OJ
f Contract No.: EP-W-09-002 ° , WA #: 001-RICO-02QQ
Region 2 RAC2 Remedial Action Contract
Final Screening Level Ecological Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Risk Assessment Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Cayuga County, New York
March 25, 2011
R2-0024679
FINAL SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT CAYUGA GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE CAYUGA COUNTY, NEW YORK Work Assignment No. 001‐RICO‐02QQ
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 290 Broadway New York, New York 10007‐1866
Prepared by CDM Federal Programs Corporation 14 Wall Street, Suite 1702 New York, New York 10005
EPA Work Assignment No. : 001‐RICO‐02QQ EPA Region : 2 Contract No. : EP‐W‐09‐002 CDM Federal Programs Corporation Document No. : 3320‐001‐00767 Prepared by : CDM Site Manager : Joseph Mayo, CHMM Telephone Number : (212) 377‐4517 EPA Remedial Project Manager : Isabel Rodrigues Telephone Number : (212) 637‐4248 Date Prepared : March 25, 2011
R2-0024680
Contents
Section 1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Objectives ...... 1-1 1.2 Report Organization ...... 1-2
Section 2 Problem Formulation ...... 2-1 2.1 Environmental Setting ...... 2-1 2.1.1 Site Location and Description ...... 2-1 2.1.2 Site History ...... 2-1 2.1.3 Site Geology and Hydrogeology ...... 2-2 2.1.3.1 Regional Geology ...... 2-2 2.1.3.2 Regional Hydrogeology ...... 2-2 2.1.3.3 Site-Specific Hydrogeology ...... 2-3 2.1.4 Habitat and Biota ...... 2-5 2.1.4.1 Owasco Outlet ...... 2-5 2.1.4.2 Crane Brook ...... 2-5 2.1.4.3 Union Springs ...... 2-6 2.1.5 Threatened, Endangered Species/Sensitive Environments ...... 2-7 2.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 2-8 2.2.1 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling ...... 2-8 2.3 Risk Questions ...... 2-9 2.4 Conceptual Site Model ...... 2-9 2.4.1 Sources of Contamination ...... 2-10 2.4.2 Exposure Pathways ...... 2-10 2.4.3 Assessment Endpoints ...... 2-11 2.4.4 Measurement Endpoints ...... 2-11 2.5 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern ...... 2-12
Section 3 Exposure Assessment ...... 3-1 3.1 Chemical Properties of Detected Chemicals ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Bioavailability ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Environmental Persistence ...... 3-2 3.2 Magnitude and Distribution of Detected Chemicals ...... 3-2 3.3 Exposure Scenarios ...... 3-3
Section 4 Ecological Effects Assessment ...... 4-1 4.1 Literature-Based Effects Data ...... 4-1 4.2 Evaluation of Site-Specific Data ...... 4-2
Section 5 Risk Characterization ...... 5-1 5.1 Hazard Quotient Approach ...... 5-1 5.2 HQ-based Risk Estimates ...... 5-1 5.3 Evaluation of Site-Specific Data ...... 5-1 5.4 Approach of Evaluations ...... 5-2 5.5 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern ...... 5-2 5.5.1 Chemicals of Potential Concern in Surface Water ...... 5-2 5.5.1.1 Owasco Outlet ...... 5-2
A i Final SLERA
R2-0024681 Table of Contents 5.5.1.2 Crane Brook ...... 5-2 5.5.1.3 Union Springs ...... 5-2 5.5.2 Chemicals of Potential Concern in Sediment ...... 5-2 5.6 Risk Summary ...... 5-3
Section 6 Uncertainty Assessment ...... 6-1 6.1 Problem Formulation ...... 6-1 6.2 Exposure Assessment ...... 6-2 6.3 Effects Assessment ...... 6-2 6.4 Risk Characterization ...... 6-3
Section 7 Summary and Conclusions ...... 7-1
Section 8 References ...... 8-1
List of Tables 2‐1 List of Vegetation Observed 2‐2 List of Wildlife Species or Signs of Wildlife Observed 2‐3 Analytical Results of Detected Chemicals in Surface Water 2‐4 Analytical Results of Detected Chemicals in Sediment 4‐1 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern in Surface Water and Sediment
List of Figures 1‐1 Site Location and Overview 2‐1 Owasco Outlet and Crane Brook Surface Water Sample Location 2‐2 Union Springs Surface Water and Sediment Sample Location 2‐3 Conceptual Site Model
List of Appendices Appendix A Letters from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Appendix B Analytical Results Appendix C Comparison of Reporting Limits with Ecological Screening Levels
ii A Final SLERA
R2-0024682
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BERA baseline ecological risk assessment bgs below ground surface CDM CDM Federal Programs Corporation CLP Contract Laboratory Program COPC chemical of potential concern CRDL contract required detection limit CSM conceptual site model DCE dichloroethene DDT dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane DESA Division of Environmental Science and Assessment EC exposure concentration EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ERAGS Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund ESL ecological screening level FS feasibility study ft feet gpm/ft gallons per minute per foot HQ hazard quotient Koc organic carbon‐water partitioning coefficient LDL low detection level LOAEL lowest‐observed‐adverse effects level MCL maximum contaminant level msl mean sea level NOAEL no‐observed‐adverse‐effects level NPL National Priorities List NY New York NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSDOH New York State Department of Health PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls ppb parts per billion QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RAC Response Action Contract REAC Response, Engineering and Analytical Contract RI remedial investigation SLERA screening level ecological risk assessment SMDP scientific management decision point TCA tetrachloroethane TCE trichloroethene the site Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site TOC total organic carbon USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geologic Survey VOC volatile organic compound
A iii Final SLERA
R2-0024683
Section 1 Introduction CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM) received Work Assignment Number 001‐RICO‐02QQ under the Response Action Contract (RAC) II program to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site (the site) located in Cayuga County, New York (NY) (Figure 1‐1). This RI/FS including a screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) is conducted for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2. The overall purpose of the work assignment is to investigate the nature and extent of contamination at the site and to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives, as appropriate.
1.1 Objectives The objective of this SLERA is to identify the potential current and future environmental risks associated with the site that would exist if no action is taken. This SLERA focuses on the impacts of contaminants in surface water and sediment from three water bodies (Owasco Outlet, Crane Brook, and Union Springs) at the site to aquatic dependent ecological receptors. Conservative assumptions were used in this SLERA to indicate which contaminants and exposure pathways present at the site may result in ecological risks.
This report was prepared in accordance with the following documents:
EPA Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Interim Final (ERAGS) (EPA 1997)
EPA Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (EPA 1998)
The SLERA consists of Steps 1 and 2 of the eight step process presented in the EPA’s ERAGS (EPA 1997). In Step 1 of the ERAGS, the screening level problem formulation and ecological effects evaluation, descriptions are developed of:
the environmental setting
contaminants known or suspected to exist at the site and the maximum concentrations present in each medium
contaminant fate and transport mechanisms that might exist
mechanisms of ecotoxicity associated with contaminants and categories of receptors that may be affected
potentially complete exposure pathways
screening ecotoxicity values equivalent to chronic no‐observed‐adverse‐effect levels (NOAELs) based on conservative assumptions
A 1-1 Final SLERA
R2-0024684 Section 1 Introduction In Step 2 of the ERAGS, the screening level preliminary exposure estimate and risk calculations, risk is estimated by comparing maximum detected exposure concentrations with the ecotoxicity screening values identified in Step 1. The process concludes with a scientific management decision point (SMDP) at which it is determined that:
ecological threats are negligible
the ecological risk assessment should continue to determine whether a risk exists
there is a potential for adverse ecological effects, and a baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA), incorporating site‐specific information, is needed
Per EPA’s ERAGS (EPA 1997), a SMDP will be made by risk managers.
1.2 Report Organization This SLERA is composed of eight sections and three appendices. The following overview presents the organization of the report and the contents of each section.
Section 1 Introduction B provides an overview of the objectives and organization of the report. Section 2 Problem Formulation B provides a description of the site, environmental setting, nature and extent of contamination, risk questions, conceptual site model (CSM), and the process for identifying selecting chemicals of potential concern (COPCs). Section 3 Exposure Assessment B presents the pathways and media through which receptors may be exposed to site contaminants. Section 4 Effects Assessment B presents literature based media‐ and chemical‐specific ecological screening levels (ESLs) for detected chemicals. Section 5 Risk Characterization B integrates information from the exposure and effects assessments and discusses chemical properties of identified COPCs to evaluate risk to representative ecological receptors. Section 6 Uncertainty Analysis B discusses the uncertainties associated with assumptions utilized in this SLERA. Section 7 Summary and Conclusions B summarizes the significant findings of the SLERA. Section 8 References B provides a list of the references cited in this SLERA.
Tables and figures are presented at the end of the text. In addition, Appendix A presents letters received from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Natural Heritage Program of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regarding the presence of threatened and endangered species at or in the vicinity of the site. Appendix B provides analytical results of surface water and sediment samples used to develop this SLERA. Appendix C includes the comparisons of contract required reporting limits and surface water and sediment screening levels.
1-2 A Final SLERA
R2-0024685
Section 2 Problem Formulation The problem formulation for this SLERA contains overviews of the environmental setting, nature and extent of contamination, risk questions, conceptual site model, and the process for identifying COPCs. 2.1 Environmental Setting This subsection describes the site location and description, site history, site geology and hydrogeology, ecological habitat and biota, and threatened and endangered species that may occur at or in the vicinity of the site.
2.1.1 Site Location and Description The site consists of a plume of contaminated groundwater from an unconfirmed source. The site is located southwest of Syracuse, NY in a rural area of Cayuga County. It lies between the City of Auburn to the northeast and the Village of Union Springs to the southwest and is located along the east shore of Cayuga Lake, the longest of the Finger Lakes (Figure 1‐1). The suspected extent of the groundwater contamination plume covers an area of approximately 3,050 acres. The plume extends from the City of Auburn to the Village of Union Springs, at a distance of seven miles and includes the townships of Aurelius, Fleming, and Springport.
Cayuga County is approximately 694 square miles in size. The area is primarily rural, consisting of residential properties intermixed with extensive farmland and patches of woodlands. Residential and business properties are typically located near towns and cities within the County. The study area is located in a glaciated valley of karst terrain and low relief. Elevations range from approximately 700 feet (ft) above mean sea level (msl) near Auburn with generally decreasing elevations to 400 ft above msl near Cayuga Lake.
The majority of the study area lies within the Crane Brook and the Cayuga Lake Watersheds. The Cayuga Lake Watershed contains many small and intermittent streams that are typically less than one mile long. Several ponds were observed during CDM’s April 2004 and October 2005 site visits and are generally common over most of the study area. In general, water from these streams and ponds flows into Cayuga Lake then north into the Seneca River and ultimately to Lake Ontario.
2.1.2 Site History In 1985, New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) conducted routine testing of the Village of Union Springs municipal drinking water supply which revealed low levels of cis‐1,2‐dichloroethene (cis‐1,2‐DCE). NYSDEC conducted a potential volatile organic compound (VOC) source area investigation in 1999, which included residential and private water supply wells. Eighteen residential wells and a well at the Union Springs Academy were found to be contaminated with VOCs. Distribution of the contamination indicated that the source(s) were located to the northeast, toward the City of Auburn.
By April 2001, over 300 residential and private water supply wells were sampled in relation to investigations conducted by EPA, NYSDEC, and NYSDOH. As a result of these sampling events, EPA determined that 51 residential wells were contaminated with VOCs, primarily
A 2-1 Final SLERA
R2-0024686 Section 2 Problem Formulation trichloroethene (TCE), cis‐1,2‐DCE, and vinyl chloride at levels above the federal maximum contaminant concentrations (MCLs) for drinking water. Twenty‐four of these drinking water supply wells were found to be contaminated above EPA’s Remedial Action Levels for vinyl chloride and/or cis‐1,2‐DCE (2 parts per billion [ppb] and 400 ppb, respectively).
The site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) on September 13, 2001. It was placed on the NPL on September 5, 2002. The EPA is the lead agency for the site and has primary responsibility for conducting remedial actions. From September 2001 to June 2003, EPA’s Response Engineering and Analytical Contract (REAC) subcontractor conducted a four‐phased assessment to identify potential source areas for the site. Installation of monitoring wells into the Bertie formation during this period revealed significant solution weathering and voids in that formation. It is suspected to act as a regional drain in areas. In April 2004, Westbay multiport wells were installed in 12 existing boreholes within the plume. VOCs, including vinyl chloride, cis‐1,2‐DCE, trans‐1,2‐DCE, TCE, and toluene, have been detected in the monitoring wells and multiport wells as recently as August 2007.
2.1.3 Site Geology and Hydrogeology The regional geology and hydrogeology sections describe the formations that comprise the geology of Cayuga County, including the depositional and erosional sequences that formed the aquifer complex below the site.
2.1.3.1 Regional Geology The study area is located at the northern edge of the Allegheny Plateau Physiographic Province in the Finger Lakes region. The Allegheny Plateau is a table land that has been cut by weathering and erosion into significant hills and valleys and greatly modified by glaciers. The plateau occupies most of NY south of Interstate‐90 (I‐90) and west of I‐81. Silurian and Devonian limestone, shale, and sandstone form almost all of the plateau=s bedrock in NY. These formations dip gradually southward from the north edge of the plateau, becoming younger (from Middle Devonian to Upper Devonian) from the northern escarpment to the Pennsylvania border (Roberts 1996). Faulting and folding of the plateaus also tends to occur in this area of NY.
The youngest rocks are the lower members of the Middle Devonian Marcellus Formation which are underlain, in descending order, by the Middle Devonian Onondaga Formation, the Lower Devonian Manlius and Rondout Formations, the Upper Silurian Cobleskill Formation and the Bertie Group. The Oriskany Formation is present in the study area and has been identified below the Onondaga Formation; however, this formation has been described as only several inches thick in the study area (Foster Wheeler 2003). During the RI CDM observed that overburden material varies in thickness from 2 ft to 45 ft thick. The overburden is comprised of glaciolacustrine deposits of clay, silt, fine sand, and glacial till. The glacial till is composed of poorly sorted gravel, cobbles, and boulders in a clayey silt matrix (Foster Wheeler 2003 and CDM observations during well installation).
2.1.3.2 Regional Hydrogeology Much of the stratigraphic sequence in the study area is significantly fractured (Lockheed Martin 2003). The upper portion of the Forge Hollow Member of the Bertie Group, a gypsiferous, shaley dolostone and shale, contains significant solution weathering and is highly vuggy. Borehole video logs have also shown the Forge Hollow to contain significant voids. This 2-2 A Final SLERA
R2-0024687 Section 2 Problem Formulation zone likely represents a regional drain due to its high transmissivity and typically has the lowest hydraulic head within the vertical sequence investigated.
The flow of groundwater may be affected by the faulting and folding that takes place in this area. The faulting and folding also affects the secondary porosity of the zone. A conceptual model of the regional groundwater flow developed by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) shows the regional drain of the study area to be in a southwestward direction from the Town of Auburn to discharge points at Cayuga Lake and Union Springs. In addition, Owasco Outlet may act as a local drain of the shallow formations to the north and east of the observed contamination (USGS 2004). Solution weathering in the area extends to the surface as sinkholes and affects drainage in the area.
2.1.3.3 Site‐Specific Hydrogeology The hydrogeologic conceptual model for the study area includes four hydrogeologic units: overburden, shallow bedrock, intermediate bedrock, and deep bedrock.
Overburden The overburden aquifer consists of fine‐grained, unconsolidated glacial deposits composed of both glaciolacustrine material and underlying glacial till with thicknesses ranging from 5 ft to 45 ft. Groundwater flow is generally influenced by surface features such as drainage ditches and streams as well as underground utilities. Shallow groundwater in the northern portion of the site near Owasco Outlet and Crane Brook generally flows north, and shallow groundwater in the southern portion of the site near Union Springs generally flows south.
Precipitation typically results in a relatively uniform distribution of recharge to the overburden unit and discharge of groundwater flow is described as local. However, downward flow into the underlying shallow bedrock hydrogeologic unit also occurs (Foster Wheeler 2003).
Shallow Bedrock The shallow bedrock hydrogeologic units are comprised of the Marcellus Formation (about 50 ft thick) and the Seneca, Moorehouse, Nedrow, and Edgecliff Members of the Onondaga Formation (75 ft thick). The shallow bedrock units are composed of fissile Marcellus shale overlying bedded Onondaga limestone which contains argillaceous, cherty, and massive cystallis units (Foster Wheeler 2003; Ver Straeten et al. 1994).
Water levels obtained within the shallow bedrock hydrogeologic unit indicate a potentiometric surface which is generally below the overburden water table. Water levels in the shallow bedrock fluctuate up to 10 ft seasonally (Foster Wheeler 2003).
Groundwater in the shallow bedrock discharges to local streams. In addition, it serves as a source of recharge to underlying intermediate and deep bedrock units. Recharge to the shallow bedrock is affected by sinkholes that directly receive storm water runoff. Potentiometric data collected during the period from 2004 to 2006 show that water level elevations in the shallow unit are significantly higher than elevations in the underlying deep unit. Differences in elevation are in the tens of feet. This indicates the intermediate unit, described below, is acting to separate the two units and that there is a significant downward gradient from the shallow unit to the deep unit. Downward leakage from the shallow to
A 2-3 Final SLERA
R2-0024688 Section 2 Problem Formulation intermediate and deep bedrock zones is largely focused along high‐angle fractures (USGS 2004).
Intermediate Bedrock The intermediate bedrock is made up of the Oriskany, Dolostones, and Manlius Formations. The intermediate bedrock unit is composed of bedded limestones except for the Oriskany Formation, which ranges from non‐existent to less than one ft in thickness and is sometimes represented by remnant phosphatic nodules and sandstone clasts that have been reworked into the base of the Onondaga Formation (Foster Wheeler 2003). During 2004 through 2006 water level data collected from this unit has generally been at a higher elevation than the underlying deep unit indicating that the underlying deep unit is unconfined. However, at some locations confined conditions were observed. In addition this unit was observed to be dry on some occasions.
Deep Bedrock The deep bedrock consists of limestone and dolostone and evaporite beds of the Devonian to Silurian‐age Rondout and Cobleskill Formations and the Bertie Group, with characteristics typical of many carbonate aquifers. The Devonian‐Silurian contact is within the Rondout Formation.
In general, the deep bedrock is described as more fractured and more permeable than the limestones of the shallow and intermediate bedrock. Transmissivities within the solution‐opened gypsum unit of the Bertie Formation generally exceed those of other units. The deep bedrock system does not appear to discharge locally based on water‐level elevations, which are significantly lower than the elevation of nearby streams, although the Maralius Formation may discharge locally into Owasco Outlet within the City of Auburn.
Regional groundwater flow in the deep bedrock in the study area is generally to the west‐southwest toward Cayuga Lake. The lake likely acts as a local to sub‐regional groundwater discharge area. Artesian conditions have been observed in bedrock wells and springs in Union Springs, located in the southern plume area. The deep bedrock aquifer receives groundwater recharge from leakage of the overlying bedrock units and possibly from localized recharge in its outcrop area located north of West Genesee Street. As a result, water levels in the deep bedrock rise rapidly (sometimes by more than 10 ft) in response to individual precipitation events. Additionally, seasonal changes in surface water runoff cause water levels to fluctuate in excess of 40 ft in the deep bedrock system.
Information obtained during the RI shows the Forge Hollow to be a gypsiferous shaley dolostone which is significantly solution‐weathered and highly vuggy. Significant voids in the Forge Hollow result in high transmissivities and typically the lowest hydraulic head within the boreholes investigated. The two Union Springs municipal water supply wells, located 2,500 ft north of the Union Springs town center, have a specific capacity of 34 to 52 gallons per minute per foot (gpm/ft) and each well pumps at an average rate of 180 gpm, mainly from the Forge Hollow unit. The wells extend 160 to 210 ft below ground surface (bgs) and cavernous openings approximately 85 to 120 ft bgs have been reported in the area of the municipal wells (Foster Wheeler 2003).
2-4 A Final SLERA
R2-0024689 Section 2 Problem Formulation The middle and lower parts of the Onondaga, the entire Manlius, and sometimes the uppermost shalestone and dolostone units of the Rondout often serve as a significant confining unit, which can generate differences in vertical heads that can exceed 120 ft between the shallow and deep bedrock units in some areas.
2.1.4 Habitat and Biota An ecological reconnaissance was performed at the site during October 10‐12, 2005. The site is divided into three areas, based on the associated water bodies that were sampled, and included Owasco Outlet, Crane Brook, and Union Springs. These water bodies were selected for sampling and were included in the ecological reconnaissance because they likely receive potentially contaminated groundwater discharge.
Each water body and surrounding riparian areas were included in the ecological reconnaissance. The objective of the survey was to determine whether the ecosystem appears to be negatively impacted by site‐related contamination and to identify dominant vegetation and wildlife species within each area. The habitat and biota identified in each of the three areas observed are discussed below. Lists of plants and wildlife observed are presented in Tables 2‐1 and 2‐2, respectively.
2.1.4.1 Owasco Outlet The Owasco Outlet is a river which flows from east to west through downtown Auburn. The Owasco Outlet is classified as a Class C surface water (6 New York Codes Regulations and Rules [NYCRR] Part 701) indicating the waters are suitable for fishing and secondary contact recreation, but not as a source of water for drinking, culinary, and food processing purposes or for primary contact recreation. The Owasco Outlet is an open urbanized stream, consisting of a rocky substrate exhibiting few sediment depositional areas. One fish was observed, but the species could not be identified. A variety of invertebrates, fish, reptiles and amphibians are expected to inhabit the area.
The vegetation along the river is dominated by deciduous trees, grasses, vines, and other herbaceous species. Dominant tree species include Norway maple (Acer platanoides), red maple (Acer rubrum), elm (Ulmus sp.), locust (Robinia sp.), and ash (Fraxinus sp.). Small trees such as fire cherry (Prunus penslyvanica) and staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina) were also observed. Butter and eggs, (Linaria vulgaris), white heath aster (Aster pilosus), calico aster (Aster lateriflorus), north England aster (Aster novae‐angliae), and white snakeroot (Eupatorium rugosum) are the dominating herbaceous species present. Submergent macrophytes grow sporadically within the river, usually towards center stream.
Wildlife observed along the river are consistent with those found in disturbed habitats included birds common to Eastern deciduous forests such as northern cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis), black‐capped chickadees (Poecile atricapilla), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), red‐bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), and the brown creeper (Certhia americana). Eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) was also observed in the Owasco Outlet.
2.1.4.2 Crane Brook Crane Brook is a shallow creek located south of the Owasco Outlet which runs through the outskirts of the town of Auburn. Similar to Owasco Outlet, Crane Brook is classified as a Class C surface water (6 New York Codes Regulations and Rules [NYCRR] Part 701). A variety of A 2-5 Final SLERA
R2-0024690 Section 2 Problem Formulation aquatic and/or semi‐aquatic organisms are expected to utilize or inhabit Crane Brook; however, none were observed during the ecological reconnaissance.
Deciduous trees, grasses, vines, and other herbaceous species dominate the area. The dominant tree species include red maple, locusts, and ash (Fraxinus L.). White heath aster, calico aster, north England aster, and white snakeroot are the dominating herbaceous species present. Small patches of cattail (Typha latifolia) marsh occur sporadically along the bank of Crane Brook. The presence of cattails is indications of wetland areas.
Birds present along the Crane Brook include species well adapted to disturbed habitats, such as goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), cardinal, robin (Turdus migratorius), as well as those that inhabit wooded and stream bank habitats, such as song sparrow (Melospiza meloida), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), red‐bellied woodpecker, and yellow‐rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata). Additional observations included a red‐tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), a late migrating black‐throated green warbler (Dendroica virens), and toad tadpoles (Bufo sp.).
2.1.4.3 Union Springs Water bodies within the Union Springs area are classified as a Class C surface water (6 New York Codes Regulations and Rules [NYCRR] Part 701). A variety of aquatic and/or semi‐aquatic organisms are expected to utilize or inhabit the Union Springs area; however, none were observed during the ecological reconnaissance.
The Union Springs area consists of woods, large lot residential dwellings, a few businesses, a town maintenance yard, two ponds (the larger one to the north and the smaller one to the south), drainage ditches and streams that drain into Cayuga lake.
The vegetation along the ponds and streams are relatively similar. Deciduous trees, grasses, vines, and herbaceous species dominate the area. Dominant tree species include American basswood (Tilia americana), Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), black walnut (Juglans nigra), elm, boxelder (Acer negundo), staghorn sumac, locust, willow (Salix sp.), and birch (Betula sp.). Goldenrod (Solidago sp.), butter and eggs, white heath aster, calico aster, north England aster, and white snakeroot are the dominating herbaceous present. Grape (Vitus sp.), blackberry (Rubus sp.), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) were the dominant vines observed. Submergent macrophytes grow sporadically within the streams and ponds towards the center. The intermittent streams pass through several patches of marsh consisting of cattails, willows, rushes and sedges. The presence of cattails and rushes are indications of wetland areas. These vegetative species were observed along the banks of streams at various locations.
Wildlife observed included mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) and belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) at the south pond. Mallard ducks, great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and great egrets (Ardea alba) were observed along the intermittent streams and marsh beds. Mallard ducks, Canada geese (Branta canadensis), ring billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) and herring gulls (Larus argentatus) were observed on Cayuga Lake. In the wooded areas of Union Springs, typical species of residential areas such as wrens, cardinals and woodpeckers were observed. Some forest dependent species such as yellow‐bellied sapsuckers (Sphyrapicus varius) and white‐breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis) were observed in the wooded areas. Signs of white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were also observed.
2-6 A Final SLERA
R2-0024691 Section 2 Problem Formulation There were no apparent signs that the ecosystems on and around the site are being negatively impacted by groundwater contamination from the site. The habitats on‐site support a diverse community of wildlife and plant species that do not show signs of impairment. The rivers, intermittent streams, and ponds appeared to be well‐aerated.
During the ecological reconnaissance, only one fish at the Owasco Outlet was observed. However, Cayuga Lake is a prime fishing water body having lake (Salvelinus namaycush), brown (Salmo trutta), and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The warm water species, such as smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) are also reported to be present in Cayuga Lake. Many shoals and flats in Cayuga Lake provide plenty of chain pickerel (Esox niger), northern pike (Esox llucius), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (http://www.nycanal.com and http://www.gorp.away.com/gorp/location/ny/finger/cayuga.htm).
2.1.5 Threatened, Endangered Species/Sensitive Environments Information about threatened and endangered species and ecologically sensitive habitats that may exist on and around the site was requested from the Natural Heritage Program of NYSDEC and the USFWS. Letters received from both agencies in reply are presented in Appendix A and summarized below.
A letter received from the USFWS reported that a review of their records indicated that the following Federally‐listed threatened and endangered species are known to occur within 27 miles from the site:
Federally‐Listed Endangered Species:
Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)
No other federally‐listed threatened or endangered species are known to exist in the vicinity of the site. Suitable foraging habitat for bald eagles and habitat for Indiana bat were not evident in the vicinity of the site.
A letter received from the NYSDEC reported that a review of their database indicated that the following threatened and endangered species have been observed within two‐mile buffer of the site:
State Listed Endangered Species:
Short‐eared Owl (Asio flammeus) Coopers Milkvetch (Astragalus neglectus) Slender Pondweed (Stuckenia filiformis ssp. Alpina)
State Listed Threatened Species:
Woodland agrimony (Agrimonia rostellata) Golden‐seal (Hydrastis canadensis) Twin‐leaf (Jeffersonia diphylla)
A 2-7 Final SLERA
R2-0024692 Section 2 Problem Formulation None of these species nor their suitable habitat were observed in the vicinity of the site during the ecological reconnaissance conducted in October 2005.
2.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination The suspected extent of the groundwater contamination plume covers an area of approximately 3,050 acres or 4.8 square miles. The plume extends from the City of Auburn to the Village of Union Springs, a distance of seven miles, and includes the townships of Aurelius, Fleming, and Springport. The potential exists that contaminated groundwater from these areas may be discharging into the surface water bodies identified in Section 2.1.1.
CDM currently is conducting a RI at the site. Preliminary results of the RI indicate that the chemicals of interest at the site are VOCs and the primary contaminants of concern are cis‐1,2‐DCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride. These site‐related contaminants have been detected in deep groundwater but not shallow groundwater. At Owasco Outlet and Crane Brook it is likely that groundwater discharges to surface water via springs and seeps, At Union Springs, springs and seeps were observed discharging groundwater to ponds and streams. Thus, this SLERA focuses on potential risks to ecological receptors associated with these surface water bodies.
2.2.1 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Potentially contaminated groundwater may discharge to the surface via springs and seeps along Owasco Outlet and Crane Brook, and via springs and seeps adjacent to Cayuga Lake in the Town of Union Springs. Surface water samples were collected from all three areas. Sediment samples were only collected from Union Springs as very few depositional areas were observed in Owasco Outlet and Crane Brook. No background surface water or sediment samples, except surface water SW‐OU‐01 at Owasco Outlet, were collected for this investigation.
Sample locations in surface water and sediment are summarized below and illustrated in Figures 2‐1 through 2‐3.
Owasco Outlet: Seven surface water samples (SW‐OU‐01 to SW‐OU‐07) (Figure 2‐1). SW‐OU‐01 serves as the background sample.
Crane Brook: Four surface water samples (SW‐CB‐01 to SW‐CB‐04) (Figure 2‐1)
Union Springs: Nine surface water and sediment samples (SW/SD‐US01 to SW/SD‐US09) (Figure 2‐2)
Sediment and surface water samples were collected following EPA‐approved methodologies included in Section 5.7, Final Quality Assurance Project Plant [QAPP] of Cayuga County Groundwater Contamination Site (CDM 2005a).
Surface water samples were analyzed for sulfate, sulfide, and low detection level (LDL) VOCs through the EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP). In addition, surface water samples were analyzed for alkalinity, ammonia, hardness, nitrate, nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, chloride, total organic carbon (TOC), total dissolved solids, and total suspended solids through EPA’s Division of Environmental Science and Assessment (DESA) laboratory. Field measurements
2-8 A Final SLERA
R2-0024693 Section 2 Problem Formulation including conductivity, pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and oxidation reduction potential were also taken at all surface water sampling locations during sampling.
Sediment samples were analyzed for TCL VOCs through the EPA CLP, and grain size, pH and TOC through EPA’s DESA laboratory. Detected concentrations of chemicals in surface water and sediment are summarized in Tables 2‐3 and 2‐4, respectively. Analytical results of surface water and sediment samples are provided in Appendix B.
The data validation indicated that approximately 17 percent of the sediment data and 7 percent of the surface water data were rejected due to exceedance of calibration criteria. Rejected sediment data were restricted to one sample (SD‐US‐04) and the field duplicate pair (SD‐US‐07 and SD‐US‐07DUP). Vinyl chloride, methyl acetate, cis‐ and trans‐1,3‐dichloropropene, and 1,1,2‐trichloroethane were rejected in some of the Union Springs and Owasco Outlet surface water samples also due to exceedance of calibration criteria. Subsequently, discussions were held with EPA and it was decided that re‐sampling would not be needed since the completeness of the data exceeded the project goal and the acceptable data were sufficient to meet project objectives.
2.3 Risk Questions Risk questions summarize important components of the problem formulation phase of the SLERA. Risk questions are directly related to testable hypotheses that can be accepted or rejected using the results of the SLERA. Selected risk questions to be answered in this SLERA are listed below:
Are site‐related contaminants present in surface water and/or sediment where ecological receptors may be exposed?
This question is addressed in the Exposure Assessment phase of the SLERA (Section 3).
Where present, are the concentrations of site‐related contaminants sufficiently elevated to impair the survival, growth, or reproduction of sensitive ecological receptors?
This question is addressed in the Effects Assessment and Risk Characterization phases of the SLERA (Sections 4 and 5).
Are known or potential ecological receptors sufficiently exposed to site‐related contaminants to cause adverse population‐level or community‐level effects?
This final question is addressed in the Risk Characterization phase of the SLERA (Section 5).
2.4 Conceptual Site Model The conceptual site model (CSM) integrates information regarding the potential sources and types of site‐related contamination; biogeochemical properties of contaminant classes; site geology, hydrology, and physical characteristics; and biological receptors observed and likely to be present at the site. This information is used to develop a conceptual model of contaminant fate‐and‐transport that illustrates the likely pathways along which COPCs might
A 2-9 Final SLERA
R2-0024694 Section 2 Problem Formulation transport from the sources of contamination through potentially affected media to ecological receptors. A preliminary conceptual site model for this site is presented in Figure 2‐3.
This section presents a discussion of the sources of contamination, modes of transport of contaminants, and potential exposure pathways used to develop the CSM. The selection of assessment endpoints (values to be protected) is also discussed.
2.4.1 Sources of Contamination The former Powerex facility is a former manufacturing plant located on West Genesee Street in Auburn, New York. The former Powerex facility is a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Superfund Site located within the area of the Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site (i.e., the EPA National Priorities List [NPL] site).
From 1951 to 1990, the Powerex facility produced electrical components including radar equipment and printed circuit boards for high fidelity equipment, and high‐voltage semi‐conductors. Waste solvents were disposed into two unlined evaporation pits located on the western and northern sides of the facility. Use of the pits was reportedly abandoned in 1962 and 1967. Several previous and ongoing investigations have been conducted at the former Powerex facility. These investigations have identified VOC contamination in soil, groundwater, and surface water. Based on historical and current groundwater monitoring and hydrogeological data, the former Powerex facility is a source of groundwater contamination at the site. The primary contaminants found in groundwater include TCE, cis‐1,2‐DCE, trans‐1,2‐DCE, and vinyl chloride. The site‐related VOCs TCE and cis‐1,2‐DCE were detected in surface water samples collected from groundwater discharge areas in the Village of Union Springs, located approximately 7 miles downgradient of the former Powerex facility.
2.4.2 Exposure Pathways An exposure pathway is the means by which contaminants are transported from a source to ecological receptors. At the site, groundwater has been contaminated with VOCs. Geological formations at the site are highly fractured, and groundwater transmissivity is high. There is a potential for contaminated groundwater to discharge to surface water bodies. Subsequently, these discharge locations may act as exposure points for ecological receptors.
For this SLERA, surface water and sediment represent potential exposure media. CDM’s preliminary RI data show that contamination has been found in groundwater, and it is likely that groundwater is discharging to surface water. Ecological receptors are likely to be exposed to contaminants in surface water and sediment via groundwater discharge.
Exposure pathways for ecological receptors include direct contact with contaminated sediment and surface water, and ingestion of contaminated sediment and surface water. Exposure of higher trophic‐level receptors can also occur through food chain exposure (through the ingestion of prey that has become contaminated through site‐related exposure). Potentially complete exposure pathways and exposure routes are illustrated in the site conceptual exposure model (Figure 2‐3).
2-10 A Final SLERA
R2-0024695 Section 2 Problem Formulation 2.4.3 Assessment Endpoints Assessment endpoints are explicit expressions of an environmental resource that is considered of value, operationally defined by an ecological entity and its attributes (EPA 1997). In SLERAs, assessment endpoints are usually considered to be any adverse effects from site contaminants to any ecological receptors at the site. It is not practical or possible to directly evaluate risks to all the individual components of the ecosystem on site, so assessment endpoints are used to focus on particular components that could be adversely affected by the contaminants associated with the site. In general, the assessment endpoints selected for the site are aimed at the viability of aquatic populations and organism survivability. The criteria for selection of assessment endpoints include ecological relevance, susceptibility (exposure plus sensitivity), and relevance to management goals.
A review of the site conceptual model provided information for the selection of assessment endpoints. A variety of invertebrates, fish, reptiles and amphibians inhabit the area. In addition, many birds and mammals inhabiting these and adjacent areas may forage on organisms inhabiting the site. Therefore, the assessment endpoints focused on these groups.
2.4.4 Measurement Endpoints Measurement endpoints are chosen to link the existing site conditions to the goals established by the assessment endpoints and are useful for assessment endpoint evaluation. Measurement endpoints are quantitative expressions of observed or measured biological responses to contamination relevant to selected assessment endpoints. For a SLERA, ESLs are commonly used as measurement endpoints. For this SLERA, measurement endpoints are based on conservative ESLs from sources discussed in Section 4.1.
For this SLERA, the following assessment endpoints and measurement endpoints were selected to evaluate whether site‐related contaminants pose a risk to ecological receptors:
Assessment Endpoint 1: Viability (survival, growth, and reproduction) of benthic macroinvertebrate communities present in site surface water bodies.
Measurement Endpoint: Evaluate the toxicity of sediment and surface water by comparing maximum detected concentrations to media‐specific ESLs.
Assessment Endpoint 2: Viability (survival, growth, and reproduction) of fish communities present in site surface water bodies.
Measurement Endpoint: Evaluate the toxicity of sediment and surface water by comparing maximum detected concentrations to media‐specific ESLs.
Assessment Endpoint 3: Viability (survival, growth, and reproduction) of reptile and amphibian communities present in site surface water bodies.
Measurement Endpoint: Evaluate the toxicity of sediment and surface water by comparing maximum detected concentrations to media‐specific ESLs.
Assessment Endpoint 4: Viability (survival, growth, and reproduction) of mammalian communities utilizing site surface water bodies. A 2-11 Final SLERA
R2-0024696 Section 2 Problem Formulation Measurement Endpoint: Evaluate the toxicity of sediment and surface water by comparing maximum detected concentrations to media‐specific ESLs.
Assessment Endpoint 5: Viability (survival, growth, and reproduction) of avian communities utilizing site surface water bodies.
Measurement Endpoint: Evaluate the toxicity of sediment and surface water by comparing maximum detected concentrations to media‐specific ESLs.
2.5 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern The selection of COPCs focuses on those chemicals that pose the greatest potential risks to ecological receptors, thereby providing guidance that can be used in future risk evaluations and remediation decisions. The COPC selection process involves comparing the maximum contaminant concentrations measured at the site to ESLs. ESLs are concentrations of chemicals that are reasonably considered to be the highest acceptable concentration, at or below which there should be no adverse effects.
The hazard quotient (HQ) method was used to estimate risk of exposure to each COPC. This method compares the maximum exposure concentration (EC) to the ESL and is expressed as a ratio per the following formula:
HQ = EC/ESL
Where the ESL represents the Ano adverse effect@ level for that contaminant and assessment endpoint.
For this SLERA, if HQs are greater than unity (1.0), risk will be implied. An HQ < 1 suggests that there is a high degree of confidence that minimal risk exists for the given COPC, particularly since ESLs are based on the lowest measurable concentration considered to be protective of the most sensitive organisms. Therefore, contaminants for which the HQ is above one are retained as COPCs for potential further evaluation. Higher HQs are not necessarily indicative of more severe effects because of varying degrees of uncertainty in the ESLs used to calculate HQs. However, where confidence in ESLs is equal, higher HQs suggest a greater likelihood of adverse effects.
Chemicals for which ESLs are not available were also retained as COPCs. Calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium were eliminated from further consideration as COPCs because they are ubiquitous, occur naturally in high concentrations, are essential nutrients, and are unlikely to pose risk. The COPC selection process for this SLERA is further discussed in Sections 3, 4, and 5. Screening table (Table 4‐1) for the COPC section is presented in Section 4.
2-12 A Final SLERA
R2-0024697
Section 3 Exposure Assessment The objective of the exposure assessment is to determine the pathways and media through which receptors may be exposed to site contaminants. Exposure scenarios are simplified descriptions of how potential receptors may come in contact with contaminants. Potential exposure pathways are dependent on habitats and receptors present on‐site, the extent and magnitude of contamination, and environmental fate and transport of COPCs.
As stated in Section 2, this SLERA focuses on the impact of contaminants in surface water and sediment on aquatic dependent receptors. Observations made during the ecological reconnaissance in October 2005 found the study area provides habitat for aquatic dependent species, including plants, benthic invertebrates, fish, birds, and mammals. These aquatic dependent organisms, and potential exposure pathways are illustrated in the CSM (Figure 2‐3).
Based on historical information and investigations on site, VOCs, more specifically, TCE and cis‐1,2DCE, were identified as the primary contaminants (CDM 2008); thus, it was determined that, surface water samples were analyzed for low detection level VOCs and sediment samples were analyzed by TCL VOCs. Other analysis (e.g., inorganics, semi‐volatiles, pesticides/polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]) were not performed (CDM 2005b). The VOCs detected in surface water and sediment sample are presented in Tables 2‐3 and 2‐4. This section discusses the chemical characteristics of VOCs as a class, including bioavailability, environmental persistence; the magnitude and distribution of detected chemicals at the site; and the potential for receptors to be exposed to COPCs at the site. As indicated previously, only exposure via contaminated surface water and sediment is evaluated.
The potential for exposure is assessed via the use of representative receptor groups. The receptor groups represent organisms with reasonable potential to be exposed to site‐related COPCs. Exposure scenarios are simplified descriptions of how potential receptors may come in contact with contaminants.
3.1 Chemical Properties of Detected Chemicals VOCs were the only class of chemicals analyzed in sediment and surface water for this SLERA. The chemical properties of this class including contaminant fate and transport mechanisms (bioavailability, environmental persistence) are discussed below.
3.1.1 Bioavailability Bioavailable chemicals are defined as those that exist in a form that may cause adverse ecological effects or bioaccumulate. While bioaccumulation in itself may not cause significant ecological effects, it provides evidence of exposure and creates the potential for adverse effects to multiple trophic levels under certain conditions. For example, compounds such as dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT) may be stored in fatty tissues with no apparent ill effects, until fatty tissues are metabolized under energetically stressful conditions, at which time the compounds become available and toxic. In this respect, toxicity is a function of the amount of a chemical accumulated and retained in a bioreactive form, not simply the concentration of a compound in an environmental medium.
A 3-1 Final SLERA
R2-0024698 Section 3 Exposure Assessment Bioavailability of a COPC will determine the internal dose (the concentration of a contaminant absorbed into an organism that reaches the specific site of action) to which an organism is exposed (Rangan et al. 1997). Chemical properties (e.g., degree of chlorination, valance state) or environmental conditions (e.g., levels of TOC) can affect the potential bioavailability and toxicity of many organic chemicals. The bioavailability and, therefore, toxicity of some organic chemicals in surface sediments can be influenced by the specific characteristics of the sediment.
The chemical form, and thus toxicity, of some contaminants can change rather rapidly under changing environmental conditions (e.g., fluctuations in pH, oxygen levels or other conditions related to seasonal weather patterns such as rainfall or snow melt). The bioavailability and toxicity of VOCs tends to change rapidly because of the volatile nature of these chemicals and the rapid rate at which they are degraded by microbial activity. Many VOCs are degraded within hours or days, and may produce byproducts that are more toxic than the parent compounds.
Measurements of TOC in sediment can be used to generally describe the bioavailable portion of many organic chemicals. Higher levels of TOC in sediment reduce bioavailability, and thus toxicity, due to binding of contaminants with organic carbon. Although VOCs have a slight tendency to adsorb to organic particles, organic carbon‐water partitioning coefficients (Koc) are low. Therefore, VOCs tend not to persist in sediments.
Similarly, chemicals found in surface waters can vary with regard to bioavailability and toxicity, depending on chemical form and water quality characteristics. Factors affecting contaminant bioavailability and toxicity in surface water can include pH, hardness, alkalinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, total dissolved solids, suspended particulates, and organic carbon. Hardness and pH primarily affect metals availability.
Organic carbon content and the presence of particulates in surface water can substantially affect the bioavailability and toxicity of many organic contaminants. Increases in organic carbon and particulates in surface water reduce the bioavailability of some organic chemicals. Volatile organic chemicals are mildly hydrophobic. The mild hydrophobicity and low Koc of most VOCs results in high availability but rapid volatilization from water.
3.1.2 Environmental Persistence Environmental persistence refers to the degree in which a chemical may exist in the environment. Some chemicals (e.g., PCBs) can persist in the environment because they are not easily degraded or metabolized. Others, such as VOCs are short‐lived, being easily degraded by one or more mechanisms, including microbial degradation, photolysis, and volatilization.
Chemicals detected in surface water and sediment at the site are VOCs. As aforementioned, VOCs are not considered persistent in the environmental because they are easily degraded by microbial and other processes, such as photolysis or volatilization. 3.2 Magnitude and Distribution of Detected Chemicals Recently collected data considered usable for risk assessment purposes are used to describe the magnitude and distribution of chemical contaminants in site media. Although no single concentration value can truly represent the variability of chemical concentrations measured in
3-2 A Final SLERA
R2-0024699 Section 3 Exposure Assessment each medium of concern, ERAGS (EPA 1997) for conducting SLERAs recommends using the maximum detected value of each chemical to initially assess risk.
Maximum detected concentrations of the chemical for surface water and sediment are presented in Tables 2‐3 and 2‐4, respectively, in Section 2. Following ERAGS (EPA 1997), if the maximum detected concentration of a chemical exceeds the selected screening level concentration, then a potential for adverse ecological effects may exist. Information on the locations where the maximum concentration of each detected chemical was measured, by medium, and the frequency of detection for each chemical detected is also provided in these tables. 3.3 Exposure Scenarios Although several potential exposure scenarios can be identified for ecological receptors, it is most appropriate to focus the assessment on critical exposure scenarios or those most likely to contribute to risk. The SLERA, therefore, focuses on the most critical exposure scenarios identified in the CSM. For example, ingestion of pore water or the inhalation of potentially contaminated air exposure pathways may exist, but these pathways are either insignificant, cannot be quantified, or are sufficiently represented by other pathways (e.g., ingestion of sediments would also include ingestion of pore water).
The primary site‐related risks for aquatic organisms are likely from direct contact with and ingestion of surface water, sediment, and/or sediment pore water contaminated with site‐related chemicals. The Owasco Outlet, Crane Brook, and Union Springs may have been impacted from contaminants released from the Cayuga groundwater contamination site. This assessment evaluates risks to representative aquatic receptors by comparing maximum detected concentrations in surface water and sediment to chemical‐specific surface water and sediment ESLs.
A 3-3 Final SLERA
R2-0024700
Section 4 Ecological Effects Assessment An effects assessment includes an evaluation of the available types and sources of effects data and presents media‐ and chemical‐specific screening levels that serve as conservative effect concentrations for the SLERA.
4.1 Literature‐Based Effects Data This section of the SLERA describes and provides support for the sources and types of effects data (i.e., surface water and sediment screening levels) selected for use in the SLERA. As appropriate for a SLERA, sediment effects data are limited to ESLs. Other less conservative benchmark concentrations (e.g., toxicity values from laboratory studies) are more appropriate for estimating risks if ESLs are exceeded by the maximum detected concentrations of COPCs.
The sources of selected screening levels for the chemicals evaluated for the site are provided in Table 4‐1. Sources of the ESLs considered are provided below:
Surface water Primary Sources
NYSDEC Technical Operational Guidance, Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Standards and Groundwater Effluent Limitations (1998) EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, criterion continuous concentrations (2006)
Secondary Sources
EPA Region 3 Freshwater Screening Benchmarks (on‐line www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/risk/eco/index.htm) EPA Region 5 RCRA Ecological Screening Levels (2003) Oak Ridge National Laboratory Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota (Suter and Tsao 1996)
Sediment Primary Sources
NYSDEC Technical Guidance for Benthic Aquatic Life Chronic Toxicity and for Wildlife Bioaccumulation (1999)
Secondary Sources
EPA Region 3 Freshwater sediment Screening Benchmarks (on‐line www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/risk/eco/index.htm) EPA Region 5 RCRA Ecological Screening Levels (2003) Oak Ridge National Laboratory Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Sediment‐Associated Biota (Jones et al. 1997)
A 4-1 Final SLERA
R2-0024701 Section 4 Ecological Effects Assessment EPA Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Bulletins ‐ Supplement to RAGS (2001) EPA Region 6 Ecological Screening Benchmarks: Freshwater (TNRCC 2001)
For this SLERA, the primary sources are examined first to determine if a screening value is available for a particular chemical. If no value is available, the lowest value among the secondary sources is used. If a selected screening level is exceeded, chemicals are retained as COPCs.
4.2 Evaluation of Site‐Specific Data Data collected in 2005 were used to describe the magnitude and distribution of contaminants in surface water and sediment at the site. Following EPA guidance (EPA 1997), maximum detected concentration for each chemical was used to evaluate potential risk for this SLERA. Maximum detected concentrations of chemicals, the sampling location where the maximum detected concentration was measured, and the detection frequency for detected chemicals in surface water and sediment are presented in Tables 2‐3 and 2‐4, respectively. The maximum detected concentrations of detected chemicals and their respective screening levels are presented in Table 4‐1. If the maximum detected concentration exceeds the screening level for that chemical, then that chemical is retained as a COPC indicating that the potential for adverse ecological effects may exist.
The contract required detection limits (CRDLs) for the surface water and sediment data were compared with ecological screening levels (ESLs) (Appendix C). As shown in Table C‐1 in Appendix C, for surface water, only cis‐1,3‐dichloropropene and trans‐1,3‐dichloropropene had CRDLs higher than their respective ESLs. These two chemicals are not site‐related. For sediment, the CRDLs for acetone, bromomethane, carbon disulfide, cis‐1,3‐dichloropropene, trans‐1,3‐dichloropropene, and 1,1,‐DCA, were higher than their respective ESLs (Table C‐2 in Appendix C). These six chemicals are not considered site‐related.
4-2 A Final SLERA
R2-0024702
Section 5 Risk Characterization The risk characterization integrates information from the exposure and effects assessments and estimates risks to representative ecological receptors. This SLERA relies on the HQ approach, supplemented by site observations, to assess ecological risks at this site.
5.1 Hazard Quotient Approach As discussed in Section 2.5, the HQ approach for estimating risk is based on the comparison of a selected exposure concentration (EC) with a selected effects concentration (ESL). The equation is as follow:
HQ = EC/ESL
Following EPA Guidance for conducting SLERAs, the maximum detected concentrations in media of concern (i.e., surface water and sediment for this SLERA) serve as the EC. The chemical‐specific and media‐specific ESLs serve as the effects concentration. The comparison of these two values allows for calculation of the HQ, which in turn is used to quantify risk estimation. HQs greater than unity (1.0) indicate a potential for adverse effects. HQs ≤ 1.0 are considered insignificant and therefore risks are unexpected.
It should be noted that higher HQs are not necessarily indicative of more severe effects because of varying degrees of uncertainty in the ESLs used to calculate HQs. There are also differences in toxicity endpoints (e.g., body weight reduction vs. reproduction effects) and measurement endpoints (e.g., NOAEL vs. lowest‐observed‐adverse‐effect‐ level [LOAEL]). Resultant HQs should not be compared unless the confidence, toxicity endpoints, and mechanisms of toxicity are equal. Where the confidence in ESLs is equal, a higher HQ will suggest a greater likelihood of adverse effects.
5.2 HQ‐based Risk Estimates The reliability of HQs to predict actual risks is dependent on the quality of the exposure and effects concentrations used to calculate HQs. There is greater confidence in HQ‐based risk estimates when exposure and effects data are based on large databases reflecting extensive sample collection (exposure data) and toxicological information (effects data). The data collected on site provide adequate confidence that detected COPC concentrations represent actual on‐site conditions relative to chemical contamination.
Similarly, screening levels based on a large toxicity database comprised of a wide variety of receptor organisms are preferred over concentrations from a limited database or those not directly linked to adverse effects. Confidence in screening levels is COPC‐specific. As discussed previously, all screening levels are biased towards over‐protection, and it is, therefore, unlikely that risks are underestimated using these conservative screening levels.
5.3 Evaluation of Site‐Specific Data Data collected from Oswego Outlet, Crane Brook, and Union Springs in 2005 were used to describe the magnitude and distribution of contaminants in sediment and surface water at the site. HQs were derived from the comparisons of maximum detected COPC concentrations to
A 5-1 Final SLERA
R2-0024703 Section 5 Risk Characterization conservative screening levels. Media‐ and COPC‐specific HQs are presented in Table 4‐1. COPCs identified in surface water and sediment are also presented in Table 4‐1.
5.4 Approach of Evaluations Approach of evaluations that contribute to the uncertainty associated with this SLERA including the following:
An HQ > 1 indicates the potential for risk from exposure to contaminants at concentrations measured onsite. A HQ of < 1 does not indicate a lack of risk, but suggests that there is a high degree of confidence that minimal risk exists for the given contaminant, since ESLs are based on the lowest measurable concentration considered to be protective of the most sensitive organism.
The exposure concentration for each contaminant used in risk estimation was assumed to be present throughout the site at the maximum detected concentration all of the time.
The measured concentration of each contaminant was assumed to be 100 percent bioavailable. No assumptions were considered regarding partitioning or dissolution.
5.5 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern Based on the approach discussed above, the identification of COPCs in surface water and sediment are discussed below and also presented in Table 4‐1.
5.5.1 Chemicals of Potential Concern in Surface Water Three areas were evaluated as potential discharge points for contaminated groundwater. These areas included Owasco Outlet, Crane Brook, and Union Springs.
5.5.1.1 Owasco Outlet Four VOCs (bromodichloromethane, carbon disulfide, chloromethane, and methylene chloride) were detected in surface water at Owasco Outlet. All were detected at concentrations which resulted in HQs below one; thus, were not retained for further evaluation.
5.5.1.2 Crane Brook Acetone was the only detected VOC in surface water at Crane Brook. Acetone had a HQ below one and also was identified as a laboratory contaminant. Thus, no COPCs were identified in surface water at Crane Brook.
5.5.1.3 Union Springs Five VOCs were detected in surface water at Union Springs. They are acetone, cis‐1,2‐dichloroethene, trans‐1,2‐dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and trichloroethene. All of these five chemicals had HQs below one. Thus, no COPCs were identified in surface water at Union Springs.
5.5.2 Chemicals of Potential Concern in Sediment Sediment samples were only collected from Union Springs. Acetone and 2‐butanone were detected at location SD‐US‐01. No other chemicals were detected in any samples. Both
5-2 A Final SLERA
R2-0024704 Section 5 Risk Characterization acetone and 2‐butanone are common laboratory contaminants; thus, they are not considered COPCs. 5.6 Risk Summary This section of the SLERA discusses the potential ecological significance of the estimated risks and provides conclusions. Ecological significance considers the limitations and uncertainties (see Section 6) with the quantitative HQ risk estimates. An important first step in understanding the results of this SLERA is to answer the risk questions initially presented in the Problem Formulation phase.
The following risk questions were initially identified as important to the SLERA. The initial results of the SLERA are used to respond to these questions and to help form conclusions. The risk questions and associated responses follow.
1. Are site‐related contaminants present in sediment and surface water where ecological receptors may be exposed?
Response: Yes. Analytical results show that VOCs were detected in surface water and sediment. However, all detected site‐related contaminated had HQs below one and are not considered as COPCs.
2. Where present, are the concentrations of site‐related contaminants sufficiently elevated to impair the survival, growth, or reproduction of sensitive ecological receptors?
Response: No. There are no site‐related contaminants identified as COPCs in surface water and sediment.
3. Are known or potential ecological receptors sufficiently exposed to site‐related contaminants to cause adverse population‐level or community‐level effects?
Response: No. There are no site‐related COPCs identified in surface water and sediment; thus, impacts are not expected.
A 5-3 Final SLERA
R2-0024705
Section 6 Uncertainty Assessment The potential risks from contaminants in sediment and surface water to aquatic dependent communities or populations at the Cayuga Groundwater Contamination site were evaluated by comparing the maximum detected concentrations to ecological screening values representing the lowest level at which harmful effects would be predicted to occur. Inherent in these comparisons is some degree of uncertainty, introduced during various steps in the evaluation. The sources of this uncertainty are discussed below, as well as whether the assumptions used are likely to over‐ or under‐estimate ecological risks from contaminants at the site. In general, because this SLERA used conservative assumptions, risks are likely overestimated.
The main sources of uncertainty include natural variability, error, and insufficient knowledge. Natural variability is an inherent characteristic of ecological systems, their stressors, and their combined behavior in the environment. Biotic and abiotic parameters in these systems may vary to such a degree that the exposure and response of similar assessment endpoints in the same system may differ temporally and spatially. Factors that contribute to temporal and spatial variability include differences in individual organism behavior (within and between species), changes in the weather or ambient temperature, unanticipated interference from other stressors, interactions with other species in the community, differences between microenvironments, and numerous other factors.
6.1 Problem Formulation Sources of uncertainty within the problem formulation phase of the SLERA relate to the selection of assessment endpoints and assumptions within the site conceptual model.
The selection of appropriate assessment endpoints to characterize risk is a critical step within the problem formulation of an ecological risk assessment. If an assessment endpoint is overlooked or not identified, environmental risk at the site will be underestimated. Within this SLERA, the selection of assessment endpoints was performed with the intent of being inclusive for this site. However, given the complexity of the environment and the state of knowledge of organism interactions, it is possible that unique exposure pathways or assessment endpoints exist that were not acknowledged within the problem formulation. If additional pathways or assessment endpoints exist, risk may be underestimated.
The conceptual site model presents the pathways by which contaminants are released from source areas to expose receptors. However, some exposure pathways are difficult to evaluate or cannot be quantitatively evaluated based available information. For example, within this SLERA the inhalation exposure pathway and pore water exposure pathway were not addressed. It was assumed these exposure pathways are not significant when compared to COPC exposure via direct contact and incidental ingestion. This may result in underestimating potential risk.
A 6-1 Final SLERA
R2-0024706 Section 6 Uncertainty Assessment
6.2 Exposure Assessment All exposure assessments have a degree of uncertainty due to necessary simplifications and assumptions, which must be made as part of the evaluation. Major sources of uncertainty in the exposure assessment are discussed in this section.
Concentrations used to represent exposure point concentrations and characterizations of the distributions of COPCs can be a source of uncertainty. These issues relate to the adequate characterization of the nature and extent of chemical contamination. It is assumed that sufficient samples have been collected from sediment and surface water and appropriately analyzed to adequately describe the nature and extent of chemical contamination.
When potential levels of uncertainty could adversely affect the results of the assessment, conservative approaches are taken that may result in over‐protection of sensitive receptors. Such an approach is prudent where uncertainties are high and is in line with regulatory guidance for conducting SLERAs (EPA 1997). For example, maximum detected concentrations of COPCs are used to assess potential risk at the SLERA stage, and this approach likely overestimated the average concentrations to which receptors may be exposed.
It is widely recognized that bioavailability and toxicity can vary dramatically as a function of many different environmental variables. In this risk assessment, it was assumed that COPCs in environmental media were 100 percent bioavailable which is a conservative assumption, thus, overestimates risk. Bioavailability of a COPC will determine the internal dose (i.e., the concentration that is absorbed by an organism and reaches the specific site of action) (Rangan et al. 1997). Bioavailability can be affected by factors including chemical form, sorption onto carbon or sediment particles, aging, or volatilization. Sediment particle size can also influence exposure concentrations and bioavailability; sediments comprised of fine particles will tend to have higher COPC concentrations than coarser textured soils due to the larger surface area and increased number of potential adsorption sites.
6.3 Effects Assessment Uncertainties associated with the effects assessment relate to estimations of ESLs, the use of conservative assumptions, and the degree of interaction between site contaminants.
Not all ESLs have the same degree of confidence. For some COPCs, information on toxicity is limited or not available. Additionally, many ESLs were derived from laboratory animal studies that evaluated exposure to a single chemical under controlled conditions. Furthermore, extrapolation of an ESL derived from populations or species different from those at the site may introduce error because of differences in pharmacokinetics or population and species variability. Also, where ESLs were statistically determined, they do not represent absolute thresholds; they are reflective of the experimental design. Finally, ESLs incorporate error contributed by the use of results from many studies incorporating different methods of sample collection, preparation, and analysis. These factors may result in over‐ or underestimating ecological risk.
There is also the potential of cumulative stress from exposure to additional stressors (e.g., habitat degradation); however, this was not evaluated within this SLERA. If other stressors exist at the site, and if the effects of those stressors and the effects of exposure to site related contaminants are cumulative, ecological risks at the site may be underestimated.
6-2 A Final SLERA
R2-0024707 Section 6 Uncertainty Assessment
6.4 Risk Characterization By definition, the uncertainties in risk characterization are influenced by uncertainties in exposure and effects assessments. The adequate sampling and analysis of sediment and surface water minimizes the uncertainties in exposure assessment of these media. Descriptions of the magnitude and distribution of COPCs from the site are considered to be generally representative of current conditions. Since only the maximum detected concentrations are used at this stage of the ecological risk assessment, the range of exposure concentrations is less critical to the results of the SLERA.
Effects data can also contribute to overall uncertainty in risk characterization. Science and scientific investigations cannot prove any hypothesis beyond doubt. The scientific method is instead based on stating the hypotheses, testing the hypotheses, and either accepting or rejecting the hypotheses based on the weight‐of‐evidence provided by test data. Confidence in the ability of selected ESLs to assess ecological risks varies for each data value selected. While all ESLs used in this SLERA are associated with some degree of uncertainty, it is the general trend described by the comparisons between exposure concentrations and effects concentrations, and the overall confidence in such comparisons, that are most important. Available information suggests that the ESLs selected for use in this SLERA are generally similar to other ESLs, are commonly accepted for screening, and adequate for estimating risk using conservative assumptions.
Another potential source of uncertainty is the small amount of biological or ecological survey data to support this SLERA. The types of surveys needed to aid in the determination of cause and effect relationships, especially at the community or population level, are highly dependent on data quality and data quantity. Such data, however, are not currently available. Recent observations based on a more general site visit/survey are used to qualitatively evaluate habitat quality, habitat use, presence of receptors, and observations of adverse impacts.
Finally, the risk characterization method itself can contribute to uncertainty. HQs used to estimate and characterize risk depend on a single value for both the exposure concentration and the effects concentration. Selecting a screening level that is scientifically supported and derived from the evaluation of multiple toxicity studies that meet standard acceptance criteria minimizes the uncertainty associated with any single value. Uncertainty in the risk characterization is further reduced by using multiple lines of evidence and should include site‐related contaminant concentrations, toxicity studies and characterization of ecological communities present. Incorporating site observations into final conclusions for this SLERA reduces the dependence on limited quantitative risk estimates.
A 6-3 Final SLERA
R2-0024708
Section 7 Summary and Conclusions Responses to risk questions identified in the Problem Formulation phase of this SLERA indicate that the potential for adverse effects to ecological receptors exposed to site‐related chemicals in sediment and surface water is unlikely.Based on comparison of maximum concentrations of detected contaminants in surface water and sediment at the Cayuga Groundwater Contamination site to conservatively derived published ESLs, no unacceptable risk to ecological receptors is determined.
In conclusion, this SLERA resulted in no COPCs being identified in surface water and sediment at the Cayuga Groundwater Contamination site. Consequently, the potential for ecological risks appears to be insignificant and further investigation is not warranted.
A 7-1 Final SLERA
R2-0024709
Section 8 References CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM). 2005a. Final Quality Assurance Project Plan, Cayuga County Groundwater Contamination Site, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Cayuga County, New York. July 2005.
CDM 2005b. Final Work Plan Volume 1, Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Cayuga County, New York. January 25.
CDM 2008. Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site, Cayuga County, New York.
Foster Wheeler. 2003. Draft Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County, New York. May.
Jones D.S., G.W. Suter II, and R.N. Hull. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Sediment‐Associated Biota: 1997 Revision. ES/ER/TM‐95/R4. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed Martin) 2003. Final Report Volatile Organic Compound Source Area Assessment Cayuga County Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County, New York. December.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 1998. Technical Guidance Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Standards and Groundwater Effluent Limitations.
NYSDEC. 1999. Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments.
http://www.nycanal.com. 2009.
http://www.gorp.away.com/gorp/location/ny/finger/cayuga.html. 2009.
Rangan, U., C. Hedli, M. Gallo, P. Lioy and R. Snyder. 1997. Exposure and risk assessment with respect to contaminated soil: Significance of biomarkers and bioavailability. International Journal of Toxicology 16(4‐5): 419‐432.
Roberts, R. C. 1996. Geology, Eastern North America. Allegheny Plateau. pp.125, 134‐135.
Suter, G.W. II and C.L. Tsao. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. ES/ER/TM‐96/R2.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). 2001. Guidance for Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments at Remediation Sites in Texas. Toxicology and Risk Assessment Section. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, TX. RG‐263 (Revised).
A 8-1 Final SLERA
R2-0024710 Section 8 References United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. Ecotox Thresholds, EPA 540/F‐95/‐38. January.
EPA 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. EPA 540‐R‐97‐006.
EPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630‐R‐95/002F.
EPA. 2001. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Bulletins ‐ Supplement to RAGS. November 30.
EPA. 2003. Region 5, RCRA Ecological Screening Levels.
EPA. 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology.
EPA. 2007. Region 3 BTAG Ecological Screening Benchmarks (on‐line www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/risk/eco/index.htm)
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. USGS Open‐File Report 03‐468. January 30.
Ver Straeten, C.A., D.H. Griffing, and C.E. Brett. 1994. The Lower Part of the Middle Devonian Marcellus “Shale”, Central to Western New York State: Stratigraphy and Depositional History. New York State Geological Association, 66th Annual Meeting, Field Trip Guidebook. October.
8-2 A Final SLERA
R2-0024711 I
Tables
R2-0024712
Tables
A
R2-0024713 Table 2-1 List of Vegetation Observed Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County, New York
Common Name Scientific Name Area Observed American basswood Tilia americana Owasco Outlet, Union Springs Ash Fraxinus L. Crane Brook Birch Betula sp. Union Springs Black cherry Prunus serotina Crane Brook, Union Springs Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia All1 Black walnut Juglans nigra All Blackberry Rubus sp. Owasco Outlet, Union Springs Boxelder Acer negundo All Butter and egg Linaria vulgaris Owasco Outlet, Union Springs Butternut Juglans cinerea Crane Brook Calico aster Aster lateriflorus All Cattail Typha latifolia All Common reed Phragmites australis Union Springs Common teasel Dipsacus fullonum All Eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides All Eastern red cedar Juniperus virginianus Union Springs Everlasting pea Lathyrus latifolius Union Springs Fire cherry Prunus pensylvanica All Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata Owasco Outlet Goldenrod Solidago sp. Union Springs Grape Vitus sp. All Grasses unknown Owasco Outlet, Union Springs Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Owasco Outlet, Crane Brook Honey locust Gleditsia triacanthos Owasco Outlet, Crane Brook Horse chestnut Aesculous octandra Owasco Outlet Lawn grasses unknown Union Springs North England aster Aster novae-angliae All North white-cedar Thuja occidentalis Union Springs Norway maple Acer platanoides All Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans All Pokeweed Phytolacca americana Owasco Outlet, Crane Brook Privet Ligustrum sp. All Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides Owasco Outlet Raspberry Rubus sp. All Red maple Acer rubrum All Rush unknown Owasco Outlet, Union Springs Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Union Springs Sedge Carex sp. Owasco Outlet, Union Springs Silver maple Acer saccharinum Owasco Outlet, Union Springs Slippery elm Ulmus rubra All
A Draft Final SLERA Page 1 of 2 3/4/2009
R2-0024714 Table 2-1 List of Vegetation Observed Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County, New York
Common Name Scientific Name Area Observed Speckled alder Alnus rugosa Crane Brook Staghorn sumac Rhus taphina Owasco Outlet, Union Springs Striped maple Acer pensylvanicum Owasco Outlet Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Owasco Outlet, Crane Brook Thistle Cynara sp. Owasco Outlet Tree of Heaven Ailanthis altissima Owasco Outlet Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia All White ash Fraxinus americanus Owasco Outlet, Crane Brook White heath aster Aster pilosus All White snakeroot Eupatorium rugosum All Wild rose Rosa sp. Owasco Outlet, Crane Brook Willow Salix sp. Crane Brook, Union Springs
1 All = Owasco Outlet, Crane Brook, and Union Springs
A Draft Final SLERA Page 2 of 2 3/4/2009
R2-0024715 Table 2-2 List of Wildlife Species or Signs of Wildlife Species Observed Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County, New York
Common Name Scientific Name Area Observed Birds American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos All1 American goldfinch Carduelis tristis Crane Brook, Union Springs American robin Turdus migratorius All Black-throated green warbler Dendroica virens Crane Brook Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata All Brown creeper Certhia americana Owasco Outlet Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapilla All Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Union Springs Canada goose Branta canadensis Union Springs Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Union Springs Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Crane Brook, Union Springs Chickadee Poecile spp. Owasco Outlet Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula All Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens All Eastern towhee Piplio erythrophthalmus Owasco Outlet European starling Sturnus vulgaris All Great egret Ardea alba Union Springs Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis Crane Brook, Union Springs Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Owasco Outlet Herring gull Larus argentatus Owasco outlet, Union Springs Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Union Springs Mourning dove Zenaida macroura All Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis All Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus All Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Crane Brook Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis Owasco outlet, Union Springs Rock dove Columba livia All Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Crane Brook Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Owasco Outlet White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Union Springs White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Owasco Outlet Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Union Springs Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata All Mammals Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis All Raccoon Procyon lotor All White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Union Springs Aquatic Species Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana All Fish Unknown Owasco Outlet Snails Unknown Union Springs Spring peeper Hyla crucifer Union Springs Toad tadpoles Bufo sp. Crane Brook 1 All = Owasco Outlet, Crane Brook, and Union Springs
A Draft Final SLERA Page 1 of 1 3/4/2009
R2-0024716 Table 2-3 Analytical Results of Detected Chemicals in Surface Water Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County, New York
Minimum Detected Maximum Detected Location of Range of Detection Chemical Name Unit Concentration Concentration Maximum Detected Detection Frequency (Qualifier) (Qualifier) Concentration Limit
Owasco Outlet Chloromethane µg/L 0.46 J 0.46 J SW-OU-07 1 / 6 0.5 - 0.5 Carbon Disulfide µg/L 0.15 J 0.15 J SW-OU-03 1 / 6 0.5 - 0.5 Methylene Chloride µg/L 0.16 J 0.16 J SW-OU-03 1 / 6 0.5 - 0.5 Bromodichloromethane µg/L 0.18 J 0.35 J SW-OU-02 4 / 6 0.5 - 0.5 Crane Brook Acetone µg/L 1.3 2 SW-CB-01 4 / 4 0.5 - 0.5 Union Spring Acetone µg/L 16 19 SW-US-04 2 / 95-20 cis -1,2-Dichloroethene µg/L 3.2 18 SW-US-05 7 / 9 0.5 - 0.5 trans -1,2-Dichloroethene µg/L 0.11 J 0.2 J SW-US-05 2 / 9 0.5 - 0.5 Tetrachloroethene µg/L 0.32 J 0.32 J SW-US-09 1 / 9 0.5 - 0.5 Trichloroethene µg/L 0.48 J 1.9 SW-US-05 7 / 9 0.5 - 0.5
Notes: Qualifier: J = estimated value µg/L = microgram per Liter
A Draft Final SLERA Page 1 of 1 3/4/2009
R2-0024717 Table 2-4 Analytical Results of Deteched Chemicals in Sediment Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County, New York
Minimum Detected Maximum Detected Location of Maximum Detection Range of Chemical Name Unit Concentration Concentration Detected Frequency Detection Limit (Qualifier) (Qualifier) Concentration Union Spring* Acetone µg/kg 190 190 SD-US-01 1 / 9 13 - 120 2-Butanone µg/kg 45 45 SD-US-01 1 / 910-17
Total Organic Carbon mg/kg 3,850 ** 34,000 SD-US-09 9 / 9 100 - 100
Notes: µg/kg = microgram per Kilogram mg/kg = milligram per kilogram
* Sediment samples were only collected from Union Springs and not from Owasco Outlet and Crane Brook. ** TOC of 3,850 mg/kg is the average of the SD-US-07 (3,700 mg/kg) and its duplicate sample (4,000 mg/kg).
A Draft Final SLERA Page 1 of 1 3/4/2009
R2-0024718 Table 4-1 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern in Surface Water and Sediment Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County, New York
Maximum Location of Medium Detected Maximum Detection Screening Hazard Detected Chemical COPC Rationale4 Area Concentration detected Frequency Level2 Quotient3 (Qualifier)1 Concentration Surface Water (µg/L) Owasco Outlet Bromodichloromethane 0.35 J SW-OU-02 4 / 6 4,320 a 0.0001 No bsl Carbon Disulfide 0.15 J SW-OU-03 1 / 6 0.92 b 0.16 No bsl Chloromethane 0.46 J SW-OU-07 1 / 6 5,500 c 0.0001 No bsl Methylene Chloride 0.16 J SW-OU-03 1 / 6 2200 b 0.0001 No bsl Crane Brook Acetone 2 SW-CB-01 4 / 4 1500 b 0.001 No bsl, lc Union Springs Acetone 19 SW-US-04 2 / 9 1500 b 0.01 No bsl, lc cis -1,2-Dichloroethene 18 SW-US-05 7 / 9 590 b 0.03 No bsl trans -1,2-Dichloroethene 0.2 J SW-US-05 2 / 9 590 b 0.0003 No bsl Tetrachloroethene 0.32 J SW-US-09 1 / 9 98 b 0.003 No bsl Trichloroethene 1.9 SW-US-05 7 / 9 47 b 0.04 No bsl Sediment (µg/kg) Union Springs Acetone 190 SD-US-01 1 / 9 3.3 d* 56.72 No lc 2-Butanone 45 SD-US-01 1 / 9 104.0 d* 0.43 No bsl, lc Notes:
1 Qualifier: J = estimated value 2 Source cited: a EPA Region 6 Ecological Screening Benchmarks: Freshwater (TNRCC 2001) b Suter II, GW and CL Tsao 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-96/R2.Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN c Jones DS, GW Suter II and RN Hull 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1997 Revision. ES/ER/TM-95/R4.Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN d EPA Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Bulletins - Supplment to RAGS (EPA 2001) 3 Hazard quotient = maximum concentration/screening level 4 Rationale codes: bsl = below screening level; nl = no screening level available; lc = laboratory contaminant * Sediment screening benchmarks were adjusted by the site-specific total organic carbon (TOC). The lowest TOC of 3,850 mg/kg which is the average of the SD-US-07 (3,700 mg/kg) and its duplicate sample (4,000 mg/kg) was used.
A Draft Final SLERA Page 1 of 1 3/4/2009
R2-0024719 Fi ures
R2-0024720
Figures
A
R2-0024721 C:\IMS\GIS\Cayuga_County\GIS_projects\RI_2007\Site_location_overview.mxd
Cayuga County City of Auburn
Cayuga Lake
Owasco Lake
Union Springs
Figure 1-1 Northern Area Site Location and Overview Southern Area Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Miles Cayuga County, New York 0 0.5 1 2
R2-0024722 C:\IMS\GIS\Cayuga_County\GIS_projects\RI_2007\Owasco_oulet_box_basemap.mxd
650
650 Seneca Pky 600 Brookside Dr State St 550 650 Beech Tree Rd 600 600 650 600 Austin Dr
Bowen St 600
550 York St Grant Ave 600 700 Munro St Quarry Rd DivisionSt Koenig Ct McIntosh Dr Brister Ave
600 MurraySt
Technology Park Blvd Palmer St Schwartz Cir
Tire Rd Olympia Ave Dayton St ProspectSt
Schwartz Dr
Willey St CameronSt Standart Ave
PeacockSt Chase St 650
600
OU-07 Chase St NorthSt Lewis St Lewis Grant St St Lewis Allen St Park Ave
600 WashingtonSt Bradley St Union St Catlin St Franklin St 550 Cady St Glen Ave Pulaski St Frank Smith St
Lansing St Fulton St Hurd Cir
Liberty St Beach Ave Paul St Adams St 700 Ketchell St Case Ave Curtis Pl 750 Perrine St Elm St Tyler Dr
NelsonSt
Perrine Ave HolleySt Charles St
Shevchenko Ave Ave Shevchenko Shevchenko
Cross St Cottage St Drummond St
Marvine Ave
Perry St OU-06 Seymour St Herman Ave Canoga St Capitol St Canoga Rd CayugaSt Guilfoil Ave Frazee St Van Anden St Ross St Sheldon Ave Seminary St LewisSt Chapel Rd Foote St Arterial West Aurelius Ave Wall St Beardsley St John St Arbor Ln
WebsterRd Morris St Morris Crane Belmont Ave St Morris B r OU-02 Garden St Arterial Genesee St Alden Ave o McMaster St
Hoopes Ave Barber St Hoffman St
Mullen Dr OU-05 Hulbert St Venice St o HowardSt
ChestnutSt
EvansSt k West St Green St Ow GaylordSt as c Maple St o Seward Ave Dill StExchange St O Wheeler St u
Clark St BentonSt t l Scammel Ave Emily Rd e Norman Ave
Teller Ave Sheridan St Sheridan OU-04 Clark St St Sheridan t Corcoran Dr Lincoln St Miller St
Garfield St Marvine Ave Marvine Clark St James St William St Osborne St Walnut St Ave Marvine BrookfieldPl Court St Orchard Ave Bradford St Clark Street Rd Underwood St Jefferson St Grover St Clark Street Rd 700 Frances St United States Highway 20 Wright Ave Cir Wallace Ave Orchard St Medow Dr 700
SouthSt Augustus St Lafayette Pl Columbus St Owasco St Hockeborne Ave Crane Brook Dr Madison Ave Logan St Lizette St CB-04 Pleasant St Westlake Ave Baker Ave East Lake Rd Havens Ave Parker St Woodruff Pl Archie St CB-03 Elizabeth St Steel St Wright Ave Woodlawn Ave Chedell Pl 800 Florence St Ellis Rd Park Pl EmmaSt Melrose Rd CB-02 750 Hamilton Ave Hardenburg Ave Camp St
Garrow St Mattie St Wood St Burt Ave Gould Dr 1st Ave Fitch Ave Silver Ave Grove Ave 2nd Ave Densmore Ave Aspen St 700
Arch St Milligan St 3rd Ave
BaileyBailey St St
LetchworthSt
Willard St Worden Ave Chapman Ave Swift St Macdougall St Macdougall Linen Pl St Macdougall Swift St
Kensington Ave Arlington Ave 4th Ave
Owasco Rd
Lexington Ave
Thornton Ave
Mary St Pulsifer DrPulsifer
Richardson Ave DrPulsifer Throop Ave Throop Dennis St Ave Throop OU-01 St Anthony St Tubman Ln Crescent Ave Center St Quill Ave Norma Dr Roberts Rd
Lorraine Ave State Highway 326 Murphy Dr Lake Ave Clymer St Metcalf Dr Kearney Ave Lakehurst Dr Burgess St Adams Ave Clymer St Deerview Dr CB-01 Wilbur Ave Cottrell Ave MeadowbrookDr
Dunning Ave Vanduyne Ave Oak St Copley St
BluefieldRd French Ave Lake Ave Lake Lake Ave Lake Jarvis St
Henry Dr Taber Dr Amherst Ave 700 Locust St 750 Belle Ave 700 Fleming St Stryker Ave
Experimental Rd Anderson Cir Danforth Ave
700 750
Riverside Dr
700 State Highway 38 700 700
700 Lake Ave Lake 700 Ave Lake Koon Rd
State Highway 437
Dunning AvenueRd 700 Willis Dr
Pinckney Rd Overbrook Dr 800 700 Petre Dr
800
800
Old State Road
Spencer Rd Sand Beach Rd Owasco Ter West Lake Rd Holland Dr
800 White Birch Ln Almond Dr Forrest Hill Dr Owasco Lake
Silver St
South St Rd Mobbs Rd Willowbrook Rd Poplar Cv
Crane Brook Surface Water Sample Location Figure 2-1 Owasco Outlet Surface Water Sample Location Owasco Outlet and Crane Brook Surface Water Sample Location Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Feet Cayuga County, New York 0 5001,000 2,000
R2-0024723 C:\IMS\GIS\Cayuga_County\GIS_projects\RI_2007\UnionSpring_box_basemap.mxd
US-01
FOX LN SCHOBEY ST
US-02 US-09 US-06 HOWLAND ST
US-03 US-04 SPRING ST US-05
SALEM ST
GREEN ST
CHASE AV
OLD CREAMERY RD
CHAPEL ST
BLOOMER ST
Cayuga Lake SEMINARY ST US-08
CAYUGA ST US-07 GROVE ST
FACTORY ST PARK ST
MADISON AV
FOUNDRY ST
BASIN ST
CENTER ST CENTER LN
Surface Water and Sediment Sample Location Figure 2-2 Union Springs Surface Water and Sediment Sample Location Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Feet 0 250 500 1,000 Cayuga County, New York
R2-0024724 Primary Secondary Exposure Primary Release Secondary Release Exposure Potential Receptors Route Source Mechanism Source Mechanism Medium Aquatic Dependent
Plants Fish Mammals Invertebrate Avian
Direct Contact/ Surface Water: Uptake Owasco Outlet Surface Water Crane Brook Union Springs Ingestion
Released from unconfirmed Groundwater Discharge source
Direct Contact/ Uptake Sediment: Sediment Union Springs
Ingestion
Uptake by Fish Fish Ingestion
Ingestion by Animals Prey Ingestion
Legend: Figure 2-3 COMPLETE EXPOSURE PATHWAY Conceptual Site Model INCOMPLETE EXPOSURE PATHWAY Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County, New York
R2-0024725
Appendices
A
R2-0024726 Appendix A
R2-0024727
Appendix A
Letters from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
A
R2-0024728 us. n S UAWIl.DUt'"'E Sl:KVJCf: United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ~~ O ~ .... ~ ' 38 17 Lu ker Road ~ CO rll and , NY 13045
March 16, 2006
Ms. Grace Musumeci Chief Environmental Review Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 290 Broadway New York, NY 10007- 1866
Attention: Steven Ferreira
Dear Ms. Musumec i:
This responds to your December 28, 2005, letter requesting information on the presence of endangered or threatened species within the vicinity of the Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site located fro m the Town of Union Springs to the City of Auburn, Cayuga County, New York. As you are aware, Federal agencies have responsibilities under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endange red Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U .S:C. 1531 et seq.) to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) regarding projects that may affect Federally-listed species or "critical habitat," and confe r with the Service regarding projects that may affect Federally-proposed species or proposed "critical habitat."
There is potential fo r the Federally- and State-listed endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) to occur within the proposed project area, which is approximately 27 miles from a known hi bernaculum in Onondaga County at its closest location. Please visit our website at http://www.fws .gov/northeast/nyfo/es/section7.htm for more information on Indiana bats,
In addition, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a Federally-listed threatened species known to nest approximately ten miles from the proposed project area. 1::lesting sites are associated with large trees (often white pines) near aquatic habitats (lake's, rivers, coastal areas). ! Except for the potenti al for Indiana bat, bald eagle, and occasional t ra n s i ~ nt individuals, no other Federally-listed or proposed endangered or tlU'eatened species under our jurisdiction are known to exist in the project impact area. In addition, no habitat in the project area is currently designated or proposed "critical habitat" in accordance with provisions of the ESA. Should project plans change, or if additional information on listed or proposed species or criti ca l habitat becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. The most recent compilation of Federall y-listed and proposed endangered and threatened species in New York' is available for your in fo rmation, If the proposed project is not completed within one year from the date of thi s letter, we recommend that you contact us to ensure that li sted species presence/absence in fo rm ati on for the proposed project is current.
R2-0024729 The above comments pertaining to endangered species under our jurisdiction are provided as technical assistance pursuant to the ESA. This response does not preclude additional Service comments under other legislation.
As stated above, the Indiana bat is listed as endangered and the bald eagle is listed as threatened by the State of New York. Any additional project plans or information regarding the presence of the Indiana bat and/or bald eagle should be coordinated with both this office and with the New York State Department of Enviromnental Conservation (NYSDEC). The NYSDEC contact for the Endangered Species Program is Mr. Peter Nye, Endangered Species Unit, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233 (telephone: [518]402-8859).
For additional information on fish and wildlife resources or State-listed species, we suggest you contact the appropriate NYSDEC regional office(s)* and the New York Natural Heritage Program Information Services. *
Thank you for your time. If you require additional information please contact Robyn Niver at (607) 753-9334. Future correspondence with us on this project should reference project file 60452.
Sincerely,
16 t David A. Stilwell '\) Field Supervisor
*Additional information referred to above may be found on our website at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/section7.htm
cc: NYSDEC, Syracuse, NY (Attn: Env. Permits) NYSDEC, Albany, NY (Endangered Species; Attn: P. Nye) NYSDEC, Albany, NY (Natural Heritage)
2
R2-0024730 ~ New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ~ Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources Erin M. Crotty New York Natural Heritage Program Commissioner 625 Broadway, 5'h floor, Albany, New York 12233-4757 Phone: (518) 402-8935 • FAX: (518) 402-8925 Website: www.dec.state.ny. November 7, 2005
Melissa Koberle CD M Federal Programs Corp. 125 Maiden Lane, 5'h floor New York, N:Y 10038
Dear Ms. Koberle:
In response to your recent request, we have reviewed the New York Natural Heritage Program database with respect to an Environmental Assessment for the proposed Remedial Investigation - Cayuga County Groundwater Contamination Site, area as indicated on the map you provide, including a 2-mile radius ..
Enclosed is a report ofrare or state-listed animals and plants, significant natural communities, and other significant habitats, which our databases indicate occur, or may occur, on your site or in the immediate vicinity of your site. The information contained in this report is considered sensitive and may not be released to the public without permission from the New York Natural Heritage Program. PLEASE NOTE: Canoga Marsh Wildlife Management Area is within the 2-mile buffer Of the project boundary.
The presence of rare species may result in this project requiring additional permits, permit conditions, or review. For further guidance, and for information regarding other permits that may be required under state law for regulated areas or activities (e.g., regulated wetlands), please contact the appropriate NYS DEC Regional Office, Division of Environmental Permits, at the enclosed address. For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted; the enclosed report only includes records from our databases. We cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of all rare or state-listed species or significant natural communities. This information should not be substituted for on-site surveys that may be required for environmental impact assessment. Our databases are continually growing as records are added and updated. If this proposed project is still under development one year from now, we recommend that you contact us again so that we may update this response with the most current information Sincerely, _
~in, formation Servi ~ NY Natural Heritage Program cc: Reg.7, Wildlife Mgr. Reg. 7, Fisheries Mgr. Reg. 7, Bureau of Habitat Peter Nye, Endangered Species Unit, 5'h flr, Albany
R2-0024731 Natural Heritage Report on Rare Species and Ecological Communities
NY Natural Heritage Program, NYS DEC, 625 Broadway, 5th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-4757 • Location displayed on map (518) 402-8935
-This report contains SENSITIVE information that may not be released to the public without permission from the NY Natural Heritage Program. -Refer to the User's Guide for explanations of codes, ranks and fields. -Location maps for certain species and communities may not be provided if 1) the species is vulnerable to disturbance, 2) the location and/or extent is not precisely known, and/or 3) the location and/or extent is too large to display.
BIRDS Asio f1ammeus Office Use
Short-eared Owl NY Legal Status: Endangered NYS Rank: S2; Imperiled 11103 Global Rank: G5; Demonstrably secure Last Report: •• EO Rank: •• ESU County: Cayuga Town: Ledyard, Springport, Scipio Location: Great Gully Directions: From Scipioville, go north on Route 348 for approximately 0.75 miles. The birds were observed in the field on the west side of the road. Continue north on Route 348 to the intersection with Great Gully Road (Route 89). Go west on Great Gully Road for approximately 4.65 miles. The birds were observed in the field on the north side of the road. General Quality **For information on the population at this location and management considerations, please and Habitat: contact the NYS DEC Regional Wildlife Manager or NYS DEC Endangered Species Unit at 518-402-8859.
VASCULAR PLANTS Ag,imonla ,astellata Office Use
Woodland Agrimony NY Legal Status: Threatened NYS Rank: S2; Imperiled 9966 Global Rank: G5; Demonstrably secure SL Last Report: 1992-08-23 EO Rank: Fair County: Cayuga Town: Springport Location: Great Gully Directions: Park by the bridge over Great Gully Creek. Walk up the northside of the creek. The piants are in three spots on the north side west of Truesdale Road. See the Heritage GMF for precise locations and directions. General Quality 36 plants in nice habitat. North bank of brook in rich soils beneath a canopy of Acer saccharum, and Habitat: Tilla americana, Fraxinus americana and Ostrya virginiana. All plants were observed in the lower slope usually associated with Desmodium glutinosum, Geranium maculatum and collinsia canadensis.
November 04, 2005 Page 1 of 4
R2-0024732 Natural Heritage Report on Rare Species and Ecological Communities
VASCULAR PLANTS Astragalus neglectus Office Use
Cooper's Milkvetch NY Legal Status: Endangered NYS Rank: S 1: Critically imperiled 7230 Global Rank: G4: Apparently secure SL Last Report: 1995-07-18 EO Rank: Fair County: Cayuga Town: Springport, Ledyard Location: Great Gully Directions: In ravine south of the intersection of truesdale road and great gully road. The plants are at the beginning and the end of ne-sw section of ravine. Enter gully on traU property along dirt path down slope. General Quality 20-25 plants in good habitat. In deep shale ravine with slopes of maple-oak-hickory mixed with and Habitat: hemlock. Floodplain with rich maple-basswood forest of large basswoods and tulip trees. Soil is moist clay. Associated species: Smilacina racemosa, Cynanchum, Thalictrum, Comandra, Helianthus, Carex edurnea, Anemone virginiana, Rhus aromatica. In open field on slope with pycnanthemum incanum, Cynanchum, Helianthus and ceanothus americanus.
Hydrastis canadensis Office Use
Golden-seal NY Legal Status: Threatened NYS Rank: S2: Imperiled 10475 Global Rank: G4: Apparently secure SL Last Report: 1997-05-27 EO Rank: Excellent County: Cayuga Town: Springport, Ledyard Location: Great Gully Directions: Go south of Union Springs on Route 90 about 2 mi to the bridge over Great Gully. The plants are upstream from the bridge. The plants are under red maple near the creek. See the Heritage GMF for precise locations and directions to the plant locations. General Quality 1000+ individuals, not recently disturbed. A maple-basswood mesic forest in a 150 feet gorge. and Habitat: Associated species: Jeffersonia diphylla and Polymnia canadensis.
Jeffersonla dlphylla Office Use
Twin-leaf NY Legal Status: Threatened NYS Rank: S2: Imperiled 6406 Global Rank: G5: Demonstrably secure SL Last Report: 1997-05-27 EO Rank: Good County: Cayuga Town: Springport Location: Great Gully Directions: Go south of Union Springs on Route 90 about 2 mi to the bridge over Great Gully. The plants are upstream from the bridge. For The Nature Conservancy 01 group, descend The Nature Conservancy trail #3 at back of an old field and go west. The population ison the back of a terrace and on the lower slope at the west end of this terrace. For BOW 05 group, descend the slope from Great Gully Road just west of Truesdale Road where there is an orange stake at the first cedar island. The plants are on the back an General Quality 100 clumps. Maple-basswood mesic forest. Population is found in clumps on flood plain and and Habitat: lower slope of 150 foot gorge. Associated species: Acer saccharum, Fraxinus, Tilia, Carpinus, Parthenocissus, Carex and Alliaria.
November 04, 2005 Page 2 of 4
R2-0024733 Natural Heritage Report on Rare Species and Ecological Communities
VASCULAR PLANTS Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alplna Office Use
Slender Pondweed NY Legal Status: Endangered NYS Rank: S1; Critically imperiled 8008 Global Rank: G5T5; Demonstrably secure Last Report: 1997-07-15 EO Rank: Extant County: Cayuga Town: Springport Location: Farleys Point Directions: From Union Springs, go south on Route 90 to a right on Farley's Point Road at Farleys. Go right at the fork then to the second house after the big white house. Park across from mailboxes and walk to the lake. General Quality Extant, from collection bag. Lake front property on Cayuga Lake lined with summer houses. There and Habitat: are many small docks sticking into the water. No natural habitat is left along the shoreline but the shallow water along the shore does contain a wide variety of aquatic plants includingScirpus americanus, Myriophyllum, Chara, Carex species, Eleocharis palustris, Justicia americana, Potamogeton filiform is var. alpina, Potamogeton pusillus, Stuckenia pectinata, Najas flexilis. The Chara indicates that the shoreline is fairly alkaline. Th
COMMUNITIES Maple-basswood rich mesic forest Office Use This occurrence of Maple-Basswood Rich Mesic Forest is considered significant from a statewide perspective by the NY Natural Heritage Program. It is either an occurrence of a community type that is rare in the state or a high quality example of a more common community type. By meeting specific, documented significance criteria, the NY Natural Heritage Program considers this occurrence to have high ecological and conservation value. NY Legal Status: Unlisted NYS Rank: S3: 2817 Global Rank: G4; SL Last Report: 1996-09-14 County: Cayuga Town: Springport, Ledyard Location: Great Gully Directions: Go south on Route 90 about 2.0 mi to the bridge over Great Gully. The forest is upstream from bridge. General Quality In good condition. Apparently only moderate size with several disturbances. Rank needs to be and Habitat: reevaluated. Along food plain of great gully creek. Well developed understory. Trees up to 70cm dbh. Bordered by stream and upland slopes. 1989: forest extends through lower and middle gully on narrow to wide terraces slighty elevated above creek bed.
OTHER Waterfowl Winter Concentration Area Office Use
NY Legal Status: Unlisted NYS Rank: S3S4: Vulnerable 8829 Global Rank: GNR; Not ranked S Last Report: 1994-01-21 EO Rank: Extant County: Cayuga Town: Owasco, Fleming, Scipio, Niles, Moravia, Venice Location: Owasco Lake Directions: Owasco lake. General Quality Long, narrow inland lake, with mean depth of 96 feet and maximum depth of 177 feet. which and Habitat: does freeze over in some years.
November 04, 2005 Page 3 of 4
R2-0024734 Natural Heritage Report on Rare Species and Ecological Communities
OTHER Waterfowl Winto!f Concentration Area Office Use
NY Legal Status: Unlisted NYS Rank: S3S4; Vulnerable 7324 Global Rank: GNR; Not ranked Last Report: 1994-01-21 EO Rank: Extant County: Cayuga, Tompkins, Seneca Town: Springport, Ulysses, Lansing, Ithaca, Varick, Genoa, Seneca Falls, Ovid, Covert, City Of Ithaca, Fayetle, Romulus, Aurelius, Ledyard Location: Cayuga Lake Directions: General Quality Large, long and narrow inland lake of glacial origin, with a mean depth of 179 feet and a and Habitat: maximum depth of 435 feet, and which does not freeze over in winter.
9 Records Prooessed
November 04, 2005 Page 4 of 4
R2-0024735 INatural Heritage Map of Rare Species and Ecological Communities Prepared November 4,2005 by NY Natural Heritage Program, NYS DEC, Albany, New York
D PROJECT SITE (with 2-mile buffer) N New York Natural Heritage Progam Database Records* Scale: I: 125000 A § Plant 2 o 2 Miles mIIIlI Animal f:t:,).;:J Animal Concentration Area * The locations that are displayed are considered sensitive and cannot be released to the public without permission. We do not 1::::::::::::1 Community provide map locations for aU records. Please see report for details.
R2-0024736 Natural Heritage Report on Rare Species and Ecological Communities
NY Natural Heritage Program, NYS DEC, 625 Broadway, 5th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-4757 HISTORICAL RECORDS (518) 402-8935
-This report contains SENSITIVE information that may not be released to the public without permission from the NY Natural Heritage Program. -Refer to the User's Guide for explanations of codes, ranks and fields. -Location maps for certain species and communities may not be provided if 1) the species is vulnerable to disturbance, 2) the location andlor extent is not precisely known, and/or 3) the location and/or extent is too large to display.
FISH Notropis heterodon Office Use
Blackchin Shiner NY Legal Status: Unlisted NYS Rank: S1; Critically imperiled 11440 Global Rank: G5; Demonstrably secure Last Report: 1961 EO Rank: Historical, no recent information County: Seneca Town: Fayette Location: Canoga Marsh Directions: The fish were observed in Canoga Marsh on Cayuga Lake. General Quality The fish were observed in a marsh on Cayuga Lake. and Habitat:
VASCULAR PLANTS Carex formosa Office Use
Handsome Sedge NY Legal Status: Threatened NYS Rank: S2S3; Imperiled 8135 Global Rank: G4; Apparently secure M Last Report: 1868-06-09 EO Rank: Historical, no recent information County: Cayuga Town: Springport Location: Union Springs Directions: Union springs. General Quality and Habitat:
Carya laciniosa Office Use
Big Shell bark Hickory NY Legal Status: Threatened NYS Rank: S2; Imperiled 6391 Global Rank: G5; Demonstrably secure M Last Report: 1918-08-07 EO Rank: Historical, no recent information County: Seneca Town: Fayette Location: Canoga Marsh Directions: Border of Canoga Marsh, Fayette, west side of Cayuga Lake. General Quality and Habitat:
November 04, 2005 Page 1 of 2
R2-0024737 Natural Heritage Report on Rare Species and Ecological Communities
VASCULAR PLANTS Najas guadalupensls ssp. olivacea Office Use
Southern Naiad NY Legal Status: Endangered NYS Rank: S1?; Critically imperiled 2901 Global Rank: G5T4?; Apparently secure M Last Report: 1938-09-22 EO Rank: Historical. no recent information County: Seneca Town: Fayette Location: Canoga Marsh Directions: Canoga Marsh. In 5 feet of water in marshes. In 3·5 feet of water on marly bottom of Cayuga Lake off Canoga Marshes. General Quality In 3-5 feet of water in marsh or near marsh on marly bottom of lake. and Habitat:
Potamogeton strictifolius Office Use
Straight-leaf Pondweed NY Legal Status: Endangered NYS Rank: S1; Critically imperiled 3688 Global Rank: G5; Demonstrably secure Last Report: 1922-08-21 EO Rank: Failed to find but search more County: Cayuga Town: Springport Location: Farleys POint, Long Point Directions: [Cayuga] Lake margin, Farleys Point. [Long Point on the USGS topographic map, northwest of Route 90 at Farleys and southwest of Union Springs, on the east shore of Cayuga Lake]. General Quality Plant was not found, but may still be mixed in with other Potamogetons. Lake margin. and Habitat:
5 Records Processed
November 04, 2005 Page 2 of 2
R2-0024738 USERS GUIDE TO NY NATURAL HERITAGE DATA New York Natural Heritage Program, 625 Broadway, 5th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-4757 phone: (518) 402-8935
NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM: The NY Natural Heritage Program is a partnership between the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) and The Nature Conservancy. Our mission is to enable and enhance conservation of rare animals, rare plants, and significant communities. We accomplish this mission by combining thorough field inventories, scientific analyses, expert interpretation, and the most comprehensive database on New York's distinctive biodiversity to deliver the highest quality information for natural resource planning, protection, and management.
DATA SENSITIVITY: The data provided in the report are ecologically sensitive and should be treated in a sensitive manner. The report is for your in-house use and should not be released, distributed or incorporated in a public document without prior permission from the Natural Heritage Program.
EO RANK: A letter code for the quality of the occurrence of the rare species or significant natural community, based on population size or area, condition, and landscape context.
A-E = Extant: A=Excelient, B=Good, C=Fair, D=Poor, E=Extant but with insufficient data to assign a rank of A-D. F = Failed to find. Did not locate species during a limited search, but habitat is still there and further field work is justified. H == Historical. Historical occurrence without any recent field information. X = Extirpated. Field/olher data indicates elemenUhabitat is destroyed and the element no longer exists at this location. U = ExtanUHistorical status uncertain. Blank = Not assigned.
LAST REPORT: The date that the rare species or significant natural community was last observed at this location, as documented in the Natural Heritage databases. The format is most often YVYV-MM-DD.
NY LEGAL STATUS - Animals: Categories of Endangered and Threatened species are defined in New York State Environmental Conservation Law section 11-0535. Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern species are listed in regulation 6NYCRR 182.5.
E - Endangered Species: any species which meet one of the following criteria: • Any native species in imminent danger of extirpation or extinction in New York. • Any species listed as endangered by the United States Department of the Interior, as enumerated in the Code of Federal Regulations 50 CFR 17.11. T - Threatened Species: any species which meet one of the following criteria: • Any native species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future in NY. • Any species listed as threatened by the U.S. Department of the Interior, as enumerated in the Code of the Federal Regulations 50 CFR 17.11. SC - Special Concern Species: those species which are not yet recognized as endangered or threatened, but for which documented cohcern exists for their continued welfare in New York. Unlike the first two categories, species of special concern receive no additional legal protection under Environmental Conservation Law section 11-0535 (Endangered and Threatened Species). P - Protected Wildlife (defined in Environrnental Conservation Law section 11-0103): wild game, protected wild birds, and endangered species of wildlife. U - Unprotected (defined in Environmental Conservation Law section 11-0103): the species may be taken at any time without limit; however a license to take may be required. G - Game (defined in Environmental Conservation Law section 11-0103): any of a variety of big game or small game species as stated in the Environmental Conservation Law; many normally have an open season for at least part of the year, and are protected at other times.
NY LEGAL STATUS - Plants: The following categories are defined in regulation 6NYCRR part 193.3 and apply to NYS Environmental Conservation Law section 9- 1503.
E - Endangered Species: listed species are those with: • 5 or fewer extant sites, or • fewer than 1,000 individuals, or • restricted to fewer than 4 U.S.G.S. 7 Y, rninute topographical maps, or • species listed as endangered by U.S. Dept. of Interior, as enumerated in Code of Federal Regulations 50 CFR 17.11. T - Threatened: listed species are those with: • 6 to fewer than 20 extant sites, or • 1,000 to fewer than 3,000 individuals, or • restricted to not less than 4 or more than 7 U.S.G.S. 7 and Y2 minute topographical maps, or • listed as threatened by U.S. Departrnent of Interior, as enumerated in Code of Federal Regulations 50 CFR 17.11.
R2-0024739 R - Rare: listed species have: • 20 to 35 extant sites, or • 3,000 to 5,000 individuals statewide. V - Exploitably vulnerable: listed species are likely to become threatened in the near future throughout all or a significant portion of their range within the state if causal factors continue unchecked. U - Unprotected; no state status.
FEDERAL STATUS (PLANTS and ANIMALS): The categories of federal status are defined by the United States Department of the Interior as part of the 1974 Endangered Species Act (see Code of Federal Regulations 50 CFR 17). The species listed under this law are enumerated in the Federal Register vol. 50, no. 188, pp. 39526 - 39527. The codes below without parentheses are those used in the Federal Register. The codes below in parentheses are created by Heritage to deal with species which have different listings in different parts of their range, andlor different listings for different subspecies or varieties.
(blank) = No Federal Endangered Species Act status. LE = Formally listed as endangered. L T = Formally listed as threatened. C = Candidate for listing. LE,L T = Formally listed as endangered in part of its range, and as threatened in the other part; or, one or more subspecies or varieties is listed as endangered, and the others are listed as threatened. LT,PDL = Populations of the species in New York are formally listed as threatened, and proposed for delisting.
GLOBAL AND STATE RANKS (animals, plants, ecological communities and others): Each element has a global and state rank as determined by the NY Natural Heritage Program. These ranks carry no legal weight. The global rank reflects the rarity of the element throughout the world and the state rank reflects the rarity within New York State. Infraspecific taxa are also assigned a taxon rank to reflect the infraspecific taxon's rank throughout the world. ? = Indicates a question exists about the rank. Range ranks, e.g. S1S2, indicate not enough information is available to distinguish between two ranks.
GLOBAL RANK: G1 - Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences), or very few remaining acres, or miles of stream) or especially vulnerable to extinction because of some factor of its biology. G2 - Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 - 20 occurrences, or few remaining acres, or miles of stream) or very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range because of other factors. G3 - Vulnerable: Either rare and local throughout its range (21 to 100 occurrences), or found locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) in a restricted range (e.g. a physiographic region), or vulnerable to extinction throughout its range because of other factors. G4 - Apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts-of its range, especially at the periphery. G5 - Demonstrably secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. GH - Historically known, with the expectation that it might be rediscovered. GX - Species believed to be extinct.
NYSRANK: S1 - Critically imperiled: Typically 5 or fewer occurrences. very few remaining individuals, acres, or miles of stream, or some factor of its biology making it especially vulnerable in New York State. 52 -Imperiled: Typically 6 to 20 occurrences, few remaining individuals, acres, or miles of stream, or factors demonstrably making it very vulnerable in New York State. 53 - Vulnerable: Typically 21 to 100 occurrences, limited acreage, or miles of stream in New York State. 54 - Apparently secure in New York State. 55 - Demonstrably secure in New York State. 5H - Historically known from New York State, but not seen in the past 15 years. 5X - Apparently extirpated from New York State.
SxB and SxN, where Sx is one of the codes above, are used for migratory animals, and refer to the rarity within New York State of the breeding (B)populations and the non-breeding populations (N), respectively, of the species.
TAXON (T) RANK: The T-ranks (T1 - T5) are defined the same way as the Global ranks (G1 - G5), but the T-rank refers only to the rarity of the subspecific taxon. T1 through T5 - See Global Rank definitions above. Q - Indicates a question exists whether or not the taxon is a good taxonomic entity. Revised April, 2005
R2-0024740 Appendix B
R2-0024741
Appendix B Analytical Results
A
R2-0024742 Table B-1 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Surface Water Samples - Owasco Outlet Low Detection Limit Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample Code SW-OU-01 SW-OU-02 SW-OU-03 SW-OU-04 SW-OU-05 Sample Name Background Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/13/2005 Unit \\ Low Detection Limit Volatile Organic Compounds 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 74-87-3 Chloromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 74-83-9 Bromomethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-00-3 Chloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 76-13-1 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.15 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 67-64-1 Acetone µg/l 5 U 7.9 U 9.3 U 5 U 5 U 79-20-9 Methyl Acetate µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 75-09-2 Methylene Chloride µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.16 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 1634-04-4 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 78-93-3 2-Butanone µg/l 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 74-97-5 Chlorobromomethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 67-66-3 Chloroform µg/l 1.5 U 1.4 U 0.84 U 0.53 U 0.67 U 71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 110-82-7 Cyclohexane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 71-43-2 Benzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 79-01-6 Trichloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 108-87-2 Metylcyclohexane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane µg/l 0.29 J 0.35 J 0.23 J 0.18 J 0.5 UJ 10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone µg/l 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 108-88-3 Toluene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 591-78-6 2-Hexanone µg/l 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
Page 1 of 4 A 3/4/2009
R2-0024743 Table B-1 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Surface Water Samples - Owasco Outlet Low Detection Limit Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample Code SW-OU-01 SW-OU-02 SW-OU-03 SW-OU-04 SW-OU-05 Sample Name Background Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/13/2005 Unit \\ 100-42-5 Styrene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-25-2 Bromoform µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 87-61-6 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
Page 2 of 4 A 3/4/2009
R2-0024744 Table B-1 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Surface Water Samples - Owasco Outlet Low Detection Limit Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample Code SW-OU-06 SW-OU-06-Dup SW-OU-07 Sample Name SW-OU-10 Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/13/2005 10/13/2005 10/13/2005 Unit \\ Low Detection Limit Volatile Organic Compounds 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/l 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 74-87-3 Chloromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.46 J 75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 74-83-9 Bromomethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-00-3 Chloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 76-13-1 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 67-64-1 Acetone µg/l 5.4 U 5 U 5 U 79-20-9 Methyl Acetate µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 U 0.5 R 75-09-2 Methylene Chloride µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 1634-04-4 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 78-93-3 2-Butanone µg/l 5U 5U 5U 74-97-5 Chlorobromomethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 67-66-3 Chloroform µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 110-82-7 Cyclohexane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 71-43-2 Benzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 79-01-6 Trichloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 108-87-2 Metylcyclohexane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone µg/l 5U 5U 5U 108-88-3 Toluene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 591-78-6 2-Hexanone µg/l 5U 5U 5U 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
Page 3 of 4 A 3/4/2009
R2-0024745 Table B-1 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Surface Water Samples - Owasco Outlet Low Detection Limit Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample Code SW-OU-06 SW-OU-06-Dup SW-OU-07 Sample Name SW-OU-10 Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/13/2005 10/13/2005 10/13/2005 Unit \\ 100-42-5 Styrene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-25-2 Bromoform µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 87-61-6 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
Page 4 of 4 A 3/4/2009
R2-0024746 Table B-2 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Surface Water Samples - Owasco Outlet Wet Chemistry Parameters
Sample Code SW-OU-01 SW-OU-02 SW-OU-03 SW-OU-04 SW-OU-05 SW-OU-06 SW-OU-06-Dup Sample Name SW-OU-10 Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/13/2005 10/13/2005 10/13/2005 Unit \\ Wet Chemistry NH3 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 0.1 U 0.11 L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 7727-37-9 TOT. Kjeldhal Nitrogen mg/L 0.05 U 0.05 UJ 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U TDS Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 190 220 210 200 210 210 240 TSS Total Suspended Solids mg/L 4 U 5.3 4 U 4 U 4 U 4 U 4 U TKN Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 0.23 0.76 0.63 0.85 0.56 0.84 0.64 CL Chloride mg/L 27 34 39 36 38 38 38 CACOA-H Hardness As CaCO3 mg/L 130 140 140 130 140 140 140 ALK Alkalinity, Total (as CaCO3) mg/L 110 120 110 110 120 120 120 18496-25-8 Sulfide mg/L 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U 14808-79-8 Sulfate mg/L 14 16.9 16.8 15.5 16.2 16.4 16.4 TOC Total Organic Carbon mg/L 2.8 2.7 2.6 9.3 3.1 2.9 2.5
3/4/2009 A Page 1 of 2
R2-0024747 Table B-2 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Surface Water Samples - Owasco Outlet Wet Chemistry Parameters
Sample Code SW-OU-07 Sample Name Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/13/2005 Unit \\ Wet Chemistry NH3 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 0.1 U 7727-37-9 TOT. Kjeldhal Nitrogen mg/L 0.05 U TDS Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 250 TSS Total Suspended Solids mg/L 4 U TKN Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 0.5 CL Chloride mg/L 53 CACOA-H Hardness As CaCO3 mg/L 180 ALK Alkalinity, Total (as CaCO3) mg/L 120 18496-25-8 Sulfide mg/L 0.75 U 14808-79-8 Sulfate mg/L 21.6 TOC Total Organic Carbon mg/L 3
3/4/2009 A Page 2 of 2
R2-0024748 Table B-3 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Surface Water Samples - Crane Brook Low Detection Limit Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample Code SW-CB-01 SW-CB-02 SW-CB-03 SW-CB-04 SW-CB-31 Sample Name SW-CB-03 Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date Unit \\ Low Detection Limit Volatile Organic Compounds 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/l 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 74-87-3 Chloromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 74-83-9 Bromomethane µg/l 0.5 UK 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-00-3 Chloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 76-13-1 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 67-64-1 Acetone µg/l 2 1.9 1.4 1.8 1.3 79-20-9 Methyl Acetate µg/l 0.5 UL 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-09-2 Methylene Chloride µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1634-04-4 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 594-20-7 2,2-Dichloropropane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 78-93-3 2-Butanone µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 74-97-5 Chlorobromomethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 67-66-3 Chloroform µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 110-82-7 Cyclohexane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 563-58-6 1,1-Dichloropropene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 71-43-2 Benzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 79-01-6 Trichloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 108-87-2 Metylcyclohexane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 74-95-3 Dibromomethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 108-88-3 Toluene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
A Page 1 of 2 3/4/2009
R2-0024749 Table B-3 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Surface Water Samples - Crane Brook Low Detection Limit Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample Code SW-CB-01 SW-CB-02 SW-CB-03 SW-CB-04 SW-CB-31 Sample Name SW-CB-03 Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date Unit \\ 142-28-9 1,3-Dichloropropane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 591-78-6 2-Hexanone µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 630-20-6 1,1,1,2-Tetrachlorroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 108-38-3 m-Xylene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 95-47-6 o-Xylene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 100-42-5 Styrene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-25-2 Bromoform µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 108-86-1 Bromobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 96-18-4 1,2,3-Trichloropropane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 103-65-1 n-Propylbenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 95-49-8 2-Chlorotoluene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 106-43-4 4-Chlorotoluene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 108-67-8 1,3,5-Trimethyl Benzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 98-06-6 tert-Butylbenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 95-63-6 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 135-98-8 2-Phenylbutane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 99-87-6 Cymene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 104-51-8 n-Butylbenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 87-68-3 Hexachlorobutadiene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 91-20-3 Naphthalene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 87-61-6 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
A Page 2 of 2 3/4/2009
R2-0024750 Table B-4 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Surface Water Sample - Crane Brook Wet Chemistry Parameters
Sample Code SW-CB-01 SW-CB-02 SW-CB-03 SW-CB-04 SW-CB-31 Sample Name Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date Unit \\ Wet Chemistry CACO3-A Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 230 210 220 230 220 CL Chloride mg/L 44 47 49 54 49 SO4 Sulfate mg/L 26 26 26 26 26 SU-REAC Sulfide-Reactivity mg/L 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U 0.05 U TOC Total Organic Carbonmg/L 7.8 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.5 CACOA-H Hardness As CaCO3mg/L 280 260 270 270 260 NH3 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.26 0.25 U NO3/NO2 Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitritemg/L 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.6 2.2 TDS Total Dissolved Solidsmg/L 360 350 370 390 370 TSS Total Suspended Solids mg/L 4 U 4 U 4 U 4 U 4 U TKN Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 0.46 K 0.62 0.75 1.1 0.68
A Page 1 of 1 3/4/2009
R2-0024751 Table B-5 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Surface Water Sample - Union Springs Low Detection Limit Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample Code SW-US-01 SW-US-02 SW-US-03 SW-US-04 SW-US-05 Sample Name Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/14/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/18/2005 10/17/2005 Unit \\ Low Detection Limit Volatile Organic Compounds 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 74-87-3 Chloromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 74-83-9 Bromomethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-00-3 Chloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 76-13-1 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 67-64-1 Acetone µg/l 5 U 5 U 8.6 U 19 16 U 79-20-9 Methyl Acetate µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 75-09-2 Methylene Chloride µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.2 J 1634-04-4 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 8.5 6.1 4.9 18 78-93-3 2-Butanone µg/l 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 74-97-5 Chlorobromomethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 67-66-3 Chloroform µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 110-82-7 Cyclohexane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 71-43-2 Benzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 79-01-6 Trichloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.83 0.63 0.67 J 1.9 108-87-2 Metylcyclohexane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone µg/l 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 108-88-3 Toluene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 591-78-6 2-Hexanone µg/l 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
A 1 of 4 3/4/2009
R2-0024752 Table B-5 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Surface Water Sample - Union Springs Low Detection Limit Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample Code SW-US-01 SW-US-02 SW-US-03 SW-US-04 SW-US-05 Sample Name Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/14/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/18/2005 10/17/2005 Unit \\ 100-42-5 Styrene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-25-2 Bromoform µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 87-61-6 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
A 2 of 4 3/4/2009
R2-0024753 Table B-5 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Surface Water Sample - Union Springs Low Detection Limit Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample Code SW-US-06 SW-US-07 SW-US-08 SW-US-09 Sample Name Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/17/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/17/2005 Unit \\ Low Detection Limit Volatile Organic Compounds 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 74-87-3 Chloromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 U 0.5 R 74-83-9 Bromomethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-00-3 Chloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 76-13-1 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 67-64-1 Acetone µg/l 20 U 5 U 16 8.8 U 79-20-9 Methyl Acetate µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 U 0.5 R 75-09-2 Methylene Chloride µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l 0.11 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1634-04-4 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/l 11 3.2 3.5 0.5 U 78-93-3 2-Butanone µg/l 5U 5U 5U 5U 74-97-5 Chlorobromomethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 67-66-3 Chloroform µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 110-82-7 Cyclohexane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 71-43-2 Benzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 79-01-6 Trichloroethene µg/l 1.3 0.49 J 0.48 J 0.5 U 108-87-2 Metylcyclohexane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone µg/l 5U 5U 5U 5U 108-88-3 Toluene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/l 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.32 J 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 591-78-6 2-Hexanone µg/l 5U 5U 5U 5U 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
A 3 of 4 3/4/2009
R2-0024754 Table B-5 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Surface Water Sample - Union Springs Low Detection Limit Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample Code SW-US-06 SW-US-07 SW-US-08 SW-US-09 Sample Name Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/17/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/17/2005 Unit \\ 100-42-5 Styrene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 75-25-2 Bromoform µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 87-61-6 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U
A 4 of 4 3/4/2009
R2-0024755 Table B-6 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Surface Water Sample - Union Springs Wet Chemistry Parameters
Sample Code SW-US-01 SW-US-02 SW-US-03 SW-US-04 SW-US-05 SW-US-06 SW-US-07 Sample Name Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/14/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/18/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/18/2005 Unit \\ Wet Chemistry NH3 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 0.1 U 0.15 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.22 7727-37-9 TOT. Kjeldhal Nitrogen mg/L 0.05 U 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.14 0.12 TDS Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 510 670 660 680 690 700 790 TSS Total Suspended Solids mg/L 19 4 U 6.4 5.6 4 U 4 U 4 U TKN Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 1.9 0.46 0.92 0.63 0.44 0.62 0.61 CL Chloride mg/L 27 77 77 78 78 77 150 CACOA-H Hardness As CaCO3 mg/L 400 470 480 480 470 470 500 ALK Alkalinity, Total (as CaCO3)mg/L 290 250 250 250 250 250 250 18496-25-8 Sulfide mg/L 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U 0.75 U 14808-79-8 Sulfate mg/L 108 184 184 184 185 184 203 TOC Total Organic Carbon mg/L 9.2 1.8 3.8 2.3 1 U 1.3 2
A 1 of 2 3/4/2009
R2-0024756 Table B-6 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Surface Water Sample - Union Springs Wet Chemistry Parameters
Sample Code SW-US-08 SW-US-09 Sample Name Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/18/2005 10/17/2005 Unit \\ Wet Chemistry NH3 Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L 0.17 0.13 7727-37-9 TOT. Kjeldhal Nitrogen mg/L 0.09 0.12 TDS Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 720 770 TSS Total Suspended Solids mg/L 13 4 U TKN Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 0.63 1.2 CL Chloride mg/L 150 210 CACOA-H Hardness As CaCO3 mg/L 500 430 ALK Alkalinity, Total (as CaCO3) mg/L 250 310 18496-25-8 Sulfide mg/L 0.75 U 0.75 U 14808-79-8 Sulfate mg/L 204 52.4 TOC Total Organic Carbon mg/L 3.2 6.3
A 2 of 2 3/4/2009
R2-0024757 Table B-7 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Sediment Samples - Union Springs Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample Code SD-US-01 SD-US-02 SD-US-03 SD-US-04 SD-US-05 SD-US-06 Sample Name Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/14/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/18/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 Unit \\ Volatile Organic Compounds 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 74-87-3 Chloromethane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 74-83-9 Bromomethane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 75-00-3 Chloroethane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene µg/kg 16 UJ 14 UJ 14 UJ 17 UJ 15 UJ 13 UJ 76-13-1 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 67-64-1 Acetone µg/kg 190 53 UJ 79 UJ 120 UJ 75 UJ 13 UJ 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide µg/kg 16 UJ 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 79-20-9 Methyl Acetate µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 75-09-2 Methylene Chloride µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 1634-04-4 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 78-93-3 2-Butanone µg/kg 45 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 67-66-3 Chloroform µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 110-82-7 Cyclohexane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 71-43-2 Benzene µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 79-01-6 Trichloroethene µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 108-87-2 Metylcyclohexane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 R 15 U 13 UJ 108-88-3 Toluene µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 R 15 U 13 UJ 10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 R 15 U 13 UJ 591-78-6 2-Hexanone µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 R 15 U 13 UJ 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 R 15 U 13 UJ 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 R 15 U 13 UJ
A 1 of 4 3/4/2009
R2-0024758 Table B-7 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Sediment Samples - Union Springs Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample Code SD-US-01 SD-US-02 SD-US-03 SD-US-04 SD-US-05 SD-US-06 Sample Name Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/14/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/18/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 Unit \\ 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 R 15 U 13 UJ 1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) µg/kg 16 UJ 14 UJ 14 U 17 R 15 U 13 UJ 100-42-5 Styrene µg/kg 16 UJ 14 UJ 14 U 17 R 15 U 13 UJ 75-25-2 Bromoform µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 UJ 15 U 13 UJ 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 R 15 U 13 UJ 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 R 15 U 13 UJ 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 R 15 U 13 UJ 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/kg 16 UJ 14 UJ 14 U 17 R 15 U 13 UJ 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 R 15 U 13 UJ 96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 R 15 U 13 UJ 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/kg 16 U 14 UJ 14 U 17 R 15 U 13 UJ
A 2 of 4 3/4/2009
R2-0024759 Table B-7 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Sediment Samples - Union Springs Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample Code SD-US-07 SD-US-07-Dup SD-US-08 SD-US-09 Sample Name SD-US-10 Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/17/2005 Unit \\ Volatile Organic Compounds 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/kg 13R 15UJ 14UJ 10UJ 74-87-3 Chloromethane µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 74-83-9 Bromomethane µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 75-00-3 Chloroethane µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 76-13-1 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 67-64-1 Acetone µg/kg 13R 53UJ 79UJ 73UJ 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 79-20-9 Methyl Acetate µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 75-09-2 Methylene Chloride µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 1634-04-4 Methyl tert-Butyl Ether µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 78-93-3 2-Butanone µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 67-66-3 Chloroform µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 110-82-7 Cyclohexane µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 71-43-2 Benzene µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 79-01-6 Trichloroethene µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 108-87-2 Metylcyclohexane µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone µg/kg 13 R 15 R 14 U 10 U 108-88-3 Toluene µg/kg 13 R 15 R 14 U 10 U 10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene µg/kg 13 R 15 R 14 U 10 U 591-78-6 2-Hexanone µg/kg 13 R 15 R 14 U 10 U 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane µg/kg 13 R 15 R 14 U 10 U 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene µg/kg 13 R 15 R 14 U 10 U
A 3 of 4 3/4/2009
R2-0024760 Table B-7 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Sediment Samples - Union Springs Volatile Organic Compounds
Sample Code SD-US-07 SD-US-07-Dup SD-US-08 SD-US-09 Sample Name SD-US-10 Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/17/2005 Unit \\ 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene µg/kg 13 R 15 R 14 U 10 U 1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) µg/kg 13 R 15 R 14 U 10 U 100-42-5 Styrene µg/kg 13 R 15 R 14 U 10 U 75-25-2 Bromoform µg/kg 13 R 15 UJ 14 U 10 U 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene µg/kg 13 R 15 R 14 U 10 U 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/kg 13 R 15 R 14 U 10 U 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/kg 13 R 15 R 14 U 10 U 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/kg 13 R 15 R 14 U 10 U 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/kg 13 R 15 R 14 U 10 U 96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/kg 13 R 15 R 14 U 10 U 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/kg 13 R 15 R 14 U 10 U
A 4 of 4 3/4/2009
R2-0024761 Table B-8 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Sediment Samples - Union Springs Total Organic Carbons, pH and Grainsize
Sample Code SD-US-01 SD-US-02 SD-US-03 SD-US-04 SD-US-05 SD-US-06 Sample Name Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/14/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/18/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 Unit \\ Grain Size >2 MM % GRANULE & LARGER >2 MM % 12 4.4 0 0 15 0 >1 - 2 MM % VERY COURSE SAND >1 - 2 MM % 3.5 4.2 1.8 0.3 6.7 1.9 >.5 - 1 MM % COARSE SAND >.5 - 1 MM % 4.1 6.9 2.9 1 6.1 2.1 >.25 - .5 MM % MEDIUM SAND >.25 - .5 MM % 10 16 7.4 1.4 5.5 7.5 >.125 - .25 MM % FINE SAND >.125 - .25 MM % 13 30 22 2.7 11 17 >.0625 -.125 MM % VERY FINE SAND >.0625 - .125 MM % 9.7 17 25 16 16 19 % SILT % SILT % 34 15 33 68 34 49 % CLAY-COLLOIDS % CLAY-COLLOIDS % 14 7 8 11 5.9 3.2
Wet Chemistry CORRODE Corrosivity S.U. 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.5 7.9 8 TOC Total Organic Carbon mg/kg 17,000 8,800 16,000 8,800 22,000 27,000
A 1 of 2 3/4/2009
R2-0024762 Table B-8 Cayuga Groundwater Contamination Site Sediment Samples - Union Springs Total Organic Carbons, pH and Grainsize
Sample Code SD-US-07 SD-US-07-Dup SD-US-08 SD-US-09 Sample Name SD-US-10 Cas No. Chemical Name Sample Date 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/17/2005 Unit \\ Grain Size >2 MM % GRANULE & LARGER >2 MM % 0.2 4.8 0.7 0 >1 - 2 MM % VERY COURSE SAND >1 - 2 MM % 0.1 1.3 1 0.4 >.5 - 1 MM % COARSE SAND >.5 - 1 MM % 1.2 1.4 2.2 1.3 >.25 - .5 MM % MEDIUM SAND >.25 - .5 MM % 11 11 2 2.5 >.125 - .25 MM % FINE SAND >.125 - .25 MM % 26 25 2.3 5.5 >.0625 -.125 MM % VERY FINE SAND >.0625 - .125 MM % 12 9.6 2.9 8.5 % SILT % SILT % 28 25 30 71 % CLAY-COLLOIDS % CLAY-COLLOIDS % 22 22 59 11
Wet Chemistry CORRODE Corrosivity S.U. 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.5 TOC Total Organic Carbon mg/kg 3,700 4,000 9,600 34,000
A 2 of 2 3/4/2009
R2-0024763 Ap endix C·
R2-0024764
Appendix C Comparison of Reporting Limits with Ecological Screening Levels
A
R2-0024765 Table C-1 Comparison of Reporting Limits with Ecological Screening Levels - Surface Water Cayuga County Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County, New York
Primary Source Secondary Source
NYS Surface Water Surface Quality Standards EPA National EPA Region 3 EPA Region 5 CAS Oak Ridge Water Contract Required Contaminant Unit and Guidance Recommended Freshwater Freshwater Number National Screening Detection Limit (4) Values for Aquatic Water Quality Screening Screening Laboratory (5) Criteria (6) Chronic Toxicity Criteria (2) Benchmark (3) Benchmark (4) (1)
Volatile Organic Compounds 71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane μg/LNL NL 11 76 11 11 0.5 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane μg/LNL NL 610 380 610 380 0.5 79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane μg/LNL NL 1200 500 1200 500 0.5 76-13-1 1,1,2-Tricholoro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane μg/LNL NL NL NL NL NL 0.5 75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane μg/LNL NL 47 47 47 47 0.5 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene μg/LNL NL 25 65 25 25 0.5 87-61 -6 1231,2,3-Trichlorobenzene μg/L 5 NL 8 NL NL 5 050.5 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene μg/LNL NL 24 30 110 24 0.5 96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane μg/LNL NL NL NL NL NL 0.5 106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane μg/LNL NL NL NL NL NL 0.5 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene μg/L5 NL 0.7 14 14 5 0.5 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane μg/LNL NL 100 910 910 100 0.5 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane μg/LNL NL NL 360 NL 360 0.5 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene μg/LNL NL 150 38 71 38 0.5 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene μg/LNL NL 26 NL 15 15 0.5 78-93-3 2-Butanone μg/LNL NL 14000 2200 14000 2200 5 591-78-6 2-Hexanone μg/LNL NL 99 99 99 99 5 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone μg/LNL NL 170 170 170 170 5 67-64-1 Acetone μg/LNL NL 1500 1700 1500 1500 5 71-43-2 Benzene μg/LNL NL 370 114 130 114 0.5 74-97-5 Bromochloromethane μg/LNL NL NL NL NL NL 0.5 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane μg/LNL NL NL NL NL NL 0.5 75-25-2 Bromoform μg/LNL NL 320 230 320 230 0.5
A 158_SLERA appendix C RL vs ESLs060508 Page 1 of 3
R2-0024766 Table C-1 Comparison of Reporting Limits with Ecological Screening Levels - Surface Water Cayuga County Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County, New York
Primary Source Secondary Source
NYS Surface Water Surface Quality Standards EPA National EPA Region 3 EPA Region 5 CAS Oak Ridge Water Contract Required Contaminant Unit and Guidance Recommended Freshwater Freshwater Number National Screening Detection Limit (4) Values for Aquatic Water Quality Screening Screening Laboratory (5) Criteria (6) Chronic Toxicity Criteria (2) Benchmark (3) Benchmark (4) (1)
74-83-9 Bromomethane μg/LNL NL NL 16 NL 16 0.5 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide μg/LNL NL 0.92 15 0.92 0.92 0.5 56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride μg/LNL NL 13.3 240 9.8 9.8 0.5 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene μg/L5 NL 1.3 47 64 5 0.5 75-00-3 Chloroethane μg/LNL NL NL NL NL NL 0.5 67-66-3 Chloroform μg/LNL NL 1.8 140 28 1.8 0.5 74-87-3 Chloromethane μg/LNL NL NL NL NL NL 0.5 156-59-2 cis -1,2-Dichloroethene μg/L NL NL NL NL 590 590 050.5 10061-01-5 cis -1,3-Dichloropropene μg/LNL NL NL NL 0.055 0.055 0.5 110-82-7 Cyclohexane μg/LNL NL NL NL NL NL 0.5 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane μg/LNL NL NL NL NL NL 0.5 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane μg/LNL NL NL NL NL NL 0.5 75-43-4 Dichlorofluoromethane μg/LNL NL NL NL NL NL 0.5 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene μg/LNL NL 90 14 7.3 7.3 0.5 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene μg/LNL NL 2.6 NL NL 2.6 0.5 79-20-9 Methyl Acetate μg/LNL NL NL NL NL NL 0.5 1634-04-4 Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether μg/LNL NL 11070 NL NL 11070 0.5 108-87-2 Methylcyclohexane μg/LNL NL NL NL NL NL 0.5 75-09-2 Methylene Chloride μg/LNL NL 98.1 940 2200 98.1 0.5 100-42-5 Styrene μg/LNL NL 72 32 NL 32 0.5 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene μg/LNL NL 111 45 98 45 0.5 108-88-3 Toluene μg/LNL NL 2 253 9.8 2 0.5 156-60-5 trans -1,2-Dichloroethene μg/LNL NL 970 970 590 590 0.5 10061-02-6 trans -1,3-Dichloropropene μg/LNL NL NL NL 0.055 0.055 0.5
A 158_SLERA appendix C RL vs ESLs060508 Page 2 of 3
R2-0024767 Table C-1 Comparison of Reporting Limits with Ecological Screening Levels - Surface Water Cayuga County Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County, New York
Primary Source Secondary Source
NYS Surface Water Surface Quality Standards EPA National EPA Region 3 EPA Region 5 CAS Oak Ridge Water Contract Required Contaminant Unit and Guidance Recommended Freshwater Freshwater Number National Screening Detection Limit (4) Values for Aquatic Water Quality Screening Screening Laboratory (5) Criteria (6) Chronic Toxicity Criteria (2) Benchmark (3) Benchmark (4) (1)
79-01-6 Trichloroethene μg/LNL NL 21 47 47 21 0.5 75-69-4 Trichlorofloromethane μg/LNL NL NL NL NL NL 0.5 75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride μg/LNL NL 930 930 NL 930 0.5 1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) μg/LNL NL 13 27 13 13 0.5
Notes: Bold indicating that screening criterion is lower than contract required detectoin limit 1 New York Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values , April , 1999 . Source of Drinking Water (surface water) 2 EPA 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 3 EPA Region 3 Freshwater Screening Benchmarks July 2006 4 EPA Region 5 Freshwater Screening Benchmarks August 22, 2003 5 Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision 6 Primary source for screening criteria is the lower value of the NYS Surface Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values and National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. If there is no value from the primiary sources, then the lowest of the three secondary sources is selected as the screening criteria NL Chemical name not listed or screening value of this type not listed for the chemical
A 158_SLERA appendix C RL vs ESLs060508 Page 3 of 3
R2-0024768 Table C-2 Comparison of Reporting Limits with Ecological Screening Levels - Sediment Cayuga County Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County, New York
Primary Source Secondary Source New York State EPA Region 3 EPA Region 5 Contract Sediment Criteria for Sediment CAS Freshwater Freshwater Oak Ridge Required Chemical Name Unit Benthic Aquatic Life, Screening Number Screening Screening National Detection Chronic Toxicity, Criteria (5) Benchmarks Benchmarks Laboratory (4) Limit Freshwater - with (mg/kg) (2) (mg/kg) (3) NYSDEC (1) Volatile Organic Compounds 71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/kg NL 0.0302 0.213 0.03 0.030 0.01 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/kg NL 1.36 0.85 1.4 0.850 0.01 76-13-1 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane mg/kg NL NL NL NL NL 0.01 79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/kg NL 1.24 0.518 1.2 0.518 0.01 75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane mg/kg NL NL 0.000575 0.027 0.001 0.01 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene mg/kg NL 0.031 0.0194 0.031 0.019 0.01 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg 91 , 2.1 5.062 9.6 91 0.01 96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane mg/kg NL NL NL NL NL 0.01 106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane mg/kg NL NL NL NL NL 0.01 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg 12 , 0.0165 0.294 0.33 12 0.01 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane mg/kg NL NL 0.26 0.25 0.250 0.01 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane mg/kg NL NL 0.333 NL 0.333 0.01 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg 12 , 4.43 1.315 1.7 12 0.01 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg 12 , 0.599 0.318 0.34 12 0.01 78-93-3 2-Butanone mg/kg NL NL 0.0424 0.27 0.042 0.01 591-78-6 2-Hexanone mg/kg NL NL 0.0582 0.022 0.022 0.01 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone mg/kg NL NL 0.0251 0.033 0.025 0.01 67-64-1 Acetone mg/kg NL NL 0.0099 0.0087 0.0087 0.01 71-43-2 Benzene mg/kg NL NL 0.142 0.16 0.142 0.01 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane mg/kg NL NL NL NL NL 0.01 75-25-2 Bromoform mg/kg NL 0.654 0.492 NL 0.492 0.01 74-83-9 Bromomethane mg/kg NL NL 0.00137 NL 0.001 0.01
A Page 1 of 3 3/4/2009
R2-0024769 Table C-2 Comparison of Reporting Limits with Ecological Screening Levels - Sediment Cayuga County Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County, New York
Primary Source Secondary Source New York State EPA Region 3 EPA Region 5 Contract Sediment Criteria for Sediment CAS Freshwater Freshwater Oak Ridge Required Chemical Name Unit Benthic Aquatic Life, Screening Number Screening Screening National Detection Chronic Toxicity, Criteria (5) Benchmarks Benchmarks Laboratory (4) Limit Freshwater - with (mg/kg) (2) (mg/kg) (3) NYSDEC (1) 75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide mg/kg NL 0.000851 0.0239 0.00085 0.001 0.01 56-23-5 Carbon Tetrachloride mg/kg NL 0.0642 1.45 0.047 0.047 0.01 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene mg/kg 3.5 B 0.00842 0.291 0.41 3.5 0.01 75-00-3 Chloroethane mg/kg NL NL NL NL NL 0.01 67-66-3 Chloroform mg/kg NL NL 0.121 0.022 0.022 0.01 74-87-3 Chloromethane mg/kg NL NL NL NL NL 0.01 156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene mg/kg NL NL NL 0.4 0.400 0.01 10061-01-5 cis -1,3-Dichloropropene mg/kg NL NL NL 0.000051 0.0001 0.01 110-82-7 Cyclohexane mg/kg NL NL NL NL NL 0.01 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane mg/kg NL NL NL NL NL 0.01 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane mg/kg NL NL NL NL NL 0.01 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene mg/kg 24 B 1.1 0.175 0.089 24 0.01 98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene mg/kg 12 B 0.086 NL NL 12 0.01 79-20-9 Methyl Acetate mg/kg NL NL NL NL NL 0.01 1634-04-4 Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether mg/kg NL NL NL NL NL 0.01 108-87-2 Methylcyclohexane mg/kg NL NL NL NL NL 0.01 75-09-2 Methylene Chloride mg/kg NL NL 0.159 0.37 0.159 0.01 100-42-5 Styrene mg/kg NL 0.559 0.254 NL 0.254 0.01 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene mg/kg NL 0.468 0.99 0.41 0.410 0.01 108-88-3 Toluene mg/kg 49 B NL 1.22 0.05 49 0.01 156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene mg/kg NL 1.05 0.654 0.4 0.400 0.01 10061-02-6 trans -1,3-Dichloropropene mg/kg NL NL NL 0.000051 0.0001 0.01 79-01-6 Trichloroethene mg/kg NL 0.0969 0.112 0.22 0.097 0.01 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane mg/kg NL NL NL NL NL 0.01
A Page 2 of 3 3/4/2009
R2-0024770 Table C-2 Comparison of Reporting Limits with Ecological Screening Levels - Sediment Cayuga County Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County, New York
Primary Source Secondary Source New York State EPA Region 3 EPA Region 5 Contract Sediment Criteria for Sediment CAS Freshwater Freshwater Oak Ridge Required Chemical Name Unit Benthic Aquatic Life, Screening Number Screening Screening National Detection Chronic Toxicity, Criteria (5) Benchmarks Benchmarks Laboratory (4) Limit Freshwater - with (mg/kg) (2) (mg/kg) (3) NYSDEC (1) 75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride mg/kg NL NL 0.202 NL 0.202 0.01 1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) mg/kg 92 NL 0.433 0.16 92 0.01 Other Parameters 00 Total Organic Carbon (G) mg/kg NL NL 100
Notes: Bold indicating that screening criterion is lower than contract required detectoin limit 1 Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments, Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources, January 25, 1999. Values are based on Benthic Aquatic Life Chronic Toxicity 2 EPA Region 3 Freshwater Screening Benchmarks (mg/kg), August 2006 3 EPA Region 5 Freshwater Screening Benchmarks (mg/kg), August 22, 2003 4 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1997 Revision 5 Primary source for ccreening Criteria is the lower value of the NYS Surface Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values and National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. If there is no value from the NYSDEC Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments. If there are no values from this primiary sou then the lowest of the three secondary sources is selected as the screening criteria NL Chemical name not listed or screening value of this type not listed for the chemical
A Page 3 of 3 3/4/2009
R2-0024771