FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (RI) AND RISK ...TERRESTRIAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR MAMMALIAN AND AVIAN RECEPTORS APPENDIX J TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.00 INTRODUCTIO J-N l 2.00 FOO WEBD MODEL

Break:. Other:.

APPENDIX J

TERRESTRIAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR MAMMALIAN AND AVIAN RECEPTORS

APPENDIX J

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1.00 INTRODUCTION J-l

2.00 FOOD WEB MODEL J-l

2.10 EXPOSURE MODEL J-2

2.20 EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR INDICATOR RECEPTORS J-3

2.21 Meadow Vole J-3

2.22 Short-Tailed Shrew J-4

2.23 American Robin J-5

2.30 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS J-6

2.40 ESTIMATION OF CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN FOOD ITEMS J-6

2.41 Earthworm BCFs J-6

2.42 Shoot and Root BCFs J-8

3.00 REFERENCE DOSES FOR INDICATOR SPECIES J-8

4.00 RISK ESTIMATION - RESULTS OF FOOD CHAIN ASSESSMENT FOR TERRESTRIAL AND AVIAN RECEPTORS J-8

4.10 FOOD CHAIN MODEL RESULTS FOR MEADOW VOLE J-9

4.20 FOOD CHAIN MODEL RESULTS FOR SHORT-TAILED SHREW J-9

4.30 FOOD CHAIN MODEL RESULTS FOR AMERICAN ROBIN J-9

5.00 TERRESTRIAL RISK DESCRIPTION FOR LOCAL POPULATIONS OF MAMMALIAN AND AVIAN WILDLIFE J-10

5.10 LEAD J-ll

5.20 ZINC J-ll

APPENDIX J

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

5.30 CHROMIUM J-12

5.40 VANADIUM J-12

5.50 SELENIUM J-13

5.60 PESTICIDES (DOT AND DDE) J-13

5.70 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE J-14

6.00 STATEMENT OF UNCERTAINTIES J-14

7.00 REFERENCES J-16

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE J-l SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FOR SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLES

TABLE J-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FOR BACKGROUND SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLES

TABLE J-3 CALCULATION OF FORAGE FOOD CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS BASED ON ARITHMETIC MEAN SOIL CONCENTRATIONS - MEADOW VOLE AND AMERICAN ROBIN

TABLE J-4 CALCULATION OF FORAGE FOOD CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS BASED ON MAXIMUM SOIL CONCENTRATION - MEADOW VOLE AND AMERICAN ROBIN

TABLE J-5 PREDICTED SOIL PORE WATER CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS AND EARTHWORMS BCFs BASED ON MECHANISTIC APPROACH OF JAGER

TABLE J-6 REFERENCE DOSES FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS

TABLE J-7 CALCULATION OF DAILY DOSES BASED ON AVERAGE SURFICIAL SOIL CONCENTRATIONS - MEADOW VOLE

APPENDIX J

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE J-8 CALCULATION OF DAILY DOSES BASED ON MAXIMUM SURFICIAL SOIL CONCENTRATIONS - MEADOW VOLE

TABLE J-9 CALCULATION OF DAILY DOSESSURFICIAL SOIL CONCENTRATIONS

BASED ON AVERAGE

TABLE J-10 CALCULATION OF DAILY DOSES BASED ON MAXIMUM SURFICIAL SOIL CONCENTRATIONS - SHORT-TAILED SHREW

TABLE J-11 CALCULATION OF DAILY DOSES BASED ON AVERAGE SURFICIAL SOIL CONCENTRATIONS - AMERICAN ROBIN

TABLE J-12 CALCULATION OF DAILY DOSES BASED ON MAXIMUM SURFICIAL SOIL CONCENTRATIONS - AMERICAN ROBIN

TABLE J-13 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED DAILY DOSES TO TOXICOLOGICAL BENCHMARKS BASED ON AVERAGE SURFICIAL SOIL CONCENTRATIONS - MEADOW VOLE

TABLE J-14 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED DAILY DOSES TO TOXICOLOGICAL BENCHMARKS BASED ON MAXIMUM SOIL CONCENTRATIONS - MEADOW VOLE

TABLE J-15 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED DAILY DOSES TO TOXICOLOGICAL BENCHMARKS BASED ON AVERAGE SURFICIAL SOIL CONCENTRATIONS - SHORT-TAILED SHREW

TABLE J-16 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED DAILY DOSESTOXICOLOGICAL BENCHMARKS BASED ON MAXIMUMCONCENTRATIONS SHORT-TAILED SHREW

TO SOIL

TABLE J-17 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED DAILY DOSESTOXICOLOGICAL BENCHMARKS BASED ON AVERAGECONCENTRATIONS - AMERICAN ROBIN

TO SOIL

TABLEJ-18 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED DAILY DOSESTOXICOLOGICAL BENCHMARKS BASED ON MAXIMUMCONCENTRATIONS - AMERICAN ROBIN

TO SOIL

TABLE J-19 MEADOW VOLE FOOD WEB ASSESSMENT SUMMARY OF TOXICITY QUOTIENTS AND TOTAL HAZARD QUOTIENTS

APPENDIX J

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE J-20 SHORT-TAILED SHREW FOOD WEB ASSESSMENT SUMMARY OF TOXICITY QUOTIENTS AND TOTAL HAZARD QUOTIENTS

TABLE J-21 AMERICAN ROBIN FOOD WEB ASSESSMENT SUMMARYTOXICITY QUOTIENTS AND TOTAL HAZARD QUOTIENTS

OF

G:\JOBS\CLF\31866-2.EAS\OU2_Rev3\appendix J\Toc-j.doc

APPENDIX J

TERRESTRIAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR MAMMALIAN AND AVIAN RECEPTORS

1.00 INTRODUCTION

An exposure model was developed to assess potential risks to terrestrial and avian receptor organisms exposed to Contaminants of Potential Ecological Concern (COPECs) in surficial soils of the OU2 Study Area. The following sections describe the rationale for selection of indicator species, the exposure model, input variables for the model, and results.

2.00 FOOD WEB MODEL

Indicator species chosen for this model were the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicaudd), and the American robin (Turdus migratorius). These species were chosen because they have habits which give them relatively high potentials for exposure to soil COPECs: Their feeding ranges are small enough to be encompassed by OU2 and they are not migratory, therefore, they may be exposed to site contaminants year-round. These three species have varied feeding habits, thus their potential for exposure varies based on the potential for COPEC uptake of their prey and their daily food ingestion rates. Both birds and mammals were evaluated because toxicological "benchmark doses" for some contaminants vary significantly between birds and mammals.

The vole was chosen as an indicator species because it is likely to inhabit vegetated portions of the landfill and its environs, and because its diet is largely composed of vegetation. The short-tailed shrew is a common species likely to inhabit portions of OU2, and its diet is dominated by earthworms and other invertebrates which may live in contact with the soil. The robin is a common species likely to inhabit much of OU2, and plant and animal prey both compose significant proportions of its diet. The vole and shrew are nonmigratory, and although a portion of the robin population may leave Rhode Island in winter, a significant proportion of the population is likely to remain year round. Therefore, these species may be exposed to soil COPECs year-round.

J-l

2.10 EXPOSURE MODEL

The food chain model used for this evaluation estimates exposure of the indicator species to COPECs within food items and due to incidental ingestion of soil. The model takes into consideration the proportion of diet made up of different types of affected food items. Exposure of receptors to site contaminants was estimated using the following formula: I_1CJXA 1C. LX l\_ l.\*SJLL\J W XA If- XWi XXI.Ut.XU.

ADDmg/kg/day= [(OHMinverts X Inginverts) + (OHMshootsX Ingshoots) + (OHMrootsX Ingroots) + (OHMsoil X Ingso x FA x

(IRtotal)

where:

ADDmg/kg/day Average Daily Dose of contaminant to the receptor based on mg/kg of body weight/day.

OHMinverts Concentration of contaminant in invertebrates. Inginverts Percent of receptors diet that is comprised of invertebrates,

expressed as a fraction. OHMshoots Concentration of contaminant in shoots and leafy

vegetation. Percent of receptors diet that is comprised of shoots and leafy vegetation, expressed as a fraction.

OHMroots Concentration of contaminant in roots. Ingroots Percent of receptors diet that is comprised of roots,

expressed as a fraction. OHM*,!, Concentration of contaminant in soil.

Percent of receptors diet that is comprised of soil, expressed as a fraction.

FA Percent of foraging area comprised by the exposure point, expressed as a fraction. The exposure point being considered was assumed to comprise the entire feeding area of the robin, vole and shrew, thus FA always equals 1.

IR•total The daily rate of food ingestion expressed as a fraction of the receptors body weight.

As will be discussed in detail in Section 2.40, COPEC concentrations in food items were estimated by multiplying surficial soil EPCs by published bioconcentration factors (BCFs).

J-2

http:XXI.Ut.XU

2.20 EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR INDICATOR RECEPTORS

Information regarding the habitat and foraging requirements of the receptor species were obtained from EPA (1993a&b) and from DeGraaf and Rudis (1987). The following paragraphs summarize information used to develop an exposure model for the receptors.

2.21 Meadow Vole

Meadow voles are small rodents which inhabit grassy fields and marshes. The vole does not undergo hibernation and is active year round. The vole constructs grassy nests in shallow burrows. The home range and foraging area of the vole vary with season and between sexes, ranging from 0.0005 acres in the winter to 0.2 acres in the summer (EPA, 1993a). According to EPA (1993b), meadow vole populations range from zero to 1,356 voles per acre, depending on predation, competition with similar species, and normal population cycles. Therefore, OU2 likely comprises the entire range of many individuals (perhaps several thousand).

The vole's diet varies with seasonal changes in the availability of plant and insect food items. EPA 1993 presents summaries of studies which report the proportions of invertebrates, shoot (green vegetation), roots and "other" material. We used the average for each of these food categories to represent the proportions of the different kinds of food ingested by the vole; we assumed the "other" material consisted mainly of plant shoots, and summed the averages for these two categories. This sum was presented as Ingsh00ts- EPA (1993a) also presents a value for incidental soil ingestion by the vole of 2.4 percent of total diet.

The EPA Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA, 1993b) presents daily food ingestion data (on a weight to weight basis) from one study. This study found that daily ingestion ranged from 0.30 to 0.35 kg/kg/day. Because of the narrowness of this range, and the relatively uniform diet of the meadow vole, we used the mid-point of this range (i.e., 0.325 kg/kg/day) to represent the total daily food ingestion rate.

Based on the information presented above and detailed in EPA (1993a&b), the following values were used as exposure factors in the food chain model for the meadow vole:

Ingmverts = 0.02 Ingshoots = 0.88 Ingroots = 0.10 Ingsoii = 0.02 FA 1.0 IRtotai = 0.325 kg/kg-day

J-3

2.22 Short-tailed Shrew

Short-tailed shrews live in a wide variety of habitats, however they require cool, moist habitats because of their high metabolic and water-loss rates. Short-tailed shrews are especially common along the banks of streams and in meadows with tall rank grasses or sedges, brush piles and stone walls (DeGraaf and Rudis, 1987). The shrew does not undergo hibernation and is active year round. The primary food items of short-tailed shrew are insects, earthworms, slugs and snails. Other food consumed include plants, fungi, millipedes, centipedes, arachnids, and other small mammals. Based on these habitat requirements, at least portions of the OU2 area represented by the soil data are suitable habitat for the short-tailed shrew.

The range of the short-tailed shrew ranges from 0.07 to 5.4 acres depending upon prey availability, however, home ranges on the order of 0.5 to 1.25 acres (DeGraaf and Rudis, 1987) are more typical. Population densities vary widely with habitat and season; short-tailed shrew exhibit annual abundance cycles, with peaks occurring in July to October in one east-central Illinois population. Peak densities within different habitat types varied from 1 to 99 per acre, with an average peak of about 5 per acre. Based on this information, OU2 is likely to encompass the ranges of many individuals.

The food ingestion rate of short-tailed shrews was reported to lie between 0.49 and 0.62 g/g-day (EPA, 1993). The maximum food ingestion rate cited in EPA, 1993a was used for the shrew in this food web assessment. This was done because the shrew was intended to represent a terrestrial receptor with "high-end" exposure potential, and because the diet of the shrew is relatively uniform, consisting predominately of invertebrates and other animal prey organisms, with relatively little lower energy plant material. In addition, shrews may consume up to 40 percent more food during winter months, and since shrews remain active and do not migrate during winter, it is appropriate to use the highest food ingestion rate.

A volumetric study of short-tailed shrew stomach contents was detailed in EPA (1993). The stomach contents were shown to consist of 70.2 percent identifiable invertebrates and 16.7 percent other unidentifiable animal matter. Although the shrew does consume plant material, we conservatively assumed that all prey organisms consumed were invertebrates living in close contact with soil. An incidental soil ingestion rate was not available for the shrew, so we used a rate reported for the American woodcock (10.4 percent), whose diet also consists mainly of worms and other soil invertebrates. Since, for the purposes of this evaluation, we assumed that the weight of ingested materials consisted only of soil invertebrates and incidentally ingested soil, and soil was assumed to compose about 10 percent of the diet; the proportion of diet made up of invertebrates was assumed to be 90 percent..

J-4

Based on the information presented above, the following values were used as exposure factors in the food chain model for the short-tailed shrew:

Inginverts = 0.90 IRsoii ^ 0.10 IRtotal = 0.62 FA = 1

2.23 American Robin

During the breeding season, the average foraging home range reported for the robin in EPA (1993b) was 1.12 acres, and was lowest when the adults were feeding nestlings. Population densities reported in EPA (1993a&b) ranged from 0.26 pairs per acre to 13.6 pairs per acre, and varied with habitat quality. Based on these feeding ranges, the OU2 is likely to encompass the feeding ranges of several pairs of robins.

The robin is a migratory species in New England, however, it does overwinter in coastal areas and southern New England, thus at least a portion of the population may be year round residents in the vicinity of OU2. In winter the robins aggregate in large flocks in dense woodlands and thickets, often in shrub swamps. Because the robins may be present year round, we assumed that they are exposure to OU2 COPECs year round.

The exposure model for the American robin estimates doses of contaminants based on consumption of soil macroinvertebrates, plant matierial, and incidental ingestion of soil. The exposure model estimates dietary concentrations for robins using average and maximum concentrations of contaminants detected in surficial soils and published bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for earthworms (or other soil macroinvertebrates) and plants. The composition of the robin's diet changes over the course of the year. In spring months, the robin consumes mostly invertebrates, while fruits make up most of the diet throughout the remainder of the year (EPA, 1993a). The robin was used in this assessment to represent a receptor which consumes nearly equal proportions of insect and plant materials.

The EPA's Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA 1993b) presents three daily ingestion rates (0.75, 0.89, and 1.52 kg/kg/day) for the American robin. All three of these ingestion rates were estimate during periods in which the robins consumed only fruits. Robin ingestion rates vary with the energy content in food, thus they consume less food when consuming high-energy prey (e.g., earthworms and insects) compared to periods when they are primarily consuming low energy food (e.g., fruits and vegetable matter). For this risk characterization we assumed that 40 percent of the robin's diet consists of invertebrates, which generally have a significantly higher energy content than do fruits. Therefore, it was considered reasonably conservative to use the average concentration of daily food ingestion from these studies, rather than the maximum ingestion rate.

J-5

EPA (1993b) summarizes results of three studies which presented the proportion (reported as percentages), of animal and plant material in the diets of American robins. Data from these three studies indicated that the robin diet, averaged over a course of a year, consists of about 56 percent plant material and 44 percent invertebrates. Based on the incidental soil consumption value presented for the American woodcock, we assumed that robins consume about 10 percent of their diet as incidentally ingested soil, and the proportions of plant and invertebrate matter ingested were apportioned among the remaining 90 percent of the robin diet.

Based on the information presented above, the following values were used as exposure factors in the food chain model for the robin.

Inginverts = 0.40 Ingplants = 0.50 Ingsoii = 0.10 IRtotai = 1.05 kg/kgbW-day FA = 1

2.30 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS

Tables J-l and 3-2 present summaries of COPEC concentrations in Site and background surficial soils, respectively. Average surficial soil concentrations of COPECs were considered to be exposure point concentrations (EPCs) for the robin, vole and shrew. Additionally, because of the limited number of surficial soil samples relative to the small foraging ranges of individual receptors and the large area of OU2, it may be possible that a single soil sample is representative of a receptor's entire foraging range. Therefore, maximum surficial soil COPEC concentrations were also used as EPCs for evaluation of risk to both receptor species. Note that the use of maximum surficial soil concentrations is a conservative EPC for sub-populations of voles, but is likely an overly conservative EPC for sub-populations of robins because of their larger and more flexible foraging range.

2.40 ESTIMATION OF CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN FOOD ITEMS

The exposure model estimates COPEC concentrations in soil invertebrates, leafy vegetation, and roots by multiplying average surficial soil COPEC concentrations by bioconcentration factors (BCFs) published in recent regulatory and scientific literature. Tables J-3 and J-4 present BCFs and estimated COPEC concentrations in food items based on average and maximum concentrations, respectively.

2.41 Earthworm BCFs

BCFs for earthworm uptake of inorganic COPECs were obtained from Sample et al. (1998). BCFs for earthworm uptake of semi-volatile organic COPECs were obtained from Beyer (1990). Soil invertebrate body burdens for these classes of COPECs were calculated by multiplying the soil EPC (dry weight) by the BCF. The earthworm's

J-6

moisture content was assumed to be 84 percent (as in Jager, 1998), and dry weight body burdens were converted to wet weights by multiplying by 0.16.

Because published BCFs were not identified for earthworm uptake of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or pesticides, the earthworm bioconcentration formula of Jager (1998) was used to estimate earthworm body burdens. This model assumes that the internal water content of the earthworm is in thermodynamic equilibrium with soil pore water, and estimated earthworm tissue concentrations based on the wet weight lipid content of the earthworm (1.0 percent) and the octanol-water partition coefficient of the chemical (Kow). To estimate soil pore water COPEC concentrations, the mean soil concentrations were divided by the product of each compound's organic carbon partition coefficient (KoC) multiplied by the mean organic carbon content measured in surficial soil samples (11%). The estimated pore water concentrations were multiplied by the calculated BCFs to produce an earthworm tissue concentration (wet weight). Table J-5 presents calculations of pore water and earthworm tissue COPEC concentrations based on the formulas of Jager (1998).

BCF ew-soil = [EW] wt wght / [Soil]

BCF ew-soil = ([PW] x BCFew-pw) / [Soil]

BCF ew-soil = (([Soil] / (Koc x TOC)) x (F water + (F lipid x Kow))) / [Soil]

where: BCF ew-soil = Predicted Soil to Earthworm BCF [Soil] = mean soil concentration of COPEC [EW] wt wght = earthworm tissue concentration based on wet weight

= [PW] x BCFew-pw

[PW] = Predicted Soil Pore Water COPEC concentration = [Soil] / Koc x TOC

Koc = Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient of COPEC TOC = Mean Organic Carbon Content measured in

surficial soil (11%)

BCFew-pw = Predicted Pore Water to Earthworm BCF = F water + ( F lipid x Kow)

F water = fraction of moisture content or worm ( 0.84) F lipid = fraction of worm lipid content (0.01) Kow = Octanol Water Partition Coefficient of COPEC

Because a published BCF for earthworm uptake of cyanide could not be identified, a BCF of 1.0 was applied.

J-7

2.42 Shoot and Root BCFs

BCFs for shoot and root uptake of COPECs were obtained from EPA (1998) and ORNL (1999). If a BCF for shoot or root uptake of a particular COPEC could not be identified, a conservative BCF of 1.0 was applied. It was assumed that the moisture content of the hypothetical plant tissue was 87 percent (as per EPA, 1998) and dry weight plant tissue concentrations were converted to wet weight by multiplying by 0.13.

3.00 REFERENCE DOSES FOR INDICATOR SPECIES

Reference doses (RfDs) for the indicator species were obtained from Sample et al. (1996). Table J-6 presents RfDs for the robin, vole and shrew. Whenever possible, both No Observed Adverse Effects Levels (NOAELs) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Levels (LOAELs) were used in this risk evaluation.

4.00 RISK ESTIMATION - RESULTS OF FOOD CHAIN ASSESSMENT FOR TERRESTRIAL AND AVIAN RECEPTORS

EPCs were converted to estimated daily doses using the exposure assumptions described above. These estimated doses are presented on Tables J-7 and J-8 for the vole; Tables J-9 and J-10 for the shrew; and, Tables J-l 1 and J-12 for the robin. Estimated daily doses were compared to toxicological RfDs (LOAELs and NOAELS); these comparisons are presented on Tables J-l3 through J-l8. Comparisons are presented as Toxicity Quotients (TQs), which are simply the estimated dose divided by the RfD. TQs were summed to calculate total Hazard Quotients (HQs). Tables J-l9, J-20 and J-21 summarize the resulting exceedances of RfDs for the vole, shrew, and robin, respectively.

In evaluating exceedances of the RfDs, emphasis was given to exceedances of the LOAELs. LOAEL-based TQs greater than 1 indicate that the estimated dose exceeded a dose which has been shown to cause adverse effects to a test organism. Exceedance of a NOAEL, on the other hand, indicates that the estimated exposure level is greater than the highest known "safe" level of exposure, but does not necessarily indicate that there is a significant level of risk. There are often great discrepancies and wide intervals between literature reported NOAELs and LOAELs. For instance, the LOAEL for robin exposure to lead (11.3 mg/kg/day) is 10 times greater than the NOAEL of 1.13 mg/kg/day. Conversely, the LOAEL for robin exposure to selenium, 0.8 mg/kg/day, is only slightly higher than the NOAEL of 0.4 mg/kg/day. This assessment places a higher degree of confidence in NOAELs which do not differ greatly from the original study's LOAEL.

J-8

The following paragraphs summarize the results of the food chain assessment for the indicator species.

4.10 FOOD CHAIN MODEL RESULTS FOR MEADOW VOLE

Tables J-7 and J-8 present calculations of daily doses of COPECs for the vole based on average and maximum surficial soil concentrations, respectively. Tables J-13 and J-14 present TQs and HQs for the vole based on average and maximum surficial soil COPEC concentrations, respectively. Table J-19 summarizes exceedances of RfD estimated for vole exposure to soil contaminants. All of the daily doses calculated using average surficial soil EPCs were below NOAEL and LOAEL RfDs.

As shown on Table J-14, with the exception of vanadium, all of the daily doses calculated using maximum surficial soil EPCs were below NOAEL and LOAEL RfDs. Vanadium slightly exceeded the NOAEL RfD with a TQ of 1.01.

4.20 FOOD CHAIN MODEL RESULTS FOR SHORT-TAILED SHREW

Tables J-9 and J-10 present calculations of daily doses of COPECs for the vole based on average and maximum surficial soil concentrations, respectively. Tables J-15 and J-16 present TQs and HQs for the vole based on average and maximum surficial soil COPEC concentrations, respectively. Table J-20 summarizes the RfD exceedances estimated for shrew exposure to soil contaminants.

With the exception of zinc, which slightly exceeded the LOAEL based on the average concentration (LOAEL TQ =1.1) and based on the maximum concentration (LOAEL TQ = 13), none of the estimated doses exceeded LOAELs, based either on the maximum or average concentrations.

Estimated doses of lead, vanadium, and zinc exceeded NOAELs based on average concentrations (NOEL TQs were 1.5, 5.4 and 2.2, respectively). In addition, the estimated chromium dose slightly exceeded the NOAEL based on the maximum concentration (NOAELTQ=1.2).

4.30 FOOD CHAIN MODEL RESULTS FOR AMERICAN ROBIN

Tables J-l 1 and J-12 present calculations of daily doses of COPECs for the robin based on average and maximum surficial soil concentrations, respectively. Tables J-17 and J-l8 present TQs and HQs for the robin based on average and maximum soil COPEC concentrations, respectively. Table 21 summarizes exceedances of RfDs by estimated doses for the robin.

J-9

Based on average soil EPCs, the estimated doses of only lead and zinc exceeded their LOAELs, with LOAEL TQs of 1.01 and 2.1, respectively. In addition to these LOAEL exceedances, average soil concentrations resulted in NOAEL exceedances by estimated doses of 4,4-DDT, total DDTR, and chromium, with NOAEL TQs ranging from 1.8 to 3.0.

Doses estimated from maximum soil concentrations resulted in LOAEL exceedance by DOT, Total DDTR, and lead and zinc, with LOAEL TQs of 1.2, 1.5, 2.2 and 24, respectively. In addition to these LOAEL exceedances, maximum soil concentrations resulted in exceedance of the NOAELs by estimated doses of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (NOEL TQ = 1.9) and chromium (NOEL TQ = 3.5).

5.00 TERRESTRIAL RISK DESCRIPTION FOR LOCAL POPULATIONS OF MAMMALIAN AND AVIAN WILDLIFE

The following paragraphs express the results of the food chain analysis for the robin, vole and shrew within the context of available toxicological information, contaminant distribution at the site, and uncertainties inherent in the food web assessment. The discussion is organized around contaminants that resulted in exceedances of the RfDs. Sources of uncertainty in the risk estimate are discussed in this section, but note that more detailed discussions of uncertainties are presented in Section 6.00.

As discussed above, emphasis was given to exceedances of LOAELs because these are doses which where shown to cause an adverse effect, as compared to NOAELs, which are concentrations shown to be, or estimated to be a "safe" level of exposure under the parameters of a given toxicological study. In addition, emphasis is given to doses based on average concentrations because, these are more likely to be representative of actual exposure as compared to the maximum concentrations.

From this perspective, comparisons between estimated doses (based on average soil concentrations) and the LOAELs suggest that there is little potential for risk of harm to terrestrial wildlife from soil contaminants in OU2. As can be seen from Tables 19, 20 and 21, the only contaminants with average-based estimated doses in excess of their LOAELs were zinc (for the shrew and the robin) and lead (for the robin), and these exceedances were small, with LOAEL TQs ranging from 1.01 to 2.1. In addition, as discussed in more detail below, the potential risk from zinc suggested by these results are all driven by one anomalous sample, which was nearly 38 times higher than the penultimate zinc result (including a duplicate sample collected from the same location). If this anomalously high result is removed from the assessment, none of the estimated zinc doses would exceed their LOAELs, except for the robin dose based on the maximum concentration.

Doses estimated based on maximum soil concentrations also indicate a low potential for risk: aside from lead and zinc, the only maximum-based estimated dose which exceeds it's LOAEL is the DOT dose to robins, with a LOAEL TQ of just 1.2 (the Total DDTR doses

J-10

also exceeds the LOAEL, however this is likely driven by DOT). As discussed below, and in the main text of the RI report, DDT has not historically been considered a contaminant of concern for the landfill, and none of the sediment or surface water samples collected within the active portion of the landfill (i.e., upstream of the Upper Simmons Reservoir) contained detectable concentrations of DDT or its derivatives. DDT and its derivatives are likely residual contaminants from the historic agricultural activities that occurred on the landfill property and in the surrounding area, and risks suggested by these results are probably not landfill related.

Aside from contaminants which resulted in exceedances of LOAELs, estimated dose of five additional contaminants bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, DDE, chromium, selenium and vanadium) exceeded NOAELs based on either average or total soil concentrations. However, given contaminant distributions, contaminant concentrations compared to site-specific and regional background, and uncertainties inherent in the food web assessment, these NOAELs also do not suggest a significant risk to terrestrial receptors. These considerations are discussed in more detail below.

5.10 LEAD

Results of the food web assessment suggests a potential for lead to have an adverse effect on local sub-populations American robins, based on slight exceedances of the LOAEL by average and maximum-based dose estimates; and on shrews based on slight exceedances of the NOAEL by average and maximum-based doses. However, concentrations of lead detected in soil samples from OU2 are not high; although the OU2 concentrations were slightly greater than site specific background, the maximum detected concentration was just 145 mg/kg, the average OU2 concentration of 66 mg/kg is below the 99 mg/kg background concentration derived for non-urban areas of nearby Massachusetts (MA DEP, 1995). Also, the LOAEL TQ for robins, based on average soil concentration was only 2.2, and both average and maximum site-specific background concentrations would also result in exceedances of the NOAELs for the robin and the shrew. Therefore, these results likely stem from the conservative nature of the assessment.

Based on the small magnitude of exceedances of lead RfDs, and the conservative nature of the food web assessment, lead in soils does not present a significant risk of harm to exposed birds and mammals.

5.20 ZINC

Results of the food web assessment suggest that zinc may present a risk of harm to shrews and robins due to exceedances of the LOAELs. However, these results are driven entirely by one anomalously high detection of zinc (6,702 mg/kg) in a soil sample SS95-02. A second (i.e., duplicate) sample collected from SS95-02 contained just 84.6 mg/kg (for a within station average of 3,393 mg/kg, which is shown on Table J-l as the maximum detected concentration). If this high outlying result is removed from the calculation of the average OU2 zinc concentration, the maximum detected concentration would be 178 and

J-l l

the average concentration would be 71 mg/kg. This average would not result in any exceedances of the LO AEL, and using 178 mg/kg as the maximum, the estimated dose to the robin would be the only dose to exceed a LOAEL, with a LOAEL TQ of just 1.3.

In addition, the average calculated without incorporating the anomalously high result for SS95-02 (i.e., 71 mg/kg) would be below the background average of 86 mg/kg. Given this disparity in results, it seems unlikely that zinc is elevated over a large enough area to result in actual harm to robins or similar species. Although the risks to robins from exposure to dietary zinc implied by the food chain model cannot be ruled out, based on the conservative nature of this evaluation and the distribution of zinc in site and background soils, it is unlikely that robins will experience adverse effects due to dietary zinc exposure. Furthermore, based on the background concentrations of zinc, risks implied by the model do not appear to be linked to the landfill.

5.30 CHROMIUM

Results of the food web assessment suggest that chromium concentrations in soils may result in doses to shrews and robins above NOAELs, therefore, doses may be approaching harmful levels. However, these results are likely due to the conservative nature of the assessment.

The average concentration of chromium in Site surficial soil samples was lower than the average concentration in background samples. Although the maximum on-site chromium concentration in surficial soil was higher than the maximum in background samples, this may be the result of the small number of background samples collected. Chromium was not detected in any surficial soil samples above the 33 mg/kg average concentration for the eastern United States (Shacklette & Boerngen, 1984), or the 29 mg/kg background concentration derived for Massachusetts (MA DEP, 1995).

The concentrations detected in soils were generally consistent with local background conditions and were lower than other published background concentrations. It is likely that the conservative assumptions inherent in the exposure model have overestimated risks to this receptor species. Because of the similarity between on-site and background chromium concentrations, it is unlikely that the chromium concentrations detected at the landfill have caused an incremental increase in risk to robins or similar species.

5.40 VANADIUM

The exposure model suggests that vanadium is present at concentrations potentially harmful to voles and shrews due to exceedances of the NOAEL for mammals. The LOAEL used to evaluate exposure to vanadium (2.1 mg/kg/day) was based on a study in which rats were exposed to vanadium salt (NaVO3) in diet, resulting in significant reproductive effects. The NOAEL for vanadium was estimated by multiplying the LOAEL by an uncertainty factor of 0.1.

J-12

The dose estimate based on maximum soil concentrations was far below the LOAEL, and only slightly exceeded the NOAEL. Note that the gastrointestinal absorption efficiency factor for vanadium ranges from 0.01 (metallic) to 0.20 (sulfate and pentoxide) (ORNL RAIS, 1999). Based on the conservative nature of the dose estimate, the fact that the dose was below the LOAEL, and the likelihood that vanadium present in soils is less bioavailable than the salt used in the toxicity study cited above, it is concluded that vanadium in soils is unlikely to harm local populations of small mammals. Although the maximum concentration of vanadium in OU2 (38 mg/kg; see Tables J-l and J-2) was slightly above the maximum background concentration (30 mg/kg), the average background was comparable to, or greater than the OU2 average. In addition, these concentrations are comparable to, or lower than the 43 mg/kg average concentration reported for soils in the eastern United States (Shacklette & Boerngen, 1984). Therefore, vanadium should not be considered to present a significant risk to small mammals at OU2.

5.50 SELENIUM

The maximum concentration of selenium in soil resulted in an estimated dose to the shrew which was slightly above the NOAEL (NOAEL TQ = 1.2) Given that the LOAEL for selenium was not exceeded, the small magnitude of the NOAEL exceedance by the maximum-based estimated dose, and the fact that selenium was detected in just one of the fifteen soil samples collected in OU2, selenium does not present a significant risk to small mammals.

5.60 PESTICIDES (DPT AND DDE)

Results of the food web assessment suggest that although the average concentration of DDT and DDE in site soils would be unlikely to cause harm to birds and small mammals, the maximum concentration of these pesticides may have an adverse effect on robins and similar birds. The maximum dose estimate for DDE and the average dose estimate for DDT each exceeded the NOAEL of 0.003 mg/kg/day. The maximum dose estimate for DDT was slightly higher than the LOAEL. The RfDs used to evaluate exposure to DDT and DDE were based on a 5-year field study which monitored the DDT concentrations of anchovies, the primary food of brown pelicans. Over 5-years, the anchovy DDT concentration dropped from 4.27 mg/kg to 0.15 mg/kg. Reproductive success of the pelicans improved with the decrease in anchovy DDT, but was judged to remain slightly impaired at the 0.15 mg/kg anchovy concentration. This concentration was converted to a LOAEL, and a NOAEL was estimated by multiplying the LOAEL by an uncertainty factor of 0.1. It should be noted that although DDE was not mentioned in the summary of this study provided by Sample et al. (1996), this compound would be expected to occur along with DDT in the anchovy tissue, and would likely have contributed to the observed toxicity to pelicans. The RfDs based on this study were applied to each DDT residue individually, but were also considered to be applicable to the summed total of DDT residues (DDTR) .

J-13

As mentioned in other sections of this report, DDTR in landfill soils and in the surrounding area is likely attributable to direct application during previous use of the land for agriculture. Therefore, risks suggested by this food web assessment are not considered attributable to the landfill.

5.70 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYUPHTHALATE

The estimated dose of bis(2-ehtylhexyl)phthalate to the American robin, based on the maximum detected concentration, resulted in a slight exceedance of the NOAEL, with a TQ of 1.9. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was found in all soil samples collected from OU2, as well as in both of the background soil samples, thus it is ubiquitous in the area. The maximum detected concentration was 24 mg/kg in sample SS-95-04, which is more than 24 time greater than the penultimate concentration of 0.99 mg/kg detected in SS95-11. The high concentration detected in SS95-04 is anomalous and, at most, is representative of a very small are of the terrestrial habitat of OU2. Given this, and the fact that the estimated dose exceeded only the NOAEL (not the LOAEL), and the small magnitude of the exceedance, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate does not present a significant risk of harm to birds (or small mammals) within OU2.

6.00 STATEMENT OF UNCERTAINTIES

Environmental and exposure assumptions made for the terrestrial food chain exposure model presented above were based on species-specific data presented by EPA (1993a&b) and on site-specific physical and chemical information. Whenever possible, conservative assumptions were made to reduce the likelihood of underestimating risks to receptor organisms. However, because the conservative influences of these assumptions were compounded, the exposure model may have overestimated risks to the receptors. The conservative nature of the terrestrial exposure model and risk estimate are demonstrated by the risk estimates for vole exposure to vanadium, and the risk estimates for robin exposure to chromium. Although the average surficial soil concentrations of each of these contaminants were consistent with local background concentrations (and naturally occurring concentrations published by USGS), the exposure model suggested some level of risk to the receptors. The following paragraphs discuss some of the sources of uncertainty associated with the terrestrial food chain exposure model.

Substantial uncertainties were introduced to the food chain assessment by assumptions made regarding indicator species body weights and food ingestion rates. Many of the benchmark doses derived by Sample et al. (1996) were derived using literature-based body weight assumptions and allometric equations to estimate food ingestion rates, often because this information was not reported in the original toxicity studies. The allometric equations, as described in EPA (1993a), are dependent upon the assumed weight of the species of interest, a value which may vary substantially with age, location, and season. The relationship between body weight assumptions and calculated doses is linear, and the

J-14

degree of uncertainty introduced will depend on the actual range of body weights exhibited by a particular test species or population of an indicator species. In order to avoid compounding this source of uncertainty, we did not use body weight assumptions to normalize RfDs to those presented in Sample et al. (1996).

As noted in Section 2.20, we conservatively assumed that the robin was a year-round resident of the site, and that a signficant portion of the robin's diet consisted of earthworms throughout the year. As summarized in EPA (1993a), northern robins migrate south between September and November, and return between February and April. The robin's diet is dominated by invertebrates before and during the spring breeding season, but consists primarily of fruits for the remainder of the year. The robins are opportunistic predators during the portion of the year when invertebrates dominate the diet, and consume a wide variety of species, including beetles, moths, earthworms, grasshoppers and many others. This is significant because earthworms likely accumulate contaminants to higher levels than most of the robin's other prey due to the worm's greater contact with soil.

Earthworm bioaccumulation of inorganic compounds is non-linear, and decreases as soil concentrations increase (Sample et al., 1998). Whenever possible, we conservatively applied the upper 90th percentile soil-earthworm uptake factors (UF) presented in Sample etal. (1998).

In addition to uncertainties related to the environmental and exposure assumptions employed in the terrestrial food chain model, substantial uncertainties were introduced by the RfDs during the risk estimation. Among the foremost sources of uncertainty in calculating and applying benchmark doses for wildlife is extrapolation of the results of toxicity tests conducted on laboratory animals to the indicator organisms selected for the risk characterization. Physiological and biological variations between species may result in variations in contaminant toxicity.

The form of the toxicant applied in the laboratory, and method of application are often significantly different compared to exposures in the field. These differences can affect adsorption, assimilation efficiency and metabolism of the contaminant, and thus affect the magnitude of the effective exposure. While field exposure involves wildlife ingestion of contaminants, which are biologically incorporated into the tissues of prey organisms, and incidental ingestion of contaminated soil, typical laboratory methods of contaminant application include gavage (forced ingestion of a water or oil based contaminant solution), mixing with drinking water, and direct application of contaminants to food items. Laboratory toxicity tests use relatively pure contaminant solutions which may not accurately reflect the bioavailability of the forms encountered in the environment. For instance, laboratory tests of metal toxicity often employ pure metal salts, which are likely to be more toxic than the complexed forms found in tissue or the mineral forms found in soil. Differences in toxicity between laboratory tests and field exposure may be most pronounced when the salts are dissolved in drinking water.

J-15

Methods for estimating synergistic or antagonistic effects of contaminant mixtures on receptor wildlife species do not currently exist. Low concentrations of some metals, particularly selenium and zinc, may mitigate the toxicity of some other inorganic contaminants. However, exposure to multiple contaminants may aggravate the toxicity of one or more of the contaminants. The risk estimate attempted to account for additive toxicity through calculation of Hazard Quotients, but the risk estimate could not account for antagonistic or synergistic results of exposure to multiple contaminants.

The risk assessment for terrestrial and avian wildlife attempts to estimate impairment of local populations of indicator species. Therefore, the results of the food chain model must be interpreted within the context of impacts to interbreeding co-located individuals of the indicator species. Impairment of an organism's ability to reproduce is the most significant and relevant toxic response which could effect indicator species at the population level. Other measurement endpoints employed in toxicity tests include lethality, behavioral alterations, changes in growth and development, and impairment of organ function. While these toxic effects may reduce the fitness of a population of indicator species by reducing survival and recruitment, tests which evaluate reproductive endpoints may be more sensitive indicators of chemically induced stress. Whenever toxicological information regarding measures of reproductive impairment were available, this information was used preferentially in our analysis. Toxicological information was considered more relevant if the original studies were conducted over the course of more than one generation, thereby approximating the actual exposure duration at the site.

7.00 REFERENCES

Beyer, W.N., 1990. Evaluating Soil Contamination. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(2).25 pp.

DeGraaf, R. and D. Rudis, 1987. New England Wildlife: Habitat Natural History, and Distribution. General Technical Report NE-108.

EPA, 1993a&b. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (Volumes I and II). US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-93/187a and b. NTIS No. PB94-174778, and PB94-177789. December.

EPA, 1998. Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities - Volume 2, Appendix A: Chemical-Specific Data. EPA-530-D-98-001B, URL: http://www.epa.gov/earth Ir6/6pd/rcra_c/protocol/volume_2/appa-toc.htm.

Jager, T., 1998. Mechanistic Approach for Estimating Bioconcentration of Organic Chemicals in Earthworms (Oligochaeta). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 17(10): 2080-2090.

J-16

http://www.epa.gov/earthhttp:90(2).25

DEP, 1995. Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization in Support of Massachusetts Contingency Plan. Interim Final Policy BWSC/ORS-95-141. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup and Office of Research and Standards. July.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, January, 1999. "Toxicity & Chemical-Specific Factors Data Base". URL: http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/tox/tox_values.html.

Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresco, G.W. Suter II, 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, ES/ER/TM-86/R3. June 1996.

Sample, B.E., J.J. Beauchamp, R.A. Efroymson, G.W. Suter, II, and T.L. Ashwood. 1998. Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms. Oak Ridge National Laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, ES/ER/TM-220, February 1998.

Shacklette, H.T. and J.G. Boerngen, 1984. Element Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of the Conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270. United States Government Printing Office, Washington.

G:\JOBS\CLF\31866-2.ffAS\OU2_Rev3\appendixJ\App-j.doc

J-17

http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/tox/tox_values.html

2/9/01 File No. 31864.00

TABLE J-l

SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FOR COPECs IN SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLES (ppm) Central Landfill - OU2 Johnston, Rhode Island

: : i •*• ijiuilL.̂ : • - • - • : | (II TlpfVvt :\:[:':y;;i$r&jti&£sH : :;i;iMîtefljtijii::i; ;:i;;;|Ui^t^fl|i;:;:;; iHij i i i j i i f i iJTOit i i j j i^ i i i i i i i i

!j!l:l!!l!li|i|i|ilPil!ii!i^ Hi!li!!$lli i \ I !tfi|^d';;;;i;i ;;i!:;rê;c^j;:!i! :;i;i;ii«iaiaBii(iii; ;;l;!|l H i i i i i i i i i l i i S l ^ j i i i i i i i i i i i i i iîE^teetiBB ; i WM$&&^:M : : Gbnb^hti-ation i:

ihi&jii&eiîcm;;;:;

Volatile Organic Compounds

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 9 / 11 0.004 0.092 SS95-03 0.019 Methyl ethyl ketone 1 / 11 0.002 0.002 SS95-02 0.002

Semivolalile Organic Compounds

2-Methylphenol 1 / 11 0.13 0.13 SS95-03 0.13 Anthracene 1 / 11 0.073 0.073 SS95-01 0.073 Benzo(a)anthracene 7 / 11 0.042 0.29 SS95-01 0.16 Benzo(a)pyrene 6 / 11 0.043 0.28 SS95-01 0.17 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 10 / 11 0.056 0.59 SS95-01 0.19 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2 / 11 0.1 0.1515 SS95-09 0.13 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4 / 11 0.071 0.18 SS95-01 0.12 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 11 / 11 0.072 24 SS95-04 2.4 Carbazole 1 / 11 0.075 0.075 SS95-01 0.075 Chrysene 1 0 / 1 1 0.052 0.35 SS95-01 0.14 Fluoranthene 11 / 11 0.064 0.63 SS95-01 0.21 Indeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene 3 / 11 0.056 0.11 SS95-01 0.076 Phenanthrene 9 / 11 0.048 0.42 SS95-01 0.17 Pyrene 1 0 / 1 1 0.076 0.77 SS95-01 0.25

Pesticides/PCBs

4,4'-DDD 3 / 11 0.005 0.01 SS95-03 0.004 4,4'-DDE 6 / 11 0.005 0.037 SS95-01 0.010 4,4'-DDT 9 / 11 0.005 0.11 SS95-01 0.022 Aldrin 1 / 11 0.0037 0.0037 SS95-03 0.002 alpha-Chlordane 2 / 11 0.003 0.004 SS95-08 0.002 Endosulfan-sulfate 1 / 11 0.006 0.006 SS95-06 0.003

Metals

Chromium, total 15 / 15 2 12.3 SS95-08 6.4 Cyanide, total 1 / 15 2.5 2.5 SS95-10 1.3 Iron, total 15 / 15 3940 20600 SS95-09 10567 Lead, total 15 / 15 13.5 145 SS95-01 66 Manganese, total 15 / 15 24.3 556 SS95-09 194 Selenium, total 1 / 15 1.43 1.43 SS95-02 0.65 Vanadium, total 15 / 15 4 38.9 SS95-11 23 Zinc, total 15 / 15 18.9 3393 SS95-02 298

Notes:

1 For the purpose of calculating arithmetic mean concentrations, one-half the method detection limit was used to represent the concentrations of constituents reported as non-detects (ND), and one time the method detection limit was used to represent the concentrations of constituents reported as "BMQL". For the purpose of calculating arithmetic mean concentrations, one-half the method detection limit was used to represent concentrations of compounds reported as non-detects (ND), the method detection limit was used to represent concentrations of compounds reported as below the method quantitation limit (BMQL), and two-and-a-half times the method detection limit was used to represent concentrations of compounds reported as "TRACE".

2 Analytical results were based on samples: SP-1, S-6; SP-2, S-5; SP-3, S-7; SP-4, S-8; SP-5, S-2; SP-6, S-3; SP-7, S^»; SP-8, S-l; SP-8A, S-1A; TP-1, S-l; TP-2, S-l; TP-3, S-l; TP-4, S-l; TP-5, S-l; and GZ-2, S-4 collected on February, 1995.

gA31864 z23\31864-00 ljc\calcs\ccotab\food^«cb\^CIrest\Z2300te^.xls\SS Sum

http:31864.00

2/9/01 File No. 31864.00

TABLE J-2

SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FOR BACKGROUND SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLES (ppm) Central Landfill - OU2 Johnston, Rhode Island

iijiiiiiîiiiji&ijfiiiijij |i|jjii$i|j$ii&|jiii ;i;i;||ij^|ffl|îiii!i ||i|$iîiij$ji|f :;!;i;iiîpiiijiiifiî(ji;i;ii Hi;iiy!;yiii;;;;ii;i;;i;iî^^^|îE;i;y;y;;Hi;ii;i:;iiyh; liliilli iiiijiijtÊe&i&j:;:!:;: i:;;)pi^c:^:i;i iiiiiiyiâ^littiiSiiliiiiii !l||ililil|!jW!^:;iJ:;i;i!:

W$M$$$M i!|i|||î e:|;Hlii :j:;i^r$0p^tjidi!!;;; l i i i i i i i i l i i l i j i i i i i y l i i i i i^ji&iic^râiiibBi:;: Volatile Organic Compounds

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 1 / 2 0.017 0.017 SS95-12 0.012 1,1-Dichloroethane 1 / 2 0.006 0.006 SS95-12 0.006

Semivolatile Organic Compounds

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 2 / 2 0.051 0.098 SS95-13 0.1 Fluoranthene 1 / 2 0.055 0.055 SS95-13 0.06 Pyrene 1 / 2 0.067 0.067 SS95-13 0.07

Pesticides/PCBs

4,4'-DDE 1 / 2 0.014 0.014 SS95-13 0.008 4,4'-DDT 1 / 2 0.009 0.009 SS95-13 0.006

Metals

Aluminum, total 2 / 2 7,130 15,300 SS95-12 11,215 Arsenic, total 1 / 2 9.6 9.6 SS95-12 6.2 Barium, total 2 / 2 26.1 37.8 SS95-12 32 Beryllium, total 2 / 2 3.5 4.8 SS95-13 4.2 Cadmium, total 1 / 2 0.26 0.26 SS95-13 0.16 Calcium, total 2 / 2 349 513 SS95-13 431 Chromium, total 2 / 2 5.3 8.3 SS95-12 6.8 Cobalt, total 2 / 2 2.8 5 SS95-12 3.9 Copper, total 2 / 2 4.4 7.1 SS95-12 6 Iron, total 2 / 2 10,500 18,600 SS95-12 14,550 Lead, total 2 / 2 47 63.9 SS95-12 55 Magnesium, total 2 / 2 626 956 SS95-12 791 Manganese, total 2 / 2 85.7 215 SS95-12 150 Potassium, total 2 / 2 555 907 SS95-12 731 Vanadium, total 2 / 2 18.7 30 SS95-12 24 Zinc, total 2 / 2 85.2 85.9 SS95-12 86

Notes:

1 For the purpose of calculating arithmetic mean concentrations, one-half the method detection limit was used to represent the concentrations of constituents reported as non-detects (ND), and one time the method detection limit was used to represent the concentrations of constituents reported as "BMQL".

g:\31864.z23\31864-OO.Ijc\calcs\eco_tab\foodweb\terrest\Z2300ter.xIs\ss bkg sum

http:31864.00

FlkNo 3186400

TABLE 1-3

SHREW, MEADOW VOLE AND AMERICAN ROBIN Central Landfill - OU2 Johnston, Rhode Island

:;:::;:::::Mean::::::x:: XX BioconoeritratibniFactors (dry jveighUinless otherwise hbtea>:: : : : : : : Pre^ct£iD)hceritra>ions(mg/kJs:-:wet:weight) ! : : :: :. . . . Contaririnant Concentration Soft In vertebratesJX • •••Want Roots X : Lealyyegetaiipir X; x x::S6itx:x: : ;

XingVkg (dry Weight): :;Xin've«ebrittes;: : :x:;i:^x;i;:; : i^ijgi^x


1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.019 2.42E-01 7 I.73E-02 ' 1.54E+00 ' 4.50E-03 4.I8E-05 3.72E-03 Methyl ethyl ketone 0.002 1.75E+00 7 2.86E+02 ' 2.67E+01 ' 3.51E-03 7.44E-02 6.94E-03

Semivolatile Oreanic Compounds

2-Methyiphenol 013 3.39E-01 * 2.75E+01 ' 2.63E+00 ' 7.05E-03 4.65E-OI 4.44E-02 Anthracene 0.073 5.1 IE-02 5 2.76E+00 ' I .OIE-OI ' 5.97E-04 2.62E-02 9.58E-04 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.16 1.25E-01 5 2.1IE+00 ' 2.02E-02 ' 3.I7E-03 4.34E-02 4 I6E-04 Benzo(a)pyrene 017 3.42E-OI 5 1.26E+00 ' I.I IE-02 ' 9.4 IE-03 2.82E-02 248E-04 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.19 3.19E-OI 5 1.66E+00 ' I.01E-02 ' 9.90E-03 4.I8E-02 2.54E-04 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.13 2.44E-OI 5 l.OOE+00 * l.OOE+00 * 4.92E-03 1.63E-02 I63E-02 Benzo(kHluoninthenc 0.12 2.53E-01 f 1.66E+00 ' I.01E-02 ' 4.77E-03 254E-02 I.54E-04 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 2.4 2.60E-01 ' l.OOE+00 ' l.OOE+00 * 1.02E-OI 3 I8E-01 3 I8E-01 Carbazole 0.075 2.60E-01 ' l.OOE+00 " lOOE+00 " 3 12E-03 975E-03 9.75E-03 Chrysene 0.14 1.75E-01 5 2.05E+00 ' 1.87E-02 ' 4.03E-03 383E-02 349E-04 Fluoranthene 0.21 7.92E-02 5 3.90E+00 ' 4.46E-02 ' 2.65E-03 106E-01 1.2 IE-03 Indeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene 0.076 4.I9E-OI 5 I.I9E+00 ' 3.90E-03 ' 5.1 IE-03 1.18E-02 3.86E-05 Phenanthrene 017 I.22E-OI 5 I.49E+00 ' 9.08E-02 ' 339E-03 3.37E-02 205E-03 Pyrene 0.25 9.20E-02 5 2.44E+00 ' 498E-02 ' 3.69E-03 7.94E-02 1.62E-03

Pesticides ires

4,4'-DDD 0.004 1.89E-OI 7 2.62E+01 ' 1 12E-02 ' 7.06E-04 1.27E-02 5.43E-06 4,4'-DDE 0.010 2.09E-01 7 1.77E+01 ' 937E-03 ' 2.06E-03 227E-02 1.20E-05 4,4-DDT 0.022 5.86E-01 7 I.62E+00 ' 1.20E-02 ' 1.29E-02 4.65E-03 344E-05 Aldrin 0.002 1.91E-OI 7 2.73E+01 ' 1.04E-02 ' 289E-04 536E-03 2.04E-06 alpha-Chlordane 0.002 I.43E-03 7 I.69E+01 ' 1 43E-02 ' 2.44E-06 3.76E-03 3.18E-06 Endosulfan-sulfate 0.003 1.40E-01 7 5.75E+00 ' 3.77E-01 ' 403E-04 2.15E-03 1.4 IE-04

Metah

Chromium, total 6.4 3.16E+00 ' 4.50E-03 ' 7.50E-03 ' 3.25E+00 3.76E-03 6.26E-03 Cyanide, total 1.3 l.OOE+00 ' l.OOE+00 8 l.OOE+OO ' 2.06E-OI 1.67E-01 I.67E-01

10 9Iron, total 10567 7.80E-02 l.OOE-02 l.OOE-02 ' 1.32E+02 I 37E+OI I 37E+01 Lead, total 66 1.52E+00 ' 9.00E-03 ' 4.50E-02 ' 1.61E+01 7.73E-02 3.87E-01 Manganese, total 194 I.24E-01 3 6.80E-OI ' 6.80E-01 ' 3.86E+00 I.72E+01 1 72E+01 Selenium, total 0.65 1.34E+00 ' 2.20E-02 ' 1.60E-02 ' 1.40E-01 1.87E-03 1.36E-03 Vanadium, total 23 8.80E-02 I0 5.50E-03 ' 5.50E-03 ' 3.27E-01 1.66E-02 1.66E-02 Zinc, total 298 1.29E+01 ' 4.40E-02 ' 2.50E-01 ' 6.13E+02 I.70E+00 9.67E+00

Mean Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 10.87% mean pH 5.22

Notes:

1. EPA-530-D-98-001B, Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities - Volume 2, Appendix A: Chemical-Specific Data. URL: (http://www.epa.gov/earth Ir6/6pd/rcra c/protocol/volume 2/appa-toc.htm). la •= average value for this parameter. Values are reported in dry weight units.

2. NA = Not Available; ND = Not Detected; NCC = Not a Contaminant of Concern. 3 Unless otherwise noted, this value is a 90th Percentile UF from Sample et al. I998. (Table 11) (dry weight) 4. Gish (1970) in Beyer (I990) Evaluating Soil Contamination. 5. Earthworm/soil BCFs based on data of Marquerie et al. (1987) as presented in Beyer (1990) (dry weight) 5a In the absence of a reported BCF, we have applied the mean BCF for PAHs presented in Beyer (1990) (dry weight) 6. Mean BAF for all PAHs in Beyer (1990) (dry weight). 7. These bioconcentration factors (in wet wt.) were calculated using the formula presented in Jager, 1998. Calculations are presented on Table 5 and discussed in Section 2.41 of the report. 8. In the absence of a reported BCF, we have assumed a BCF of 1.0. 9. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, January, 1999 Toxicity & Chemical-Specific Factors Data Base". URL: http://risk.lsd ornl.gov/tox/tox values.html. Values are reported in dry weight units 10 These BCFs are 90th percentile Soil-Earthworm BCFs presented in Appendix C of Sample et al. (1998) 11. Invertebrate concentration in wet weight = 0.16 times dry weight, assuming that an invertebrate's moisture content is 84 percent.

Plant concentration in wet weight = 0.13 times dry weight, assuming that a plant's moisture content is 87 percent as in EPA, 1998.

http://risk.lsdhttp://www.epa.gov/earth

Fife No 3186400 2/9/01

TABLE 1-4

CALCULATION OF FORAGE FOOD CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS BASED ON MAXIMUM SOIL CONCENTRATIONS SHREW, MEADOW VOLE AND AMERICAN ROBIN

Central Landfill - OU2 JohnsJon, Rhode Island

::x::::Mai ::x:>x5oii:x-:: >:• : XplantX : •: •: • : • : LofyX : •:•

- : - : • : • : :> : : : lh.vertebirates : : : . • : • : Roots: •:• XVegetationX :

Volatile Oreanic Compounds

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 0.092 2.42E-01 ' 1.73E-02 ' I.54E+00 ' 2.23E-02 2.07E-04 1.84E-02 Methyl ethyl keronc 0.002 1.75E+00 7 2S6E+02 ' 267E+OI ' 351E-03 7.44E-02 6.94E-03

Semivolatile Oreanic Compounds

2-Methylphenol 0.13 3.39E-01 * 2.75E+01 ' 2.63E+00 ' 7.05E-03 465E-01 4.44E-02 Anthracene 0.073 5.11E-02 5 2.76E+00 ' I01E-OI ' 597E-04 2.62E-02 958E-04 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.29 I.25E-01 5 211E+00 ' 202E-02 ' 5.80E-03 7.95E-02 7.62E-04 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.28 3.42E-01 5 I.26E+00 ' 1.1 IE-02 ' 1.53E-02 4.59E-02 404E-04 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.59 3.19E-01 ' I.66E+00 ' I.OIE-02 ' 3.01E-02 1.27E-01 7.72E-04 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.15 2.44E-01 * l.OOE+00 * l.OOE+00 8 5.93E-03 I97E-02 I.97E-02 Benzo(k)6uoranthene 0.18 2.53E-01 5 I.66E+00 ' 1 01E-02 ' 7.30E-03 3.88E-02 2.36E-04 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 24.0 2.60E-OI ' I OOE+00 * l.OOE+00 * 9.98E-01 3 I2E+00 3.12E+00 Carbazole 0075 2.60E-01 6 l.OOE+00 ' l.OOE+00 " 3.12E-03 9.75E-03 9.75E-03 Chjysene 0.35 1.75E-01 5 2.05E+00 ' 1 87E-02 ' 9.80E-03 9.33E-02 849E-04 Fluoranthene 0.63 7.92E-02 5 3.90E+00 ' 446E-02 ' 7.98E-03 3.I9E-OI 3.65E-03 Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene O.I 10 4.19E-01 5 I.I9E+00 ' 390E-03 ' 7.38E-03 I.70E-02 5.58E-05 Phenanthrene 0.42 1.22E-OI 5 I.49E+00 ' 9.08E-02 ' 8 18E-03 8 I4E-02 496E-03 Pyrene 0.77 9.20E-02 5 2.44E+00 ' 4.98E-02 ' 1.13E-02 2.44E-OI 498E-03

Pesticides TCBs

4,4'-DDD 0.010 1.89E-01 7 2.62E+01 ' I.I2E-02 ' 1.89E-03 3.4 IE-02 I.46E-05 4,4'-DDE 0.037 2.09E-OI 7 1.77E+OI ' 9.37E-03 ' 7.73E-03 8.5 IE-02 4.51E-05 4,4'-DDT 0.110 5.86E-OI 7 1.62E+00 ' 1.20E-02 ' 645E-02 2.32E-02 1.72E-04 Aldrin 0.004 1.9IE-01 7 2.73E+01 ' I.04E-02 ' 7.07E-04 I.31E-02 5.00E-06 alpha-Chlordane 0.004 1.43E-03 7 1.69E+01 ' I43E-02 ' 5.7 IE-06 8.79E-03 744E-06 Endosulfan-sulfate 0.006 1.40E-01 7 5.75E+00 ' 3.77E-01 ' 8.26E-04 441E-03 2.89E-04

Metals

Chromium, total 12.3 3.16E+00 ' 4.50E-03 ' 750E-03 ' 6.22E+00 7.20E-03 120E-02 Cyanide, total 2.5 l.OOE+00 * l.OOE+00 " l.OOE+00 * 4.00E-OI 3.25E-01 3.25E-01 Iron, total 20600 7.80E-02 '" l.OOE-02 ' l.OOE-02 ' 2.57E+02 2.68E+01 2.68E+OI Lead, total 145 1.52E+00 ' 9.00E-03 ' 4.50E-02 ' 353E+OI 1.70E-01 8.48E-01 Manganese, total 556 1.24E-01 ' 6.80E-01 ' 6.80E-01 ' 1.10E+OI 4.91E+01 4.91E+01 Selenium, total 1.43 1.34E+00 ' 2.20E-02 ' I.60E-02 ' 3.06E-01 408E-03 2.97E-03 Vanadium, total 39 8.80E-02 '° 5.50E-03 9 5.50E-03 ' 5.48E-01 2.78E-02 2.78E-02 Zinc, total 3393 I.29E+01 3 4.40E-02 ' 2.50E-01 ' 700E+03 I.94E+01 1 10E+02

Mean Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 10.87% mean pH 5.22

Notes:

1 EPA-530-D-98-001B, Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities - Volume 2, Appendix A: Chemical-Specific Data URL: Oittp^/www.epa.gov/earthlr676pd/rcni_c/protocol/volume_2/appa-toc.htm). la = average value for this parameter Values are reported in dry weight units.

2 N A = Not Available; ND = Not Detected; NCC = Not a Contaminant of Concern. 3. Unless otherwise noted, this value is a 90th Percentile UF from Sample et at. 1998. (Table 11) (dry weight) 4 Gish(1970)in Beyer( 1990) Evaluating Soil Contamination. 5. Earthworm/soil BCFs based on data of Marquerie et al. (1987) as presented in Beyer (1990) (dry weight) 5a bi the absence of a reported BCF, we have applied the mean BCF for PAHs presented in Beyer (1990) (dry weight) 6. Mean BAF for all PAHs in Beyer (1990) (dry weight). 7. These bioconcentration factors (in wet wt.) were calculated using the formula presented in Jager, 1998 Calculations are presented on Table 5 and discussed in Section 2.41 of the report. 8 hi the absence of a reported BCF, we have assumed a BCF of 1.0. 9. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, January, 1999. Toxicity & Chemical-Specific Factors Data Base". URL: http://risk.lsd ornlgov/tox/tox values.html. Values are reported in dry weight units 10. These BCFs are 90th percentile Soil-Earthworm BCFs presented in Appendix C of Sample et al. (1998). 11. Invertebrate concentration in wet weight = 0.16 times dry weight, assuming that an invertebrate's moisture content is 84 percent

Plant concentration in wet weight = 0.13 limes dry weight, assuming thai a plant's moisture content is 87 percent as in EPA, 1998.

g \3I864 ?23\3l«64-OOIjcVcaJcs\ecoJab\foodwd)taTca\Z2300

8 ! 'XOOX'ti • . ' . - . - . - . ' . • - • - • . • .C /1 'Q ' - ' - ' . ' " . ' - '

i;;i;;liis;x;i;i;xi

— o 9 ?u uj5 *° Csj — '

9 9 9 9 9 9 f*l PI FT1 fTT f '1 fT1 ON ON vO ^^ < "̂i ̂ 5 OO O OO ON ̂ ^~ — rs *o — —

;>:i:ii:ii:i|:î:::::::~::w:::i:::«i ^XxXxix'xxf • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : :*:•:•:•:•:

9 9 0 —

•* o r o Tl O VI O — — — — — ;:;:^;^:;;x:x:i

Xx^xXO'xSxo

||II

«O Os so OO — •*

O O

_H .-H 'r«•a -a -ajj „ U

^

3 ^

QO — 5

Z -

2/9/01 Fife No 3186400

TABLE J-«

REFERENCE DOSES FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS Central Landfill - OU2 Johnston, Rhode Island

Contaminant . •. • . - . • . • . - . • . • . • . • . • . . - . • . • . • . - . • .


1,1,1-Trichloroethane Methyl ethyl ketone


2-Methylphenol (o-cresol) Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Carbazole Chrysene Fluoranthene Indenof 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene Phenanthrene Pyrene Total PAHs

Pesticides/PCBs

4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Total DDTR Aldrin alplia-Chlordane Endosulfan-sulfale

Metals

Chromium, total Cyanide, total Iron, total Lead, total Manganese, total Selenium, total Vanadium, total Zinc, total

::::::::::::::::::**inx:x::::::::: x^XxVpleiandSHrew;:;:;:;:;: :.;.;.:B|wWia*:l>oses: : ; ; '• ^BeincHiiiatrkDbses '.•'.•:•'.•'.• :::NOAEL:: XLOAEL • : • : XNOAELX LOAELX:

100 ! NA 1000 ' NA 177.1 3 457.1 ' 1771 ' 4571 '

21.92 ' NA 219.2 ' NA 0. 1 ' I 10 ' 0. 1 1 10 ' 0. 1 I 10 ' 0. 1 1 10 ' 0. 1 1 10 ' 0. 1 1 10 ' 1 NA 183 ' 183 ' NA NA NA NA

3 i0. 10 ' 3 i0. 1 10 3 100. 1 '

0. 3 1 10 ' 0. ' J 10 ' NA NA NA NA

0.003 ' 0.028 ' 0.8 ' 4 ' 0.003 ' 0.028 ' 0.8 ' 4 ' 0.003 ' 0.028 ' 0.8 ' 4 0.003 ' 0.028 ' 0.8 4 NA 0.077 ' 0.2 1 2.1 ' 10.7 ' 4.6 ' 9.2 ' 10 NA 0.15 ' NA

1 ' 5 ' 3.28 ' 13.14 ' 6.87 ' NA 68.7 ' NA NA NA NA NA 1.13 11.3 8 80 ' 997 ' NA 88 ' 284 ' 0.4 0.8 ' 0.2 ' 0.33 11.4 ' NA 0.21 ' 2.1 14.5 ' 131 ' 160 ' 320

Notes:

1. These reference doses were presented in Sample et al., 1996. 2. Substituted the RiDs for 1,2,-Dichloroethane presented in Sample et al., 19%. 3. Because there were no available NOAEL and LOAEL for birds, we used the NOAEL and LOAEL reported

for mammals divided by an uncertainty factor of 10.

g A31864 z23\31864-00 ljc\c»k*Veco Jab\foodweb\terrest\Z2300ler xb\RfD

9 1 s ^ s s s s u F'l Ml [T1 1*1 I ') l f'1 f'1 f [ * li u li li ( * • • ' • O O w - i f n O N ^ r^—i r 4 — - ( N *

99 UJ UJ \O m «n O

•ri

fr} —• _^ r- fs •"- *N —

( NS33Sr r | t f t "™f**Sf** l i r i r o r r >

• ^ • o o m f i x o o — ( N * n r - < N * o o v o \ - — ^ * * *

^vi»n'p^»rio o o o o o PJ UJ UJ PJ PJ UJr - ^ o o o o o o o UJUJuJUJuJUJUJuJ * - -

ss UJ UJ (N CN

• CJ h- U- U-, Uu U. - .3 TT < •a oo>N S

File No. 31864.00 2/9/01

TABLE J-9

CALCULATION OF DAILY DOSES BASED ON AVERAGE SURFICIAL SOIL CONCENTRATIONS SHORT-TAILED SHREW

Central Landfill - OU2 Johnston, Rhode Island

HI:i:H!!£:Siyi:j!;H!yi|i;;!|:|!:||;j;;^ i j j i j I i j i i j i i j j i i l i j i y i y i l J E j i ^ ^ Illlllliisili 111! itlillll i;i:i:i;!ii; i ; i i i ; i ; i!Hyyi:i;i ; i :J:ij |

File No. 31864.00 2/9/01

TABLE J-10

CALCULATION OF DAILY DOSES BASED ON MAXIMUM SURFICIAL SOIL CONCENTRATIONS SHORT-TAILED SHREW

Central Landfill - OU2 Johnston, Rhode Island

ji jji£i:jj;i!;;j!i$i;j;;jjyii;i£i£^^

I:!:!: i:!:;:i:i:!:i:;i::|:i: !:•:!:!:;:!:!:;:!:!:!: I:!:!: hi:;:!:;:!:!:!:;:;:;:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:;:;:!:!:!:

Illllllll ;;:;;;;;tev*e:Fftfeatie;;;;;;;: ;;;:|::;;;;;;;B()dy:;;;:i;;;;;;;; ;;:;l:;;i;;:Bujrd^ii;;::;l;!;!;: ;hii6&j£ijyei:SJteig&0;


1,1,1-Trichloroethane 9.20E-02 2.23E-02 1.24E-02 3.76E-03 2.60E-02 Methyl ethyl ketone 2.00E-03 3.51E-03 1.96E-03 8.18E-05 1.04E-02


2-Methylphenol 1.30E-01 7.05E-03 3.93E-03 5.32E-03 9.25E-03 Anthracene 7.30E-02 5.97E-04 3.33E-04 2.99E-03 3.32E-03 Benzo(a)anthracene 2.90E-01 5.80E-03 3.24E-03 1.19E-02 1.5 IE-02 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.80E-01 1.53E-02 8.55E-03 1.14E-02 2.00E-02 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 5.90E-01 3.01E-02 1.68E-02 2.4 IE-02 4.09E-02 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1.52E-01 5.93E-03 3.31E-03 6.20E-03 9.50E-03 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.80E-01 7.30E-03 4.07E-03 7.36E-03 1.14E-02 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 2.40E+01 9.98E-OI 5.57E-01 9.8 IE-01 1.54E+00 Carbazole 7.50E-02 3.12E-03 1.74E-03 3.07E-03 4.8 IE-03 Chrysene 3.50E-01 9.80E-03 5.47E-03 1.43E-02 1.98E-02 Fluoranthene 6.30E-01 7.98E-03 4.45E-03 2.58E-02 3.02E-02 Indeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene 1.10E-01 7.38E-03 4.12E-03 4.50E-03 8.62E-03 Phenanthrene 4.20E-01 8.I8E-03 4.56E-03 1.72E-02 2.17E-02 Pyrene 7.70E-01 1.I3E-02 6.32E-03 3.15E-02 3.78E-02

Pesticides/PCBs

4,4'-DDD l.OOE-02 1.89E-03 1.06E-03 4.09E-04 1.47E-03 4,4'-DDE 3.70E-02 7.73E-03 4.3 IE-03 1.5 IE-03 5.83E-03 4,4'-DDT 1.10E-01 6.45E-02 3.60E-02 4.50E-03 4.05E-02 Aldrin 3.70E-03 7.07E-04 3.95E-04 1.5 IE-04 5.46E-04 alpha-Chlordane 4.00E-03 5.71E-06 3.19E-06 1.64E-04 1.67E-04 Endosulfan-sulfate 5.90E-03 8.26E-04 4.6 IE-04 2.4 IE-04 7.02E-04

Metals

Chromium, total 1.23E+01 6.22E+00 3.47E+00 5.03E-01 3.98E+00 Cyanide, total 2.50E+00 4.00E-01 2.23E-01 1.02E-01 3.25E-01 Iron, total 2.06E+04 2.57E+02 1.43E+02 8.42E+02 9.86E+02 Lead, total 1.45E+02 3.53E+01 1.97E+01 5.93E+00 2.56E+01 Manganese, total 5.56E-K)2 1.10E+01 6.15E+00 2.27E+01 2.89E+01 Selenium, total 1.43E+00 3.06E-01 1.71E-01 5.84E-02 2.29E-01 Vanadium, total 3.89E-K)! 5.48E-01 3.06E-01 1.59E+00 1.90E-I-00 Zinc, total 3.39E+03 7.00E+03 3.90E+03 1.39E+02 4.04E+03

Mean Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 1.09E-01 mean pH 5.22E+00 mean Soil Moisture Content (%) 3.40E+01

Notes:

Shrew Body Weight (kg) 0.015 Contaminated Fraction of Feeding Area = 1 Total Daily Food Intake (kg/kg-day) = 0.62 Fraction Composed of Invertebrates = 0.90 Fraction Incidentally Ingested Soil/Sediment: 0.1

g\31864.z23\31864-00 IjcValoteco tab\fooh«btorea\Z2300ter xls\shrew dose - trox

http:31864.00

File No 31B64 00 2/9/01

TABLE J-ll

CALCULATION OF DAILY DOSES BASED ON AVERAGE SURFICIAL SOIL CONCENTRATIONS AMERICAN ROBIN Central Land R1I-OU2 Johnson, Rhode Island

payOasesi:;;;;;;:;;;: :i i:::!:!:::!:-:::: ::i:|:::&tiia(niila(it:i:i:j: j : | : ; : j : ; - \ : l^S&M I !; I ingiff !| 1 1 \ WM \ \ mtymiimmJJiymiilyi yiîiiy ijJklÛi W££$£m Wii^M Wm^M liiiiîil


1,1,1-Tnchloroethane 186E-02 450E-03 484E-04 I90E-03 204E-04 129E-03 3.40E-03 Methyl ethyl ketone 200E-03 3.51E-03 902E-04 148E-03 380E-04 139E-04 709E-03

Semi volatile Organic Compounds

2-Methylphenol 130E-OI 705E-03 578E-03 297E-03 304E-03 903E-03 1 50E-02 Anthracene 730E-O2 5.97E-04 125E-O4 25IE-04 656E-05 507E-03 539E-03 3enzo(a)anthracene 1 58E-OI 3.17E-03 541E-O5 I33E-O3 285E-05 1 IOE-02 124E-O2 Benzo(a)pyrene 172E-01 941E-03 323E-O5 397E-03 170E-05 1 I9E-02 1 59E-02 3enzo(b)f1uoranthene 194E-01 990E-03 330E-05 4I7E-03 174E-05 I35E-02 177E-02 3enzo(g,h,i)oerylene I26E-OI 4.92E-03 2I3E-03 207E-03 1 12E-O3 874E-03 1 19E-02 3enzo(k)fluoranthene 1 18E-OI 477E-03 201E-05 201E-03 106E-05 8I7E-03 102E-02 bis(2-Ethylhe)cyl)phthalate 245E+OO I02E-OI 4I4E-02 429E-02 2 18E-02 I70E-OI 235E-01 Carbazole 7SOE-02 312E-03 I27E-03 131E-03 668E-04 52IE-03 719E-03 Chrysene 144E-01 4.03E-03 454E-OS 1 TOE-03 2 39E-05 999E-03 1 I7E-02 Fluoranthene 209E-01 265E-03 I58E-04 1 I2E-03 831E-05 I46E-02 1 58E-O2 ndeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene 762E-02 5I1E-03 502E-06 215E-03 264E-06 5.29E-03 74SE-03 lienanthrene 174E-01 339E-03 267E-04 1 43E-03 14IE-04 L2IE-02 136E-02 Pyrene 250E-OI 369E-03 21IE-04 1 55E-03 1 1 IE-04 1 74E-02 1 91E-02

PesliciJesPCBs

4,4'-DDD 373E-03 706&O4 706E-07 298E-04 372E-07 259E-O4 557E-04 4,4'-DDE 987E-03 2.06E-03 1 56E-06 869E-04 823E-07 686E-04 1 56E-03 4,4'-DDT 221E-O2 I29E-02 447E-O6 545E-03 236E-O6 L53E-03 698E-03 Aldnn 151E-03 289E-04 265E-07 122E-04 I40E-07 105E-04 227E-04 alpha-Ch lordane 171E-03 2.44E-06 413E-07 I03E-06 218E-07 1 19E-04 12OE-04 ^ndosulran-sulfate 288E-03 403E-04 184E-05 I70E-04 967E-06 200E.O4 380E-04

Melak

Chromium, total 642E-K10 3.25E+00 814E-04 I.37E-KW 429E-O4 446E-OI 181E-KX) Cyanide, total 129E-HXI 206E-01 218E-02 868E-02 1 I5E-02 894E-02 188E-OI ion, total 106E+04 132E+O2 1 79E+OO 5.56E+OI 941E-OI 7.34E+O2 791E+02 Lead, total 661E+01 I61E+O1 5.02E-02 678E-KX) 265E-02 459E-KX) I.I4E+O1 Manganese, total I94E+O2 386E+OO 223E+CO 163E+OO 1 I8E-KX) 13SE+O1 1 63E+OI Selenium, total 654E-01 1406-01 1 77E-O4 590E-02 931E-05 454E-02 I05E-OI Vanadium, total 2.32E-KI1 327E-01 2I6E-03 1 38E-OI 1 I4E-03 16IE-KC I.75E+00 Zinc, total 298E+02 6.13E+02 I26E400 258E*02 662E-OI 207E+O1 280E+O2

Mean Total Organic Carbon (TOC) I09E-01 mean pH 5.22E-HX) nean Soil Moisture Content (%) 3.40E-H)1

Notes

Contaminated Fraction of Feeding Area = 1 Total Daily Food Intake (kg/kg-day) = 1 05 (average of studies summanzed in EPA(l993b) Fraction Composed of Plant Material = O.S (average of studies summarized in EPA(l993b) Fraction Composed of Invertebrates = 04 (average of studies summarized in EPA(1993b) Fraction Incidentally Ingested Soil/Sediment = 0.1 (based on American woodcock)

File No 31864 00 2/WOI

TABLEJ-I2

CALCULATION OF DAILY DOSES BASED ON MAXIMUM SURF1C1AL SOIL CONCENTRATIONS AMERICAN ROBIN Central Landfill - OU2

Johnston, Rhode Island

: iiiiiiiiîiiiiiî^^îiiiiiiiliHnn; iiiiiiîilii H^HHii

i iiijlîij i in i i i^ i i i i i i i i i i i 4iivîi: :̂ ^S ;̂ iii^Siii

pay?l«:KWÎ:;i ; i ; i ;Hi;î:; :lii^Hîii liiliSlil

Volatile Omanic Coimounds

1.1,1-Tnchloroethane 920E-02 2J3E-02 484E-04 939E-03 204E-04 639E-03 160E-02 Methyl ethyl ketone 200E-03 351E-03 902E-04 148E-03 380E-04 139E-04 709E-03

Semivotatite Organic Compounds

2-Methylphenol I3OE-01 705E-03 578E-03 297E-03 304E-03 903E-03 1SOE-02 Anthracene 730E-02 5.97E-04 I25E-04 251E-04 65«E-05 5.07E-03 539E-03 3enzo(a)anthracene 290E-01 5.80E-03 5.4 IE-05 244E-03 285E-05 201E-02 2.26E-02 3enzo(a)pyrene 280E-01 1.53E-02 323EXJ5 646E-03 1 70E-O5 195E-02 2.59E-02 Benzo(b)fluorantbene 590E-OI 301E-02 330E-05 I27E-02 174E-05 410E-02 5.37E^)2 Benzo(gXi)perylene I52E-01 5.93E-03 213E-03 250E-03 1 I2E-03 I05E-02 1.4IE-O2 BenzoflOfluoranthene I80E-OI 730E-03 201E-05 307E-O3 108E-05 I.25E-02 1.56E-O2 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 240E+01 998E-OI 414E-O2 42IE-01 2I8E-02 167E+00 2.1IE+OO Carbazok 750E-02 3I2E-03 127E-03 1 3 IE-03 668E-04 521E-03 719E-03 ~hrysene 350E-01 980E-03 454E-05 4 13E-03 239E-O5 2.43E-02 2.85E-O2 nuoranthene 630E-01 798E-03 1 58E-04 3.36E-03 831E-05 438E-02 472E-02 ndeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene >henanthrene

1 10E-01 420E-OI

7.38E-03 8I8E-03

502E-06 267E-04

31 IE-03 345E-03

264E-06 I41E-04

764E-03 292E-02

I08E-02 3.28E-02

*yrene 770E-OI I.13E-02 21 IE-04 478E-03 I.I IE-04 535E-02 584E-02

4,4'-DDD IOOE-02 I89E-03 706E-07 798E-04 3.72E-07 695E-O4 1 49E-03 4,4'-DDE 370E-02 7.T3E43 I56E-06 326E-03 823E-07 257E-03 583E-03 4,4'-DDT 1 IDE-01 6.45E-02 447E-06 272E-O2 2.36E-06 764E-03 348E^K Aldrin 370E-03 7.07E-04 265E-07 298E-O4 I40E-07 257E-04 555E-O4 alpha-Chlordane 4.00E-03 5.71E-06 413E-07 24IE-06 218E-07 278E-O4 281E-04 :ndosulfan-sulfate 590B-03 826E-04 184E-05 348E-04 967E-06 410E-04 767E-04

\4eials

Chromium, total 1 23E+01 622E+00 814E-04 262E+00 429E-04 855E-OI 348E+CO Cyanide, total 250E+00 400E-OI 2I8E-O2 169E-01 1.15E-02 174E-01 354E-OI Iron, total 206E*04 257E+O2 179E-K10 IO8E+02 941E-01 I.43E+03 154E+03 Lead, total I45E+02 353E+01 5.02E-02 I49E+01 265E-02 IOIE+01 25OE+01 Manganese, total 556E+02 J 10E+OI 2.23E+00 465E+00 1 18E+00 386E-*01 444E+01 Selenium, total I43E+OO 306E-01 IT7E-04 129E-01 931E-O5 992E-O2 228E-01 Vanadium, total 389EKI1 548E-01 2I5E-03 23IE-OI 1 14E-O3 2.70E+00 293E+00 Zinc, total 339E+O3 7.00E+03 I2SE+OO 295E+03 662E-01 2.36E+02 3 I8E+03

Mean Total Organic Carbon (TOC) I09E-OI meanpH 522E+00 nean Soil Moisture Content (%) 340E+OI

Contaminated Fraction of Feeding Area = Total Daily Food Intake (kg-ltg-day) = 1.05 (average of studies summarized in EPA(1993b) Fraction Composed of Plant Material = OS (average of studies summarized in EPA(1993b) Fraction Composed of Invertebrates = 04 (average of studies summarized in EPA(1993b) Fraction Incidentally Ingested Soil/Sediment = 0 I (based on American woodcock)

l W>4-00.1jc\cak*W» Ub\ibodweb\icii«sfiZ2100tef xliVROBIN IX>SI- - MAX

2/9/01 File No. 31864.00

TABLE J-13

COMPARISON OF PREDICTED DAILY DOSES TO TOXICOLOGICAL BENCHMARKS BASED ON AVERAGE SURFICIAL SOIL CONCENTRATIONS

MEADOW VOLE Central Landfill - OU2 Johnston, Rhode Island

Contaminant Daily Dose Benchmark Dose Toxicty Quotient (mg/kg/day) NOAEL LOAEL NOAEL LOAEL


1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 1.17E-03 1000 ' NA 1.17E-06 NA Methyl ethyl ketone 4.39E-03 1771 ' 4571 ' 2.48E-06 9.60E-07


2-Methylphenol (o -cresol) 2.82E-02 219.2 ' NA 1.29E-04 NA Anthracene 1.50E-03 1 10 1.50E-03 1 .50E-04 Benzo(a)anthracene 2.36E-03 1 10 2.36E-03 2.36E-04 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.93E-03 1 10 1.93E-03 1.93E-04 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.49E-03 1 10 2.49E-03 2.49E-04 Benzo(g,h,i )perylene 5.78E-03 1 10 5.78E-03 5.78E-04 Benzo(k)fl uoranthene 1.50E-03 1 ' 10 1.50E-03 1.50E-04 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 1.13E-OI 18.33 ' 183.3 ' 6.14E-03 6.14E-04 Carbazole 3.45E-03 NA NA NA NA Chrysene 2.1 IE-03 1 10 2. 11 E-03 2.1 IE-04 Fluoranthene 4.89E-03 1 10 4.89E-03 4.89E-04 Indeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene 8.19E-04 1 10 8.19E-04 8.19E-05 Phenanthrene 2.59E-03 1 10 2.59E-03 2.59E-04 Pyrene 4.35E-03 1 10 4.35E-03 4.35E-04

Pesticides/PCBs

4,4'-DDD 4.38E-04 0.8 ' 4 5.48E-04 1.10E-04 4,4'-DDE 8.05E-04 0.8 ' 4 1.0 IE-03 2.0 IE-04 4,4'-DDT 3.58E-04 0.8 ' 4 4.48E-04 8.96E-05 Total DDTR 1.60E-03 0.8 ' 4 2.00E-03 4.0 IE-04 Aldrin 1.84E-04 0.2 1 9.2 IE-04 1.84E-04 alpha-Chlordane 1.32E-04 4.6 9.2 2.86E-05 1.43E-05 Endosulfan-sulfate 1.27E-04 0.15 ' NA 8.46E-04 NA

Metals

Chromium, total 5.60E-02 3.28 ' 13.14 ' 1.7 IE-02 4.26E-03 Cyanide, total 6.02E-02 68.7 ' NA 8.76E-04 NA Iron, total 5.95E+01 NA NA NA NA Lead, total 5.55E-01 8 80 ' 6.94E-02 6.94E-03 Manganese, total 6.39E-KM) 88 ' 284 ' 7.26E-02 2.25E-02 Selenium, total 4.71 E-03 0.2 0.33 ' 2.36E-02 1.43E-02 Vanadium, total 1.27E-01 0.21 2.1 6.03E-01 6.03E-02 Zinc, total 8.28E+00 160 ' 320 ' 5.17E-02 2.59E-02

Hazard Quotient 8.8 IE-01 1.39E-01

Notes:

1 Sample et al., 1996. The reference doses for benzo(a)pyrene have been used as surrogates for other PAHs if other lexicological information was not identified,

la Substituted the NOAEL for 1,2,-Dichloroethane presented in Sample et al., 1996.

g:\31864.z23\31864-00 ljc\calcs\eco_tab\foodweb\terrest\Z2300ter.xls\Vole TQ - mean

http:31864.00

2/9/01 File No. 31864.00

TABLE J-14

COMPARISON OF PREDICTED DAILY DOSES TO TOXICOLOGICAL BENCHMARKS BASED ON MAXIMUM SOIL CONCENTRATIONS

MEADOW VOLE Central Landfill - OU2 Johnston, Rhode Island





2-Methylphenol (o -cresol) 2.82E-02 219.2 ' NA 1 .29E-04 NA Anthracene 1.50E-03 1 10 1.50E-03 1.50E-04 Benzo(a)anthracene 4.33E-03 I 10 4.33E-03 4.33E-04 Benzo(a)pyrene 3. HE-03 I 10 3.I4E-03 3.14E-04 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7.58E-03 1 10 7.58E-03 7.58E-04 3enzo(g,h, i)pery lene 6.96E-03 I 10 6.96E-03 6.96E-04 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2.30E-03 1 10 2.30E-03 2.30E-04 bis(2-EthylhexyI)phthalate 1.10E+00 18.3 ' 183 ' 6.03E-02 6.03E-03 Carbazole 3.45E-03 NA NA NA NA Chrysene 5.13E-03 1 10 5.13E-03 5.13E-04 Fluoranthene 1.47E-02 1 10 1.47E-02 1.47E-03 Indeno(l ,2,3-c,d)pyrene 1.18E-03 1 10 1.18E-03 1.18E-04 Phenanthrene 6.24E-03 I 10 6.24E-03 6.24E-04 Pyrene 1.34E-02 1 10 1.34E-02 1.34E-03 Total PAHs 1.30E+00 NA NA NA NA

Pesticides/PC Bs

4,4'-DDD 1.17E-03 0.8 ' 4 1.47E-03 2.94E-04 4,4'-DDE 3.02E-03 0.8 ' 4 3.78E-03 7.55E-04 4,4'-DDT 1.79E-03 0.8 ' 4 2.23E-03 4.46E-04 Total DDTR 5.98E-03 0.8 4 7.48E-03 1.50E-03 Aldrin 4.52E-04 0.2 1 2.26E-03 4.52E-04 alpha-Chlordane 3.08E-04 4.6 ' 9.2 6.70E-05 3.35E-05 Endosulfan-sulfate 2.60E-04 0.15 ' NA 1.73E-03 NA

Metals

Chromium, total .07E-01 3.28 ' 13.14 ' 3.27E-02 8.17E-03 Cyanide, total .17E-01 68.7 ' NA 1.70E-03 NA Iron, total .16E+02 NA NA NA NA Lead, total .22E+00 8 80 1.52E-01 1.52E-02 Vlanganese, total .83E+01 88 ' 284 ' 2.07E-01 6.43E-02 Selenium, total .03E-02 0.2 ' 0.33 ' 5.15E-02 3.12E-02 Vanadium, total 2.12E-01 0.21 ' 2.1 1.01E+00 1.01E-01 Zinc, total 9.44E+01 160 ' 320 ' 5.90E-01 2.95E-01

Hazard Quotient 2.19E+00 5.3 IE-01

Notes:

1 Sample et ah, 1996. The reference doses for benzo(a)pyrene have been used as surrogates for other PAHs if other toxicological information was not identified.

g:\3l864.z2teMt^^ in Sample et ah, 1996.

http:31864.00

2/9/01 File No. 31864.00

TABLE J-15

COMPARISON OF PREDICTED DAILY DOSES TO TOXICOLOGICAL BENCHMARKS BASED ON AVERAGE SURFICIAL SOIL CONCENTRATIONS

SHORT-TAILED SHREW Central Landfill - OU2 Johnston, Rhode Island



1,1,1 -Trichloroethane LITE-03 1000 ' NA 1.17E-06 NA Methyl ethyl ketone 2.04E-03 1771 ' 4571 ' 1.15E-06 4.46E-07


2-Methylphenol (o -cresol) 9.25E-03 219.2 ' NA 4.22E-05 NA Anthracene 3.32E-03 1 10 3.32E-03 3.32E-04 Benzo(a)anthracene 8.25E-03 1 10 8.25E-03 8.25E-04 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.23E-02 1 10 1.23E-02 1.23E-03 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.35E-02 1 10 1.35E-02 1.35E-03 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 7.89E-03 1 10 7.89E-03 7.89E-04 Benzo(k)fl uoranthene 7.47E-03 1 10 7.47E-03 7.47E-04 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 1.57E-01 18.33 ' 183.3 ' 8.57E-03 8.57E-04 Carbazole 4.8 IE-03 NA NA NA NA Chrysene 8.13E-03 1 10 8.13E-03 8.13E-04 Fluoranthene l.OOE-02 1 10 l.OOE-02 l.OOE-03 Indeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene 5.97E-03 1 10 5.97E-03 5.97E-04 Phenanthrene 9.00E-03 1 10 9.00E-03 9.00E-04 Pyrene 1.23E-02 1 10 1.23E-02 1.23E-03

Pesticides/PCBs

4,4'-DDD 5.47E-04 0.8 ' 4 6.83E-04 1.37E-04 4,4'-DDE 1.55E-03 0.8 ' 4 1.94E-03 3.89E-04 4,4'-DDT 8.12E-03 0.8 ' 4 1.0 IE-02 2.03E-03 Total DDTR 2.23E-04 0.8 4 2.78E-04 5.57E-05 Aldrin 2.23E-04 0.2 ' 1 1.1 IE-03 2.23E-04 alpha-Chlordane 7.13E-05 4.6 9.2 1.55E-05 7.75E-06 Endosul fan-sul fate 3.43E-04 0.15 NA 2.29E-03 NA

Metals

Chromium, total 2.07E-KX) 3.28 ' 13.14 ' 6.33E-01 1.58E-01 Cyanide, total 1.68E-01 68.7 ' NA 2.44E-03 NA Iron, total 5.06E-K)2 NA NA NA NA Lead, total 1.17E+01 8 80 1.46E-KX) 1.46E-01 Manganese, total 1.01E-H)! 88 ' 284 1.15E-01 3.56E-02 Selenium, total 1.05E-01 0.2 ' 0.33 ' 5.25E-01 3.18E-01 Vanadium, total 1.13E+00 0.21 ' 2.1 5.39E+00 5.39E-01 Zinc, total 3.54E+02 160 ' 320 2.22E+00 1.11E+00

Hazard Quotient 1.05E+01 2.32E+00

Notes:

1 Sample et al., 1996. The reference doses for benzo(a)pyrene have been used as surrogates for other PAHs if other lexicological information was not identified,

la Substituted the NOAEL for 1,2,-Dichloroethane presented in Sample et al., 1996. g:\31864.z23\31864-00.ljc\calcs\eco_(ab\foodweb\terrest\Z2300ter.xls\ShrewTQ - mean

http:31864.00

2/9/01 File No. 31864.00

TABLE J-16


SHORT-TAILED SHREW Central Landfill - OU2 Johnston, Rhode Island





2-Methylphenol (o -cresol) 9.25E-03 219.2 ' NA 4.22E-05 NA Anthracene 3.32E-03 ] 10 3.32E-03 3.32E-04 Benzo(a)anthracene 1.5 IE-02 1 10 1.5 IE-02 1.5 IE-03 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.00E-02 1 10 2.00E-02 2.00E-03 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.09E-02 1 10 4.09E-02 4.09E-03 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 9.50E-03 1 10 9.50E-03 9.50E-04 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.14E-02 1 10 1.14E-02 1.14E-03 bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 1.54E+00 18.3 ' 183 ' 8.4 IE-02 8.39E-03 Carbazole 4.8 IE-03 NA NA NA NA Chrysene 1.98E-02 1 10 1 .98E-02 1.98E-03 Fluoranthene 3.02E-02 1 10 3.02E-02 3.02E-03 Indeno(l ,2,3-c,d)pyrene 8.62E-03 1 10 8.62E-03 8.62E-04 Phenanthrene 2.17E-02 1 10 2.17E-02 2.17E-03 Pyrene 3.78E-02 1 10 ' 3.78E-02 3.78E-03 Total PAHs 4.41E-KK) NA NA NA NA

Pesticides/PCBs

4,4'-DDD 1.47E-03 0.8 ' 4 1.83E-03 3.66E-04 4,4'-DDE 5.83E-03 0.8 ' 4 7.28E-03 1.46E-03 4,4'-DDT 4.05E-02 0.8 ' 4 5.06E-02 1.0 IE-02 Total DDTR 4.78E-02 0.8 4 5.97E-02 1.19E-02 Aldrin 5.46E-04 0.2 1 2.73 E-03 5.46E-04 alpha-Chlordane 1.67E-04 4.6 9.2 3.63E-05 1.8 IE-05 Endosulfan-sulfate 7.02E-04 0.15 ' NA 4.68E-03 NA

Metals

Chromium, total 3.98E+00 3.28 ' 13.14 ' 1.21E+00 3.03E-01 Cyanide, total 3.25E-01 68.7 ' NA 4.74E-03 NA Iron, total 9.86E-K)2 NA NA NA NA Lead, total 2.56E-K)! 8 80 ' 3.20E-KM) 3.20E-01 Manganese, total 2.89E-K)! 88 284 ' 3.28E-01 1.02E-01 Selenium, total 2.29E-01 0.2 ' 0.33 1.15E-KK) 6.94E-01 Vanadium, total 1.90E+00 0.21 ' 2.1 9.03E-K)0 9.03 E-01 Zinc, total 4.04E+03 160 ' 320 ' 2.53E+01 1.26E+01

Hazard Quotient 4.06 E+01 1.50E+01

Notes:

1 Sample et al., 1996. The reference doses for benzo(a)pyrene have been used as surrogates for other PAHs if other toxicological information was not identified,

la Substituted the NOAEL for 1,2,-Dichloroethane presented in Sample et al., 1996. g:\31864z23\31864-OO.Ijc\calcs\eco_tab\foodweb\terrest\Z2300ter.xls\direwTQ-max

http:31864.00

2/9/01 File No 3186400

TABLE J-17

COMPARISON OF PREDICTED DAILY DOSES TO TOX1COLOGICAL BENCHMARKS BASED ON AVERAGE SOIL CONCENTRATIONS

AMERICAN ROBIN Central Landfill - OU2 Johnson, Rhode Island

CoMamihaht-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : - : - : :•:•:•:•:•:• i-EMiljM&iit: : ::: Behchma [iD6se::::::::::: :::::Tokifct>! Quaiiesr: :: ko*&*wO*yr :•: NOAEL:: : LOAEt; • : • : • : ::NX>AEli: WA&L


1,1,1 -Trichloroelhane 3.40E-03 100 3 NA 3.40E-05 NA Methyl ethyl ketone 7.09E-03 177.1 ' 457.1 s 4.00E-05 1.55E-05


2-Methylphenol (o-cresol) I.50E-02 21.92 ' NA 6.86E-04 NA Anthracene 5.39E-03 0. 1 5.39E-02 539E-03 Benzo(a (anthracene .24E-02 0. ' 1 1.24E-01 1.24E-02 Benzo(a)pyrene .S9E-02 0. 1 1.59E-01 1.59E-02 Benzo(b)fluoranthene .77E-02 0. J 1 > 1.77E-01 1.77E-02 Benzo(g,h,i Jperylene .19E-02 0 3 1 1.19E-01 1.19E-02 Benzo(k)nuoranthene .02E-02 0. 3 1 ' 1.02E-01 1 .02E-02 bis(2-Elhylhexyl)phthalate 2.35E-01 1. ' NA 2.14E-01 NA Carbazole 7.19E-03 NA NA NA NA Chrysene .17E-02 0.1 ' 1 ' 1.17E-01 1.17E-02 Fluoranthene .58E-02 0.1 1 J 1.58E-01 1.58E-02 [ndeno(l ,2,3-c,d)pyrene 7.45E-03 0.1 ' 1 5 7.45E-02 7.45E-03 Phenanthrene 1.36E-02 0.1 ' 1 ' 1.36E-01 1.36E-02 Pyrene 1.9 IE-02 O.I 1 ! 1.91E-01 1.9 IE-02 Total PAHs 6.70E-01 NA NA NA NA

Pesticides/PCBs

4,4'-DDD 5.57E-04 0.003 ' 0.028 ' 1.86E-01 1.99E-02 4,4'-DDE I.56E-03 0003 ' 0.028 ' 5.18E-01 5.55E-02 4,4'-DDT 6.98E-03 0.003 ' 0.028 ' 2.33E+00 2.49E-01 Total DDTR 9.IOE-03 0.003 ' 0.028 ' 3.03E+00 3.25E-01 Aldrin 2.27E-04 NA 0.077 ' NA 2.94E-03 alpha-Chlordane 1.20E-04 2 1 10.7 ' 5.72E-05 1 12E-05 -ndosul fan- sul fate 3.80E-04 10 ' NA 380E-05 NA

Metals

Chromium, total I.81E+00 I 5 ' 1.81E+00 3.63E-01 Cyanide, total 1.88E-01 6.87 ' NA 2.73E-02 NA iron, total 7.91E-KJ2 NA NA NA NA ,ead, total 1.I4E+OI 1.13 ' 11.3 1.01E+01 1.01E+00 Manganese, total 1.63E-KH 997 ' NA 1.64E-02 NA Selenium, total I.05E-01 0.4 ' 0.8 2.61E-01 1.31E-01 Vanadium, total 1.75E+00 1 1 4 NA 1.54E-01 NA Zinc, total 2.80E+02 145 ' 131 ' 1.93E+01 2.14E+00

Hazard Quotient 3.93E+OI 4.43E+00

Notes:

1. These reference doses were presented in Sample et al., 1996. 2. Substituted the NOAEL for 1,2,-Dichloroethane presented in Sample et al., 1996 3 Because there were no available NOAEL and LOAEL for birds, we used the NOAEL and LOAEL reported

for mammals divided by an uncertainty factor of 10.

g\31864 z23\31864-001jc\cafcs\cco lab\foodw«b\terfes

2/9/01 Fife No 3186400

TABLE J-18


AMERICAN ROBIN Central Landfill - OU2 Johnston, Rhode Island

Contaminant-: : - : • : • : • : • : I - : - : - : - : - : - : - : - : - : - : - : - : - : - : :•:•:•:•:•:• ::&ftljtttK: :::;::Beflekmark:Dos«:::: :::::: ^xtcwidty: Orient;: i •frng/kg/tiay) :•: KOAEt: : : LWAbt : •: .


1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Methyl ethyl ketone

1.60E-02 7.09E-03

100177.1

> 3

NA 4

Documents

FINAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (RI) AND RISK ...TERRESTRIAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR MAMMALIAN AND AVIAN RECEPTORS APPENDIX J TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.00 INTRODUCTIO J-N l 2.00 FOO WEBD MODEL