Environmental Assessment, Kin Buc Landfill Operable Unit II, Edison

SDMS Document 56333 OJ n o o CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION fv .fc. o o # FINAL RISK ASSESSMENT PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT KIN BUG LANDFILL OPERABLE UNIT II EDISON, NEU JERSEY 0 Prepared for U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Waste Programs Enforcement Washington, D.C. 20A60 EPA Work. Assignment No. C02004 EPA Region II Site No. 2P0A Contract No. 68-W9-0002 CDM Federal Programs Corporation Document No. TESV-C02004-FR-CJZL Prepared By CDM FPC CD Work Assignment Project Manager Jeanne Litwin Telephone Number (212) 393-9634 o o EPA Work Assignment Manager Alison Barry o Telephone Number (212) 264-8678 Date Prepared February 27, 1992 o I ABLr E OF CONTENTS ! .0 introGuction . ; \ 1.1 Objectives and Scope 2 1.1.1 Objectives of the Environmental Assessment . 2 1.1.2 Scope of the Environmental Assessment- 2 1.2 Site Description •. 2 1.2.1 Description of the Ecosystems and Habitats that may be Impacted 2 1.2.2 Division of Site for Analysis of Contaminant Pathways and Effects 2 1.3 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern 4 1.3.1 Calculation of Summary Statistics 4 1.3.2 Compansons with Background Locations 7 1.3.3 Chemicals in Surface Water ; . 7 1.3.4 Chemicals in Sediments 10 1.3.5 Biota . /. 25 2.0 Environmental Exposure 30 2.1 Potential Ecological Receptors 30 2.1.1 Aquatic Biota 30 2.1.2 Plants . 30 2.1.3 Birds 31 2.1.4 Mammals 31 2.1.5 Identification of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species 31 2.2 Exposure Assessment 31 2.2.1 Pathways for Exposure of Aquatic Biota 36 2.2.2 Pathways for Exposure of Wetland Species 36 3.0 Toxicity Assessment 43 3.1 Methods for Assessing Toxicity and Risks of Contaminants to Aquatic Species 43 3.1.1 Surface Water Exposure 43 3.1.2 Sediment Exposure . 44 3.1.3 Evaluation of the Significance of Body Burdens of Chemicals of Potential Concern 44 3.2 Methods for Assessing Toxicity To Wetland Species 47 3.2.1 Birds and Mammals 47 3.2.2 Plants 47 3.3 Toxicity Profiles For Key Chemicals of Potential Concern 49 3.3.1 Chemicals of Concern in Biota 49 ^ 3.3.2 Chemicals of Potential Concern in Surface Water 5 and Sediments 57 o 4.0 Risk Characterization . • • • • 63 o 4.1 Risks to Fish and Aquatic Life 63 4.1.1 Surface Water 63 4.1.2 Sediments 67 o 4.1.3 Body Burden Data 71 ro 'ABLE OF CONTENTS (Continuea) 4.2 Risks to Wetland Species 76 4.2.1 Risks to Birds . 75 4.2.2 Risks to Mammals ....'. 78 4.2.3 Risks to Plants 80 5.0 Uncertainties in the Ecological Assessment 83. 6.0 Summary and Conclusions 85 References 88 FIGURE 1-1 Site Divisions based on NWI Designated Wetlands Maps 3 LIST OF TABLES 1-1 Sample Identification Numbers and Assigned Site Areas : 5 1-2 Compound Detected in Surface Water at Kin-Buc Op-2 Site 8 1 -3 Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) 11 1-4 Chemicals of Potential Concern 13 1-5 Compounds Detected in Sediments at Kin-Buc Op-2 Site 18 1-6 Sediment Quality Values Used as Guidance for Selecting Chemicals of Potential Concern in Sediments (mg/kg) 23 1-7 Compounds Detected in Biota at Kin-Buc Op-2 Site 26 2-1 Birds and Mammals Obsen/ed by TES (1990) on or Adjacent to Kin-Buc Op-2 32 2-2 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Identified in the Vicinity of Kin-Buc Site 35 2-3 Parameters Used to Model Exosures of Birds to Contaminants at Kin-Buc II 39 2-4 Estimated Chemical Dosages for Birds Exposed to PCBs. Cadmium, Chromium, and Lead 41 3-1 Concentrations of PCBs, Cadmium, Chromium, and Lead Associated with Toxic Effects in Fish and Mammals . 45 3-2 Toxicity Reference Values (TRVs) for Birds and Plants 48 x 4-1 Comparison of Surface Water Concentrations with Ambient Water o Quality Criteria (AWQC) or Other Toxicity Data for Chemicals of Potential Concern 64 g 4-2 Comparisons of Geometric Mean and Maximum Sediment Concentrations '^^ with Guidance Values for Chemicals of Potential Concern , 68 4-3 Risks to Birds From Exposure to PCBs, Cadmium, Chromium, and Lead ^ at Kin-Buc II 77 g 4-4 Risks to Plants From Exposure to Chemicals in Sediments at Kin-Buc Op-2 81 1.0 INTRODUCTION in aadition to the potential exposure of human populations, flora and fauna may also be exposea to contamination at the Kin-Buc Operable Unit 2 (Op-2) site. Chemicals present at the site may be toxic to plants and animals exposed via air. water, soil, sediment, or food. This chapter of the risk assessment identifies possible environmental receptors, addresses the potential pathways by which these receptors may be exposed to the chemicals of potential concern at the site, and estimates the risks to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife that may exist at the site. The steps for the environmental assessment are similar to those for the human health risk assessment. In both assessments, information on exposure and toxicity are combined to generate an estimate of risk. The major difference is that human health risk assessments focus on individual risks while environmental assessments are generally aimed at assessing risks to populations, communities, and ecosystems. Risks to individuals are the focus of concern for the health and welfare of rare, threatened, or endangered species potentially exposed to contaminants at the site. The EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volumes 1 and 2 (1989) were use as guidance for the preparation of the environmental assessment. These reports provide irjformation on the selection of chemicals of concern, evaluation of exposure and toxicity, identification of ecological endpoints. and assessment of risk. The data used in this assessment was taken from the Draft Remedial Investigation (RI) (Wehran 1990). Additional studies (Adams et al. 1990: Charters et al. 1991, Wehran 1991) were performed to supplement the RI. These data have been incorporated into the assessment. Sediment chemistry data from these three studies were only incorporated for the chemicals of potential concern. In the following sections, the potential impacts to fish, plants, and wildlife are assessed. Following a discussion of the objectives and scope of the assessment (Section 1.1) and a descnption of the site (Section 1.2), chemicals of potential concern are identified (Section 1.3). The ecological species (receptors) potentially affected by chemicals associated with the Kin-Buc II site are identified in Section 2.1. Potential exposure pathways are identified and exposure is quantified in Section 2.2. The methods used to assess toxicity data and the summaries of toxicity information on key chemicals are provided in Section 3. In Section 4, risks are assessed by combining the toxicity information with estimates of exposure. In Section 5, uncertainties are cC analyzed and in Section 6, the conclusions of the environmental assessment are presented. (- c 4:^ 5302.001-KIN-BUC RA DRAFT FINAL PT 2 1.1 Objectives and Scope 1.1.1 Objectives of the Environmental Assessment As specified in CERCLA and SARA, remedial investigations are required to be sufficient to protect both human health and the environment (EPA 1989b). A special concern of the environmental assessment is to identify rare, threatened, or endangered species that are potential receptors tor environmental contaminants at the site and evaluate risks to these species. 1.1.2 Scope of the Environmental Assessment The environmental assessment is resthcted to an evaluation of present risks at the site. It does not evaluate nsks of vanous remediations at the site. The boundaries for the assessment are the areas delineated as Kin Buc il by the 1988 EPA Record of Decesion (ROD). 1.2 Site Description 1.2.1 Description of The Ecosystems and Habitats That May Be Impacted The Operable Unit II study area includes the following areas: Mound B, the Low Lying Area. Edmonds Creek and associated wetlands. Mill Brook, Martins Creek, the Raritan River at the mouths of Edmonds Creek and Martins Creek, and ground water emanating from the site. Thus, the vegetative communities include a deciduous forest (adjacent to Mill Brook), a scrub- shrub community (in the Low Lying Area), and wetlands (tidal Edmonds Creek area). Although aquatic, wetlands, and terrestnal ecosystems exist on-site, it is not possible to estimate exposures to species inhabiting the forest and scrub-shrub areas because there were no soil or biota samples collected there. Therefore, assessment of the ecological impacts will be restricted to the creeks and the wetlands (including their mouths at the Raritan River). 1.2.2 Division of Site For Analysis of Contaminant Pathways and Effects The environmental assessment is aimed at estimating risks to discrete populations inhabiting the site. Because contaminant migration depends on tidal range and topography, these w factors were used to organize the samples collected at the site into subsets representing discrete areas (Figure 1-1). Designation of tidal and nontidal areas were based on the New Jersey g National Wetlands Inventory delineations (Figure 1-1). Designation of tidal and nontidal areas, W and relative topographical isolation resulted in the summarizing of surface water data into four -Ci. areas tor risk assessment purposes: tidal Edmonds Creek (including marsh area), non-tidal o Edmonds Creek, Pool C and Connecting Channel, and the Low Lying Area. 5302.001-KIN-BUCRA DRAFT FINAL PT 2 2 CJ 90fT .00 oax These four areas aelineateo for suriace water were aiso used as site divisions for the sediment data.

Load more