc National BiologicnJ Service produced a set ol'licdimcnt benchmarks for the EJlA Grcnt Lakes National Progmm Office as prutofthc A.s!:cs.o•mcnt and RcmcdiuLion ofConl.'lminatcd Sediment (ARCS) Project (EPA I 996). Sediment cJTcct conccntt:ll.ions (SECs) were calculntcd usin~ In bora tory dnl.'l on Lhc toxicity of conl.'lminants associ<~ted with up to 62 !>edimcnl s;~mplcs collected predominant!~· from freshwater sites. The exception was six s<~mplcs from Mobile B:~y, Alabama, 1md live samples from G:ll\'cston Bay, Texas, which were used, wilh IO'X, salinit~ in lhc overlying water, m one oftl1e three tests. The test organisms and the measured endpoinLS were (I) reduction in survi\'al, growth. or scxunl mutur:1Lion of the amphipod Hyaldla a:t~:ca nnd (2) reduction in !'urvival or srowt.h of tl1c midsc Chironumu.'i riparius. SECs were calculated for 14-day C. riparrus tests. 14-dny /i. a:tl!ca tesLo;, and 28-day H a:tl!ca teSL'\. Three ortJ1e methods pre\'iously discussed were used to calculute SECs for each oflhcsc tcsL": the NOAA mctl1od for ER·I...'\ nnd ER·Ms, tl1c FDEP method for TELs nnd PELs. and the AET method for ~ECs. Therefore, up to 15 SECs were cnlculatcd for ench conUtmin:snt (e.g., S SECs for each of3 tests). Eu~;h SEC wns ev:~luntcd lor iLo; ubility to corrcclly classify samples in tlu: dnUlbnsc: as toxic or nontoxic (EPA 19%). T.:~blc AI in the Appendix presents the key rcsuiLo; of this process. including the pcrcentnge or nontoxic s:unples incorrectly clnssilied as toxic (% False Positive), the percenlngc of toxic samples incorreclly elnssilied as nontoxic (% False Negative), nnd the overnll pcrcent:lge ofs:unplcs corrcclly clnssilicd ns toxic or nontoxic ex. ToUll Correct). We selected a subset of the SECs for ench chemical on the basis of these rcsuiLc;,

ER·Ls und ER·Ms arc gcncrnlly ns reliable as paired TELs and PELs (EPA 1996). 111crcfore, one oftl1c three ERLs and three TELs for each chemical was selected as the reprcsenUitive tlucshold c!Teet conccntra~ion (TEC). Similarly. a reprcj:cntJti\'c probable ciTcct conecnlr:ation (PEC) w:tc; sclcclcd for ~h chemical from Lhc lhrcc ER..'-;1!1 nnd three PEL..'\. A rcpn:scnt.nLivc hi~h No El.Tcct ConccnLmLion nlso wns selected for each chemical from the three 'NECs. The NECs nrc gencmll~· higher tlum the other benchmarks :md lend to dccrca.~ U1C percentage or false positives. but increase U1C: percentage or false ncgnt.ivcs. rclnti\'C to Lhc other SECs (EPA 1996). T;~ble 4 prcscnL.; Lhe rcprcscntoLivc benchmarks, which were ~lc:ctcd by ~recning each SEC ng:Unst n set ol minimum requirements :md then rnnkin~;; tl1c S ECs relnt.ivc to each other based on their reliability nnd conservatism.

The !i~t requirement. for <~II rcprcscnt:ltivc benchmarks is tlull ~1c% Totnl Correct hnd to be greater t.hnn SO%, This is an intuitively obvious minimum criterion. which can be thought of ns requiring a benchmark to improve the odds of correct sample cl:l.';sifiention over tl1nt of otoss or n fair coin. A second criterion is nccessnfY because tl1c first requirement ignores the f<~ctlhnt two SECs can have the srunc:% Total Correct \'alue, but.diiTerenl.% False Positive nnd% False Negative values. For TECs. the second minimum requirement is thntlhe •y., False Negatives must be less titan 2S%. For PECs nnd NECs, tl1c second minimum requirement is that the% False Positives must be less U1nn 2S'X.. The dilTercnces in the second minimum rcquircmcnlS rcllcct. the diiTercnccs in tl1e intended usc and interpretation of these benchmarks. TECs arc intended to be rclnt.i\'cly conservative screening vnJues, below which effects nrc rnrcly expected to occur. As such. it is impoltlnt to limit the likelihood ofincorrcclly excluding a site nnd chemicnl from further consideration. PECs nnd NECs nrc intended to discriminate chemicals Lhnt may contribute to toxicity from those: that probably contribute to toxicity (i.e .. eiTccLo; nrc more likely thnn not). 111Us, it is important to limit tl1e chnnccs ot' incorrectly identil~•ing :1 chcmicnl ns bcins ol concern.

·-:·

~I

8 •f .... 'i ~·~

·.· ...

·';' -') .... 6

17 • s r·

TMblc 4. SummHry of ~elected toxlclt~·te~t- and ~crcenln~ level conec:ntratlun-hn!!ed ~cdlmcnt quality '1 bcnchmllrk.~ for frc"hWMtcr ~cdJmcnt~• s

.. Ontndn \101~· :t 3 QctnliQI rgr t'l~r ~~{" IAWf s.-rr •t

fnflr)l1111ia (m~o"lit dl')' ,..,.itht) ') AlumintJm ,~0:10 7:1160 -r

tV'Il'lliC 1:.1 ~7 ?:.\l G 33 I(J

Cwltnium 0.!!9: 11.7 41.1 0,(, 10

Chromium !!6 159 Jl: :6 110

C>f'I'C" :K 77.7 !14,11 16 110

lrvn =-~· 4"• Lead 34.::! 396 611.7 :II ::!!10

Mang~~Mt~c 167:1 lOKI ~19 460 1110

Men: Ill')' o.: : Nickel :1?.6 ;IH,, n? 16 7' Zinc "9 m: ~41 t:o K::!O

o,Nfll1ir.r (JJ~oollo~t Jf)· ....,;II"'J

• Aldrin .. !10 . Anlhra•:cne ;11.62

'"''· '=! 1700 ::o )700

l.\enz(11)anllva4lenc ::!60 4:!00 3~00 :~:o 14.~00

DcnLo{a)l!yrenc :1,0 393.7 440 370 14,·100

l.lcnto{k)fluolllnllwno :o~o 1;1,400

lknlo(h,k)fluoranlhcno ~?.2 4000

l~n(t:.h.l~lcno :90 6300 3~00 170 3:oo BIIC 3 1:0

Ill IC. &IJ'Ih .. 6 100

111 rc. h.!~a- ~ :to Chlonl.vlo 7 60

Chrywa10 ,00 ~:oo 4000 340 4600

DOD, r.r•'• K (.0

DDl~p.J'I'• ~ 190

DDT, O),r'• + Jl,(l'• H 710

DDT, Total' 7 1::!0

Dib<nzo( ll,h )llllhM"tiiC :K.~ !170 (·0 1300

1>1cldrin .. 910 • l~ndrin J 1300

l'luoranl._a 64.:J !1;14.:7 ,00 7~0 to,:oo IIJIIOf'Cn.: 34.64 6!11.9::! IKOO 190 1600

IICB ::o :o~o

I lrJ'Mc:hlor tf'U~idc ~· w ll'klmo( I ,:.:1-c,d)!!:Mna 7!1 K;\6.(,(, ;\MOO :oo :~::oo

Lindano {J:IIIIIm .. I IIIC) :\''• to'" Miroll 7 1:100

N•rhthlllcna n., (.!11,;\9 :?o !'All. 1'01all.MW 71<6 )369 J040

Mil, 'rO!atiiMW :?oo ·m~.K: ~1000

l'i\11, Tollll :.lm (:,\(oloU !14600 <1000 100,000

I'CU, 'f,'lllll 31.6: :44.66 194 70' ~:\00'

IK T11hlc: 4 (continued)

.• nntpdn \tnr,.

I'CU,1016

I'CU, 1 ;:.uc

,I'CU, J:-'4

t'CI.i, J:6o l'!wnwtthnmo

''"""" ~70 6100

,. .. :to•·• (.0'"

~·4

-'60 41)()

';to'4

''or!• 34o'• 24o'"

9,00 11!'100

"BcncJunnrk VaJUC!Ini'C I!CTICflllly ~led hcfcin With the umc: nutnbc:r orai~nili~llll di~illl UIICd in tho IIOUI'Ce document. ·ARCS- AIIHe!lllmcnt HOI! Rcmt:diHtion o(Contllminuled Sedimcnl.ll Progmm; me- Thi"Cllhold Elli:ct Con~enlr.Jiion,

PI1C • ProbAble I!ITect Co~cnlrnlion: nnd NEC- high No l!IT~:el Concenlnllion frorn HI'A (1996). 'Onwio MOE• Onlllrio Mini!lUy ol'thc: l!nvironment; l..ow •loweat c!Tecllcvcl nnd iH the Sth pe~cntilc of' the N<:n:enin!(

levcl.:oncentrnlion, except where noted othcrwiiKl~ Severe • HCVc:rc e!Tc:ctlcvc:lllnd is the 9Sth percentile: ot'thc: RCrc:c:ning level ooncentnttiol\ except where noted othcrwi!tC: 110urcc: document ia Pel'lillud ct nl. ( 1993): vnluc11 for ol'gftnic chc:micnl11 wen: normnlized BIIHumi "II I '!-• toll\1 org11nic carbon.

"l'otnl DDT is the sum of tile concc:ntrntiona oft he o,p'· and p,p'· iHOmC:I'II ol' DDD. DDI!. nnd DDT. 'I Oth ~cc:ntilc of the IICtcening level wncentmtion. '90th percentile of the HCtc:c:ning level conccntmtion, 'DcnolcN ll:nllltive I(Uidcline.

For these same reasons, Lhc ranking process cmphasi:t.cd mn.ximi1jns Lhc% Tol.al Correct for all benchmnrks, minimizing the% False Ncgntivcs for TECs, lllld minimizing the % FnlNC Positives for PECs nnd NECs. A score was calcul:ttcd for each benchmark lhnL met the minimum rcquin:mcni.S for rccommcnd:~tion. The score for n TEC wn.o; U1e% To1;1l Correct minus the% Fnlsc Negatives (i.e .• Score • %TC- %FN). The score for a PEC orNEC was l11e% Tolal Correct minus the% F:tlse Positivcs(i.c., Score • %TC - 1Y.,FP). The maximum possible score for any SEC\\ n.<~ 100. Thnt is, I 00% ToU11 Correct and 0% Fnlse Ncgnlivcs or F:tlsc Positives. The SEC with the highcsl score was selected ns the rcprcscnU1Livc: benchmark. In the event of a tic score, the SEC with ~1c highcsL% Towl Correct w:ts sclcci.Cd. If the% Tot.:ll CorTCcL vtllucs ruse were the s:une, then t.hc mosl conservative SEC wns selected (i.e .• the one with the lowest concentration).

3.2.3 SLC Benchmnrk.s

The Ont:uio Ministry oft.hc EnvironmcnL (Onl.:lrio MOE) has prepared provincial sediment qu:.lily guidelines using lhc SLC approach. These values nrc bn.o;cd on Ont:lrio sediments nnd benthit: species from a wide rnnge ofgeogrnphicaiM:US within the province (Persaud ct nl. 1993). The lowest effect level (Low) is lhc level nL which nctuDI ccotoxic cO'cct.s become apparent. The SC\•crc c!Tcct level (Severe) represents cont:lminnnllevcls that could potentially eliminate most of the benthic organisms (Persaud el ru, 1993). Thc..'!C "Low" and "Severe" cffccL values ore potcntial SQBs and arc prcscntcd in Tobie 4.

Although SLC-dc:rivcd 't'nlucs arc based on biological effects and nrc suiwblc for all classc:~ of chemicals nnd most.typcs of sediment. the endpoint used to derive t.hem (species absence) is considered insensitive (Mt~cDonnld 1994). Therefore, the SLC vnlucs may not be ndcquntcly protective. A qualitative comparison of the SLC values 1.0 the NOAA nnd FOEP values in Tnblc 5 sugscsi.S lhal the Low values may be moderately underproteclivc for most organics. Of tl1c 10 l..ow values, 9 :trc

npproximatcly 2 to 10 times higher thnn Lhc ER·L or TEL. However, lhc !..ow values for metals nrc remarkably similnr to the ER·L or TEL values. Most of the Severe \'alues for metals appear to be reasonably comparable to the ER·M or PEL. but many oft.hc Severe vnlucs for orsnnics arc 10 to I 00 times higher thnn the ER·M or PEL.

. .,.

..... ') ..... 6

~

..... -7

19

One advantage to the usc of the Ontnrio MOE values for organic chcmicnls is ~Hll they arc nonnali1.cd to 1% TOC. Therefore, the~ SQBs c.1n be ndjustcd for site-specific OC contcnl similarly to the odjustmcnl made for EqP SQB~.

3.3 EPA SCREENI~C VALUES

3.3.1 Ecotox Thresholds

EPA's OSWER hnll published Ecoto~ Tiucsholds (ETs) intended to be used for screening contarninanL'i Dl CERCLA sites (OSWER 1996). The~ values nrc a\'ailablc for 1:! mct.1ls nnd 41 organics in scdimenlS nnd arc presented in Tublc 5~ their dcrivntion is brieny explained herein.

The prcfcm:d method for determining scdimcnl ETs is to usc the proposed SQC vnlucs (EPA 1993n-c), which arc derived using the EqP method. Superfund hns elected to usc the lower limit o!' the 95'X. eonlidence inter.,.nl as the ET. rather than the centrnl tendency value. to maint.nin nn approprinte level of conservatism for screening purposes (OSWER 1996). The SQC ETs in Tnblc S arc nonnnli;~.cd to 1% TOC.

SQBs nrc used when SQCs ru-e not a\·:Ubtble. 111c SQB is c:1lculatcd in the snmc mnnner as the SQC except lhaL a Tier ll Sccondruy Chronic Value is used. Four of these arc from the Circnl L.nkcs Water Quality Initiative (EPA 1992), 12 arc from Suter and Mnbrcy (1994), and 17 were calculntcd by OSWER (199G). TI1rce chcmicnls with OSWER-dcrivcd Secondary Chronic Vnlucs (cndosulfnn, mclho~clor. and malathion) had NA WQCs. but Lhc crit.crin were judsed to be old nnd unrcl inblc. Tier II values were not derived if no daphnia ;JCutc \'alucs were :1\'ailablc. The SQB ETs in Table 5 nrc nonnali1.cd to I 'X. TOC.

The ER·L value is u!ied if neither an SQC nor an SQB was available. OSWER noted that Lhcrc is rclntivcly low comlntion between ~1c incidence of ciT eeLs and the ER·Ls for mercury. nickel, total PCBs. nnd DDT (Lons ct a!. 1995) nnclt.hat the ETs for these four chemicals should be used cautiously.

3.3.2 R~ion IV Scre-enin~ VnJues

EPA Region IV hns published ecological !ierccnin~ values for scdimenLo; (Region IV 199S); they ~ pn:scnlcd in Table 5. The selected cn'cct level is the lower of the ER·l.. (Lon& cL a!. 1995) and TEL (MncDonnld 1994). The ER·L for antimony is from Lon!: nnd Morsnn ( 1990). When the Contract L:lborntory Progmm 's Pr.tcticru Qu:mti~tion Limit (PQL) is nbove the clTect level, the screening value defaults 10 the PQL. However. if concentrations below Ole PQL nrc reported. tl1~· should be compared with tl1c effect level.

-· ..... ··-· •I .L.

.•. ~

"-') ..... f Q

20 .. ·-· ":')

T~thlc 5. EPA Rcj!lon IV Hnd OSWER ~elllment ~cn.~nln~ VHiuc~· c ")

·~ ,..~

R5lon rv• OSWER' .. ...... "l

Chl•mlcHI V~tlu~ T\'pe~ VuiUl' Type' .... .. lno,-,:anic.~ (mJ:Ik~: dry wtiJ:hf)

.....

..:;.

Antimony 12 PQL q .

Anlcnic 7.::!4 TEL x.~ ER-L

Cudmium PQL 1.~ ER·L

Chromium 5~.3 TI!L HI ER·t

CopJX'T IH-7 TEL 34 ER·L

Lcud 30,::! 'mi. 47 ER·l.

Mc:n:wy O.IJ TEl. 0.15 ER·L

Nickd 15.9 ER·L 21 ER·L Silver :! PQL

Zinc 124 rut. ISO ER·L

Ofl:anic.f (JiJ:IkK Jzywti}:ht)

Accnuphthcnc 330 PQI. 6~0 SQC

Accnuphtl1ylene 330 PQL

Anlhroe~:nc 330 PQI.

8CI17"-'TlC 57 SQB

B~-nzo(u)unthrnccnc 3:10 PQL

Benzo(u)pyrenc 3~0 J>QL 430 ER-1..

Bipln:nyl 1100 SQ13

Bi~(::!-cthylhc:\)'l)phthnlntc IM~ rut. 4-Bromophcnyl phenyl ether 1300 SQB Butylbcnzyl phthulutc 11,000 SQB

Chlordunc 1.7 PQI.

Chlorobi.:Tllc:nc 8::!0 SQB

Chrylii."'1C 330 PQL ODD 3.3 PQL DDD,p,p'· 3.3 PQI..

ODE 3.3 PQL

·noT 3.3 PQI ..

DDT,p,p'· 3.3 PQL

DDT, Totul' 3.3 PQL 1.6 SR·L

Oiuzinon ) 1.9 SQB

Oi lx.'t1Zol'uriU1 2000 SQB

.~.

•' .... ')• ..... I'

0

21 ~ ,, ...

T~thle 5 (continued) ~-"' C)

~.;;.

Rrglnn IV' 0!\WER• ~..I

•• ·'-Chrmi~HI VII lUI.' Tv cr.~ V~tlur

···;

Tv~c• ,j .a

Di lx:lll.o(u.h)unlhruccnc 330 PQL -~: -1,:!-Dichlorobcnzcnc 340 SQB 0 l,J.Oichlorobcnzcnc 1700 SQI3 1,4-Dichlorolx:nzcnc 3SO SQB DtciW'in 3.3 PQL 52 SQC

· Diethyl phthululc 630 SQB

Di·n·butylphthttlutc I 1,000 SQB Endo~ulfun, mixed illomc~ 5.4 SQB Endo!lulfun, ulphu~ 2.9 SQB Enl.lo~ulfnn, bctu· 14 SQB Endrin 3.3 PQL 20 SQC

Ethylbcn~.cnc 3600 SQB

F I uorunthcnc 330 PQI. 2900 SQC

Fluorene 330 PQL

I·IClo:uchlorocthunc 1000 SQB

Lindll!1c (gummu HCH) 3.3 PQL 3.7 SQB Mnlnthion 0.67 SQI3 Methoxychlor 19 SQI3

2·Mcth~·l nuphthulcnc 330 PQL

Nuphthulcnc 330 PQL 4MO SQB . PAI·Is, Tow! LMW• 330 PQL PAl·b, Tow! HMW• 655 mL

PAl-Ill, Totul• 16~ TEL 4000 ER·I.

PCBs, Totnl 33 PQt 23 ER·L

Phcnnnthrcnc 330 PQL xso SQC Pyrcnc: 330 PQL 660 ER·L

1,1,2,2·Tctruchloi'OI:thnnc 940 SQ13

'!' ctrnch I oro.: thy lcnc SJO SQB Tctn.chloromcthunc 1~00 SQI3

Toluene 670 SQB

Tosuph\."11c 2~ SQB Tribromomclhunc 650 SQB

l.Z,4·Trichlorobcrv.l!nc

1.1.1· Trichlorocthunc

Trichloroclhyll-nc

-Xvlcnc

22 Tll.hlt! 5 (continued)

VMIUc

9:00

170

1600

15

OSWER•

nrrl!· SQB SQB

SQB SQB

~n:ening vllluc:slltc preNCnlcd hc:n:in 'A-ith the :~~~tnc nurnbcr ot'KiRnilicantdi[l.iiK u~~ed in the EI'A NOUrcc: documcnta, ~cg rv .. EPA ~otllV c:ooi~CAlHC;I'I:c:nin!l VIIIUC:~ lor !!Cdimcnl.'l (Region IV 1995) nnd i~ either the IIC(Cctcd HCdimc:nt

ciTc:ciH v~tluc or the PQL, whichever iN grcutc:r. The Kle~:tcd c:ni:ctK Vlllue in the lo\YCr ol' the ER·L 11nd 'ffil... ·~'WER •I::PA omcc oi'Solid Wllllte und Erncrgcm:y RC:Mp<llllle l~otox Thn:~hold8 (liT). Only the moKiprefcrrcd 1~1',

11s de lined in OSWER (19%), i~ pn:HCnted. "C:t~·L- ell'c:cl.ll mnR~Iow and, except where noted olhcrwiNC, ia from L.on~t c:tnl. ( 1995)~ TEL • thtC!Ihold c!li.ocllllcvel

nnd is from MacDonald (1994); llQI ... Conlract Labomlory Pro~tmm'H pmcticnl qwuuifitlltion limit. ·rm-L- ;, the !lllmc II" for Hc:g IV VIIIUc:ll; SQC •the lower limit of the 9S rcrec:nt contidc:nce intervnl of' the propo!M."<..

EPA lll.'diment qunlity critcrin, IIHsurning one percent total org11nic t~~rbon~ SQB • the l::PA HCdimc:nt quality benchm11rk based EPA Tier U Chronic value (Region IV 1996),nMSurning one pcrccnl Iolli I orgnnic cnrbon •

.l'foll\1 DDT is the: HUm of the coneentmtions ol'the O,fl'•nnd p,p'· iKomcl'll ofDDI::l, DDE,und DDT. LMW • low mol~ulur weight nnd i~ the Hum or the concentration• of Hccnnphthenc, ncc:tlllphthylcnc, anthnu:ene,

, Ouorc:nc:, Z·mcthylllllflhtlullene, nuphtlullc:ne, 11nd phennnlhrtne; HMW- high moleculnr weight and ia the NUm of the conecntrnlions ofbetll.(n)Knthrucc:nc, bclll.o(u)r:mnc:, chryi!Cnc, dibclllo(H,h}llnthnu:cnc, nuornnthcnc, nnd ryrcnc; Total is the 11um ofthc: concc:ntmtionH ol'thc nforcmcntioncd low nnd hi!lh rnol~ulnr \YCi!lhl PAI·fa,

3.4 BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS

Bnckt;round scdimcnL conccnlnltions shoulcl be used ns n check ror the: mct.als benchmarks. This is becnusc some orlhcsc benchmarks nrc quite conscrval.ivc, Md bc:c.lusc the mcnsurcd concentrations in nmbicnt sediment mnv include ronns thnt nrc not bionvailnblc, benchmark concentrations mnv be . . lower than background scdimcnlconccntrntions.lflhc background concentrations arc valid Md represent an unconrruninatcd st:~te and if the exposure site docs nor. conwin fonns ofU1c chemicals that arc more bionvnilnblc or toxic thnn the forms nt background sites, then screening benchmarks lower than tl1c background conccnlr.ltion should not be used.

4. BENCHMARK USE IN BASELINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENTS

To evaluate ecological c[ects of eont.aminntcd sediments for n baseline ERA, it is recommended that sediment be collected ror toxicity tc~1ing nnd the bcntl1ic mncroinvcrtebratc community be surveyed. This is import.nnt because chemical concenlr.ltions nrc not nceurntc predictors or biologicul and ecological cO'ects. This is because the pcrccnt.ngc of the chcmicallhnl is bioavnilnblc may rnngc from 0 LCI I 00% (Burton and Scott 1992). Benchmarks mny be used to detenninc which chemicals present in the sediment arc most likely c.~using the toxicity. Usc of n weight-of-evidence nppronc:h enables a more uccuratc cvalunl.ion orndvci'!IC ecological impact.

-~,

~ •• ...! •t ,J.

23

5. CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC CONSIDER.t\ TIONS

Chapters 2 and 3 address the gener:1l consideration:~ ns~ocialed with using sediment benchmarks \0 C\'alumc tl1e various chemical types (e.g .• mel:! Is, nonionic organics. polar organics. ionic orgnnics). TI1e following tc:\t oodrcs.liCs chcmicnl·spcciflc infom1ation thnt should be considered when using these benchmark..;, with a foc:u!l on the rcli;~bilit)• of a bcnchmnrk lor a gi\·c:n chemical. 111c chcmical-specilic considerations associ:~tcd with WQBs used in the EqP SQBs arc discussed in Suter nnd Tsno ( 1996), M.oc:Oonnld (1994) and Long et al. ( 1995) discussed the degree of reliability associntcd with the FDEP nnd NOM values for euch chcmicnl. However, a chemicnl·by-chemicnl evnluntion of the Ontario MOE values wru; not available (Persaud et nl. 1993). A chcmicnl·by-chcmicol evaluntion of the ARCS \'alues is not presented here because the mc:l-:urcs of reliability for cnch chcmienl ond SEC combin:ttion were incorporntcd into the process of selecting a represcnlJtivc benchmark (Chap. 3). These bcnchmnrks cnn be: further evaluated by critically rcviewinc the: informotion presented in T.oblc A. I.

Rcli;~bilit~· oftl1c NOAA nnd F'OEP values is a limction oftl1c llb't'Ccmcnt between the predicted and observed incidence of c:ITccL.; (Long et al. 1995: MncOonold 1994). Reliability of the TEL is low if >25% of the eoncc:nU'ntions below the: TEL were n,'\,c;ociatcd with cffccL" (i.c.,lhe number ol"hits" below the TEL divided by l.hc toLal number of concentrations below the TEL is >0.25). On the basis of this criterion. a TEL with low reli:~bility m~· bc undcrproll:ctivc and en uti on should be used when attempting to exclude thnL chemical as a chemical of potential ccolosic:al conc:cm. Reliability of the PEL is low il' <504!/c or the concentrations abo\'C the PEL were associ:~tcd with effccL~. Therefore, n PEL wilh tow reliability may ovcrpredieL the potential for real ctTccLil~ this is primorily of concern when tl1c SQBs arc used in baseline assessments to help predict the 1nagnitudc of effects and help dctcnninc: caus~lity of observed effects.

The dcsiJ::nations by Lon!: ct al. {1995) (relatively high reli:~bilily and lower reliability) were somewhat different ili:u1 tl1c designmions by MncOonald ( 1994) (low, modernte, and hit;h). TI1e designation of low reliability also is u~d herein for tl1c ER-l.s nnd ER-Ms, because SQBs of low reliability arc ofp:lrticular concern. Reliability is considered low iftl1e incidence of enccts is >25%, nt conccntrntions below ilie ER·L. Reli:1bility o!'thc ER·M is con11idered low if the incidence of cffccL'\ is <SO'X, nl eonccntmt.ions above the: ER-M. Other factors (e.g .. concordance of effects) also were considered by MacDon:lld (1994) and Longctal. (1995) to determine the o\·ernll reliability of the FOEP and NOAA values, respccli\'cly. These determinations also nrc presented in the followins tex~ where appropriate.

S.l METALS

Antimony-Data arc nvailnblc from only t\\l.'l gcogrnphic re~;ions (Pugct Sound/Commencement Bay nnd San Francisco Boy); therefore, the degree or conlidcncc in the NOAA values is moderate (Long and Mors:m 1991 ). No critcri:t arc a\'nilablc for comparison from FOEP or Ontorio MOE.

Arscnic:-Conlidcnce in the TEL nnd ER·L is high and relmivcly high. respectively. Conlidcncc in the ER-Mis somcwh<~llowcr, and conlidcnce in the PEL. is Low. Therefore, the TEL nnd ER-L rq)pcat to be reliable indicators of the threshold for effects, and the ER·M appears to be ~1c better indicator of the level above which rcul cffccL'i arc likely.

(::;

• , .. :"':I .. , .. , " .;;

~.1

:1.

·I

24

Cadmium-A relatively large amount of dnw exists for codmium, including spiked-sediment toxicity tests and EqP·bnscd usscssmcniS (MacDonald ct al. 1994). Kin pow nnd Lewis ( 1979) cnlculalcd n st:llistically signiflcnnt di!Tcrcncc in the medians or :tcute oqueous toxicity dnw from soltwotcr :md freshwater or~anisms. This supports the findings oJ' Eisler ( 19R5) (as referenced in Long and Morgnn 1991 ), who found resistance to cadmium higher among marine ti1an freshwntcr species. However. ti1e degree of confidence in the lower and upper NOAA nnd FOEP values is high. and l11esc values arc considered to be reliable predictors of effects.

Chromium-Then: arc some inconsistencies in the data availnblc for chromium, possibly bcc:IUSC of lack ofspctinl.ion information. All data were reported 41..'\ towl chromium, whereas the hcxavulcnt fom1 is more toxic than the trivnlenl fonn. There nlso nrc no supportins dnw from sinclc-chemic;tl spiked· sediment toxicity tests or from the EqP oppro:~ch (MacOonnld ct nl. 1994). Overall eonlidenee in the FDEP vnlues, tUld the PEL in pruticulnr, is modcr:1IC. All11ough the overall confidence in the NOAA vnlucs is rclntivel~· high, Long ct. nl. ( 1995) cautioned lh:lL the incidence of el'fccLo; m01y be undul~· exaggerated by dat.:l from multiple tests performed in only two studies. On U1e basis ol't.hc nvoilnblc evaluations, the TEL. nnd ER.-L appear to be rclinblc predictors of the threshold for cffecL'i.

Copper-Considerable dntJ exist for copper in sediments, nnd u rclnLively high degree of ovcr:1ll confidence exists for the NOAA values. Ovcrnll conlidence in the FDEP values, and the PEL. in pnrticu!or, is moderate only. Howc\'cr. the TEL is considered to ben highly rclinblc predictor of Ute tltrcshold l'or ciTccLo;,

I ron-The only :wailuble benchmarks nrc the Ontario MOE. L.ow and Severe clTcct. levels. Although the rclinbility of these datn was not :1ddresscd (Pcrsnud cl al. 1993). the Ontnrio MOE guidelines were deri\'Cd lor freshwater scdimenLo;. Therefore, tJ1e!:C vulucs :1ppear to warrnnt. :1 rnodcrntc degree of conlidcncc.

Ll'ltd-Considcr:tblc dut.1 exist for lead in sediments, and •• rclntively high degree of ovcrnll eonlidcncc cxisL'\ for tllc NOAA values. Overall c:onlidcncc in the FDEP values, and the PEL in particular. is modcr:tte onl~·· However, the TEL i!: considered to be a rcli:•blc predictor oftJ1c threshold for cffecL'i, This is consistent with expected reliability of the ER-L ond ER·M values. AltJ1ough n relatively lnrse nmount ofduw exist f'or lead. there were no spikcd·scdimcnttoxicity test dat..1 to con linn the toxic conccnU'ntions (MncDonnld el nl. 1994),

Mnngnn~TI,c only :wrulnblc benchmarks nrc the OnU\rio MOE Low :md Severe c!Tcc:tlcvcls. Although the reliability of these dota wos not addressed (Persaud ct ol. !993), the Ontario MOE bruidclincs were dcri\'cd for freshwater scdimcnL-.. Therefore, ti1esc values nppear to wmant a modernte degree of c:ontidcnce.

Mercury-Considerable daw exist for mercury. though only total mercury concentrntions were reported in the data set (MacDonald et :~. 199*). Confidence in Lhc TEL and ER·L is high :tnd rclati\'cly high, ~-p:ctivcly. Therefore, tlle lower scn:cning vulucs should be at least conscl"'.·ntivc predictor!\ of the threshold for ciTecLo;. TI1e PEL and ER·M m<~y signi nenntly ovcrprcdict ilie likelihood ol' rcnl effects, given tlloL conlidcncc in tllesc values is L.ow. In nddition, the overall conlidencc in tJ1c FDEP vnlucs is low.

Nickel-Toxicity of nickelts greatly inOuenccd by water hardness and salinity (Long and Morson 1991}. Dat.a were from mruinc and estuarine licld studies only.nnd no spiked-sediment toxicity tests or EqP nppronchcs were used (MocOonald cl ol. 1994). Conlidcncc in ilic TEL and ER.·L is high and relotively high, respectively. Therefore, the lower screening vnlucs should be al least con~crvnlivc

.. ~ .. J

.. ..J

·I

··r ..... 1

'""t ·~·

25

predictors of the threshold for ctTccL'i. The PEL ond ER·M mcy signilic:mlly ovc:rprcdictthc likelihood ofn:ol effects, ~;ivcn that confidence in thc..;c values is Low.

Silver-A moderate amount of dnto is available for sil,•er in sedimcnLo;, although dnUl exist from spiked-sediment toxicity toilS or from EqP opproochcs (Mnc:Oonold et al. 199~). The FDEP and NOAA values hold modcrntc nnd rcloti\'ely high O\'crnll confidence. respectively. 111csc dnto suggcstthot U1c: ER·L and TEL arc likely to b; reliable predictors ofU1c t.hrcshold for eiTccL'i. The ER·M is likely to be u bcuer predictor of real ctrc:cLo; bcenusc confidence in the PEL. il> Low.

Zinc-considerable: dolO exil't for 1.inc in sedimc:nLo;, including spikc:d·scdimcnttoxicil~· tesLo; and EqP·bnscd nssessmcnt.o; (MacDonald et al. 1994). Ovcrnll conliclcnec: in the: FDEP vnlucs, nnd t.hc PEL in particular, is moder.1tc only. However.lhc TEL is considered to be o rclinble predictor of the threshold for cffecLo;, TI1is is consistent with e~pcctcd rcliabilit~· oftl1e NOAA values.

5.20RCANICS

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocnrbons (PAHs)-11lc: reliability of ~1c indi\'idunl TELs nnd PELs ranged from moderate to hiuh. ns did overnll reliubility ol'the FDEP values. The TELs :md PELs may be somewhat overprotective for four PAHs ji.e., acenapht.hene, ::cenuphLhylenc, fluorene, bcnz(a)antllrnccnc. dibcnzo(a.h)antllraccne, and tol411 hibh molcculnr weight polyaromatie h~·drocarbonsl for which tl1c ovcrnll F'DEP or ER·M values nrc considered moderately rcliable.111c TELs for nuorcnc and dibcnzo(n.h)antllr.ICene arc: considered to be only moderntcly rclinble predictors of the threshold lor c:Occts. The TEl.!' and Pl!l.!' should be reasonably rclii1ble predictors ot'the likelihood of eficct." for the remaining PAHs. Reliability of tl1e ER·Ll' for anthracene and fluorene: is low, while reliubility ol' t.hc ER·M for dibcnzo(n.h)anthrncene is rclnlively low. TI1e rclinbility of the ER-Ls and ER-Ms for the remaining PAHs is rclntivcly high.

Totnl polychlorinuted biphenyls (PCBs)-The ovcr:~ll reli'lbility of the FDEP values wns low, and the n:liubilitv of the TEL :~nd PEL was onlv moderate. Rclinbiliw oft.hc ER·M i:; considered to be rclativcl>' low. C~ncordMce of01c concentrntion.~ Md eO'cct.t~ wa,o; not high for ei~1cr the NOAA or FDEP vnl ues. This mov be the result of insuflicicntlv dc:Lailed chemical inlonnation. 11101t i!l, t.he mixture of PCB congeners" mny have varied eonsidcrnbl~· runong sites :md studies, but this infonnution wns Wlavnilable or not included in Lhe NOAA ond FDEP Mal~·:;cs. Caution should be used when screening PCBs with these benchmarks.

Pesticides-The overnll reliability of U1e FDEP values was low lor chlordane, total DDT. and lindane and modcrntc for dieldrin nnd tllc p,p' isomers of DOD, ODE, and DDT. The TEL for 101..11 DDT is considered to hnve low rcli<~bility nnd is likely to be 11 poor predictor ol'l.he U1reshold for effeet.s. 11lc PELs for chlordnne, p,p'·DDD. and lindllllc nrc considered to hn\'C low reliability :md arc likely to ovcrprcdict lhc likelihood of rcnl effects. This is also somewhnL true of U1e PELs for tl1c other four pesticides. NOAA values IU'C available for only two pesticides. p,p'·DDE :md tor..1l DOT. for which poor concordance of effects nnd conccntr'.ttions wns observed. This mny bc caused by the inclusion ol' relatively low EqP vnlucs, which were not based on toxicity to benthic organisms (Long ct al. 1995). Therefore. t.hc NOAA values may tend to O\'crprcdictthe likelihood of effects.

Bis(:-ethylhexyl)phthllllltl'-TI1e overall rclinbility of ~\e rDEP "nlues was high, !l.'l wns the relinbility oflhe TEL and PEL. 11'csc values arc expected to be rcliablt: predictors of the likelihood of cfTccts. NOAA values arc not a\'ailublc for bis(2-ctJlylhcx-yl)phtllnlatc:.

··•,t • h•J

~.;.,

6. UNCERTAINTIES/LIMITATIONS

The EqP mcU1odoiO!D' has scvcr.tl uncertainties. It relics on un empirical modi:! to compute the pore wntcrconccnlr:ltion from l.he solid phase mem:urements. Therefore, nn uncert.1inty is nssocintcd wil11 l11c usc of lhc model. In uddilion, uncertainty cxisLo; with respect to the K, ... nssociutcd with the spccilic chcmicul bccnusc it is u.n experimentally detcnnined quantity (EPA 19H9n). Vruious types or orgnnic matter present in scdimcnLo; can have signifiCMUy different binding capacities for organic conlaminnnL.;; the nflinity depends in large pan on the source and nature or U1c carbon. For cxnmplc, orgnnics associated with scdimcnLo:contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons would tend to be much less toxic than those associated witll sediments whose OC is naturnl OC (Lee and Jones-Lee 1993).

The nssumption th:11 benthic organi!>ms hn\'c similar scnsiti\'ities to water column species has n level ofuncerutinty (EPA 1993!). 111is mny be of pnrticulnr concern for tube-dwelling nrnphipods. The tubes tend to isolate them from the interstitial wnter, causing spccul:~tion that tllcir exposure is nt the scdimcntlwutcr interface. Additionnlly,thc amphipod tubes nrc m:~triccs of' organics nnd inorg<mics: the tube wnlls could sorb appreciable runounL'I ofor~anic: contnminanLo:. which could alter the :1\·nilability of scdiment·associntcd contatnin:~nts to tllose organisms (Lee and Joncs-Lec: 1993).

The EqP approach is known not to work for all nonpolar organics. It is well known Lhal mnny pesticides that arc sorbed onto soils and scdimcnlo: arc in the fom1 ol'"bound" pesticide residues Outt do not panieipntc in equilibrium rcnctions with water (Lee and Jones-Lee 1993).

The nquntic benchmarks !EPA WQC for U1c protection of aquntic life and U1c aqumic benchmarks developed by Suter and Tsao ( 1996) l for PCBs and sever:~ I polynuclear aromatic hydrocnrbons arc class criteria based on tlle cumul .. tivc concentration of <til members of the class. In the derivation of sediment benchmark.~ u.o;ing U1c EqP approach and the aquntic benchmarks. it is neccssnry to appl~ the class level Lo each member of the cln..'is individually bcc;tusc each hns a unique K,,. (Lnkc ct al. 1990), In cnvironmcnL'l where one class member comprises the majority of 01c sediment burden oftJ1c clnss, this approach should be :~dcquatc. HowC\·cr, if numerous class constituents nrc si!,'T1ificnntly enriched, a safe threshold for 01e c:ln.o;s n.o: a whole may be exceeded C\'Cn U1ough no individual constituent violates iL~ predicted safe level (based on the aquatic benchm<U'k) (P:1vlou 19H7),

The Washington sl:lte AET. NOAA, and FDEP values have scvcrnl limitations. Primarily, all or most of the dat.1 used in their derivation were bn~d on marine and estunrinc !>)'Stems. These vnlucs arc being upplicd to frcshwutcr systems nt the ORR and the Portsmouth and P:~ducnh gaseous diliusion plants. OitTcrcnccs include physico-chemical chnrJctcristics of the ~)'Stem ns well n.s possible differences in scnsiti\'ity of biol:l. Washington sLJtc, NOAA. ;Uld FDEP v:1lucs arc for single chemicals, although scdimc.:nts conwining chcmicnl mixtures were used for their derivation. TI1c Onwrio MOE \'alucs were derived to be npplicnblc to !iedimcnl tytxs throughout the province of' Onwrio. The diiTcrences bctwcc:n Ontario and East Tennessee, Ohio, and Kentuck-y sediments and biota introduce n level ofunccrtninty.

The uncertainties associated witlllhc ARCS values arc similnr to those for the NOAA and FDEP values. That is, the SECs clso were derived usins sediment samples containing chcmicnl mixtures. Altl1ough those r.cdimcnts were predominantly from freshwater ~':''Stems. I I oft.hc 62 possible snmplcs used in one ofl11e three to.1S (21<-d H. a:reca) were from marine S)'Slems. Howc\'er, tl1c overlying wnter wns only 1o•v., snlinc. The frcshwntcr sedimenL'l :\lso were from areas otl1cr U1an Enst Tennessee, including the Grenl L:lkcs, Illinois, Minnc:sotn, Monl:lna, and Texas.

,• .:... '~." ... ' u

..

.J. ... , . ... i

.. .,

' ,~ , .. ~1

27

7. REFERENCES

Adruns, W. J. 1987. "Bioavnilnbility ofNcutral Lipophilic Organic Chemicals Contained on Sediments: A Review." pp. 219-244 in Fate and E!focts of&dimcnt-Bormd Chemicals in Aquatic Sy.wcms, Proceedings or Lhc SixiJ1 Pellston Workshop, 13-17 August 19M4, FlorissrutL. Co .. cds. K. L. Dickson. A. W. M:lki, nnd W. A. Bn.mgs. Pergamon Press, Toronto. Ontnrio.

Adnms. W. J., R. A. Kimcrlc. nnd J. W. Bnmclt.. Jr. 1992. "Sediment Quality and Aquntie Life Assc:ssmcnts," Environ. Sci. Techno/. 26(10), I!{GS-75.

A TSOR (Agency for Toxic Su~'t:lnccs and Diseuse Registry) 19X9. ToxtcologJcal Profile for Selected PCBs, ATSDRJTP-8R/21, U.S. Public Hcaltl1 Service, Washington, D.C.

Boese. B. I..., H. I..ce II, D. T. Specht.. R. C. Rnndnll, and M. H. Winsor 1990. "Comparison of Aqueous Md Solid·Phnsc Upl.akc for Hcxnchlorobcnzcnc in l.hc Tcllinid Clrun Macoma nasuta (Conrnd): A MllSs Bal:mce Appronch," Environ. Toxicol, Clrcm, 9, 221-31.

Bunon. G. A., Jr., and K. J. Scott 1992. "ScdimcnL Toxicity Evnluations-Thcir Niche in Ec:olol)ical Assessments," Environ. Sci. Techno/. 26( !I), 20GR-7S.

Crunpbcll. P. G. C .• and A. Tessier I 991. "Biologicnl Avnil:~bility of McUlls in Sediments: Annlyticnl Approaches.'' pp, 161-173 in Heavy Mr:ta/s in the Envtronmc:nt, cd. J.-P. V..:mct.. Elsc:vic:r Publishing. Amsterdam.

Chnpman. P. M. 1989. "Current Approaches to Developing ScdimcnL Quolity Criteria.'' Envtron. ToxJco/. CJrcm, 8, 589-99.

Cook. R. B. ct aJ. l 992. Pitas~: 1 Data Summary Report for tlu: Clinch River Rl1mcdtallnvc.\'tt~arlom·: Hl!alth Risk and Ecolo~ical Risk Scrccnin~ As.~e.wnenr. ORNLIER·ISS, Onk Ridge Nntionol Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tenn.

Di Toro, D. M .• J. D. Mahony, D. J. Hansen. K. J. Scott. A. R. Cnrlson, nnd G. T. Anklcy, 1992. Acid Volatile Sull.ide Predicts the Acute Toxicity ofCndmium nnd Nickel in Sediments. Environ. Set, Tcclrnol. 26, 96-10 I.

Oi Toro, D. M. 19~5. "A P:miclc lntcrnction Model of Reversible Orgnnic Chemical Sorption," Chcmosphcrc 14(10). l503-3R.

Di Toro, D. M., L. J. Dodge, nnd V. C. Hand 1990 ... A Model 1'or Anionic Surfnclllnt Sorption.'' Environ. Set. Tcchno/.24, 1013-20.

EPA (U.S. Environmenllll Protection Agency) 19H9n. Brrefinf: Report to the £P A Science Advisory Board on the Equilibrium Parrllionin,; Approach to Generating Sediment Quality Criteria. EPA 440/5·89-002. Washington. D.C.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 19K9b. Evaluation of the Appal'cntlifji:ct.\' Thre,\·hold (AE'f) Approach for AsscssinJ.: &dimcnt Quality, Report orlhc Sediment Criteria Subcommiucc, Science Advisory Bonrd. SAB-EETFC-~9·027.

s 9 8 .. ...r.. ... , .:, .. .,. . ...J I' 0

2H

EPA (U.S. Environmcn~l Protection Agency) 1992. Dt!rmallixposure As.\'4.'.\'J'ment: Pl'inclp/cs and Appllcallon,\', EPA/600/R-91/0118, Offic:c orRcscorch :tnd Dcvcloprncnt. Woshington. D.C.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1993n. Sr:dimc:nt Quality Crttr:rta for rltr: Protr:crion of Bcmhic Or$.!anl.1'm.1·: Acc:naphthem:, EPA-H22·R·93·013. Washington. D.C.

EPA (U.S. En\'ironmcnt.nl Protection Agency) \993b. Sediment Qua/uy Cril.:rtafor the l'rotcctwn of Bcntlttc OrJ.:anlsms: Dicldrm, EPA·M22·R·?3·0 l!i, Washington, D.C.

EPA (U.S. Environmcnul Protection Agency) 1993c. Sedtm,•nt Qua/tty Crilc:najorthc Protection of Br:nthlc Organisms: Endrln, EPA·822·R·93·016, Washington, D.C.

EPA (U.S. En\'ironmcnul Protection Agency) 1993d. s~·dtmc:nt Qua/uy CriteriOflJr the Protection of Bl!nthlc Orf.!anlsms: Fluoranthcne, EPA-822-R-93·0 12. Washington, D.C.

EPA (U.S. Environmcntnl Protection Agency) 1993e. Sl!dimcnt Quality Criteria fort he P rotcction of B,•nthic Orf.!ani.rms: Phenanthrene, EPA·K22·R·93·0 14, Washington. D.C.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 19931: Tecllmcal Hasi.l'for Dcrivtn~: S.:dlmenr Qt~ality Criteria for Non tonic Or~:anic Contaminants for the Prowction of &nthic Or~:anl.,·m.l' by U.l'ilt~ Eqwltl,•ium Parttlionmf.!, EPA-!!22-R-93·0 ll, Wnshington. D.C.

EPA (U.S. Environmcnt.1l Protection A,;cncy) 1994. IJrlt!finf.! Report to the EPA Sct,•nc'' Advt.wry B()(Jrd on the EqP Approach to Pl'l:dicltnf.! Metal /Jioavatlahlltry m &diml!nt and thl! Dcrtvanon of&dlment Quality Criteria flJr Mt:tals. EPA M~-94/002, Washington. D.C.

EPA (U.S. Environmcntnl Protection Agency) l995n. Jntt•rna/ Jh•port: Summary of Mea.,·r~rcd, Calcrtlarcd, ancJ Rccommendt:ci l.o}! 1\ow Va/ucs, Ol'licc orWatcr, Wnshington. D.C.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 199Sb. National S.:drm.:nr Inventory: Documt:nlalton ofDt:r/V(Ition ofF"'·\·// water Sedtment QualJt)'. Office of \Vater, W:sshin&'ton, D.C.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1996. Ca/culatwn and Evaluation ofScdimcnt Effect Concentrations for the Amphtpod Hy_ah•llfl.(l;L~c_q and the Mrdf.!c C/rirnnQ!!JJ!S rlpa.rJ.JJI,, EPA 90S-R96-00H, Orcnl Lal.:cs NaLionnl Program Office, Chicngo, Ill.

Ginn, T. C .• and R. A. Pastornk 1992 ... Assessment and Management of Contnminntcd Sediments in PugcL Sound,'' pp. 37 t-40 I in Sediment Toxicity A.\'.1'1:.\',\'mt:nt, cd. C. A. Burton. Jr .• Lewis Publi=-hcrs, Bocn Rnton. Fin.

Hull. R.N .. and G. W. Suter II 1994. To:dcolo~lcal Hrmchmar/.:sfiJrScrccntn~o: Potential Crmtnmmants of Concern for Effi:cts on &dimcnt·A,\:~ocwtc:d Bwta: 1 1)9J RcVI.I'ion, ES/ER!T'M-95/R I, Onk Ridge National t..lborntory. Oak Ridge. Tenn.

Jones, D. S., R.N. Hull, :md G. W. Suter II 1996. Toxlcolo~:tca/ Hc:nchmarksfor&r.:,•mng Polcntia/ Conwminanls of Concern for Efj~cts on Scdim~·nt-As.\·ociciiCd Biota: 1996 Rl!v/sion. ES/ER.tTM-95/R2, Onk Ridge Nolionnl Lnborotory, Onk Ridge, icnn.

0 l.J .. • ..... .. ,

'~.}

·• ':I' •. J -;

'

29

Jones, D. S., G. W. Suter II , :md R. N. Hull 1997. 1'o.-cJcologtcal Benchmarks/or ~crccmnJ; Potl!ntla/ Contaminants of Conc,•rn for E!fi•cts on Se!diml!nr-A.~o;.wcftllcd Blora: 1997 Re!vt,\'lon. ES/ER!TM-95/R3, Onk Ridge Notionnl LnbornlOI)', Oak Ridge, Tenn.

Jruvcn. C. T. 1990. "Sorption of Organic Acid Compounds to Sediment:;: lnitinl Model Development," l!'nvlron. Toxicol. Clll!m, 9, 1259-GH.

Klnpow,l... A., nnd R. H. Lewis 1979. "Ana1yliis of Toxicity Om.a for California Marine Water Quality SLandards" J. Water Po/1111. Contl'ol Fed. S I, 2054-70,

Lnke, J. L .• N. I. Rubinstein, H. Lee II, C. A. Lake. J. HeiLo;hc, nnd S. P:l\'ignano 1990, "Equilibrium Partitioning nnd Bioncc:umulnlion ofScdiment·A~a<:iatcd Cont:lminanL-; by lnl:1unal Organisms," Envzron. Toxicol. CJu:m. 9, 1095-1106.

L<~ndrum, P. F., and J. A. Robbins 1990. "Bioavailnbility of Sediment-Associated ContamimmLo; to Benthic ln\'crtcbmtcs," pp. 237-63 in Sl•diml!nts: Chemistry and Toxicity of ln-Placl! Pollutants, eds. Baudo, R., J. Gicsy, and H. Muntau, Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, Mich.

Lee, G. F., and A. Jones-Lee 1993. "Problems in Usc of Chemical Concentr::~lion~Based Sediment Qu:tlity Criteria for Regula tins Contaminated Sediment," pp. 439-44~. ?reprint of paper presented ntlhc: F'lrstlntcrnalional Sfh!cia/i:cd Confor.:ncc: ofContamlnatcd Aq11atlc Sedtmc:nts: Historical Rt.•cords. Envtronmc:ntal Impact, and Rl•medtation, Milwaukee, Wis.,lntcmationnl Assoei::~Lion on Water Quality.

Long, E. R,. nnd L. G. Morgun 1991. 17u: POicntia/ for Biolof.:lcal E!Jc:cr.,· of Se!dimcnt·Sorbcd Contaminants Tested In the! National Status and Trc:nd\· Pro~-:ram, NOAA Tcc:hnic"l MemorJndum NOS OMA 52, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrnt.ion.

Long, E. R., D. D. MocDonald. S. L. Smith, and F'. D. C:tlder 1995. "Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects within Ranges of Chemical Conccntrolions in Marine and Estuarine Sediments,'' Environmental Mana~r:ml!nt 19(!), R 1-97.

MncOon.:~ld, D. D. I 993. Memorandum to Clcll Ford, Onk Ridt:c Nutional LnboruiOI)'. Environmcnl:ll Sciences Dh•ision, Oak Ridge, Tenn. Jnn. 2~. 1993.

MneDonnld, D. D., S. L. Smith, M. P, Wong, nnd P. Murdoch 1992. The Devdopml!nt ofCanadlan Mal'lne Environmental Quality GuideliMs, Environment C:madn Eco!>·ystem Sciences and EvaJu\llion Dircclorutc, Ottnwa, Onl:lrio.

MacDonald, D. D. 1994. Approach to I he A.\',1'1!.\'Smt.:nt ofS.:dJmcnr Quality m Florida Coastal Waters, Florida Dcpnrtmcnl of Environmental Protection, Trulahnsscc, Florida.

MacDonald, D. 0., B. 1... Churlish, M. L. Haines. nnd K. Brydges 1994. Approach to rite: .4sscssml!nt of Si!dlm,•m Quality in Florida Coa.wal IYatc:rs: VolumL' 3-Supportlnt: Documentarian: Btolo~-:Ical Effocts Database: for &dzml!nt, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tnllnh:~sscc. Flo.

Maughan, J. T. 1993. "Evalunlion of Contaminants in Sediments," pp. 176-205 in EcoloJ:ICcJI As.w:ssmcnr ofHa:.ardous Wa.,·tc Sites, cd. J. T. Maughan. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

..

•

30

NclT. J. M .• B. W. Comaby. R. M. Vagn, T. C. Gulbransen, J. A. Scanlon. and D. J. Bcnn 1988. "An Evuluation of Lhc Screening Level Concentration Appronch for Validation of Sediment Quality Critcriu for F'n:shwater and Snltwntcr ECO!>')'Siems.'' pp, 115-27 in A quatlc Toxrco/o~ and Ha:arJ A.,~,·~:ssm,•nt: /Orh Vo/umt:, ASTM STP 971, cd. W. J. Adams. G. A. Chapmnn. nnd W. G. L.nndis, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

OECD (Organi:t.ntion for Economic Cooperation and Development) 1992. Report of tht! Oli.CD Workshops on /iff.:crs As.~cssmcnt r~( Clwmrcals in Scdimc:nt, Orgoni1.ntion for Economic Coopcr:~tion nnd Development. OECO En\'ironment Monogr:~phs No. GO, Paris.

OSWER (Oflic:c of Solid W:~stc :~nd Emergency Response) 1996 ... Ecotox thresholds," ECO Update: 3(2): 1-12.

Pnvlou. S. P. I 9R7. "The Usc of Lhc Equilibrium Partitioning Approach in Detcm,ining Sufc Levels of Cont.'lminanlS in Marine SedimcnL<~," pp. 3RX-412 in Fatr ancl Jiffcct.~ of ~ii!dimL'tH-Hmmd Chcmtca/s tn Aq11a11c Sysrcm,\·, Proceedings of Lhc Sixlh Pellston Workshop, 13-17 AugusL 19H4, Florissnnt. Co. cds. K. L. Dickson, A. W. M:~ki, nnd W. A. Brun~:;s. Pcrsnmon Press. Toronto. Ontario.

Pcrs:~ud, D.. R. Jnagumngi. nnd A. Hayton August 1993. Gtndcllncs fiJr tire: Prot~:crlon and Mana~cmcnr of Aquanc &d1mc:nt Qualuy m Ontario, Ontnrio Minislr)' oft.he En\'ironment and Encr~.

Region IV (U.S. Environment:ll Protection Agency Region IV) 1995. Ecolo~:tcal scrr:rnin;.: value:,\', Ecological Risk Assessment Bulletin No. 2. Waste Management Division. U.S. EnvironmcnL.'ll Protection Agency Region IV, ALI:mta, Gn.

Shea, D. 19HH. "Developing N:llionnl Sediment Qual it~· Critcri01," Envrron. Sci. Techno/, ll( II). 1256-61.

Suter, G. W. ll 1995. Guiclc: for Prtformtng Scr.:ening Bcologtcal Risk As,\·c,\·smwtrs at DOe FacillfiL'S, ES/ER/T'M-153, Oak Ridge NnLional Laboratory, Onk Ridge. Tenn.

Suter, G. W. II, :md J. B. Mabrey 1994. Tuxtcolo~ical Jknchmarks for Scr~:c:mng Potc:nnal Contaminants of Concern for Effocts on Aq11at1c Btota: /99.J Rc:vistan, ES/ER!rM·%1RI, Oak Ridge Nutional Lnbor:uor:-·. Oak Ridge, Tenn.

Suter, G. W. II, and C. L. Tsno. 1996. ToxJco/ogtca/ Benchmarks for Scr~L·mng Potl'ntwl Contammants of Conc1.•rn for lij/I!CI.\' on Aq11a11c Biota: 1996 Rcviswn, ES/ERIT'M·96/R2, O:~k Ridge Nationt~l Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn.

. . ~ ,., , .... .. "· :J

APPEND LX SUMMARY OF ALL SEDIMENT EFFECT CONCENTRATIONS

THAT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR RECOMMENDATION

... I' l· .. r 0

A·3

Tabl~ A.t Summury of llll ~•·tliment effect cnnccntrMtiun~ (SEC~) th11t ml~t the minimum I'I!(JUII'I.!ment~ fur ~ommcnilllllnn•

Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum A111enic

Al'l!Cni.: J\l'fiC:nic Al'llenic J\ncnic Arncnic J\rucnic Aflll:nic Ar!ICnic Al'fiC:nic Al'!tCni..: Al'l!Cnic ANCnic At'!ICni~

Cudmium !:11dmium C11dmium C11dmium C111Jmlum Cndtnium Cndmium Cnllmium Cudmium Cudmium Cndmium Cudmium Cudmium Cndmium Ct1drnium Chromium Chromium Chromium Chromium

Chromium Chromium

Chromium Chromium Chromium Chromium Chromium Chromitlm

Tut"l F"l•t' F"l"• Cnl'!'t'Ct Pn~ltl\'t"' N~~rlvt~ St'ltoe:rrd

JnrlrJ:rutiC$ (m~:lkl:) PEC PEC NEC TI~C

1'EC

111\:K IIA.:!K IIA:H IIAJ4 11Al4

ERM 51!030

PI~ SCJS7:.nJ:: NHC 7:\160 HRI. 1::.1 'J'E.L 11.::.147!\

TEC I IA:!K TEl. 'I'EC CRI4 I~RI.

'I'EC IIA:K W~l.

TEC CRIJ TEl. I'EC CRI4 CR.\-1 I'EC CR 14 PEL PEC HA1K PEl. I'I!C IIAZK mw PEC IIAI4 ERM PHC I·IA IJ I'EJ. !'-ii~C llA 14 Nl~C

NEC HA::K !'.1~C

TEC I !A 14 TEl. TEC HA 14 l!ltl. 1'EC CRI4 ERL TEC CRI4 'J'EL THC HA::K TEl. 1'EC l·IA:!K HRI. PEC CR 14 HRM PHC I !A 14 PI~.

PEC CRI4 pgL 11EC IIA14 ERM I'EC 1-JA::K PHL I'EC HA::K l!RM NEC Cl~ 14 NEC NEC llA 14 NEC NEC IIA::K NEC TEC IIJ\14 ERL TEC I·IA 14 '1'1~1.

TEC CRI4 ERL TEC CRI4 TEL TEC HA::X 1'W.. 1"EC HA~I! ERI. PJ~C CR 14 PI!.!. PEC CRI4 llRM I'EC I·IA 14 I'I!L I'EC l·lA 14 ERM PEC IIA:K Plil. I'FC. HA:!K FRM

I o.7'J7ft!l

3: 13.1

:1.76:35 57

S•tD:::::: 4!1.31<~1::

49.6 ;\;:1

~'J.4M..W

9:.9 10::

0.59161 0.7 9.1

::.119~44

0.511;\::7

0.7 11.'1

3.2::49 ,,.(,:Jx:

s.:: 3.::4G5<1

3.1175 41.1

H

H

S6 47.91659

:w.3 39.7961ili

36.::!\636 3X.S

159.405 I 36~

130.9::17 :n

(•!.)' (•!.o)f ('"!.)• s._.,, .... • RMK'

60 (,:I

55 71 69 (iJ

63 (,(,

63 S9 Sol HI Kl K<t 69 (16

66 Kl 711

loll

75 74

71

.... ,_

71

HI ·(i(,

6:: 60 60 60 11.6 l(l

Kl 7!! 73 '7'\

f(i

16 4

:I 36 f(J

1::

6 (.

IJ 13

3

19 19 .. .. ~I

.. .. 7

J s s .. -3 .. -13

36 36

0 u 0

0 0

zo

1:: 10 IS

Ill 19 19

31 .:ll

3K 44 0

0

t:: 10 K

K 17 !')

1:: .... ....

6 (i

s IS IS t: 17 I'J .... -.. .. _,

414

~6

<II!

(,J (iQ

so so <II!

4S (,J

57

S? 57 S3 ~0

S6 s:: HI HI 74 S9 SK

SK 7t)

75

(,I)

6')

7~

60 60 ss 4S 45 IW

113 !II 7X 7~

7~

.. ~; , .. 'J i3 ·.~ -., .. ,

'1 -·

Chromium Chromium Chrornium Copper Copper Copper Coprcr Copper ~opf!Cr

Corflllr Copf1Cr Coprcr CoJ'p.:r Corp.:r Carper Copper

Copflilr Mnn~alllcHC

MllO!IIIIlCHC

Mun!(RilCHC

Mllh!lllllCHC

Mnn(.\nneHC

Mllll!/.llllCHC

Mllll!lHIICliC

MRO!.(UilCIIC

MlllliiHhCKC

Ml\II!'IIIICI\C

Mungnner~e

Mun~ant..c

MnnMDnesc: Nickel Nickel Nickel Nickel Nickel Nickel Nidc:l Nickel Nickel Nic~el

Nickel Nickel Nickel Nic~cl

Nic~el

l.t'llll

A-4 T11blc A. I (cuntlnucll)

NEC NT:c NEC TEC TEC TEC TEC TEC

CRI4 !lA 14 l·IJ\:)1

HAlo! HJ\14 IIAZK HA:!K

CRI4

NEC NEC NEt: TEl. EIU. I!RJ. Tl~l.

TEL TEC CRI4 ERL PEC I·IAI4 Pm. PEC I·IJ\14 I~RM

PEC 1·11\:K PEL PEC I~H ERM I'I!C CR I 4 m{.\1

PEC CKI4 l'lll-

NEC HI\ 14 NEC NEC HI\~!\ NEC 'rEC CRI4 ~RI.

'l'nC HA 14 ERI. TEC CRI4 TIJ.. TEC I !A 14 TEL TEC I·IA:K ERI. TEC HAZK TEL PEC I·IA 14 PEl. I'EC Cl<l-1 1'1~1.

PEC Cl<l4 ERM PEC Ill\ lol ERM PEC 111\::H PI~

PEC lll\:11 ERM NEC I· !A 14 NEC 'I'EC l·IA lol ERL 'I'EC CRiol ERI. TEC I !A l.l TEL 'l'EC CRI4 TEL TEC ll~K ERI. TEC I·IA:K TJ!I. PI!C I !A 1·1 Pl:t. I"'EC CRI4 Ill~

l'liC CR 14 ER.\1 PEC I lA 14 HRM

I'I~C I ~K ERM (lf:C I-IA:H PEL NEC HAl-l NEC NEC Cl~ I~ NEC NEC 1-!A:K NEC TFC IIAI·I TFT.

C111w.

;11:!

95 95

ZK.DI:!S

~IJ

41.3 :x.or:s 67.4S:'\5

96.5 77,711?7

1::.:s 10 I.Z3o.l

11!7

:or •. s Z91J:!71

54.X SK3

1673

7:6 IU71J.077 614,7::!19

7:(1 6JI.:IZ7Z IUH0.6K9

I S.:'IH.:ll<: ::4 J()

167>1 llli4.7S6

I 67:1 Ml9

:w.6 40

:7.7171-l ZtiJ,OKZ7

:!J.X IY.SI-11

JK.4%7S ;'IK,(iKIJ1)

.17.5

47.5 44.7

J:!.K::I79 37.'}

57

Tu111l Cnr1'1'CI

!I ;I

Kl

li4

Kl 7J 71 (,.j

(,.!

Ill

7k

71 (jl)

6:: 60 XI

56 llZ k3 79 67

6!\

59 7S

79 71

61

59 71 ')ol

93 Ill

7h

61<

(IS

')4

')!}

lO 7H 7;\

7ol

91

7? 73 IW

"'"'~" F11l~t· rn,ltlv~ N\'I(HIIVl'N

(•J.)I' (•J.)I

.. . 13 13

15 19

0

0

II (i

:!I

19

3

M

4

II

II .::s 0

)I

s 0 :; s 4

0 .. . 16 19

13 IK I)

5

0

()

s 3 .. . .. .. 11

l.l 16

t:: 10

10

10 )':.)

.... Zl :s 17

:!I I (I

II 13

II K

::o 16

II

16

(I

s J s 19 II<

6

s l.l

6 (')

XI 71!

71 Kl

75 61 61

S-1 S-1 !!)

7H r,;~

6;1

41

41 7K

54 71 70

6K

59 411

43 75 74 7.1

71 5()

54 67 Ill\

Mil

7K

71 4')

47 ')J

HS Kl

711 73 69 Ill\

77 71 Kl

X

\

I" .~ ..:_:;

·' •J ,_, ·~ .... ·•. • ,,J

1 ... .. ·'' -

Lend

LcnJ L.cud I.CIId Lend l..elld

Lend l.cltd

L.cnd Lend Lend

L.cad I.e lid

LciiJ Zinc %inc Zirn: ?.inc ?.in~

Zirn: Zinc: Zinc: Zinc Zinc Zinc: %in.:

Zinc Zinc

ChrmlcMI

Naplllhnknc: Nuphthnlcnc

Naphthalene Nnrhthalcnc Narhthulcne Nuphthuhmc

Nuphllllllcne Nurhthnlcnc N«tphUutlenc ]'lnphthalenc Narhthah:nc Naphthalene Nurlulmlcne Nurhthalcnc Fluorene Fluorene Ftunr(!nc.-

A·S T~tble A. I (conllnuetl)

TEC

TEC CKI-1 11/\14

SV.C"

ERI.. ERL

TEC CR14 Tl!L TEC HA::Ii ERI. TEC HA:Ii 'rtrL PI!:C CRI4 ERM PEC HI\ 14 PEL PEC I lA 14 ERM PEC Cl<.l4 PI::!. PEC HA::M Pm. PEC !lA:!!< ERM NEC H/\14 !I:I!C NEC CR14 NI::C NEC 111\::li NEC ·me H/\14 ~RL

TEC H/\14 Tm. TEC IIMM 1'1::1. TEC IIA:!M ERL TI~C CRI4 ERt 1'EC CRI4 TEL PHC CRI4 PGI. I'I!C CR I <I HRM PEC HJ\ 14 Pl~l.

I,EC I !J\ 14 I!RM i'EC 11/\::!li PI~L

l'l~C IIA::!Ii EKM NEC I·IA 14 NI:C NEC 1·11\:::li NEC

1'EC CA 14 THJ. TEC CRI.J ERI. 1'EC CRI4 Tm. iEC C/\ 14 I~RI.

TEC IIA:Ii Tm. TEC IIA:Ii ERL PEC C/\ 14 PI~.

PEC CRI4 ER.\1 Pl!C C/\ 14 EKM PEC Cl~ 14 Pl~l.

I'EC I·JA::x PEL PEC HJ\::M EKM NEC C/\14 NEC NEC IIA::x NEC TEC IIJ\14 Tm. TEC Ill\ 14 I~Rl. TF~ ('I< 14 1TI.

Cum•.

9?

Sl 69.(~911

ss n.::::::9o:

31J6 117.4947

::st 191.!!03

lii.74J.W

9H.7

6M.7 679

1::!7 159

94.1SOIS 91!.09154

113 3HI

:!(O.H;\::!7

ISJ::!.4MZ ::750

Jl\4.043 ..... ...... S43.99 17

547

Soli

1300

o,J:IVtirJ (us.:lkw .:-:!.7.5

55 J4J9

s~

hi.C1S

I~

(Jli7.J9 IM90 ~:s

=~5.04

J:W.(~

1)7,5

::•;o 1400

;lr.I.M

so ~I)(,(,

Tnt HI Cnmocl

r•t•l'

i'4 71 HI 7K '71\

HI 77 7ol

X4 7(1

71 HI 7H

63 63 tj.l

57 H;l

XI 75 7S 74

'"' 7:! (,')

7H 79

76 7M S6 55 HI HI

75 (,J

6)

75 61! 15 75 7J

~·Nl\P FMhll' l'n-ltl'l'l'!l Ntr,.:lltlw"

r•;.y (•!.)• Scni'P*

7 10 73

IJ 9 69

IS :::t

0

0

5 6 :1

.l ., -.. .. 16 .. .. -;\I

" -

.... ...

I'J ;l7

-10

.. -

.. .. ::s ....

5 II H

17 ~ .... -14

16 :_,

13 :::r :7 3 0 (,

K

to 7

1·1 17 .,., .... .... --

0 .. .. I)

:1 6

17 17 ..... -.... --..,., -;ll

0

J

(I!)

63 6,:1

7? 71i 7!! 76

71 71

HI 74

69 7H 7H 57 55 54

50 HI 79

7::: .. .. . .. 6K (tli

6'J 67

7~

77

76 75 50

so 7')

7•J 7H

50 46

6(,

75

, •. , r' ....

' ~' -

Fluorene fluorene

Fluorene Fluorcr~e

Fluorene Fluorene Fluorene nuorc:nc: Fluorene Fluorene

Phenanthrene: I'hcnunthn:nc PhciUI nthrcnc: PhcMnthrc:m: Phcn11 n 1 hrc: m: Phcrlllnthrc:nc Phcn~~nthrcnc

Phenonthn:nc: Phcru'"thn:nc Phcnnnthrc:nc l'hcnanlhn:nc l'hc!lllnlhrc:nc: Phcnnnlhrc:nc Phcnnnthrc:nc: Phenanthrene 1\nthn"c:nc: 1\nthnu:c:nc Anthru~:c:ne

AnthrKcenc Anthruccnc Anthruccnc: Anthru~c:nc

1\nthrncc:flC Anthruccr~e

Anthracene

Anthruccnc

1\nthrucc:nc Anthrucenc Jlluonmthenc Fluonu11hcnc Fluon'"lhcnc Fluorunthcn~:

Fluornnthcnc

FluornntllCrlC

fluornnlhcnc Flunrn nthrru•

A·G T~tblc A.l (cuntlnuctl)

TEC PEC PEC I•Ec PEC J>Ec PEC NRC NEC NcC TEC TEC TEC

Ckl4

CRI4

Hl\14 CRI4 Ill\ 14 HI\~ II

I-!A: II CR14 1·11\14 JJA::x CRI4 H/\14 H/\14

SF..~

ERI. PEL PEL E.l<..\1 ERM ERM PEL NEC NEC NEC I!RI. ERL TEl.

TEC CR 14 TEl. TEC HA:H mr. TI:C HA:K URI. PEC CRiol PEL PEC HAI4 ERM PI!C CRI4 l!RM PllC I !A 14 1'1!1.. I'EC HAZH ER,\1 I'EC 111\:11 PEL. NEC CRI4 NEC NEC HJ\14 NEC Nl!C HA:x NEC TEC IIAI<l mJ. TEC IIJ\14 ERI. TEC CRI4 '1'1!1. TEC CR14 l!RI. PEC CR I~ l'E.l. PEC CRI<l ERM PEC HA 14 I'EI. PEC Ill\ 14 EK.~

PEC I~~~ I'El. PEC IIA:K ER.~

Nf.C CRl<l NBC !lo1~C HAI4 Nl~C

NEC 1·11\:!1 NEC 'mC CR14 Till. TEC !IAI4 TEl. me I lA 1.: I~RJ.

1'EC CR 14 ERL. TEC I·IJ\~!1 rg1. TEC HA:ll ERL PEC llA 1-l Pill.

Tutu I Cnr~t:l

Crllll', (•/o)'

XX 7~

6SI.'JZ H3 :,tl\5.61\ Ill

1700 Ill S9S 7K

140 61

l<l'J.67 60 IKOO 79 ~'){) 711

::woo (,~

JSO K! .WO HI

197.oiK 75 IJSJ'J 1!1.73

~7

1 J.J:.37 !I(JO

::so 777.K:

345 409.05

6100

11100

:oooo J J.(,~

100 n.4:

I.JO

547.7::! !:!SO

oi0'J.Z7 (,7r)

1(,7J~

lo.IO

1700 :!90

:!000

(...1,:3

I .W.::Z 160 II 0

31.46 ~~

!1;\4.::!7 141i4 ~I)

71 611 65 HJ Ill

Ill 7!1

M 6:1 7')

7H

61 7!1 7K 7-l 7J

K:l HI 7!1

7!1

63 61 79 75

CiS (,1)

69 (,')

67 56 % !14 )I~

F11l~~ Ftrl~t' PuMIII'IIt"!! Nr~RII'IIt'~

(•;.y (•/•)' 19 .. .. 0

0

13 13

17 16

:s :6

0

3 l:.t !;\ .. -.. -.... .... 19

19 .. .. .. -0 (I

II IS .. -.. .. :II

31

7

14

19

17 .....

19 19

~s .. .. ;l

0 .. ... s X

lol

19

17 t')

I'> IIJ 37 ()

3 .. ... 7

lol

17 ::! .... -::6 :.J I'J

.. ... I I

II 13 I.!

67

HI HI 7')

7H 4!1 47 77 75

61 7? 7M 75 (o?

6~

57 Kl HI

79 75 53 50 77 75 59 7K 75 7: 67

Ill 71)

7K 711

,., ~ .. ,• .... 6 ..

.. I u

''!' 1..:1. .

ChrmlcHI

Fluornnthcne Fluornnthenc Fluornnthcnc Fluornnthc:nc: FluorRnthenc: lliuorllnthc:nc: Fluonmthene I~ rene llyrc:nc: Pyrc:nc: l>yrcnc l>yrcnc: Pyrenc: Pyrene Pyrenc: Pyrcnc Pyrc:nc:

Pyrcnc Pyrcnc Pyrcne !~rene

Pyrcnc Bc:nz(n)llnthracc:ne Bcnz(n)llnthmccnc 13c:nz(ll~lltlhrzu:enc:

Benz(n)unlhnu:cnc Berll.(rt)ltnthmccnc 13ctv~n)nnthnreenc:

Bcrv( n)Mthror.:c:ne Bc:rll.(u)Mthmcenc UcnJ(n)unthn•ccne Bcnz(n)nnthrru:ene llcrll.(n)nnthrnccne Bc:nz(ll)ttnthmcc:ne Bcnz(n)nnthruc:ene 13crll.(n)ttnthruccm: Bcrv:(ll)ltnthnu:clle Chry~nc

Ch!'y!ICIIC

ChryHCnc Ch~·r;cnc

Chry~oenc

ChtyHCill:

Chry..cnc

Chl)'!lCIJC

Chr\''o<'lk'

I'HC PEC l'EC PEC NEC

CKI4 HJ\14 IIJ\:K HA:K CRI-1

NEC HAI4 NI!C I!A:K TBC HAI4 TEC IIJ\14 TEC CR14 TI!C CRI•I 'I'EC HA:X TEC 1-!A:x PEC Cl~l4

PEC CRI.t PUC l-IA 14 PEC l·IAI4 PUC HA:K PEC IIA:K NEC CRI4 NEC l-IAI4 NEC l-IA~K

TllC 1-IJ\14 TEC CI<.I4 TEC H/\14 TEC CRI-1 TEC HJ\:K TEC IIA2K PI~C CK14 PHC CRI.t J>EC HAI4 PEC IIAI4 Pf:.C 1-~K

PEC IIA:!M NEC Cl'l4 NEC liAI.t ~1~C IIA:!H

TEC CRI.t ·rEc llJ\ 14 'I'HC CRlol THC 11Al4 TEC llA:H TEC I !J\~fol PEC CH.l.t I'HC IIAlol PFC C'~ 14

A~7

TMhl~ /\,1 (cuntlnuet.l)

Glt.\1 EKM PGL SRM ~me

NEC NEC ER!. TEL ERI. Tl~t

ERJ. TEL I!R.M PEL 1~1{,\1

rm. PEL ERM NHC NEC t.'EC I~RL

I~RJ.

'rEI. TEL TEl. I~RL

gRM PEL ERM PI! I. PEl. ERM NEC NI!C NEC l!ltl. EIU. 1'1!1. 'I'll. 1'EI. ERI. ERM mw Pl~l

Cnnr.

::!900 1::!00

;\IK.S9

175 7500 I ZOO

10000 570

:::11.47

1::!0 r.7.5;1

40

•M.::7 ;I:!~S

16K4.64 1100

')I)!!J

<191:! 347.5 (1!00

IXOO

'JOOO

::w :wo

I OJ.:!S 75.5

I 5.7::! 19

4:!00 1194,')9

4'){)

363.73 ::!1<4.6

~()()

JSOO (i90

~000

50(1

330 1:::.47 1:15.94

::!6.X;\

30 s:oo

61JO

I ~I:! fol

Tnlul Cnm•ct r•!.)' I! I 7K sc, ss 79 71!

69 67 (,0

ss lil ~I

ill 7H 6:1 (d

79 75 65 KX

Kl

7:: 67 sr, 55 !(\

Kl 71! 71! 6K 6!!

Kl

n 6!!

!!X

R4

71 6')

s: s:: !IJ Kl Ill

l'n~hlvl"!! NI.'J:HIIn~ (·1.1 (•/.)1

:: 17

3 19 I'J :o~

::3 23 : 19

16

5 ;\

6

16 IK

" ~

t::

34 .34 0

3

6 10 10 .. .. .. ·'

s 13

" -

19

.. I

3

s IO II ,., 17

I'J 16

17

79

75 37 :t:: 77 75 61

71! til)

67 6S

79 76

75

.!7

.!3 7'1

69

SH S!i 79

69 (1(,

HI

Ill 66 (oti

J'J J7 K.'l Kl 7!)

Stolrct~LI 11MK1

X

X

.. ('' ~) .-. ''I

8 •I .J. -. ..~J

A·~ T~thle A. I (cnnllnurll)

Chrtnh•MI

PEC PEC PEC NEC

IIA14

HA:!K

ll~K

CRI4

Pl~l.

~1\M

PHI. NEC

Chryr.cr~e

Chi')'IICI\C

Chryr.cnc Chryr.cnc ChryHCnc: NEC I lA I ..I NEC ChryHC."flC

lknzo(u)ryrcnc Ben;r.o(u)r~ rer~e

Bc:nzo(u )I')' rene lknl.o(n)pyrcnc: lknt.o(rt)pyrcr~e

Bc:ru.o(u)ryrcne lknJ.o(u)pyrcne lknl.o(n}pyrcnc lknl'.o(u)pyrcne lknzo(n)pyrcm: 13enzo(n)pyrc~

l3cnl.o(n)pyrcnc

NHC JIJ\:11 NEC 'fEC HA I.J EltL TEC Ill\ 14 TEL TEC CRI4 ERJ. TEC CKI..I '1'1!1.

TEC IIA:K ERI. TEC HAZK TEL

· PEC HA 14 I'll. PHC CR 14 Elt.\1 PEC CRJ4 1'1~.

PEC HAI4 WW

PEC IIA~K ERM

PEC HJ\21! I'El. l.ic:n:t.o(II)J!Yrcne N£C l:leni".n(II)J':'IrerlC NEC l:lelllll(II)J"Yrt'OC NEC !ndcno (I ~~1·c,J)pyrc:nc TJ!C

I ndeno U ~~1·c,cl )ryrc:ne 'IT:.C ,!nJcno (I .Z~l·~:,J)pyrenc TEC

!rwcnc' ( r.=~"·.:.J)J':-''"''"" 'I'EC lndcno ( t.:.3•c,d)pytcm: TEC lruh:tlO 00:~"1-c:,d)ryrcnc: 1'EC lndcno ( I.Z~1·c.d)f!Yrcnc: PEC lndcnu ( I.::~I·~:,J)(l:.'IC:nc I'EC lndcno(I.;!J.c.d)pyrem: PEC lndcno ( I.:J.c,d)J!yrcnc PEC lmlcno ( 1.:~1-c,d)pyrenc PEC lmlcno ( l..Z.1·~.d)~·rc:ne PEC hKkno (I .;!.1-c:,d)JlYrc:nc NEC lndc:no (I .;!J-c,d)pyrc:nc NEC lndcno (I .;!.1~,d)pyrenc NEC [lcnl.o(g.h,i)~~CI')'fcnc: TEC I~I\/.O(J4,h,i)pcl')'lenc: 'l'EC r:!enzo(g,h,i)pcl')'lc:nc: 1'EC

Bcrv.o(~t.h.i)perylcn~: TI!C Benzo(jt,h,i)r«:J')'lcnc: 1'EC Bc:n~o(.!(,h.i)pc:ryh:nc: TEC l:lcnzo(g,h,i)pcrylc:nc: I'EC lknzo(!(.h,i )peryh:nc P!!C

HAI4 CRI4 HA::K IIA14

CRI4 CK14 IIAI·l II~H

HA:!I

CRI•l CRiol

IIAI4 HAI4 llAZll

IIA21\ CJU4 HAI4 IIA:H CRI4 CRI4 IIAI4

IIAI-1 IIA:ll HA:!K CRI-1

CHI4 licrv.o(g,h,i)pcrylc:nc: lkn1nlg,h,i\rsrvll'f'IC'

I'EC IIAI4 PFC IIA 1•1

NEC Nl!C NEC ERI. TEL El<l. 'rEI. ERJ, TEL PEL ERM PEl. EIW PEl. EIW Nl~C

NEC Nl~C

ERI. TEL 1'EL ERI .. ERI. 'I'EI. l~RM

Pli.I. PEl. FRM

Cmu·.

SSI

500

4116.:: ·1000

(,1)0

;1(1(1(1

~50

11 1).71)

::JO s1.:..1

H4 n.4

;1!13.7 !ISO !I

17:4.K::

620 <165

31'.l.K4 440

5KOO

1000

7K 17J:

;10 11(,,~;1

;IU

17..1:: lnc •. (>li

:KIKI

J::h.S 410

Z-19,71)

:so ~KOO

::90 770 ::9o

74.::~

K'J.-19

')I I ;I

15.51 6;100

1::79.!W ;\41),1.1

.u,n

Tnt HI Cm'n'c:t

t•!.)'

HI

7;1 (Ill

Kl HI till

IlK

75 74 (,I)

60

SJ K4

HI Kl 7!1

71

71 !14

HI M (,1)

(J7

(,7 (,(,

5r. 54 !II HI 7H 7K

(,7

HI 75 70 !IJ 71

69 69 s:: s:: 1(1

HI 7K '711

~·llhl' F'11br Pu~lllvt!l rolrl.:Hth·r!l

l"l.f (11/.)l

J 16

J Z-1 HI Z.1 :: 17

.. .

3 0

0 ... .

.. . ::

Jl ;q

... .. 0

0

II II

6 .. . 7

37 35 0

0 ()

16

Jl 'J :1 5 s I? I !I 13

I'J 17

13 17 .11

J .. .

1:! 17 ,,

17

I'J

10

5 3 3 II 1J 17

17

7H

70 S!l 7'J 7K 66 79 7:: m (1.1

41

35 !<I Kl

71J

7!1 (i}

(,(,

Hl 7? (l(l

(,(,

65 r.s (,0

44

7'J 7')

711 7H 5(,

sc. "I?

69 6H 73 (,(,

()(..

66 41 Jl)

l'l3 7'J 7H "IIi

Stl«trll llMI\1

X

..

.. ,. 0

A-9 T11hlc A. I (cnntlnuetl)

TntMI Fol•r F•L"' HM t\. C11rrt'CC Pu"!tiY" N~.:ufl\'t'JI St•Jl'Ctl•tl

Ch•ml<~l Tyrw" T·~~" s~~ Cun~. r•t.)• eta-; (•J.)I S..·tH"t·· RMf\.' Bcn7.o(j!,h,1)pcr;.·lcnc I'JiC ILAZK

IIA:H Cl(l4 HAI4

1-11\ZX ILA~K

1!1\:X IIAZM IIAZK I·~\:! X

I·LAZK IWX IIAI4 CR!4 1·11114

ERM J'J;J. NEe N"C NEC TEl. EIU. 1'1!1. Nl:c PI;!. ER.M NEC mu. ERI. 'mL.

Bcn7.o(l(.h,i)pl'tylcnc I'EC &nlo(l(,h,i)pl'rylcnc NI!C l.i<:nzo(jl,l~i)rcrylrnc NI;C Bcnzo(g.h,i)pcrylctl<.' NEC Bctllo{b,k)lluornnthcnc TEC Bcrv:o(h.~)Ouoronthenc TI:C f:lerv.o(b.k)l1uoranthcnc I'EC l:lerv:o(b,k)lluornttlhcnc NliC Dibcl1l(11,h)anthra~cnc I'!;C D1bcrv.(11,h)unlhm~cnc l'l:C Dihcrv:(o,h)anlhm~cnc NEC PAl-l Totul (othcl'll) TEC I'Al·l Totbl (olhel'll) TI!C !'All Totltl (otho:l"') TI:C I'AH 1'ollll (olhc!k) PAl-l Total (olhcn.) I'M I Toll! I (othc"') PAll Totltl (othc"') I'AH Totnl (othc"') I'AI-1 Tot•l (othc"') PAl-l Tollll (olhcMi) PAll 1'ouol (othcMi) f'Al-1 Tnt• I (other-) I'All Tot•l (othc"') PAl I ToUt! (olhct'll) PAl-l Total (othc"') PAll Low f'AI!Low f'AHLow PAl-fLow I'All Low i'AHLow I'AIILaw 111\l-1 Low I'All Low f'l\11 Low 1'1\1·1 Low PAl-l Low PAl-l Low PAll Low

I'AHLow

l'llllllil!h PAll Hi~h I'IIHHiMh I'll! I 11;~h

TEC CKI4 1'EI. Tl:C 111\ZK ERL me I·WK Tl:L l'lle eRI4 l'lil. PEe CRI4 mw l'EC llAI4 PEL I'EC ll/\14 ll!W PliC I WK PI;!. PEe !WX ER.'-1 Nl!C CRI4 NEC l1me ILA14 NEe NEC IIA:K NEC ·me JLA 14 ERL me I-lA 14 rm. TEC CRl4 mtL TEC CRIJ TEl. TllC IIII:!K TEl. TEC I·WK I!KL l'l!C 111\14 ERM I'EC CR 14 1'1::1. l'llC CRI4 llRM l'liC ILA14 1'1::1. I'EC IWK rm. PJiC IWK ERM NEC l·llllJ NEC NEC CRl4 NEC NI!C I!AZH NEC TEC Ill\ 14 ERl. 1'EC 111114 1'1!1..

1'EC C!W TEl. TI'C' C'llt•t 1'~1

:!75 :s1.s ~!\()()

~10

1:!0(1

:7.: ~7

I 57.(>4 ~(){H)

::~.:

IS K70

JSSJ l:9i

I 5K9.4 SKU7

:!40 :c.~.os

IJ660.6S ~JKI9

6736.4:! K4<JK

JJI•X.o9 Z.::l,,S K4!.00

9:40

<~::::o

7N6 JK"/,46

6SJ ~1.4

76.4~

KO

J~69

4140.K6

7:u4.S ::?I'I.S:: 1176.51)

653 JOolO

3~600

~'J;lHO

:!9<ltl I::!K.Ol

JO'J.K I •IKf•

73

71 Kl 75 ~

~

~

~

m ~

~

~

~

~

~

M %

" XI Kl Kl 7K

61

H 7CJ

75 (,(,

1M

7S 76 74 r.;~

(1;\

Ki XI Kl

7K (>I

()J 7K 7ft

I•S K4

69

67 (,7

r. :

: Jll

JO I?

z 16

:!I

:: 19

:!4 ::1< 31 JS

""' :: :: J ;\

16

:!I :

·' :: 19

::s :!I ::4 :!') ~9

0

: :: ~

IJ

lit

J :: :: IJ ::x 31 , 1

:!4

::~

17

:~

Jl

IIi

16 :(i :ln :!K ::\ ;\0

J :: J :: H

II 17

17 16 I') :!.1 :!I I<J :~

3: J 0

:: :: H

K

I?

17 17

19 ~6

:!J (')

:!I J.l

J

' :: :!

70

65 "/')

7:: 66 ,17

37 J7

f>5 40

JS c.s 75 7:! 66

liS 4H 44

79

79

7!1

7S JS J7

77 ~~

'• 64

7S 75 74 7:! ss ss XI 79 7~1

75 JK 47 75 7J

6J

Kl (>(,

65 r.~

X

X

X

X

X

"'

~

X

'

X

li

"

~~/

~~. f-., ,:·. (J

s ~~ s .. ... 3

~ """ I

A·IO T11hl~ A. I (continued)

Tuhll ... ",~" FMI~l'

OM!\: Currt'l:f Pu~lth'M Nt'lo:MII\'1'" ~lt'l!lf'll C1lt'mle111 T"[!!• ·rMt" SF.C" Cnm•. (•!·)· (•!.y" (~/.)1 Swl't'" IJMJo.:'

PAI-IIIi,!lh ·me HA::K I~RL 170 ss J7 !! 47 P/\1·1 Hi~th 1'EC HA::K TEl. 1n.?s s:: :15 l:l ~9

PAl-l Hi.!lh PI!C I·JAI4 PI~. 4~S~.H:: H4 3 I~ HI X

PAIIlli~th I'EC CRI4 Pl~l. JOJ::::.so~ !!I :: 17 71)

PAll Hir,h PI~C CRI4 ERM ::6614.5 Ill "' 17 7') -P/\l·ll·li~th 1,£C llAI4 ERM SMO 7!< ~ 19 iS PAI-11-Ii~th PEC J-1/\ZK PEL Z:l~IIA (j(l 19 Zl oil PAI-11-li~th PEC I lA:!! ERM 1747 SK ::I ::r .~7

PAHili~th NEC CRI4 NEC SIOOO 79 .. 19 77 X -PAI-IIIi~th NEC HAI<l NI!C 6::00 15 :l "'"' ....

'• PAI-11-li.!lh NEC HA::X Nl~C :l::!l4o 6!! .. ;ll r,r, -PCB Totul rnc !-IJ\:ll TEL ;ll.6:: 69 14 17 s:: X

PCBTotHI TEC HA::x ERI. so 69 14 17 s:: PCBTotul PEC 1-1/\::K PEL ::o~Hi6 76 u ::4 76 :\

PCB Tot11l I'EC J(/\:!1 ERM 7~0 76 0 ::o~ 7(, PCJ.1To1111 NEC I·IA::K NEC IIJol 7:: :l ::o~ (,I) \

SfJII#'CI"'. IJ,S, Envimnm'-'ll~~ Protct:tion/\~tCII(Y 19%, CriiC'rrllllit.lflllllrl £wlfrmtifNI o/St•dim~m l~{ft·C'I Cmu:l'nlr•llmrufrJrllr•• 1lmplripod flwkllll ~~~ a111J th~ ,\-/idK•' Clrimwmll!!.!!lJ!W'/11,,, ~'A 905·R9(,.0QM, On:nt !.like~ Nnlionul Prottrnrn 011icc, ChiCIIji,O, Ill.

"All SEC" mu.~l hnve~;, Touu Cort\'Civnloc:~> ~'0.11:Cs nm~lllli\'C ··• FniHC 'Nc,!lllli\'c .,.nluc~ < :::5"·1o,unlli'EC" nnd NEC mu~t hii\'C •-;. Fui'IC Pollitivc \'llhrck <!S~i. ~BMK Type .. Benchmnrk Ty~~C: me .. ThrcHhnld Etl~t Com:cntrnlion (i.e., ERI.s nnd Tm.H); PEC- Prnhublc Ellecl

Conccntrntion (i.e., Elt.\1~ 1111d PELH); nnd NEC • hi~h No Elf~""' Conccntl'lltion. 'CR 14 • Chironornus rip••nus 14-dny tc:Mt. 1·!1\ 14 .. I tyulellultl.te~:~• 14-duy lest,nml 1-lA:::x .. l·lyulclln•ll.t~'l:n :x.Uny tc:Ht. '1*L • Etli:cL, IW/lgc !,ow, ERM • Elfct:t~ l~m~c MC\liun, Tin.. • ThtcHhold 1~11i:ciM l.c\'cl, und PEl ... Probublc El1ccts Level. ~~ Tot11l Correct~ the !'Ct«:cntaf(c ofhlunrles correct!:- idcntilicd nH lo);ic or non•loxi~: 1~;. JlftlPM: PnHilivc:H •lhc pcn:cniii!IC ot'""mplc~ i~orr~"'illy idcnlificd ltN lo~ic, ·~·· Fnl~c Ncguti\'C~ •the rcrccnll•~te ol'llllrnph:N incott~'\:U:.O idcnliliC\luM llOil•IO:O..ic. "The:;l!ort' rorTI~ hcr~hmnr~ ·~io Total Cottct.:l (•) "·• Frd~ Nc~tnlrvc~. The: m:on: tor PEC rmll NEC bcnclunnrkh • "·oTotnl

Correct(·) ~'o Fnl!lc PositiveM, ""'.t indil!llll,"!! Ill( SEC r.ck'I:IL-d IL~Ihc I'Cflll!!ielllllli\'C bm:hmurk r,,, lhllt chcmicnlund 1'11!11\:hrnnrk lyre. Selection crilcrin. in order

nt'prinf11V,Itr(' n hil/11<'~1 ~~lm·, ':!' hil!h('~l o,;, Tolnl C'nrrl"l'l lt11tf1) lnwt·~ll'OIIl'C'nlntllnn

•::I ·~ .~,

•' .J,o

(; .. ~ ·-·~ ~1 ·~ ..;,. 'l

.. I. -' ~-· .:1