File: 18G D.B.
United States Air Force
Environmental Restoration Program
Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska
Sitewide Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study
Volume 4: Biological Risk Assessment
FINAL
August 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air force Base
CONTENTS* 1.0 INTRODUCTION.11 2.0 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION...... 2.1 Site Background ...... 2.1 2.1.1 Site History ...... :...... 2.1 2.2 Source Areas ...... 2.3 2.2.1 Operable Unit 1...... 1-111,.... 2.3 2.2.2 Operable Unit 2 ...... 2.5 2.2.3 Operable Unit 3, 4, 5...... 2.8 2.2.4 Operable Unit 6...... 2.11 2.2.5 SER Sites...... 2.11 2.3 Contaminants ofConcern...... 2.14 2.5 Summary...... 2.15
3.0 BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION...... 3.1 3.1 Introduction...... 3.1 3.1.1 Terrestrial Communities...... 3.1 3.1.2 Aquatic Communities...... 3.3 3.2 Food Webs...... 3.5 3.3 Sensitive Species ...... 3.5 3.4 Summary ...... 3.8 4.0 RECEPTOR AND SOURCE AREA IDENTIFICATION ...... 4.1 4.1 Site Conceptual Exposure Model and Source Area Screen...... 4.1 4.1.1 ContaminantLMigration Pathways ...... 4.1 4.1.2 Source Area Screen ...... 4.3 4.2 Receptor Identification...... 4.5 4.3 Endpoint Identification ...... 4.12 4.4 Summary ...... 4.12 5.0 RISK ASSESSMENT SCREEN ...... 5.1
5.1 Screening-Level Exposure Assssmnt -..A.q~u~a'tic' .Re~ce.p~to~rs ... and Sites...... 5.1 5.2 Screening-Level Exposure Assessment - Terrestrial Receptors and Sites...... 53 5.2.1 Inhalation Screen...... 5.3 5.3 Screening Risk Characterization...... 5.6 5.4 Summary ...... 5
6.0 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT...... 6.1 6.1 Detailed Exposure Assessment - Aquatic Receptors ...... 6.1 6.1.1 Analytical Methodology...... 6.1
FNL May 26, 19954 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessmnent Eielson Air Force Base
6.1.2 Simulation Results...... 6.1 6.2 Detailed Exposure Assessment - Terrestrial Receptors ...... 6.3 6.2.1 Body Burden Analysis - Field Sampling Program ...... 6.3 6.2.1.1 Sampling Strategy ...... 6.3 6.2.1.2 Sampling Methods ...... 6.5 6.2.1.3 Analytical Methods...... 6.8 6.2.1.4 Analytical Results...... 6.11 6.2.2 Exposure Analysis - Ingestion...... 6.21 6.2.2.1 Methods...... 6.21 6.2.2.2 Results ...... 6.24 6.3 Response Assessment ...... 6.27 6.3.1 Aquatic Receptors...... 6.27 6.3.2 Terrestrial Receptors...... 6.27 6.4 Quantitative Risk Assessment ...... 6.30 6.4.1 Aquatic Receptors...... 6.30 6.4.2 Terrestrial Receptors...... 6.30 6.4.3 Population-Level Effects - Terrestrial Receptors ...... 6.33 6.5 1994 Aquatic Sampling ...... :...... 6.39 6.5.1 Sampling Locations ...... 6.39 6.5.2 Sampling and Sample Preparation ...... 6.39 6.5.3 Analytical Methods...... 6.41 6.5.4 Analytical Results ...... 6.41 6.6 Summary ...... :...... I...... 6.45 7.0 ANALYSIS OF UNCERTAINTY ...... 7.1 7.1 Uncertainties in Risk Assessment Screen ...... 7.1 7.2 Uncertainties in Full Risk Assessment ...... 7.1 7.3 Probabilistic Risk Assessment...... 7.3
8.0 REFERENCES ...... :...... 8.1
APPENDIX A - WILDLIFE AND FISH SPECIES RESIDENT TO EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE...... A. 1 APPENDIX B - DISTRIBUTION AND CONCENTRATIONS 0? CONTAMINANTS IN OPERABL E UNIT SOURCE AREAS ...... B. 1 APPENDIX C - ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENTS ...... C.1I APPENDIX D - ANALYrICAL RESULTS FOR BIOTA ...... Di1 APPENDIX E - TOflCOLOGICAL DATA FOR CHEMICALS EVALUATED IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT ...... E. 1 APPENDIX F - INGESTION EXPOSURE RESULTS BY SOURCE AREA AND CONTAM INANT ...... F.1
PNL U May 26, 1;995 Final Sitewde Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base
TABLES
2.1 Source Areas Within Operable Unit 1 ...... 2.3
2.2. Source Areas Within Operable Unit 2 ...... 2.6 2.3 Source Areas Within Operable Units 3, 4, and 5 ...... 2.8 2.4 Source Areas Not Included in Operable Units ...... 2.12 2.5 Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Contaminated Media at Eielson AABSource Areas...... 2.15 3.1 Terrestrial habitat types and their primary wildlife species on Eielson Air Force .Base Alaska ...... 3.1 3.2 Aquatic habitats and their primary fish species on Eielson Air Force Base Alaska...... 3.4
3.3 Foraging Habitats and Primary Prey of Key Terrestrial Wildlife at Eielson AFB ...... 3.8 4.1 Biota Exposure as Affected by Contaminant Media and Partitioning ...... 4.4 4.2 Source Area Screen on Biological Exposure Risk ...... 4.7 4.3 Pathway Exposure Weighting Factors...... 4.10 4.4 Home Range Exposure Weighting Factors ...... 4.10 4.5 Receptor Screen Based on Exposure Weighting Factors ...... 4.11 4.6 Terrestrial Species Selected for Further Evaluation on Basis of Probable Maximum Exposure...... 4.15 5.1 EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria, Lowest Observable Effect Levels ...... 5.2 5.2 Site-Wide Environmental Hazzard Quotients Based Upon Maximum Observed Aquatic Concentrations for Volatiles and Pesticides ...... 5.2
5.3 Sampling Locations With an EH-Q>1 ...... 5.3 5.4 Screened source areas with surface soil contaminants within biological habitat...... 5.4
PNL id May ~26,1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eidison Air Force Base
5.5 Inhalation Exposures and EH-Qs for Exposures at 1-cm Height Above Ground for Surface and All Soil Combined ...... 5.6 5.6 Inhalation Screen Results Based on EH-Qs for Source Areas with Soil Contamination for Organisms at 1-cm Height...... 5.7 6.1 Summrnay of Biological and Environmental Conditions for FGETS Simulations...... 6.2 6.2 Input Parameters and Results for PGETS Simulation for DDE in Surface Water...... 6.2 6.3 Input Parameters and Results for FGETS Simulation for DDD in Surface Water...... 6.3 6.4 Sampling Locations and Associated Habitats...... 6.4 6.5 Ground Cover at Sampled Areas...... 6.5 6.6 Biotic Media Sampled per Location...... 6.6 6.7 Makeup of Vegetation Composite Samples ...... 6.7 6.8 Analysis of DDT Duplicates ...... 6.15 6.9 Analysis of PAH Duplicates ...... 6.17 6.10 Analysis of Lead Duplicates ...... 6.20 6.11 Estimated Ingestion Exposure to FAlls and Lead for Ma.ximally- Exposed Terrestrial Receptors ...... 6.25 6.12 Estimated Ingestion Exposure to DDTs and PCG for Maximally- Exposed Terrestrial Receptors ...... 6.26 6.13 Estimated Ingestion Exposure to Volatiles for Maximally- Exposed Terrestrial Receptors ...... 6.27 6.14 Toxdcological LOEL Benchmarks Used in Estimating EHQs ...... 6.28 6.15 Estimated EH-Qs Based on LOELs for Ingestion Exposure to PA~s and Lead for Maximally-Exposed Receptors ...... 6.32 6.16 Estimated EHQs Based on LOET s for Ingestion Exposures to DD)Ts and PCBs for Maximaliy-Exposed Receptors...... 6.33
PNL ivMay 26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base
6.17 Estimated EHQs Based on LOELs, LDIo, and LD50 for Ingestion Exposures to Volatile Organics for Maximally-Exposed Receptors...... 6.35 6.13 Summary EHQs Across Contaminants and Pathways for Key Receptors by Site...... 6.46
FIGURES
2.1 Eielson AFB, Alaska...... 2.2 2.2 Source Areas at Operable Unit 1 ...... 2.4 2.3 Source Areas at Operable Unit 2...... 2.7 2.4 Source Areas at Operable Unit 3, 4, and 5...... 2.9 2.5 Former SER Source Areas...... 2.13 3.1 Food Web Flow for Eielson Terrestrial Biota ...... 3.6 3.2 Food Web Flow for Eielson Aquatic Biota...... 3.7 4.1 Conceptual Biological Exposure Model ...... 4.2
4.2 Logic to Screen Sites for Biological Risk...... 4.6 4.3 Results of Source Area Screen...... 4.14 6.1 Detected Body Burdens of Aroclor 1260 in Eielson Aquatic Biota ...... 6.12
6.2 Detected Body Burdens of DDTs in Elelson Terrestrial Biota...... 6.13 6.3 Detected Body Burdens of DDTs in Eielson Aquatic Biota ...... 6.14
6.4 Detected Body Burdens of PAl-s in. Eielson Terrestrial Biota ...... 6.16 6.5 Detected Body Burdens of PA~s in Eielson Aquatic Biota...... 6.18
6.6 Detected Body Burdens of Lead in Eielson Terrestrial Biota ...... 6.19 6.7 Detected Body Burdens of Lead in Eielson Aquatic Biota ...... 6.20 6.8 Expoiure/Contaminant EH-Q Integration Methodology ...... 6.31
6.9 LOEL Risk Contours for Shrew Ingestion of DDTs/PCB ...... 6.36 6.10 LOEL Risk Contours for Goshawk Ingestion of DDTs/PCB ...... 6.37
PNL V May 26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment
EjeLson Air Force Base
6.11 LOEL Risk Contours for Shrike Ingestion of Lead...... 6.38 6.12 Locations of Aquatic Riots Samples, 1994 Campaign ...... I... .&40 6.13 Scatterplot of Low Molecular Weight and High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Tissue Concentrations from 1993 and 1994 Riots Sampling Campaigns ...... 6.42 6.14 Scatterplot of Arocior 1260 and Total DDTs Tissue Concentrations from 1993 and 1994 Riots Sampling Campaigns ...... 6.44 7.1 Frequency Histograms and Distribution Percentages from Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Goshawks at DP44, SS35, and Garrison Slough - Lower, and for Shrikes at Garrison Slough - Lower ...... 7.4
PNL VI May 26, 1995 Final Sitewrice Biological Risk Assesment Ejelson Air Force Base
ACRONYMS
BCF Bia Concentration Factor
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene BTF Biological Transfer Factor CV Coefficient of Variability DCE Dichloroethylene
DDT Dichloro Diphenyl Trichioroethane EHQ Environmental Hazard Quotient EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FGETS Food and Gill Exchange of Toxic Substances model LOEC Lowest Observed Effects Concentration
LOEL Lowest Observed Effects Level PAH- Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl.
RME Reasonable Maximum Exposure TOE Trichloroethylene
PNL vu ~May26 ~1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assesment EieLson Air Force Base
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Contaminants of concern at Eielson Air Force Base include volatile fuel components solvents, and semnivolatile Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAl-s), pesticides (DDT and environmental its breakdown products), Polychiorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and lead. Based on characterization of biological exposures to contaminated media, source areas were identify screened to those that could pose a potential biological hazard. Those source areas were 1102, LFO3, ST1O, Sri i, ST19, ST2O, 5535, WP38, and SS56. Additionally, Garrison Slough and Flightline Pond were identified as areas likely to have received and retained persistent contaminants from the numerous source areas on Eielson Air Force Base as a result of groundwater flow, overland flow, or atmospheric deposition. Potential biological receptors were screened to select those potentially most exposed to contaminants. Selected receptors voles, grouse, (shrews, shrikes, bald eagles, goshawks, plover, bufflehead, and grebes) were evaluated in the full risk assessment.
Land cover at the base includes areas suitable for foraging by wildlife (i.e., vegetation, mown forests, water and wetlands) and those unsuitable for wildlife foraging (i.e., small lawns, pavement, buildings). Eielson Air Force Base contains 15,569 acres of forested and habitat approximately 10,802 acres of aquatic habitat, including streams, 12 lakes, and numerous ponds. The terrestrial bior~a on Eielson Air Force Base are typical of the boreal forests extensive and wetlands in the central Alaska basin. The primary migratory terrestrial species include numerous waterfowl and a few large raptors. Seventeen species of fish are found on Eielson Air Force Base , including northern and pike grayling. Anadromous species entering a few streams include chum salmon and king salmon. Many of the water bodies on the base have few or no fish due to winter kill a connection and lack of to areas containing fish, or to unsuitable habitat. Aquatic invertebrates, principally insect larvae and snails, are present in most streams and lakes on the base. These organisms are a primary food source for fish, when they are present.
No endangered or threatened species are resident to Bielson Air Force American Base. The peregrine falcon (federal endangered) breeds within 50 miles of the base. Bald and eagles golden eagles (protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act) are occasionally sighted on Eielson Air Force Base.
A screening risk assessmient, was performed using surface water data for aquatic receptors. All sampling sites along Garrison Slough and French Creek at L102 failed to pass DDTs. the screen for All other contaminants of concern were below screening risk levels for aquatic organisms. Inhalation exposur'es were estimated for terrestrial receptors using soil concentration values and transport models employed for the human health risk assessments. Potential ecological risks were found for small mammals at WP38, primarily as a result of inhalation aromatic of hydrocarbons (BTEX). Inhalation exposures of terrestrial receptors to volatiles from surface waters was ignored, since concentrations of volatiles in surface water samples were below screening risk levels for aquatic organisms.
PNL Vii May 26, 1995 Final Shewhde Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Ingestion exposures of terrestrial receptors to nonvolatile contaminants were evaluated using biotic concentration data obtained from animals and plants sampled at the source areas and along Garrison Slough. Ingestion of volatile organics was estimated for herbivores on the basis of bioacciimuiation factors for deep-rooted vegetation accessing contaminated groundwater or soils. All ingestion exposures for volatile organic hydrocarbons were below lowest observable effects levels. Garrison Slough as a general area was found to present potentially significant reproductive effects to birds and mammals resulting from ingestion exposure to PCBs and DDTs. So~urce Area 5535 was the only source area that presented potentially significant reproductive risks to birds and mammals from ingestion exposure to PCBs and DDTs. Fish body burdens of DDTs were estimated for Garrison Slough and 1102 (French Creek) using the U.S. EPA model FGETS. Estimated body burdens were found to be below hazard levels at these sites.
PNL Ix May 26, 1995 Final Sicewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
PNL x May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biologicl Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Eielson Air Force Base (AFB), Alaska, contains within its boundaries a number of sources of potential environmental contarmunation. The base is listed on the National Priorities List for environmental remediation. As pant of the remedial investigations, a baseline biological risk assessment is required to evaluate the existing hazards posed to plants and wildlife in the Eielson environment.
The following report presents the baseline biological risk assessment for sites located across the base. The risk assessment process follows approximately the modification to the National Academy of Sciences risk assessment paradigm that was proposed by Upton et al. (1993). This process includes the following:
Hazard identification - identification of sources and types of environmental contamination at Eielson AFB
*Biological Charactenization - identification of habitats and biological resources that could be affected by contaminants of concern at Eielson AFB
*Receptor and Source Area Identification - sacren of source areas on the basis of completed biota exposure pathways and identification of receptors to be evaluated in the risk assessment
* Risk Assessment Screen - screen of source areas and contaminants based on toxdcological benchmarks. Sites and contaminints passing the screen will be fully evaluated in the risk assessment
* Ecological Risk Assessment - description of process for conducting the quantitative assessment, description of biological sampling methods and results, and estimates of exposure hazards to receptors based on toxdcological benchmarks
* Uncertainty Analysis - analysis of uncertainties and their effects on the risks identified in the risk assessment~s.
The first three bulleted elements correspond to the 'Problem Formulation" phase identified in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (EPA 1992). The Risk Assessment Screen comprises ascreeniing-level Analysis Phase as defined by EPA (1992). The Ecological Risk Assessment includes elements of the Analysis Phase and Risk Charactenization Phases of the framework, while the Uncertainty Analysis presented here is the final portion of the Risk Characterization Phase (EPA 1992). Thes differences with the framework (EPA 1992) are retained for clarity.
PNL 1.1 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Farce Base
PNL 1.2 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
2.0 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION This section presents an overview of Eieison APE, including its regional setting, environment, history, abiotic and operations that have resulted in environmental releases of hazardous materials. Source areas with known or suspected releases arC'described, and contaminants of concern at each source area are identified.
2.1 Site Background
This section presents an overview of Eielson Air Force Base CAPE) and its operations history that have. resulted in envirorunentajl releases of hazardous matenals. Abiotic transport information is sunmariazed that pertain to movement of contaminants to areas potentially accessible by biological receptors. Source areas from which known or suspected releases have occurred are described, and contaminants of concern at each source area are identified.
2.1.1 SITE HISTORY
Eielson AFB is located in the Tanana River Valley 25 miles (40 Ian) southeast of Fairbanks, Alaska. The base is approxcimately 2 miles (5 Ian) east of the Tanana River, a major braided stream draining 44,000 nil2 (124,000 lcm 2 ) of interior Alaska. Most of the base is located on a glaciofluvial outwash plain at elevations between 525 and 550 ft (160 to 267 m) above mean sea level (rnsfl. The eastern edge of the base is largely undeveloped and is located on the bedrock ridges of the Yukon-Tanana upland, with elevations of up to 1125 ft (342 mnOrmsl. Eielson APE covers some 19,790 acres (8,000 ha) of land, with 1,744 acres (706 ha: -9% of the area) covered by buildings, roadways, pavement, air fields, etc.. An additional 1,180 acres (480 ha: -6% of the area) is artificial habitat, consisting primarily of mown vegetation. Eielson APE has 12 lakes totaling 315 acres (128 ha), 51 ponds covering 246 acres (100 ha), 15 miles (40 Ian) of streams, and 10,202 acres (4,130 ha) of designated wetlands (totaling -58% of the land area). One lake and six ponds are natural; the remaining lakes and ponds are old borrow pits (USAF 1994). The remainder the habitats of on the AFE consist of boreal and riparian forests (-26% of the area). The climate at Eielson is characterized by large diurnal and annual temperature variations and low precipitation. Average summer temperaures range 0 between 45? and 600 F (7 and 16 C), while winter averages between .450 and 100 F 0 0 (-26 C and -13 C). Average annual rainfall is 14 inches (36 cm), with 73 inches (183 cm) of snow. Permafrost does not affect areas on the main base: in undeveloped regions, permafrost may be encountered below 6 ft (2 in).
Eielson APE is drained by Moose Creek, French Creek, Piledniver Slough, and Garrison Slough, which flowv gnera~llyto thernor-h-nonhw,.es:, ,parallel to the TananaRiver (F:igre 2.1). Moose Creek drains the uplands at the northern end of the base. French Creek flows northwestward along the eastern edge of the developed portion of the base along the margin between lowland and upland areas. French Creek and Garnson Slough discharge to Moose Creek, which in turn discharges into the Tanana River. Piledriver Slough flows along the western edge of the base (west of the Richardson Highway) and also empties into the Tanana.
PNL 2.1 May 26, 1995 Final Siewcde Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
S~ ~ ~ ~~ICW - ~~~~~~~~Source Area
Figure 2.1 EBelson AFE, Alaska.
PNL 2.2 May 26. 1995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessmrent Eielson Air Force Base
Garrison Slough is the primary drainage from the developed portion of Eielson AFB. It begins in a marshy area south of the refueling loop and discharges into Moose Creek, approximately 7 nil (11 lkn) north of its origin. T'he slough does not flow south of the flight line except during spning runoff. The slough channel consists primarily of artificial drainage ditches. Approximately 3500 ft (1.1 Ian) of the slough flows through a culvert beneath the refueling loop.
Groundwater flows to the northwest at a gradient of 4 to 6 ft/ni (0.8 to 1.1 m/lan). Depth to ground- water varies from 3 to 10 ft (i to 3 rn). The lowest water table occurs in November, when the aquifer discharges to the Tanana River. The highest level occurs with the spring thaw at the end of May. The average water table elevation varies by 1 to 2 ft4'r (0.5 ni/yr). Garrison Slough receives water from the aquifer near two source areas, L103 and FTO9. Garrison Slough may be a source of recharge to the base groundwater in the vicinity of source area STI except from April to june (USAF 1993a). This recharge may be an anomaly, driven by the combined effects of discharge from the wastewater treatment plant and depression of the water table from pumping of the base water supply wells located nearby (USAF 1993b).
Eielson AFB was listed by the U.S. Envirornmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the National Priorities Uist in November 1989, with a total of 66 potential source areas. These source areas are grouped into six operable units (OUs).
2.2 Source Areas
2.2.1 Operable Unit 1
Operable Unit 1 includes eight source areas contaminated with petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL) (Table 2. 1). These source areas lie primanily near flight-line loop in the far south of the base (Figure 2.2).
5120 E-7 Comnplcx
The ST20 E-7 Complex is one of three refueling complexes located along the refueling loop at the south end of Eielson AFB. This Complex is supplied by three 50,000-gal C190,O00-L) underground storage tanks and one 25,000-gal (95,000-L) deludeing underground storage tank and associated underground piping. The majority of refueling has occurred at the refueling loop. Fuel spills during aircraft refueling have been common.
TABLE 2.1. Source Area Within Operable Unit 1
SourceArea Contaminant Source 5T20 Complex Above-ground fuel storage tank leaks and spills ______during aircraft refueling BTairLakes (5 sourceareas) Fuelstorage tank leaks and munitions testing 5T48 Fuelleaks from undergroundlines 5149 F~~~~~uellIeaks from above- and underground fe
______I storagetanks and lines
?N L 2.3 May 26, 1995 Finial Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
*Source Area
Figure 2.2 Source Areas at Operable Unit 1 (Blair Lakes not shown).
PNL 2.4 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base
Sf20 E-8 Complex
This refueling source area is also located along the refueling loop, is served by the same type of fueling and defuecing infrastructure as the E-7 Complex, and has been subject to similar spills during refueling.
ST20 E-9 Complex
This refueling source area is also served by the same type of fueling and defuteling infr-astructure as the other two, but also includes a 2,500-gal (10,000-L) diesel tank and 1,250-gal C5,000-L) fuel oil tank near the hangers. The area has received similar fuel spills as the other two.
ST48
Source area ST48 is near a coal-fired power plant, ash storage houses, and abandoned underground fuel lines that canried gasoline and diesel from bulk storage tankcs to a military service station. The suspected source of contamination is leakage from these lines. ST49
This source area includes Building 1300 and the adjacent tatdway. Sources of contamination include possible leaks of fuel from a 550-gal (2,O80-L) above-ground diesel storage tank and two 10,OO0-gal (3S,000-L) underground fuel storage tanks.
Blair Lakes Target Facility
The Blair Lakes Target Facility, included as part of Operable Unit 1, was not evaluated in this risk assessment because of its remote location and because of a USAF programmatic decision not to include it as part of the sitewide investigation.
2.2.2 Operable Unit 2
Operable Unit 2 comprises seven source areas contaminated by POL (Table 2.2). These areas are concentrated near the center of the base (Figure 2.3).
STIM1O/4
Source Area 5T110 includes Hardfill Lake and the E-2 Fuel Storage Tank Area, which contains six large above-ground tanks storing JP-4 and aviation gasoline. Hardfill Lake is an old gravel pit currently filled with water. The area between the lake and the E-2 Fuel Storage Tank Area is a permitted landfill for the disposal of demolition debris. Contamination in the area is due to leaks and spills from the tanks and piping, and bunied sludge from Lank cleaning operations.
Source Area SS14 Lies southwest of STIO across Quarry Road. This area continuas to be the fuels transfer point between railroad tankers and the E-2 Fuel Storage Tank Area. The area has been contaminated with fuels from numerous spills, primrnaly of JP-4.
PNL 2.5 May 26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
TABLE 2.2. Source Areas Within Operable Unit 2
Source Area Contaminant Source
STIO Above-ground fuel storage tank leaks and sludge ______disposal
5T14 Fuels Mils durnn off loading of tank cars
ST1 1 Under round diesel storage tank leaks
ST13 Fuel spills and leaks from underground tanks
DP26 Fuel leaks from above-ground fuel storage tank and sludge burial
ST18 Fuel leaks from unadergound stona e tanks
ST1Q Fuel spill from pi eine
STI 1
This area includes the old bakery and its associated diesel fuel tank and piping, which were discovered to be leaking in 1975.
ST13/DP26
5T13 is a diesel spill area near 10 large underground jP-4 and diesel tanks. The tanks may also have been used in the past for stoning aviation gasoline or motor gasoline. The area was fcnnerly used for filling fuel tanks for transfer to remote locations.
DP26 is a tank sludge burial site, which was used until 1980. The site has also been contminmated with JP-4 from leaks from an above-ground fuel storage tank and its associated piping, and possible spills from truck fill stands.
STYIB
This source area was identified in'the mid- 1970s when floating hydrocarbons were found during excavations near Building 341 1. The source of the hydrocarbons may have been leaks from two 25,000 gal diesel storage tanks.
ST19
This source area was contaminated by a spill of 200,000 gal (760,000 L) ofJP-4 in the late l9S0s that occurred after a control valve was sheared off by a snow plow.
PNL 2.6 May 26.199-5 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
' ST18 * ~~~~~~Source Ares STI1~'
5Th~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C~~~~~=
ST1 9~~~%q
Figure 2.3 Source Areas at OU 2.
PNL 2.7 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment EieLson Air Force Base
2.2.3 Operable Unit 3, 4, 5
Operable Units 3, 4, and 5 have been assigned 13 source areas (Table 2.3). These are !ocated prL'nni' in the~southern portion of the base (Figure 2.4)..
TABLE 2.3. Source Areas Within Operab~le Units 3, 4, and 5
Source Area Contaminant Source
LF03 Broad-range landfill and fire training exercises
FT09 Fire training exercises
LF04 General refuse landfill
DP25 Fuel spills and sludge disposal from above-ground ______storage tanks
5T27 Fuel spills and sludge disposal from above-ground storage tanks
5S35 Asphalt, oils, solvents, metals, and demolition ______debris from landfill and operations
SS36 Asphalt, oils, solvents, and paint from operations ______and spills
S537 Asphalt, oils, solvents, metals, leakage from drum storageand operations,and fire trainingexercises
5539 Landfill for asphalt and oils from asphalt, barrels, ______and constructo debris
5563 Pesticide residues from unascribed sources
DP44 Effluent disposal from battery shop, electronics shop,and storage facility
WP45 Photoshop effluents
5557 Fuels and benzeneosb rmfr tto
PNL28 May 26, 1995 Finial Sitewvide Biological Risk Assesment Eielsn Air Force Base
French Creek
STS71h~~~~~~~~~~~ - ~LF04
S~ ~ Fgr . oreAesa U3 ,ad5 PNL 2.9 May 26, ISS36 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base
LF03/FT09
LrO30 (Landfill 3) served as the main landfill for the base between 1967 and 1987, and was also a fire- training area between 1955 and 1979. The landfill received a broad range of base wastes, including household garbage, scrap lumber and metal, construction debris, concrete, cans and drums from industrial shops, waste oils, solvents, paint residues, and thinners. Fire training exercises consisted of lighting 500 to 1,300 gal (2,000 to 4,800 L) of JP-4 fuel over water-saturated ground, then extinguishing with aqueous film-forming foam. FT09 (fire trainting area) is located within L103, and is an area where fire training exercises were held at least twice per month from 1972 to 1979. ILF04
LF04 (Landfill 4) served as an Army landfill for disposal of general refuse. It reportedly received some waste oils and solvents, as well as munitions and spent cartridges.
0P25
DP25 contains the E-6 Fuel Storage Tank Area, which holds above-ground tanks with some 12.3 million gal (46.3 million L) of fuel currently. These tanks were installed from 1955 to 1956. Before 1992, JP-4 was stored in the tanks; JP-8 is presently stored there. Before 1980, weathered sludge from tank cleaning was disposed of in shallow trenches between the tanks. A pipeline fuel spill also was reported along Quarry Road adjacent to the source area.
ST27
5T27 contains the E-11I Fuel Storage Tank Area, whtich holds above ground (43.8 miflion L) of fuel. tanks with 11.6 million gal These tanks were installed in 1972. Before 1980, tank cleaning wastes were treated as at the E-6 Fuel Storage Area.
5535
5535 was used as an area to mix asphalt cement from the early 1950s to the late 1960s. Waste oils and solvents were muxed with contaminated fuels and used for dust control on roads. Some 200 asphalt- cement drums were disposed of here along the bank of Garrison Slough. Potential sources of contamijnation also include residual materials in the drums, metal, concrete rubble, and demolition debris.
5S36
5S36 was also used as a mixing area for asphalt cement and road oiling operations from the late 1960s to the mid-1970s. In 1982, some 100 drums of oils, fuels, and solvents were stored in the area. A paint spill also occurred mn the area and was removed in 1992.
5537
This sourc: area had much the same history cs 5536, including temporary drum storage from mrid- 1970 to 1986. A nearby area was used for fire-training exercises between 1976 and 1981.
PNL 2.10 May ~26,1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessinerit Eielson Air Force Base
5539
This area, known as Asphalt Lake, was used as a disposal area for barrels cf asphalt cemcnt- from runway construction in the 1950s. These were known to have leaked. In 1992, a layer of asphalt - , ~~~~cement, barrels, dmmsuand other debris were removed.
5563
This area, adjacent to Asphalt Lake, has had no record of disposal activities, but elevated concentrations of pesticides have been reported for the soils. DP44
This source area includes a battery shop, electronics repair, and flightline storage and maintenance facilities. Both the battery shop and the electronics repair building may have discharged waste into a leach field system in the area.
WP45
This source area, adjacent to DP44, consists of a photo laboratory where photochemnicals were reportedly discharged to a dry well.
5557
This source area includes the base fire station. Fuels and benzene have beeni reported in the soils and groundwater beneath this area.
2.2.4 Operable Unit 6
Operable Unit 6 comprises several areas potentially contaminated by petroleum leakage from tanks located on Ski Hill. These areas are designated collectively as Source Area WP38.
2.2.5 Source Evaluation Rrpoan Sites
Several potentia source areas on EieLson were identified during initial review as being of potential risk that were not assigned to operable units at the time of this study. These were termed Source Evaluation Report (SER) sites CTable 2.4). The locations are shown in Figure 2.5. The current operable unit assignment for each site is idexitified below.
LFO1
This source area was the original landfill at Bielson AFB. It received general refuse, including empty cans and drums of oils and solvents, and perhaps also waste oils and solvents, paint residue, and thinners. This site is assigned to 0U5. LF02
This source area was the second landfill on the base, which probably received similar wastes as LFO1L This site is assigned to 0U5.
PNL 21May 26. 1995 Final 5itewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
TABLE 2.4. Source Areas Not Included in Operiable Units (SEX Sites)
Source Area OU Assignment Contaminant Source
LF01 OU5 Orgnal base landfill, POL waste
LF02 0U5 Old base landfill, POL waste
115 0U2 Old landfill with metals and POL waste
ET08 OU2 Abandoned fire training area
S52 0U2 JP-4 spil.DBuilding 2351
5530 0U2 PCB container storage building
SS47 0U2 Commissary parking lot; fuel-contaminated ______soils
5S56 ______Engineer Hill, diesel fuel spill
WP32 0U4 Sewage treatment plant spill of unknown ______sovent or chemical
WP33 0U4 Treatedeffluent facility infiltration pond
WP60 0U2 Auto hobbyshop, oil discharge to leach field
LF05
This source area was a U.S. Army landfill that received general refuse, scrap materials, empty containers, and perhaps small quantities of waste oils and solvents. This site is assigned to OU2. nroB
This source area once supported fire training exercises, which utilized petroleum fuels and related wastes. This site is assigned to 0U2.
55 12
Source areaS5512 v.as the site of asurface spillof approximately 5,000 gal (19,000 L)of JP-4 fuel. The majonity was contained within a building, but an estimated 100 gal (380 L) escaped contaimnent and entered the ground. This site is assigned to 0U2. 5530
Source area 5530 consists of a PCB container storage facility. This site is assigned to 0U2.
PNL 2.22 May 26, 1995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Asessnenr Eileson Air Force Base
SS12~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~SS
Figure 2.5 Former SER Source Areas.
PNL 2.13 may 26, 1995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment EieLson Air Force Base
5S47
Source Ar ea SS47 consists of the commissary parking lot, where fuel-contaminated soil was found during an excavation in 1987. Fuel was found at a depth of 9 ft (3 in). This site is assigned to 0U2. 5556
This source area lies on Engineer HiUl at the northern end of Eieison. A diesl spill of unknown quantity occurred at the boiler plant in this area.
WP32
This source area consists of the sewage treatment plant ponds, which served as diversion ponds for POL spills. A major spill of unknown industnial chemical or solvent into these ponds was reported in 1975. This site is assigned to.OU4.
W'P33 This source area, the treated effluent infiltration pond, receives treated effluenxt from the wastewater treatment plant year-round. This site is assigned to 0U4. WP60
Source Area WP60 consists of the auto hobby shop. Water from the oil/water separator in the shop was discharged to a leach field. This site is assigned to 0U2.
2.3 Contaminants of Concern
Contaminants of concern at the various source areas consist primarily of fuels (diesel/kerosene), constituents (benzene, fuel toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes IBTEXL, and lead), products of incomplete combustion (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PA~s]), solvents (trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethyfenec) and their breakdown products (vinyl chloride), pesticides (DDT and its environmental breakdown products DDD and DDE), and polychlorinated biphenyls CPCBs). Concentrations of constituents in abiotic media within operable unit source areas are described remedial inthe investigation reports for the various operable units (USAF 1993a, c, contaminants and d). The identified at these source areas comprise primarily volatile organic compounds, pesticides, PA~s, lead, and undifferentiated fuels (diesel or Tota Petroleum Hydrocarbons ITPHD). A variety of metals was found in elevated concentrations in groundwaters and soil; however, all but lead have been determined not to be a result of base activities. Consequently, these are not included in the list of contaminants of concern.
Contaminant concentrations, the media in which they were detected, and the estimated affected area * ~~~~~foroperable unit source area are quantified in Table B.1 (Appendix B). Concentration avenages were obtained from values reported from wells or sampling locations where concentrations were above analytical detection limits. Where an analyte was detected at a location at one sampling date and not another, the reported value-and half the detcaion limit were averaged for that location. The spatial distribution of contaminants in each medium were estimated directly from plots given in the various PNL 2.4may 26, 1995& Final Sitewide Biological Risk Asesracnwnt Elelson Air Force Ba!ro
remedial investigation reports or were estimated by applying a sinmple circle over only those locations where the contaminant was detected.
Surface water and sediment contamiiniLnt coceptn-~~.joais (o, thc source areas nut~r surface waicxi. and for Garrison Slough were evaluated from sampling coyrOucted in 1993. There data are used to evaluate risk to aquatic organismP5 and are reported in Appendix, C.
2.4 S~mumety
Eielson AFB is located in the Tanana River Valley on a glaciofluvial outwash plain approxinately 2 miles (5 kin) east of the Tanana River. Precipitation is low and generally in the form of snow. The base is drained by Moose Creek, French Creek, Piledriver Slough, and Garrison Slough, that flow generally to the north-northwest. Garrison Slough is the primary drainage from the developed portions of the base. Groundwater also flows to the northwest at a gradient of 4 to 6 ft/mi (0.8 to Li1 rn/lan). Depth to groundwater ranges from 3 to 10 ft (I to 3 in), fluctuating as much as 2 ft (0.5 mn) from the low in November to the high in May.
The source areas and their contaminants of concern are listed in the s-unmiary table (Table 2.5).
Tbe 2.5. Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Contaminated Media at Eiehson AFB Source Areas ______~~(Plate 1 of 2).
______TCE, Benatne Groundwaterad 553 TPH ESoil
Groundwater 553 DD TProunwate
______DDTsX wtr W35HSis&5ufc Un.slenSol Goun dwte ST4STPH, DD _s, Suburacsi OU 553 oeNn STIS/DP2 CEH Solsen3zenBEXeCE GroundwaterSandTPSooil DE
______Pb ETEX, Groundwater2 rounwate BTEXT______Subls Surfacesi WLatr Metaksls entGroundwater ST1/ BPnzeneH ToSne Goundwater LEFOl NonX&StCe retoed rudaeradS
__TFX______PSol Grolvenaert, b GounwtelndSisTX
LI5Noe Siterestored ou-6 FTOJ None ~~~~~~~WP31BTEX, Ethylene Groundwater and Soil ______dibroinide, Pb ______
PNL 21 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Tale 2.5. Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Contaminated Media at Eielson APB Source Areas ______of 2). ~~(Plate ______.ource &= Contaminants of Suc otmnnso _ ~~~~Concern Conaonuededa e Contonmanatedteof 0OU-3 0OU-2 (Corn.) DP" TPH Soils WP60 oil Soil TCE, DCE, Groundwater SSITNone Benzene WP4f TCE, DCE, TCA, Groundwater 553 None
BTEX ______TCE, Subsurface soil S547 None, Site restored tetrachloroetlhyl-
______ene. xCYlenes ______SS57 BTEX,T7PM Soil SS56 TCE, BTEX, Solv-ents 'Groundwater, No soil data available ______DE,Pb Groundwae
PNL 2.16 May6. 1995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assesment Eielson Air Force Base
3.0 BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION
This section presents an analysis of the biological systems and species present on Eielson. The analysis focuses on species and systems characteristic of the different habitats at Eielson. For key species, information on diets (food webs), residence times, and site usage are reviewed. Listings are presented for State and/or federally protected species known to occur on or near Eielson AFB.
3.1 Community Characterization
3.1.1 Terrestrial Communities Eiudson Air Force Base consists of a mosaic of 13 habitat types (Table 3. 1). The following is a detailed description of the eight major terrestrial wildlife habitats and how each is utilized by its primary wildlife species. A complete list of fish and wildlife species known to occur on Eielson AFB is presented in Appendix A, along with their scientific nomenclature.
Table 3.1. Terrestrial habitat types and their primary wildlife species on Eielson Air Force Base ______Alaskaa
Habitat type/ Community type Area (acres) Wildlife Species black bear, marten, moose e Lblack spnice forest 8.678 squirrel, andspruce zrouse black white bear, marten, red squirrel, spruce forest 1,457 and sprucegrouse- birch forest (dbh> 2", 15-65' black bear, raptors, red squirrel, tall) 3,062 andruffed grouse birch(dbh 0-1". 8-15'tall) 81 moose andsnowshoe hare be aver, moose, raptors, and balsam oar forest 1,286 snowshoe hare willowsru 517 moose andsnowshoe hare ol bun(ml hte spruce, birchadwlos 295 mooseand snowshoe hare marsh (ome porded water) 13 oseadw terfowl graslad/mwn unquanufifed Canada geese,hare, voles lnaks 315 beaver,moose, and waterfowl 50 pondsb 246 beaver,moose, and waterfowl designaedwetlandsc 10,202 beaver, moose, and waterfowl streams 25miles beaver a Table adapted from U.S. Air Force (19930), except c. b One lake and 6 ponds are natural; the remaining lakes and pond. are borrow pits (HILA 1990). c Taken from HILA (1990).
PNL3. May 26, 1995 Final Sirevwide Biological Risk Assessmnent Ejelson Air Force Base
Black spruce (Picea mariana) forest
Black spruce trees are small to medium sized and of varying densities, Spruce stands often have a sparse understor 1 '. Because of a paucuy of browse, moose use stands of black spruce only as transitory range when moving from one source of food or cover to another. Red squirrels use spruce cones for food and moss from spruce trees for nests. Marten use spruce for cover.
Black spruce stands often contain smaller stands of paper birch (B&tula papenifera) and tamarack (Larix laricina). Birch/tamarack stands are, in turn, interspersed with fields of dwarf Arctic birch (Bctula nana), bog rosemary (Andromeda poliqolia), and lowbush cranberry ( Vacainiurn vitis idaea). Black bear forage on new growth of these understory species during spring but consume predominantly lowbush cranberries in late summer and fall. Spruce grouse consume cranbenries in the fail and black spruce needles in the winter.
White spruce (Picea glauta) forest
White spruce stands have an understory of lowbush cranberry. Spruce grouse consume cranberries in the fall and spruce needles in the winter. Red squirrels use spruce cones for food and tree cavities, twigs, leaves, and moss for nests. Marten use spruce for cover. Black bear forage on cranberries in late summer and fall.-
Birch forest (diameter breast height [dhhj > 2 in., 15 to 65 ft tall)
Approximately 60% of birch stands in this size class are 40 to 65 ft tall arnd contain pockets of mature white spruce or balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera). The understory consists of bighbush cranberry (Viburnum edule), wild rose (Rosa acicularis), and I to 5-in, white spruce regeneration. Large birch trees provide suitable nest sites for raptors. White spruce evenmuallyxreplaces birch through succession. Black bear forage on highbush cranberry and grasses. Ruffed grouse select nest sites at the bases of large birches. Ruffed grouse consume cranberries and rose hips during summer but winter mn aspen groves north and east of the base. Red squirrels use the scattered pockets of large white spruce for food and cover.
Forty percent of birch stands in this height class are 15 to 40 ft tall. The understory consists primanily of dense 1- to 5-in. white spruce regeneration. Berry-producing shrubs are largely absent. These birch stands are relatively unimportant as wildlife habitat compared with stands of larger birch trees.
Birch forest (dbh 0 to 1 In., 0 to 15 Ift tall)
These stands have been harvested in the past and contain small-sized paper birch, balsam poplar, and tamarack trees, and a willow (Sali'x spp.) /alder (Anuts spp.) shrub component. Moose browse the willow and birch stemns. Snowshoe hare forage on the bark, buds, and stemns of birch, willow, and balsam poplar.
Balsam poplar forest
Forty-four percent of balsamn poplar stands are mnature and decadent. These decadent stands are located along Piledriver Slough. The understory consists of an alder shrub component and white spruce regeneration. Large, mature poplars provide suitable nest sites for raptors.
PNL3. May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Forty-one percent of balsam poplar stands consist of medium-sized trees with an understory of regenerating white spruce. A few of these stands contain willow or alder.
Fifteen percent of balsam poplar stands consist of small-sized trees with willow and aider growing in previously harvested areas. Moose and snowshoe hare forage in the stands with a willow component.
Poplar stands of all sizes, if located next to water, are heavily used by beaver for food and lodge- and dam-building material. Beaver use of balsam poplar releases white spruce regeneration. White spruce will eventually replace the balsam poplar, as white spruce is a climax species on the site.
Willow shrub
Willow shrub fields typically contain small numbers of paper birch, balsam poplar, dwarf Arctic birch or white or black spruce. Of the willow species common on Eielson AFB, moose prefer feltleaf willow (Salix alexensis) , diamondleaf willow (5alix planifolia pulchra), and littletree willow (Salix arbuscloidcs). Bebb willow (Salix bebibiana), although common, is little used by moose. Thus, the value of willow habitat on Eielson APE for moose is dependent on the abundance and distribution of these three willow species. Snowshoe hare forage on the leaves, buds, twigs, and bark of virtually all willow species.
Old burn
Portions of Eielson APE were previously burned, resulting in a mosaic of willow species interspersed with small clumps of medium- or large-sized paper birch and white spruce.
Grassland/mown habitat
These areas occur primarily around base facilities, the flightline. recreation areas, and the landfills. Vegetation consists 'either of primarily lawn grasses or of native grass and forb species that are kept at low height by regular mowing. This habitat is used as a for-aging area by Canada geese, and as foraging and den habitat by small mammals, such as the tundra redback vole and meadow vole.
3.1.2 Aquatic Communities
Aquatic habitat types on Eielson AFB include low gradient streams, ponds and lakes, and marshes. Surface water drainage is generally to the north-northwest and parallels the Tanana River. Moose Creek, French Creek, Piledriver Slough, and Garrison Slough pass through the base and ultimately enter the Tanana River. Moose Creek drains the uplands at the northern end of the base, while French Creek flowst40 the northwest along the eatstern edge of the developed portion of the base. Garrison Slough flows through the developed portion of the base, via a channel consisting primrily of artificial drainage ditches. Both French Creek and Garrison Slough discharge to Moose Creek. Piledniver Slough is the largest surface water •ource on the base. it flows along the western edge of the base, west of the Richardson Highway. Characteristics of the habitats are provided in Table 3.2.
Aquatic ecosystems at Elelson AFB are diverse. Species assemblages vary according to physical and chemical characteristics of the surface water. for example, aquatic communities differ depending on whether mobile populations have access to downstream tributaries and on the degree to which they a.-e influenced by resource management activities, Such as stocking of fish. Many aquatic habitats at Eielson AFB are altered by human activities, including channelization, dredging, and road construction.. These activities impact the distribution and relative abundance of species assemblages.
PNL 3.3 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewde Biological Risk Assessment Eieison Air Force Base
Aquatic habitat types and their primary fish species are summarized in Table 3.2. Seventeen species of fish are found on Eielson AFB (Table Al , Appendix A). Important recreational species found in lakes and streams include resident species such as northern pike, rainbow trout, and grayling. Other resident species that may sometime be abundant include longnose sucker and slimy sculpin. Anadromous species present in some streams include chum salmon and king salmon. Many of the water bodies on the base, particularly the lentic habitats, have few or no fish present and have low species diversity. This may result from winter kill from shallow depths, lack of a connection to areas containing fish, or unsuitable habitat.
Table 3.2. Aquatic habitats an their primary fish spedies on EIesonAi Force Base Alaska".
Habitat type Acreage/miles Fish species Bear lake 55 acres pike Arctic char, burbot, grayling, lake chub, least cisco, rainbow trout, Grayling lake I11 pike, and whitefish Hgidden lake 18 Arctic char, pike, gayling, and ______rainbow trout Liy lakeb 33 none Moose lake 22 pike, grayling, and rainbow trout Muffins Pits 39 burbot and pike Pike lake 24 pike .- burbot, longnose sucker, pike, Rainbow lake 16 and whitefish burbot, longiose sucker, and Scout lake -26 pike -Ta-rkettle lake 20 none Twin lakes 44 pike 28 Mile Pit 7 Arctic char, pike, silver salmon, ______rainbow trout, and lake chub burbot, grayling, pike, rainbow French Creek 7.5 miles trout, whitefish, and chum
______salm on burbot, grayling. pike, whitefish, Garrison Slough 3.0 and rainbow trout burbot, grayling. pike, sheefish, Moose Creek 1.0 rainbow trout, and whitefish burbot, grayling, pike, rainbow Piedriver Slough 11.0 trout, salmon, sheefish, and
______whitefish Knokanpeover Creek2. ryiian pike a Table adapted from U.S. Air Force (19930. b Only natural lake on Eielson AFB; all others are borrow pits.
PNL 3.4 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewde Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Farce Base
Aquatic invertebrates, principally insect larvae and snails, are present in most streams and lakes on the base. Both dragonfly and damselfly larvae are common in uncontaminated lentic (i.e., ponds and lakes) habitats, while caddisfly andf blackfly larvae predominate in the lotic or flowing h'abitas, Diving beetles and water boatmant (Corucids) are also common in many ponds and lakes. These organisms are an important food source for fish, when they are present. Aquatic and terrestrial insects are probably the principal food source for fish because there are few forage fish present. There is a paucity of benthtic invertebrates within many of the aquatic communities at Eielson AFB, Most of the aquatic invertebrates described are pelagic, living within submerged or emergent vegetation (i.e., Potamtogetan sp.. Elodea sp., and Typha sp.). For example, Conxtds are commonly associated with overhanging reed canary grass present along the margins of Garrison Slough and French Creek. Blackfly and caddisfly larvae were found on woody debris and other materials suspended in the water column. The bottom substrate is primarily mud/silt/sand, except for some higher-gradient areas of French Creek. These substrates supported little aquatic life.
3.2 Food Webs
Key wildlife at. Eielson AFB, and vicinity-can be separated by their trophic relationships, e.g., herbivores and carnivores. Trophic classifications cut across taxonom~ic divisions. Terrestrial and aquatic food webs for the Eielson environment are shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2.
The primary vertebrate consumers of terrestrial vegetation at Eielson AFB include the northern bog lemming, voles, snowshoe hare, and Canada goose. Vertebrate herbivores feeding on aquatic vegetation include moose and ducks such as the pintail, canvasback, and scaups. Herbivores consuming deep-rooted vegetation such as trees and shrubs or their products include beaver, red squirrel, porcupine, spruce grouse, ptarmigan, and white-winged crossbill. Insectivores include aquatic or riparian birds such as lesser yellowlegs, sarnipalmated plover, bufilehead, and swallows; land birds, such as woodpeckers, thrushes, and northern, shrike; and shrews. Principal terrestrial carnivores include coyote, northern goshawk, red-tailed hawk, and great homed owl. Terrestrial piscivorous species include common loon, grebes, and osprey.
Fish species include herbivores such as longnose sucker and sliny sculpin and insectivorelpiscivores, such as grayling and northern pike.
3.3 Sensitive Species
No known endangered or threatened plant or animal species are resident to Eielson AFB. However, the American peregrine falcon (Falcto peregrinus anatum) (f'tderal listed endangered species) breeds within 50 miles of the base. Bald eagles and golden eagles (protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act) are occasionally sighted on Eielson AFB.
PNL 3.5 Ma2y 26,1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base
Terrestrial Food Web
r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r
* ------r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r Carnivores Ea~~~~~es&tmis Red-Tailedw ome
Herbivores
PNL 3.6~~~~~~~~~~ d May26, 1995rop Final Sizewde Biological Risk Assessment Elelson Air Force Base
Aquatic Food Web
J0
Herbivores
ronsumers Mac Dhta
Substrate~ ~ ~ ~~Whteih atrow
PM. - 3.7~~~~~ May 26,- 1995--- Final Sizewide Biological Risk Assessment Elelson Air Force Base
3.4 Summary
Land cover at the base is subdivided for the purposes of this risk assessment into areas suitable for foraging by wildlife (i.e., mown vegetation, forests, water and wetlands) and those unsuitable for wildlife foraging (i.e., smaUl lawns, pavement, buildings). Eielson APE contains 15,569 acres (6,310 ha) of forested habitat and approidmately 10,802 acres (4, 378 ha) of aquatic habitat, including streams, 12 lakes, and numerous ponds. Many areas of the base have been cleared of trees and been planted to grass or are regularly mown, producing a man-mrade grassland/mown habitat which has not been spatially quantified.
The terrestrial biota on Eielson AFB are typical of the boreal forests and extensive wetlands in the central Alaska basin. The pnimary migratory terrestrial species include numerous waterfowl and a few large raptors. Great homed owls are year-round residents., A few year-round resident mammals are present. The primary prey and foraging habitats for the principal terrestrial species are summuarized in the table below.
Table 3.3. Foraging Habitats and Primary Prey of Key Terrestrial'Wildlife at Eielsoni AFB.
Vegetation Canada geese grouse canvasback Arctic ground squirrels ptarmigan pincail snowshoe hare beaver moose voles lemmings moose porcupines red squinrels ______snowshoe hare Insects swallows shrikces bufflehead shrews thrushes plovers woodpeckers swallows shrews yellowlegs scaup Meat/Fish great homed owls goshawks grebes red-tailed hawks great homed owls loons coyotes red-tailed hawks Osprey
Seventeen species of fish are found on Eielson APE, including resident species such as northern pike and grayling. Anadroinous species entering a few streams include chum salmon and king salmon. Many of the water bodies on the base have few or no fish due to winter kill and lack of a connection to areas containing fish, or to unsuitable habitat. Aquatic invertebrates, principally insect larvae and snails, are present in most streams and lakes on the base. These organisms are a primary food source for fish, when they are present.
No endangered or threatened species are resident to Eielson AFB. The American peregrine falcon (federal endangered) breeds within 50 mifles of the base. Bald and golden eagles (federally protected), are occasionally sighted on Eielson APE. PNL 3.8 May 26, 199 5 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
4.0 RECEPTOR AND SOURCE AREA IDENTIFICATION
This section evaluates the contaminants and source areas to screen the list of source areas to be evaluated for the quantitative ecological risk assessment to those where contaminant pathways to bioita are complete. This section also identifies receptors to be evaluated in the risk assessment. The selection methodology identifies species likely to be most heavily exposed to contaminants. Bioaccumulating and nonbioaccumulating contaminant exposures are addressed separately. Additional consideration is given to species protected by Ala~jka State and/or federal laws and regulations, and on species or ecosystem components that provide key fuinctions within the Eielson ecosystems.
4.1 Site Conceptual Exposure Model and Source Area Screen For the purposes of this risk assessment, the contaminants of concern are subdivided into volatiles (BTEX, fulels, solvents), sernivolatiles (PA~s), PC~is, DDTs (total DDT, DDE, DDD), and lead. The volatiles have high vapor pressure and relatively low lCow (octanol-water partition coefficient), so they will not partition strongly to biota or sediments and will evaporate from soil and surface water. The high-Kow compounds (PCBs and DDTs) will partition to soils and sediments, and have a high potential to bioaccumulate (Garten and Trabailka 1983). Lead may also bioaccumulate if-some cases, depending on its organic cornplexation. Sernivolatile compounds have an intermediate RKm, and a mixed bioaccumulation potential.
Sources of environmental releases at Eielson AFB consist of spills to soil, underground leaks of tanks and piping, and discharges -toleach fields. None of the releases were directly to surface waters; however, several releases are located near surface waterbodies, especially Garrison Slough.
4.1.1 ContaminantlMigration Pathways
The abiotic pathways of contaminant migration from each source area within operable units have been identified in the relevant remedial invesnigation reports (USAF 1993a, c, and d). The relevant migration pathways are shown genetically in Figure 4. 1, As shown in this figure, biota may be exposed to contamninanits via inhalation or cross-gill transfer of contaminants dissolved in fluids, dermnal absorption (including root uptake by plants), ingestion of contaminated foodstuffs, and/or. ingestion of contaminated soils or surface water. Contaminants may be trainsported from the source area via diffusion in soil, transport in groundwater, evaporative transfer, overland flow, as wind-blown dust, and through surface transport by animals. Where contaminated groundwater reaches surface waters (ponds or streams), contaminants may be expected to move into the surface water bodies and their sediments, with relative partitioning of organics to biota and sediments reflected in the compound's Row.
Plant exposure to contaminants may be via root exposure to contaminated soils or groundwater and/or leaf exposure to vaporized contaminants from soils. Generally, grasses and forbs have root systems that do not penetrate more than 1 m through the soil (Suter et al. 1993). Consequently, such shallow- rooted vegetation is unable to access contaminated groundwater at Eielson AFE source areas except where the groundwater is shallow, i.e., along the margins of surface water bodies. Shrubs and especially trees may tap into groundwater directly, because their root systems may extend several k PNL 4.1 May 26, 1995 Finial Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
-0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
1tv~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* ~26 @ 0 0 0 ko
'rQ,~~~~~~~' 9c,~ ~ ~ j jjhh I. flj *i'I
III I~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
PNL 4.2 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base
meters below.the surface (Surer et al. 1993). Once exposed to contaminated groundwater, such deep- rooted plants may serve as pathways by which groundwater contamination may be introduced into the animal component of the environment.
Animal transport may include offsite movement of contaminants as particles on fur or feathers and transport as a body burden obtained through uptake of contaminants at the site. This pathway is particularly important for contaminmants that are persistent and that bioaccumulate (i.e., the body burden of the contaminant in the predator is greater than the body burden in the prey). Deep-rooted' vegetation may also serve as another source of offsire exposure if roots are capable of accessing contaminated groundwater and moving the contaminants to the surface.
For contaminants in soils, plant uptake is a potentially significant pathway only for compounds with low Row and/or molecular weight (e.g., BTEX) CTopp et al. 1986; Travis and Arms 1988), because root uptake is from the soil water fraction and contaminants with high Kow (e.g., PAHs, DDTs) are primanily partitioned to the soil. In contrast, when contaminants are present in groundwater to whitch plants have access, uptake by plants is positively correlated with Kow, such that higher-Kow. compounds are taken up more readily than are low-Kow compounds (Briggs et al. 1982). Uptake of volatile groundwater contaminants by deep-rooted plants may therefore not be a significant migration pathway, moving, such contaminants to the surface. Plant uptake of high-K., compounds (e.g., high molecular weight PAHs, PCBs, and DDTs) from groundwater will be more significant. However, root uptake of these same high K<,w compounds from contaminated soils wiUl be far less likely than for low K,.w compounds. Uptake of high-Kow, compounds in soils via dermal absorption of vapors may be significant (Paterson et al. 1991).
Once contaminanits are present in plants, exposure to herbivores via ingestion must be considered. In terrestrial systems, compounds with log Kow < 3.5 do not bioaccumulate, with the exception of certain organic complexes of some metals (Garten and Trabalka 1983). In aquatic systems, bioaccumulation is not noted for compounds with log Kow < 4.3 (Garten and Trabalka 1983). Consequently, for low-Kow compounds (i.e., volatiles) in soils and groundwater, maximum exposure of animals is likely to be to herbivores. For higher-Kow compounds (i.e., PCBs, DDTs, and most PAHs), maxdimumn exposure will be for top-level carnivores. These considerations are shown generically in Table 4. 1. Because of the variety of pathways of exposure and the persistence of compounds such as PCBs, DDTs, PAHs, predicting their behavior on the basis of source term data entails a high degree of uncertainty (e.g., McKone and Ryan 1989).
4.1.2 Source Area Screen
The purpose of the source area screen is to identify those source areas where biological exposure to contanunants is a significant possibility. Such areas are examined further in the risk assessment; those not meeting this criterion are dropped from further examination.
The basic premise of the screen is to eliminate from further consideration those source areas where contammnation is currently limited spatially to areas unused by wildlife and inaccessible to the vegetation they rely on for food. This requires estimating the spatial extent of the areas currently exposed to contaminants at each source area. For contaminants that do not bioaccumulate, the contamtinated area is estimated from the remedial investigation data summarized in Appendix B. For contaminants that do bioaccumulate, the contaminated area is assumed to be twice the known area, for the purposes of this screen, because of the uncertainties in biotic transport for those compounds.
KPNL 4.3 May 26, 1995 Final Sitevvide Biological Risk Assesment Eielson Air Force Base
U~ o 2 ~ .21.2 .2
eq -z J C : Ci
1:4~~~~, 0U,~~~~~~~~0 C CU
.5 ~~~~~~Oz z
o~~~~~t
a- ~~~~~~i 91~Litr
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n M 7 v A~~~~~~~~
PC - -
PNL 44 Ma 26--199 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
This approach is conservative in that it does not exclude sites with bioaccumulating contaminants from further evaluation simply on the basis of land cover on the site.
Having defined the affected area in both soil and groundwater at each source area, land cover was characterized at each affected area using information obtained from the field and aerial photographic data in the BEAR system. The cover data are shown in Figures 2.2 to 2.4. Source areas where the land cover is all or primanly all abiotic (e.g., asphalt, buildings) or small lawns Were eliminated from further evaluation. Source areas near surface water bodies passed the screen.
The screening of areas was performed wsing the logic shown in Figure 4.2 The quantitative data used to screen the source areas based on the above exposure methodology are provided in the relevant remedial investigation reports for the Operable Units and preliminary data obtained for several SER sites. These data are given in Appendix B; the results of the screen are summrnaized in Table 4.2.
The source area screen eliminated from further risk consideration all but six source areas in Operable Units I through 5, the Operable Unit-6 source area, and two SER sites where exposure of biological receptors is possible, based on limited data. Additionally, because several Operable Units and SER sites lhe along Garrison Slough, the Slough itself was included as a site for further evaluation of ecological risk. Because of the nature, timing, and patterning of releases to the groundwater and eventually to the slough, associating slough contaminants and resulting e&ological risk with any particular source area is problematic and outside the scope of this assessment. Consequently, one area along the slough was selected to represent approximately the midpoint of the slough between Source Area 5535 (which passed the screen) and the north end of the industrial pbrrion of the base. This location was termed 'Garrison Slough - Lower.' A second location was also evaluated at the north end of the industrial portion of the base, termed 'Ganrison Slough - Middle." Finally, FMiglitline Pond was evaluated as a potential pond site of accumulation of persistent organic contaminants since it lies downgradient (groundwater flow and elevation) from several source areas in the built-up portion of the base.
Although TPH is identified as a contaminant of concern, it was not specifically evaluated in this risk assessment because the primary constituents with toxic properties (e.g., ETE) were analyzed for and because there are no toxicological data for TPH. This approach was also used in the human health risk assessments.
4.2 Receptor Identification
Once contamination is introduced into avegetated or aquatic habitat, all species in the relevant webs food (section 3) are potential receptors. However, estimating exposure and effects for all receptors would greatly increas the uncertainty in the total risk estimated for each site. Consequently, the number of receptors to be -evaluated must be reduced. The reduction methodology used here focuses on identifying receptors that are manannally exposed or are maximnaiy sensitive to the various contaminants.
PNL 4.5 May 26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
anNo-Ontamim`nantO Flflsfht etce inaioi below hazard
ave~~~~~~~~lvl
Fiur 4. oi oSc ie o iclogicale Risk
PNL 4.6 May 26, 1995~~~BR
u f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~ Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment EieLson Air Force Base
- . ~~~~Table 4.2 Source Area Screen on BIolgca xosr is(pate 1 of 2) Contaminantsof ~~~Biologica Source Area Contaminantsof ~~Habitat BilgclEpsre Examined SoreArea Concern Contaminated Media Present Paha opete 7 Further in QRA? au-i S2BTEX Groundwtr nI si Aquatic Ys-gadeprooed PAl-s Yes Forest plnsGaionSug 5T BTEX GroundaeNoe No-nhaiaprsno PA~~~s industrial, ~~~~areafar from surface water, smalllawngw flow is from source to under the power plant bldg. 5~ TPH~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~on, DDTs No wildlife habitat - site No inutilnot upgradient IPesticides of open surface water Trichloroethylene. Goundae - ~~Benzene ______OU-2 I STOSI BTEX GroundwterAqai Yes - Lead deep rootedvgttoYe Grsln/and lake P vgtto e TPH mown I ~~~~~~~~~~~Forest BTEX soiladsufcwae - ~~TPH ______-_____ 5TH TPH Subsurface soil Grio Noderotdpas-No for Sluh srIewae xoue terrestrial, Yes ST13/DP2 TPH if ~ ~ ~ Non, N -Gravel cover, no biota No i ndustriad BTEX Groundwater - ~~Lead ______SEiTPH Subsurface soil None, No deep-rooted plants No industrial I______ST1i Benzene Groundwater Forest Yes - wetfland/spruce h=abitat Toluene Yes ______Wetlands TPH soid
PNL ~~~~~~~~~~~4.7 May 26, 199-5 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Table 4.2 Source Area Screen on Biological ExposurRik(lt2of) Contaminantsof ~~~~Biological Source Area ontarnin ~~~~~Habitats Biological Exposure Source Area Cncer Contaminated Examined Media Present Pathway Complete ? Further in QRA?
WP4 TCE Grou~~~ndwte Grassland/ No - habi~tat ~near sour~ce No XE ~~~~~~~~~~~~mownarea is softball field with TCA ~~~~~~~~~~~~shallow-rootedvegetation. BTEX ______Rest is under parling lot. TCE Subsurface soil tetrachloroethylen
______xylene ______555 BTEX Soil None, No - area is paved No TPH ______industrial DCE Groundwater
I Lead ______U-4 1_____ D2BTEX Groundwater Grassland/ No - shallow-rooted DCE No mown vegetation located within ______Llead ______fenced area S3DDTs Soil and groundwater Aquatic Yes - grass, trees, lkYes Lead, TPH, Grassland slough ISolvents ______Forest 5536None None -oNo S53ANone INone No N S53ITPH Sod tr~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o-ne,No - no vegetative covr N industrial______5T211Lead Groundwater Grassland] No-salw-otdN - ______I mown vgtto
LF03/FTOS BTEX Groundwater and soil Aquatic Ys-Trees and grass TCE Ye Grassland/ riparian, Garrison Slough DCE mown Vinylchloride I______Forest PAHl, DDTs, Pb, Sail
LF~Metals Groundae rassland] No - plumedosntrahN
______~~mown deep-rootedplants ______
W38 BTEX Groundwater and soil Aquatic Yes - deep-rooted plants Yes Lead Grassland Forest
LOJSolvents Groundwater and soil Aquatic BTEX, Yes - deep-rooted plantsYe PAH mnown and Riparian, French Creek JLead ______oes ______
(Groundwater Aquatic Yes - deep-rooted plantsYe ______LeadI~~~~~~~oil Foretanlak
PNL 4.8 May 26, 1995 Final Sirewide Bidlogical Risk Assessment Eielson Air Farce Base
As the first step in the receptor selection, terrestrial receptors were grouped according to shared feeding habits and lifestyle, using the information shown in Tables A.2 and A.3 (Appendix A). For the purposes of this risk assessment, terrestrial species were defined to be those species or life-stages that lbreath air, and aquatic species are those species or life-stages that breath water. This definition is retained for exposure modeling purposes.
Exposure weighting factors were applied to each receptor or receptor group. Weights were assigned separately for each type of contaminant. Volatiles were weighted heaviest for the inhalation pathway: animals with the greatest exposure to soil-borne volatiles received the heavier exposure weightings. Because the log Kew of the volatiles is less than 3.5, the ingestion exposure will be mirumal for any but herbivores (Garten and Trabalka 1983). Senmivolatiles were weighted more heavily on the ingestion pathway, because these chemicals have a moderate potential to bioaccumulate and have relatively low vapor pressure (Garten and Trabaika 1983; Tsuchiya 1979). PCBs, DDTs , and lead were weighted entirely on the ingestion pathway for most receptors because these chemicals have very high Kow. are persistent in the environment, and bioaccunmulate to a large degree (Harrison et al. 1970: Thomann and Connolly 1984). Inhalation of particulate PCB./DDT/lead was given a weighting factor of 1 for organisms whose lifestyle would commonly lead to inhalation at 1 cm above ground level or below. Dernal exposure was discounted in these analyses because of the general lack of information on the importance of this pathway for any except direct dermal contact (EPA 1992). Such exposure has not been quantified, but is expected to be of less importance than other pathways. The pathway weighting factors for the various lifestj'le and chemnical conditions are shown in Table 4.3. The individual weightings for each-of the exposure pathways were summed for each class contaminant. of Exposure weightings were further modified to reflect the proportion of the animal's exposure that could come from contaminated sites on the base. Animals with home ranges that extend well beyond the base would normally obtain a smaller fraction of their intake from contaminated areas than animals with home ranges the same size as or smaller than the avenage contaminated area. The Weights applied are shown in Table 4.4. The weights for home range were incorporated with the weights for pathway exposure by two methods: addition and multiplying then dividing by two to retain a similar scale as the additive method. Both methods gave similar~results (Table 4.5). The two highest-ranked scores within each habitat usage group were selected for further evaluation. For tenrestrial receptors, the species identified by the above methodology for exposure to volatiles ihcluded voles and ground squirrels in grassland/mown habitats; porcupine in mixed grassland-forest habitat; shrews and grouse/ptarnmigan in forests; beaver in forest-aquatic habitat; and plover4yellowlegs in aquatic habitats. Screwning-level inhalation exposures were esfimrated for the two species receiving the highest inhalation raniling (voles and shrews); ingestion exposures to volatiles were estimated for voles and grouse.
For sem-ivolatile, the highest exposure weightmngs were associated with voles/ground scuirrels in grassland/miown habitats; coyotes and owls in mixed grassland-forest habitat; shrews, shrikes, and thrushes in forested habitats; bald eagles and beaver in forest-aquatic habitats; and plover/yellowlegs, bufflehead, scaup/canvasback, and grebe/loonimerganser in aquatic habitats. Of these, exposures to
PNL 4.9 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Table 4. aha xoueWeighting Factors
Pathway Condition Weighting Factor Inhalation (= vapor uptake by Receptor normnally always within -3-Volatiles leaves in plants) soil/air boundary layer or often in 1 - Sernuvolatiles burrow, or receptor is aquatic 0 - Pesticide/PC! Receptor nose within 2 mnof 2 - Volatiles ground, normally 0- Sernivolatiles
0 - Pesticide/PCB Receptor nose occasionally within 1 - Volatiles Ingesti ______2 mn of ground 0 - Rest Ineton Bioaccurnulation likely (log l(07 ~3 ______> 3.5) and carnivore lifestyle Bioaccuinulation likely and 2 ______herbivore lifestyle ______Bioaccumulation not likely andI ______herbivore lifestyle Bioaccrnnulatbon not likely and 0 ______carnivore lifestyle
Table 4.4. Home Range- oueWeighting Factors
Homerange size Weight 5 O.5ha 3 0. 5
hawks and owls were considered to be similar, so owls were evaluated in place of hwks Shes, because of their insectivorous habit, were considered to be representative of the thauses shriews,an woodpeckers. Eagles were evaluated because of their regulatory importance. The two waterfowl (bufflehead and grebe) feeding on fish and invertebrates were also evaluated as being the most likely to -.-be exposed to contaminants via ingestion.
Species receiving the highest weightings for POBs, DDTs, and lead included voles/ground squirrels in grassland habitat; owls and redtailed hawks/harriers imxed grascland-forest hbimt; shrews, shrlkes, red squirrels, thrushesfwoodpeckers, and peregrine/goshawks in forested habitat; bald eagles in forest-aquatic mixed habitats; and plover/yellowlegs, bufflehead, scaup/canvasback, grebeAoon/merganser, kingfisher, and swallows in aquatic habitats. Voles were selected for evaluation for grassland species, because their feeding habits are similar to geese and ground squirrels, and their exposure would be greatest because of their smaller home range size. Thrushes were considered to be representative of woodpeckers and were evaluated along with shrews and goshawks for forest species. Eagles were
PNL 4.10 May 26,1995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessmnent Eielson Air Force Base
Table 4.5 Recentar Scree For Tentstrial Receptors Basedgon Exosure Weighi acos
E~ ~ ~ N U
Pathway £0 5d08 A 0 . 0S.Ea.c
Inaltn312 221132 2211 11 11 I3 2 2 222 1 Ingestion 11100011 1 10 1000 01ofOI - -I _
PathwavlInd"x 433211 3 322ii 1 1 1 4 3 -3
VolatilelIndex a 4 3325 4354141232 55 5 515314 VolatilelIndex b 2 i 1 2121114T 33 31
Semtvolatiles lnhaiationT55Th1 01 1f 0 0 000 0 1 of~3
Ingon2 212 31 313 3 223233333 3 2 PaHwaIndex 3223334222 2333334332 31 113 Senmivol. Index a 3 3L 4 4434 616 454 614161 Sermivo~l.ndex b I1~ 2 22 2 5 23 512151
PCB/DDT/Pb, Inhalation 0 00001000 0 0 01 010
3netin2233 4 2 3 33 3 2 3 233333
IPCB/DDT Index a 3411311 m JPCB/DDT Indc b 11 a Shading indicates highest exposure group, weighted for exposure. Index a consists of addition of Pathway and Home Range (HR) Indices. Index b consists of the product of Pathway and Home Range CHR) Indices dlivided by 2 to retain the same scale.
PNL 4.1 My26 1995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
included as above. Finally, plover were evaluated as representative of swallows as insectivores and bufflehead were evaluated as mixed insectivore/fish consumers in aquatic habitats.
For aquatic species, all receptors would be equally exposed to sernivolatile contaminants; predators such and grayling and pike would received the greatest exposure to PCBs/DDTs/Pb; however, invertebrate response to DDTs may be greater than that of fish. Consequently invertebrates, northern pike, and grayling were identified as key aquatic receptors for further evaluation.
4.3 Endpoint Identification
The objective of this risk assessment is to identify sites that, because of their contaminant content, are likely to be adversely affecting the biological environment. Because of the diversity of effects that may produce repercussions at the level of the population and the ecological community, the lowest unit of organization to be examined in this risk assessment is the individual. The greatest amount of information on toxicological responses are available at this level rather than at higher levels of organtization (e.g.. population level).
The measurement endpoints used were the lowest adverse effects levels for screening purposes. For ingestion, this corresponds to the Lowest Observable Effects Dose (LOEDL--or inhlation exposures or aquatic species, this corresponds to the Lowest Observable Effects Concentration (LOEC). These are referred to interchangeably as LOELs (Lowest Observable Effects Levels). Higher-order effects were evaluated at the lowest lethal dose concentration (LDIk) or the median lethal dose (LD5o), as appropriate to the exposure level.
4.4 Summary
Contaminants of concern were subdivided into volariles (BTEX, fuels, solvents), sernivolatiles (PAHs), and those compounds that are environmentally persistent and bioaccumnulate (PCBs, DDTs, and lead). Volatiles will not partition strongly to biota and will evaporate from soil and surface water. The high KowA compounds (PCBs and DDTs) will partition to soils and sediments, and have a high potential to bioaccumulate. Lead and PAHs may also bioaccumulate in some cases. TPH was not specifically evaluated because of the lack of toxdcity data; however, the most tonic components (BTEX) were quantified and included in the risk assessment.
Plants may be exposed to contaminants through root exposure to contaminated soils or groundwater and/or leaf exposure to vaporized contaminants from soils. Roots of grasses and forbs do not penetrate more than one meter through the soil, consequently they are unable to access contaminated groundwater at Eielson APE source areas except along the margins of surface water bodies. Deeper- rooted species such as shrubs and trees may access contaminated groundwater directly, since their root systems may wend several meters below the surface.
Animals may be exposed to contaminants via inhalation or cross-gill transfer of contaminants dissolved in fluids (including air), dermal absorption (including root uptake by plants), ingestion of contaminated foodstuffs, and/or ingesuion of contaminated soils or surface water. In terrestrial systems, compounds with log Ko < 3.5 do not bioaccumulate, with the exception of certain organic complexes of some metals. In aquatic systems, bioaccumnulation is not noted for compounds with log
PNL 4.12 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Koc 4.3. Consequently, for low Kow Compounds (i.e., volaniles), maximum exposure of terrestrial animals is likely to be for herbivores. For higher K~w compounds (i.e., PCBs, DDTs, and some PAils), maximum exposure will be for top-level carnivores. Source areas were screened to eliminate from consideration those source areas pretsently where contamination is limited to areas unused by wildlife for food. Source areas where contaminants found have not been above background levels were eliminated prior to the screen. For non-bioaccumulating contaminants, the contaminated area was estimated from da4a in the RI reports. For bioaccumulating contaminants, the contaminated area was assumed to be twice the kniown area for the purposes of this screen. These contaminated area were compared to land cover classes using field and aerial photographic data. Source areas where the contaminated area does not extend into foraging habitat where the contaminants could be taken up by vegetation were eliimiated from further evaluation. The results of the screening evaluation are shown in Figure 4.3. Because of its importance as the primary receiving water body from both groundwater and surface water drainage from Eielson APE, Slough was included Garrison as warranting further examination of ecological risk from sitewide contaminants. Flighldine Pond was also included as a potential pond also potentially receiving persistent and bioaccumulating contaminants.
Receptors were screened to select those most likely to receive the greate st exposure and those most sensitive to contaminant exposure. Aquatic receptors likely to receive the highest exposures were carnivores: greyling and northern pike. Terrestrial receptors were selected on the basis of maximum inhalation exposure (animals living within or within a few cerntmeters of the ground) and maximum ingestion exposure (herbivores for volatile contaminants; carnivores for the remaining contaminants). Animals with smaller home ranges were selected over those with larger home ranges because a grea ter portion of their diet could come from any single contaminated area. Animals were combined into feeding guilds with weighting factors given according to bioaccumulation potential. Species selected for further evaluation of exposure are shown in Table 4.6.
K PNL 4.13 MTay 26 199 5 Final Sirewidle Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base
Sites Ev~aluated Further In Risk Assessment a~iL GROUND WATER
Containte esio Volables
f S ~~~~SS35 Pesticides, Pb1~ -:, Pesticdes. Pb 1502 Voistiles, Pb Volatiles, Pb
istainat Yes LF03 Volatiles, PAH i Volatiles Iffe ForagingWP38 Volatfies, Pb. Valatiles, WildlifeForagingSf56 - Voletiles ST2Q. PAH' 'Volaflles
n ~ r ~ ~ ~ S-
ContasRminaed Yefrom vlae
Figure 4.3 Results of Source Area Screen
PNL 4.14 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base
Table 4.6. Terrestrial Species Selected forEFurther Evaluation on Basis of Probable Maximum ______xposure
Volatiles Shrew Vole ______Vole Grouse Serruvolatiles Shrew Vole Vole Coyote Great homed owl Bald eagle Beaver Plover Bufflehead Grebe Pesticides/PCBsjPb Shrew Vole Vole Great homed owl Red-railed hawk Shrew Shrike Thrush Goshawk Bald eagle Plover Bufflehead ______Grebe
PNL 4.13 may 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Elelson Air Force Base
PNL 4.16 May 26, 1995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Eiedson Air Force Base
5.0 RISK ASSESSMENT SCREEN
The following section presents the process used to screen source areas based on potential nisk to aquatic organisms from chemical contaminants in surface waters and to screen source areas and contaminants based on inhalation by terrestrial organisms. The purposes of the screen are to evaluate exposure for aquatic receptors based on the latest surface water concentration data, compare exposure to risk-based toxicological benchmarks, and eliminate from further consideration those aquatic sites and chemicals below hazard levels. For terrestrial receptors, screening was performed against LOELs.
5.1 Screening-Level Exposure, Assessment - Aquatic Receptors and Sites
The screening-level exposure assessment to aquatic receptors was performed on apathway-specific basis. Exposure to fish was-estimated for contaminants of concern using analytical measurements obtained from surface water. Because only one water sample was taken at each sampling location, the risk estimate can only be considered a screening-level measure of risk. To estimate a single site-wide risk, the highest observed concentration was used to estimate an upper boundary.
This approach for estimating exposure is conservative in one respect, because fish and other aquatic organisms will move in and out of the exposure area. Because no transport modeling was completed to account for chemical dilution, degradation, volatilization, and seasonal river flow changes, the conservative approach was taken.
Screening of sites and contaminants in surface waters were conducted using media concentration data given in Appendix C, and risk-based standards from EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria (EPA 1986). Lowest Observable Effect Levels (LOELs). These levels are set by EPA to provide protection to 95% of aquatic organisms via acute or chronic exposure. The relevant standards for the contaminants detected in surface waters at Eielson are listed in Table 5. 1. Chronic E.OELs were unavailable for DDE or DDD. For the purposes of the risk assessment it was assumed the regulatory values were the same as the chronic criteria for DDT. This a reasonable assumption for DDE, which has a similar acute LOEL, and probably will underestimate risk for DDD, which has a lower acute LOEL than DDT.
Surface water concentrations of these contaminants were summarized to obtain the highest detected concentrations at each sampled area. The maximum concentration detected was then divided by the relevant acute, chronic LOEI. or regulatory criterion to obtain an Environmental Hazard Quotient (EHQ). EHQs based on these maxima are presented in Table 5.2. Values greater than 1 indicate that a potential risk ecosts from exposure to the contaminant. The organics that had an EHQ >1 were DDE, DDD and dieldrin for the chronic conditions. Sites and contaminants for which the EHQ was above 1 are listed in Table 5.3. PM~wet: below detectcon lim-it in all Surface water samples.
PNL 5.1 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eiel~son Air Force Base
Table 5.1. EPA Ambient Wter Quality Criteria, Lowest Observable Effect Levels (LOEL)
Chemical Acute Chronic______
Benzene 5,300 NA Dihoroethylene 11,600 NA Ehleene 32,000 N.A. Mehyee Chloride N.A. N.A. Trchoroethylene 5,280 840 Trchoroethylene 45,000 21,900 DDT ~~~~~~~1.1 0.001 DDE ~~~~~~~1.05 O oola DDD -0.06 0.001a Delta-BHC 100NA
Dieldrin .250.0019 N.A. No Data Available (EPA 1986) No chronic LOELs are available for DDE and DDD, so the DDT fresh water chronic criterion was wsed
Table 5.2. Site-Wide Environmental Hazard Quotients Based Upon Maximum Observed Aquatic Concentrations for Volatiles and Pesticides EHO
Chemical ______Acute Chronic
Becnzrenheene1.4 <0.01 N.A. Ethvlbenzene 0.086 <0.01. N.A Me hlene~Chloridc 0.94 N.A. N.A. Ttrachloroethylene 0.071 <0.01 <0.01 Tichoroethvlene 0.38 <0.01 <00 DDE ~~~~~0.0018 <0.011. DDD ~~~~~0.052 - 0.87 5 Delta-BH-C 0.0057 I <0.01 NA Dieldrinb 0.026 0.01 1-4~~~~______N.A. No Data Available a EHQ = exposurelsE b Reported in only 1 sample
FNL 5.2 May 26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Table 5.3. Sam lini Loctions With an EHQ>1I
Chemical Lcto ihEQ1 Benzene None Lcto ihEQ1 Dichloroethylene None Ethvlbenizene None Methylene Chloride N.A. Tetrachloroethylene None Trichloroethyiene None DDE GSOIWA93, G502WA93, G503WA93 GSOOWA93, GSO1WA93, G502 WA93, DDD GS04WA93, GSO5WA93, GS06WA93, Delta-BHC NoneA93 Dieldrin FC02WA93 N.A. No Data Available 2 FC02 location is where Trans-Alaska pipeline crosses French Creek; GSOX locations are numbered consecutively from 1103 (=0500) to G506 just downstream from DP29. For details, see USAF 1994)
5.2 Screening-Level Exposure Assessment - Terrestrial Receptors and Sites Source areas and contaminants were screened on the basis of inhalation of volatiles and ingestion of sermivolariles, PC~s, DDTs, and lead. The purpose of this screen was to determine:
1. if inhalation exposures were large enough to pose a potential risk to maxdrnally-exposed receptors;
2. what contaminants of concern contributed to that exposure
3. at what sires could inhalation exposures be ignored as not contributing to overall exposure risk CEHQ < 0.01).
5.2.1 Inhalation Screen
Because volatiles were not detected in surface Water siamples in concentrations above risk levels to aquatic organisms, inhalation and ingestion exposures for terrestrial receptors (c~f. Table 4.5) from surface watei sources were assumed to be below hazard levels. The remaining source of inhalation exposure examined below is via contaminated sails.
To evaluate potential exposure to volatile organic chemicals via inhalation, source ar-s were aint sacrened as to whether such chemicals were present in the soils, including near-surface soils. Input data for this screen were obtained from soil sampling data given in the relevant remedial investigation reports (USAF 1993a, c, d). The results are shown in Table 5,4. Source areas without soil contamination (STlO. ¶T19, and ST2O) were dropped from the inhalation and volatile effects assessment as being without significant ecological effects.
PNL 5.3 May ~26,1995 Final Siteewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
The remaining source areas were evaluated on the basis of organism inhalation of vapors and particulates at 1 cm above the ground. This distance is where small animals identified in the receptor screen would receive the nmaximum anticipated concentration of inhaled contaminants (Table 4.5, upper portuon). Exposures were estimated using the same model and site conditions as were used to estimate human exposure in the Eielson Baseline Risk Assessment documents for Operable Units 1 through 5 (e.g., USAF 1993e), except that exposure concentrations were estimated within a 1-cm box rather than an 8-ft box.
Wind speeds used in the assessment were the avenage winds at Eielson AFB. Stable air conditions were used. The soil source terms for the calculations were the Reasonable Madxnmum Exposures from surface or subsurface soils, which were found as either the maxinum detected concentration or the upper 95% confidence interval, whichever was smaller. Inhalation exposures were estimated as the sum of particulate and gaseous exposures, which were estimated using either the surface source term or both the surface and subsurface source terms together.
Table 5'.4. Screened Source Areas with Surface Soil Contaminants within Biological Habitat.
Source Area Soil Contaminants Lead Toluene Xylene 1102 Benzene 1,1-Dichloroethylene 4-Methylphenol Benzo(a)anthracene. Trichloroethene 1 ,1-Dichloroethylene DDD L103 DDE DDT Lead PAHs
______Kerosene Trichloroethylene 1.1-Dichloroethylene DDD 5535 DDE DDT Lead ST10/SSI4 None ST19 None ST20 None SS56 Lead %WP38 BTEX
______Lead
?NL 5.4 May 26, 1995 Final Sihewide Biological Risk Assessmrent Ejelson Air Force Base
The results of the exposure assessment are shown in Table 5.5. LOEWs for the contaminants were derived from toiticity data given m-Appendix D, using the methods described in Section 6.3. For the purposes of this screen, the lowest LOEC either calculated or obtained from the literature for any type of receptor was used. EHQs for source areas were then obtained by summing EHQs across contaminants at each source area. As shown in Table 5.5, EHQ's for all source areas with soil terms were less than 0.08, except for WP38, where the summed EHQ was 0. 19. BTEX was the primary contributor to risk at WP38.
5.3 Screening Risk Characterization
on the basis of the risk screens, WP38 approaches a risk level for small mammals and burrowing animals from inhalation of BTEX in soil. All other EHQs were two orders of niagniwude or more below no effects levels. Consequently, inhalation of contaminants other than BTEX from soils is ignored in the remaining risk assessment.
Surface waters in Garrison Slough and French Creek near L102 did not pass the risk screen for DDD and DDE, and Source Area L102 also did not pass the screen for dieldrin. These constituents and sites are evaluated further in Section 6.0.
5.4 Summary
Sites where potential surface water contamination existed were screened for hazard to aquatic organisms. Screening compared water concentration data obtained in 1993 against risk-based water quality LOELs from EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria (EPA 1986). which were set to protect 95% of aquatic organisms for acute or chronic exposure. The maximum detected concentration for each contaminant at each site or source area was divided by the relevant acute and chronic LOEL to obtain an Environmental Hazard Quotient CEH-Q). The contaminants with an EHQ > 1 were total DDTs and dieldrin. All surface water sampling sites on Garrison Slough had water concentrations of total DD)Ts that were above levels posing a risk to aquatic organisms. The surface water sampling location on French Creek near 1102 also had concentrations of total DDTs and dieldrin that were above minimum risk levels.
Sites were also screened on the basis of inhalation of contaminated soils by terrestrial receptors. Source terms used were Reasonable Maximium Exposure levels from soil sampling at any depth conducted in 1992 and 1993, which were used to estimate air concentrations of vapors and particulates at a height of 1 cm above pround level. LOECs for inhalation were obtained either from the toxicological literature or were estimated from ingestion LOELs on a per-weight basis (see Section 6.3, page 6.29). EHQs were totaled across contaminants to give a composite risk quotient. Results are summarized in Table 5.6. Sites where inhalation EHQs were less than 0.1I were dropped from consideration of inhalation exposure. Inhalation was added to ingestion exposure (Section 6) for the one site (WP38) with a summuary EHQ above 0. 1.
PNL 5.5 MTay 26,1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Bas
W2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
.5 .. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
nC~~ C~~ Co C S~~~~~~~~~j1-4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' t~~r~~r,~.C ~ ~ *e,0'~ ~ ~ ~ 9- 999N~ - ~ReA9fl81
OHO
9 9 T 9r,9 T -9 9 9 99 9 ~9 9tC,9 C
wAm ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S. C -~~~~~~~~~~~110W- . Bill~~~*
A A 04 X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
- III.-. u z . g .n-i ttionnCswrC
-0 Nw~o
.5 I "I "JuJ Z
S -~~~~~~~z *~~~~w A____ ujO w0 z *~~~~~~~~~ =CZ5O.~ ____ 0 n~.~-Z~~ in.~.., *
N - -~~~~~~~7
r 9 ~I
PNL 5.6 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Table 5.6 Inhalation Screen Results Eased on EHQs for Source Areas with Soil Contamination -for Organisms at 1-cm Heih So-ur1Ce e1___ __ L102 0.006 Ignore inhalation exposure LF03 0.03 Ignore inhalation exposure 5520 0.0001 ignore inhalation exposure 5535 0.4Inore inhalation expour S556 0.00 1 Ignore inhalation exposure WP38 0.2 Add inhalato tingestion
PNL .5.7 Ma7y 26,1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
PNL 5.8 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base
6.0 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
IThis section presents the quantitative risk assessment for the sites and source areas, contaminant groups, and receptors identified in the previous sections.
6.1 Detailed Exposure Assessment - Aquatic Receptors
6.1.1 Analytical Methodology
For fish, pesticides exposure was estimated through computer modeling to deteruine body burden. FGETS (Food and Gill Exchange of Toxic Substances [Ambrose and Barnwell 19891) is a simulation model that predicts temporal dynamics of a fish's whole body concentration (jig chemnical/Ig live weight fish]) chat are bioaccumulaced from either:
water only - which is the predominant route of exchange during acute exposures.
or
water and food jointly - which is more characteristic of chronic exposures.
FGETS also calculates the time to reach the chemical's lethal activity by assuming that the chemical elicits its pharmacological response through a narcotic mode of action. The model considers both biological attributes of the fish and physicochermicial properties of the chemical chat determines diffusive exchange across gill membranes and intestinal mucos~a. Important biological characteristics addressed by the model are:
*the fish's gl and intestinal morphomenry
* body weight of the fish
• fractional aqueous, lipid, and structural organic composition.
6.1.2 Simulattion Resits
POETS was used to model uptake of DDE and DDD by salmonids from exposure to corresponding mnaximum water concentrations of 1.8 and 52 gg&I, respectively. The model ran the exposure scenario through uptake by the gill and from consumption of contaminated prey. Table 6.1 summarizes the input POETS parameters for DDE and DDD. The model was run for a fish exposed continuously from an age of 183 days to 1096 days. During this period of tine, trout would bioaccumulate 4.71 lg'sg of DDE and 10.1 Pg/g of DDD (Tables 6.2 and 6.3).
PNL 6.1 May 26. 1 9Q5 Final Sirewride Biological Risk Assessment Ejidson Air Force Base
Table 6.1. Summary of Biological and Environmental Conditions for FGETS Simulations Biolomcal innut specifcaiosranmeterin~nutaJ fishid salvelhnus namacush wto: 150liewigt growth hollgn cfcmax = 0.500 pifish -user function, D1= 1.980E-03 * w(9) 0.510 activesgil 0.330 partition loint piprey 0.000E-01
temp Celsius = 8.00 + 4.00 *sin( 1.720E-02 *t(d) + OCOOBE-01) [start: 183 days -. tend ~~~~~~1.096E+03 days
Table 6.2. Input Parameters and Results for FGETS Simulation for DDE in Surface Water Pametr .1UYAU molwt 320. molvol 228. lowp 6.13 CDo *undefined* mp7 100 cwarer CW(DpM) = 1.800E-06
meanwater conc.(cw) 1.800E-06pm meanbody conc.(cfj) 4.71 ppmn meanprey conc. 5.00ppm finallog(BCF) 5.05 finallog(cf~t)/cw) 6.43 joniluptake 358 Vg jointfil excretion 1.O1 1E.04 ua jointgut uptake 1.59054-04 Luz jinmtgu excretion 837tig
PNL 6.2 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Elelson Mir Force Base
Tbe 6.3. Input Parameters and Results for FGETS Simulation for DOD in Surface Water I molwt ~~~~~~320 movol 228 IOLP ~~~~~~~~6.40 clogp 'undefined* MP 100 cwacer cw(ppm) - 5.200E-05
mean water conc.(cw)520E5pm
mean body conc.(cfj) ______Pont______
mean prey conc. 6.27 plim ______
fnal log(cdfO)/cw) 5______39______joint gill uptake103E4li joint gill excretion 1.329E±04Lgg jointgut uptake 91.SE+04 ~g jointgu1t excretion: 1.9E0H~
6.2 Detailed Exposure Assessment -Terrestrial Recieptors
Ingestion exposure of terrestrial receptors to contaminants with the potential to bicaccumulate Was evaluated using field-obtained contaminant concentrations in biological'componenris of the ecosystems at the various source areas. This approach minimizes the extreme uncertainty associated with complete reliance on biological transfer factors (BThs) or biological accumulation factors (BAFs), winch may vary by several orders of magpurude for the same Contaminant among different receptors and for different sites (e~g., Suter 1993).
6.2.1 Body Burden ualysis - Field Sampling Program
6.2.1.1 Sampling Surategy
Loain- Sampling locations were determined using a stratified sampling design. The pruimaq division of Eielson AFB was into sites where biological exposure to contaminants was deemed rnost likely" (i.e., the screened source areas identified in Section 4.0) and the rest of the Eielson AFB environment. The second division separated each area into terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Aquatic habitats were further subdivided into riverine and lacusurine systems. Terrestrial habitats were also subdivided into grassland and forest categories.
PNL 6.3 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Locations within the 'Likely to be Contaminated" stratum consist of terrestrial habitats near operable unit source areas or the Garrison Slough sites and aquatic locations immediately downstream (based on surface water and groundwater movement) from the source areas. The locations identified for sampling are listed in Table 6.4, which also identifies the habitat tyes found at each site. The spatial extent of the habitats at each sampling area was evaluated using the BEARS GIS system and aerial photographs. The spatial extent of each habitat type is given in Table 6.5.
Table 6.4.- Sampling Locations and Associated Wildlife Hatbi~tats.
Site or Source Area_ Grassland Flightline Pond Pond Forem LF02 Mowni/Grassland River Forest LF03 Slough (Riverine) ______Mown/Grassland Garrison Sough - Lower Forest (5S30 Vicinity) Slough (Riverine) Grassland S535 Slough (Rivernne) ______Riparian Forest Garnison Slough - Middle Grassland (5547 Vicinity) Slough (Rivenine) ______Ripanan Forest Forest ST10/S514 . Graissland
______Pond forest 5720 -Grassland
______Pond Forest. S556 Pond Forest WP38 Grassland
______P ond French Creek Control at Quarry Roadf Forest (Streamncontrol) River Hidden Lake Control Pond
(Lake control) ______Unnamedstreamfeeder to Slough (Riverine) GarrisonSough-streamn control ______4______
Forest ST19 Grsln
PNL 6.4 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewcde Biological Risk Assessmet Eielson Air Force Base
Tab~6.5. Ground Cover at Sampled Areas ______Source Area Total Area Man- Grassr- or Site (h) made (ha) (ha)_ Forest (ha) Mars (ha _Lkes (h)P(r2) Flightline Pond - LF02 3.75 1.1 0.4 217 1050 L103 21.91 16.A 1.9f 30O 200 Garrson Slough - 2.: 22 8001 LowerI 5535 4.57 1.2 0 0.4 Garrison Slough - 1.7S 1721 0.0 0.021 800( Middle ______ST10 13.8 50 -- .8 _ _ .__ 07 1 6.9 S~~~lQ ~~~2.57 0. 0.2 1.4 0.1 5T20 ~~~~~7.134.3 0.5 0.2
5556 ~~~~7.61 0.3 021 - WP38~~~~ 20.8 4 14.1 nTC k28.2 -82 - L 60
a Tob many clouds on satellite image, so field notes~used to estimate areas b Used 300-rn radius around bndge
mcdia - Media sampled included bioca in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Specific organisms sampled were those described in the ecoiystem conceptual model and sampling plan derivation above as organisms at the base of the food chain, and organisms that are easily sampled and represent a foraging strategy common to non sampled prey organisms. Table 6.6 summarizes all biotic media sampled per location.
6.2.1.2 Sampling Methods
Turesuhia Organisms
Small MarmyalgWales) - Sherman live traps baited with a mix of peanut butter and Quaker oats were used to capture small mammals (generally voles) at each of the selected sites. Fifteen to forty traps were set at each site and checked twice a day until a sufficient composite sample weight (approximately 50 g) was obtained. A sufficient number of small mammals were collected at all of the selected sites wirth the exception of flightline Pond and ST2O. Flightline Pond had too few voles to allow full analyses; analyses requested were therefore limited to PA~s. No small mammals were captured at Source Area ST20. Tundra redback voles and meadow voles were the most common small mammals captured and collected at all sites. Three shrew species (Sorer dinereus, Sorax obscunas, and Microsorax hoyd) were rarely captured; but because they were reflectiva of the small land-mammal community, all captures were composited with the "vole' samples for Garrison Slough - Lower, Garrison Slough - Middle, 5556, WP38, and 5535. These comprised 'less than 1% of the sample weight at these locations. One meadow jumping mouse was captured and composited. with the other voles at Source Area L102.
NL y 6.5 May 26, 1-995 Final Sitewide Biojogical Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
j~~~~a b l e ~Tale6.6 Biotic Media Sample per Location.
Site or Source Ares Voles Squirrels Stems/ Macro- Inverte- Grayling Pike Leavs phytes brutes
Flightline Pond X (PAHs) X X X X Quarry Road bnidge X X X X- Hidden Lake control _____ X LF02 X X X X X X - LF03 X X X Lower Garrison X X X X X _F X Unnamed stream control x- 553 5 X X X X Middle Garrison X -X X X X- ST10 X X X X X-- ST19 X X X- _ ___ ST20 X X X 556, -x X X X WP38 X X X X X N =14 11 9- ~ 12 10 9 5 2
- - ~~~~~An'in the field" decision was made regarding small mammal sample preparation based on the limited capture success and consideration of food chain transport. Fat stores in small mammals are prinarily subcutaneous and abdominal. The organic contaminants of concern will partition primarily to these components. Removal of skin (as described in the Biota Sampling and Analysis Plan) would lose much of this source. A1335, predators will consume the skin as well as the rest of the body. For this reason, vole samples were thoroughly washed in an Alconox: solution in a glass container once to remove any surface contamination, then rinsed with deionized water anid placed directly in the certified precleaned glass sample container. All samples were weighed and sexed before sample preparation. Prepared - samples were then placed in a freezer until shipment to the analytical laboratory.
Sureq- Red squirrels were collected at eight of the selected locations using a .177 caliber pellet gun. All samples were shot in the head. to avoid contamination of the sample by introduction of a metal (lead and copper) pellet. Euthanizing the animals with a copper-plated pellet was attempted:; hcwever, accuracy and adequate dennal penetration was insufficient to collect samples. A lead pellet was sufficient --or euthanasia and was used to collect squirrels a: all sites but 5556. In the field, sex and whole body weight wererecorded. Samples were then individuallybagged and immediately placed in an ice-cooled container.
Samples were skinned and decapitated using stainless steel scissors and tweezers precleaned with Alconox and deionized water. The skin and head were weighed and discarded. The skinless/headless
PNL 6.6 May276, '1995 Final Shtewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
portions were rinsed briefly in deionized water and placed in certified precleaned glass sample containers. Prepared samples were then placed in a freezer until shipment to the analytical laboratory.
Veeain- Vegetation samples that included a combination of edible tissue from woody and nonwoody vegetation as appropriate for the habitat type sampled were collected at 12 sites. At those sizes where live traps were set for small mammals, vegetation samples were collected along the trap line. Stainless steel scissors precleaned with Alconox and deionized water were used to clip the vegetation. Plant samples were collected in approimnately the same percentages as they grew at each site and composited directly into certified precleanted glass jars. The samples were then'placed in an ice-cooled container in the field and were later placed in a freezer until shipment to the analytical laboratory. Table 6.7 identifies where vegetation samples were collected and the approximated percentages of non-woody plant tissues that were sampled.
Aquatic Organisms
fish- Fish (Northern pike, Esox lucius and Arctic grayling, Thyrnallus arcticus) were collected by hook- and-line or by backpack electroshocker (Smnifth-koot Type VII) at seven of the sites on Eielson AFB. Samples were wrapped in alumin umi foil, individually bagged, and placed in an ice-cooled container following collection in the field.
Skinless fiets were prepared using a stainless steel knife. In addition, the liver plus gallbladder was removed for composite analysis with the filet. All samples were rinsed in deionized water, placed in certified precleaned glass containers, and frozen for shipment to the analytical laboratory.
Table 6.7. Makeup of Vegetation Composite Samples
Location~ ~ ~ ~ *Ann1roxnnate Conposkicmo of Sample Flightline Pond 80% grass, 20% willow and birch French Creek Control 33% grass, 30% willow, 30% birch, 7% spruce LF02 50%grass, 25%&ispen, 25% willow LF03 80% willow and high bush cranberry, 20% rose, ______birch, and zrass Garrison Slough -Lower 50%grs, 50% aspen Garrison Slough -Middle 33% grass, 33% willow, 33%aspen ST10 20% grass, 80% birch, alder, low bush cranberry,
______and willow 5719 80% birch, rose, aspen, black spruce, and ______tamarack; 20% grass 5T20 50% alder, 50% tamarack 5556 50%gas 50% birch WP38 .25% grass, 75% willow, birch, and alder S535 50%grass. 50%alder andbirch
PNL 6.7 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Macroinverichrate- Aquatic invertebrates were collected using a variety of methods, including kick- sampling with a modified Surber sampler, dip netting, and handpickding available substratum (e.g., rocks, woody debris, submerged vegetation). The objective was to collect a minimum of 50 g of invertebrates for analysis. However, actual sample size ranged from <10to >50 gbecause of differences in secondary production among the nine sites sampled.
Samples were placed in certified clean jars in the field, stored on ice, and later frozen for shipment to the analytical laboratory.
A~unic marrbp~es Approxtnately 500 g of submerged vegetation were collected at nine sites on the AFB. Samples were placed in certified clean jars in the field, stored on ice, and later frozen for shipment to the analytical laboratory.
Sample Splits And Duplicates
*Duplicate and split samples were made to determine intra- and interlaboratory error, respectively. *Duplicates were made for 15% of the total number of samples sent to the analytical laboratory. Splits were made for 5% of all samples collected; however, these samples have not been analyzed. Red squirrels, fish, invertebrates, rmacrophytes, and nonwoody plants were wsed for sample duplication. Red squirrels and fish duplicates were longitudinally sectioned and half of the animal placed in one sample container and half in another. Invertebrates, mnacrophytes, and nonwoody samples were duplicated by collecting twice the amount of mass from the same location and placing half of the sample in one container and half in another. All samples were assigned unique sample numbers.
6.2.1.3 Analytical Methods
The following is a summary of the methods that were used to analyze the mammhlan and fish tissue samples collected for the Eielson Biological Risk Assessment.
PCB Arodors/Chlorinsted Pesticides
Tissue samples were homogenized using a Tekmnar tissuenizer. Approximately 5 g of homogenized tissue were extracted with methylene chloride using a roller under ambient conditions following MSL- M-079, 'Extraction and Cla~n-up of Sediment and Tissue for Semnivolatile Organics following the Surrogate Internal Standard Method," which is based on methods used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for their Status and Trends Program (Krahn et al. 1988). Samples are Ithen cleaned using Silica/Alumina (5% deactivated) chromatography followed by HPLC cleanup. -Extracts were analyzed using gas chromatography/electron capture detection (GC'ECD). Extracts were 'exchanged to methyl-t-butylether (MTBE) and analyzed by capillary column GC/ECD following SOP MSL-M-044. Analysis of PCBs and chlorinated pesticides by GC/ECD was based on EPA method 8080 (EPA 1986). The primary column used isJ&W DB-1701 capillary column (30 m by 0.25 mm I.D.). Samples were analyzed for four Arocior mixtures (1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260) and a total of 16 chlorinated pesticides. All results were confirmed on a separate parallel confirmatory column (DB-17).
Holding Time - Samples were received at the analytical laboratory on August 26, 1993 in good condition. Snplpes were logged into the Pacific Northwest Laboratory's log-in system and stored at 0 approxdmately -20 C until extraction. Samples were extracted in four batches. Extracts were analyzed by gas chromiatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) within the established holding time of 40 days from the time of extraction (EPA 1986).
FNL 6.8* May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Exelson Air Force Base
DeaecirnI injti - Target detection limits of 2 ng/g wet-weight were met for all pesticide compounds. Toxaphene detection limits were higher, 30 ng/g wet-weight. PCB MArclr detection limits of 5 nigig wet-weight were also met. Sample minimum detectable levels (MDLs) are reported based upon an average sample weight of 20 g wet-weight extracted. Note that the results are reported in igg/kg wet- weight. In addition, the detection limits for the plants and fish are twice that of those reported for the other matrices. This is due to having to pass the extracts through the clean-up procedure, which effectively dilutes the samples by a factor of two. The percent moisture and percent dry weight Of each sample is also reported. Actual method detection limits were determined from multiplying the standard deviation of seven spiked shellfish replicates by the student t-value. Methd Blnks- One method blank was extracted with each extraction batch. No pesticides of PCBs were detected in any of the blanks.
Sroae- Two compounds, PCB congeners 103 and 198, were added to all samples before extraction to assess the efficiency of the analysis. Surrogate recoveries for all samples were within control guidelines the quality of 40% to 120% for both surrogates with the exception of a number of plant samples. Plant samples were very dry and absorbed large quantities of solvents, which were difficult to quantitatively retrieve. Results, however, are quantified based on the surrogate internal standard recovenies. Therefore, sample results should not be affected.
Matrx ~j - One sample from each extraction batch was spiked in duplicate with seven pesticides and Aroclor 1254. Matrix spike recoveries for all conWnds were within the control limits of 50% to 150% with the exception of hepriachlor for two spikei:eIcause no heptachlor was detected in the samples, no data were flagged.
Blank qpikeg - The method blank from each batch was also spiked in duplicate with 7 pesticides and Arodlor 1254 before extraction. Recoveries for all compounds were-within the control limits of 50% to 150% with the exception of heptachlor in one blank spike. Because no heptachlor was detected in the samples, no data were flagged.
PAils
Samples were extracted with methylene chloride using a roller under ambient conditions following SOP MSL-042, "Extraction and Clean-up of Sediment and Tissue for Semnivolatile Organics,' which is based on methods used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for their Status and Trends Program (K~rahn et al. 1988). Samples were then cleaned using a silica/alumina (5% deactivated) chromatography followed by HPLC cleanup (Krahn et al. 1988). Extracts were quantified using GU/MS in the selected ion mode (SIM) following SOP MSL-M-043, 'Identification and Quantification of PAHs by GC/MS,' based on EPA method 8270 (EPA 1986).
HoldingTime - Same as for the PCB/Pesticide summary. "etctin imrg- Target detection limits of 20 ng/g wet-weight were me for all PAH compounds. Sample data are reported using actual sample MDLs based on sample weight extracted. Note that results are reported in gg/kg wet weight. The percentage dry-weight of each sample is reported on lead results table. the Method detection limits were determined from multiplying the standard deviation of seven spikzd replicates by the student t-value.
Metho ljanks - One method blank was extracted with each extraction batch. Naphthalene was detected in all four blanks. Phenanthrene and benizo~bfluoranthene were detected in one out of the PNL 6.9 May ~26,1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
four blanks, and benzo(a)anrhracene was detected in two of the method blanks. Sample results for these compounds were flagged with a "b" if the sample value from that batch was less than five times the blank value.
Surro~gate - Five isotopically labeled compounds were added before extraction to assess the efficiency of the method. These were d8-Naphthalene, dlO-Acenaphthene, d1-Chrysnen, d12-Perylene, and d14-Dibenizo(Wahrithracene. Recoveries of most surrogates were within the quality control limits of 40% to 120%. A number of recoveries for the plants were below the lower control limtit. Plant samples were very dry and absorbed large quantities of solvents, which were difficult to quantitatively retrieve. Results, however, are quantified based on the surrogate internal standard recoveries. Therefore, sample results should not be affected.
Matri Spikes - One sample from each extraction batch was spiked in duplicate with all PAN compounds. Matrix spike recoveries for all compounds were within the control limits of 50-150%. Blhank Spiki~- The method blank from each batch was also spiked in duplicate with all the PAH compounds before extraction. Recoveries for all compounds were within the control limits of 50% to 150%.
Lead
Lead was analyzed by inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry (ICP/MS) following SOP MSL-M- 02 5, "Metals and Trace Elements in Sediment Tissue by ICP/MS," which is based on EPA method 200.8 (EPA 1991). To prepare tissues for analysis, samples were first homogenized using a stainless steel blade to grind the wet sample. A portion was then freeze-dried and blended in a SPEX mixer- null. Approximately 5 g of mixed sample was ground in a ceramic ball mill. For ICP/ldS analysis, 0.2- to O.5-g aliquots of dried homogenous samples were digested Using a mixture of nitric acid and a microwave digestion technique following SOP MSL-M-025.
HoldingTime, - 0 Samples were frozen to -80 C and subsequently freeze-dried within approximately 7 days of sample receipt. No holding time exists for metals in tissues; however, all samples were analyzed within 180 days of receipt. Actual digestion dates are listed in the analytical labs quality control narrative. All samples were analyzed on November 16, 1993.
Detet~ionimill - Target detection limits were met for lead. The MDL of 0.081 mg/kg dry-weight was detennined by multiplying the standard deviation of seven method blank results analyzed with these samples by the student t-value (99th percentile) for seven replicates.
MthonI'lhnnksa - Atotal of seven method blanks were analyzed with the samples. An average value of 0.629 mng'kg dry weight of lead Was detected in all samriples.'All data were blank corrected for this value. No source of this blank contamination was apparent: however, the level was very consistent throughout the samples arid blank correction resulted in compliance of almost all quality control sample results.
* . ~Ma~lx591kn - Four samples were spiked in duplicate with lead. These samples represented four of * ~~~the matrices present (fish, rnacrophytes, squirrels, and plants). Spike recoveries for fish, macrophytes, and plants were all wxthin the control limits of 75% to 125%. Recovenies far the squirrels were low ranging from 31% to 58%. The result for the sample spiked appeared anomalously high compared to the results for the other squirrels analyzed. This mnay be due to nonhomogeneity of the sample, because the whole body was homogenized. Because all samples were digested and analyzed together, PN L 6.10 May 26, 1995( Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base
and all other s;pike recoveries and the majority of standard rfrnemtras(e eo)rslswr acceptable, no data were flagged. rfrnemtras(e eo)rslswr
Precision between the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recoveries was determined by calculating the relative percent difference (RD) between the percent recoveries. RPDs were good, ranging from 0 to 2%, with the exception of the RPD for the spikes on the squirrel sample as discussed above.
Standard Reference Materials (SRMs)
Four different SRMs were analyzed in duplicate at a minimum of one per 20 samples. SRMs were chosen to match the matrices being analyzed. SRM, DORM-i [a dogfish muscle tissue, obtained from the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC)J, was analyzed with the fish samples. SRM 1577 (bovine liver tissue) was analyzed with the squirrels and SRM 1571 (dried peach leaves) was analyzed with the plants. Both were obtained from the National Institute for Standards and Techniology (NIST). SRM sargasso (a dried seaweed sample obtained from the Nation Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan Environmental Agency) was analyzed with the mnacrophytes. Results for all SRJM were within 25% of the certified value with the exception of the first replicate of SRM 1577. This value was above the upper control limit: however, because all other quality control results were acceptable, and no cause for this exceedence was apparent, no data were flagged.
6.2.1.4 Analytcal Results
Poly.Chlorinatted Biphenyls ([PCBs)
AlR samples were analyzed for four Aroclor mixtures, 1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260. The only detectable amounts of PCBs were Aroclor 1260 for some invertebrates and fish (see Figure 6. 1). Inventebrates at Garrison Slough.- Lower were found to have 323 pg/kg body weight (wet) and invertebrates at Flightine Pond were found to have lust under 10 pg/kg body weight (wet). Fish collected at sites Garrison Slough - Lower and S535 showed the highest concentrations of Aroclor 1260, reaching 995 and 649 pg/kg body weight (wet) respectively. Fish collected at sites LFO2, Garrison Slough - Middle, Nlightline Pond, and the French Creek control all showed detectable levels of Aroclor 1260 between 10 and 207 pg/kg body weight (wet). Hidden Lake had no detectable levels of PC~s. Only one duplicate sample was above detection and showed the results to have (4\-) 20 gg/kg accuracy. The data for site Garrison Slough - LoWer indicate that fish muscle concentrations of Aroclor 1260 were approximately three times the levels found in invertebrates.
Chlorinated Pesticides
DDTs (summed concentrations of DDT. DDE, and DDD) were detected in all ter.estria media (plants, voles, and squirrels) sampled (see Figure 6.2). All plant samples had relatively low. concentrations, ranging from 0.24 pg/g body weight (wet) at Source Area 1103 to 4.01 Rg/kg body weight (wet) at Source Area 5535. Squirrel samples were also relatively low in total DDTs, ranging from 3.0 pg/kg body weight (wet) at site Garrison Slough - Lower to 14.7 gg/kg body weight (wet) at the French Creek control site. Voles collected from sites Garrison Slough - Lower and 1102 had concentrations of 205.2 and 105.8 i.g/kg body weight (wet) respectively. All other vole samples ranged from 3.0 to 35.0 pg/kg body weight (wet).
PNL 61 My2=6,1995 Final Sicewide Biological Risk Assessmnent Eielson Air Force Base
-Unnamed Sreambcn mm7- - - iz~~~ 4
MiddlGarrson. '~-
%~
z*Lt2 ~ rrrr......
Garon4Yn _ ------
Figre6.. DeetdBd ureso rcor16 nEes- qai it
.,.Aqui medi (macophtes inerb__s an-ih ape locnanddtcal eeso oa ...,.D Ta 4Qanycoletinadsites seFgr .) arpyesmlsrne rm02 oywih (wt&tSuc Arelganisf02------'S55. Cocentatosf Aolor16wi nertertswr- hs tsie F2adGrio lug oewt auso -.- rd9.3gg/kgodycag-wt), spt-el Alfssmpecetdsodettal- am-u.r of -wlD ~ nAiteecpino ide ae agdbten173ad12 gk bodymaxim weght m (wt).concetrattin Th in fsh wasfound a Sourc Area 535, were th
Aqualc mediasecrondhighest. Invertebrateswrandofsh sampled als contine dectablnoe levelfofn totae.
FNL its(e iue6.) arpyesape agdfom02 gk MDTaaalcletooy weight9 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base
-WP38 s-I.~~~~~~~~~~~~f~ ~A~tfltST2-0 Total DDTs
SS5 r '-t lafii
kS535 RQuanybridge * ddli Gat risosofli>
z.Lower Garrion.- -.- '77~.-...iLF0 1 < ~ 't . ~ - " ~~
fPiihahi Pond ~. ~ ., ;
Fiur 62,Dtete Bd Buren nEesn -fD~ ersra i
PNL 6.13 n2619i5 My Final Sli~ewde Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
WP38~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2W
Quarry Road Bddge-.---
ILF02J;-
...... uddfr ..I x - -~i-re~** Flighuine Pond .-
-SS56~ ~ ~ C
Rid(~~~~~~o
WY'S
:QuaITy Road bridgJ -e -Middle Garrison " - -- n *LowerGrio
-Figurlie 6PonDectdBy -udn ofD'si EesnAuai it
PNL .4..1w-99____ 1 Ma F 26. Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Nine duplicate samples were made for total DDTs using fish, invertebrates, macrophytes, plants, and squirrels (Table 6.8). Variability associated with the paired samples appeared to increase as total DDTs concentration increased, however, the average variability was 1.7 Its/kg (4- 1 S.D.) and never exceeded 12,8 jig/kg (+/- 1 S.D.).
-Table 6.8. Analysis of DDIT Du Iicates, ;IDDT DUPUCATEES
______X St . D v Ish 4.73 5.15 02 fish ~147.3 165.4 1.96 invert ~1.525 1.415 0078 ______1.505 1.85 0.4952 macro ~1.52 0.975 0.385373 plant 0.485 0485 0 'I ~~~~~squirrel 7.67 7.29 0.268701 squirrel 4 3150.632861 squirrel 4.52 3 46 0.749533 MEANS.D. 1.7071426
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
PA~s were divded into two categories based on the number of benzene rings; "High-PAH' refers to those compounds with greater than three benzene rings; 'Low-PAHW are those with three benzene rings or less. Body burdens of PA~s were sumnmed by molar concentration for this analysis. Results of all PAN concentrations are reported in pmole~kg body weight (wet).
Terrestrial media (plants, voles, and squirrels) results were all above detection limits for Low-PA~s and, with the exception of two squirrels collected at sites Garrison Slough - Lower and S556, were also all above detection for High-PA~s. Plant concentrations generally exceeded vole and squirrel concentrations for both High- and Low-PA~s at each of the sampling sites (see Figure 6.4). Low-PAN plant concentrations ranged from 0.08 jiznole/kg at Source Area L103 to 0.46 gmole/lg at Garrison Slough - Lower. High-PA~s concentrations in plants were consistently low, with a maximumt reported value of 0. 19 p~mole/kg from Source Area 1103. Low-PA~s in voles were highest at Source Area L503 (0.22 pmole/kg) and ranged between 0.13 jimole:Ag and 0. 18 pmole/lcg for the remaining sites. Squirrel samples had Low-PAlH concentrations ranging from 0. 14 jpmole/kg at Source Area ST19 to 0.30 pnolekgf at Source Akrea 1103. High-PAN concentrations in squirrels were iow, ranging ifrom nondetectable to 0.020 pimole'kg at source area.
Source Area 1103 showed relatively high PAN concentrations for all three terrestrial components. Of the three media types at Source Area LFO3, squirrels had the greatest amount of Low-PAH compounds, whereas plants had the greatest amount of High-PA~s.
PNL 6.15 May 26, 1995 Final Lirewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
A .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a'~~~~~~~~J
ST19 ~~~~~PAH
Quarry Road bridge-
1502 -. Flighdine Pn
-. '~~~~0. oosoat6asC " -. .5.-
* .- -..-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~T WP38 r
- -¾ 5T19: - -
SS.35 O Quarry Road bridge- Middle Garrison -. Lower arnson
LFO2 Z. '. *' ,~t-. ' -
QualygRod bidgeon-- -
* -. -: - --
Fiu- 64.DtctdoyBrdn o4As.nEilo Telrretil' i
*N 6.16 ay 26 199 Final1 Sitewide Biological Risk Assessmnt Elelson Mir Force Base
All PAH compounds in aquatic media were found to be relatively similar in concentration to those in terrestrial media (Figure 6.5). Invertebrate Low- and High-PAH concentrations from site Garrison Slough - Lower (2.79 gmrole/kg and 3.67 uimole/kg respectively) were over five times greater than any other aquatic media sample and over nine times greater than any other invertebrate sample. one fish sample collected from Flightline Pond was relatively high (0.726 Jpsole/kg) in Low-PAHl concentration. AUl other Low-PAH- fish sample results ranged from 0.0299 j.±mole/lcg at Source Area L102 to 0.0780 Mmnoleflc at Hidden Lake. High-PAH concentrations in fish were all relatively low, ranging from 0.0081 pnole/kg at Source Area L102 to 0.038 limoilefg at Flightline Pond.
Ten duplicate samples were made for total Low- and High-PA~s and included fish, invertebrates, macrophytes, plants, and squirrels (Table 6.9). The mean Low-PAM variability from ten paired samples resulted in 0.033 pmole/kg (+/- 1 S.D.) and never axcceded 0. 15 umole/kg (+/- 1 S.D.). Average High-PAM variability from the same ten paired samples resulted in 0.019 pmrole/kg C+/- 1 S.D.) and never exceeded 0.13 pxnoleckg (+/- 1 S.D.).
Table 6.9. AnalssoPAl Duplicates usnole/kg (simole.'kg ______Low PAHs (Wt ______High PAHs wet) ______Sample duplicate Std. Dev. Sample Duplicate Std. Dev. It 0.03125 0.078027 0.033077 0.020662 not detected 0.01461 h ~~~~0.029952 0.030909 0.000677 0.008322 0.008103 0.00015 vert ~~0.06701$ 0.066656 0.000254 0.007214 0.00602 0.00084 nvert ~~0.08789~ 0.106585 0.013218 0.016181 0.05G45 0.02423 cro ~~0.0878811 0.05185~ 0.02547q 0.031889 0.02093 0.00774 lam ~~~0.08806 0.307391 0.15508 0.01181E 0.19272 0.127924 lant 0.307861 0.242704 0.046071 0.105427 0.08661 0.01330 quirrel ~0.1498 0.170701 0.0168411 0.00788 0.00779, quirrel ~0.06347~ 0.0806!? 0.0121511 not detected not derecte not detecte quirrel 0.14561 0.187761 0.02976 ~ 0.017441 0.00797 0006 _Ave S.D. 0.33262~ Ave S.D. 0.956
Lead
Lead concentrations in both the terrestrial and aquatic samples were all above the detection limit except for ticose in fish samples. All concentrations for lead are reported in Mg~g body weight (dry). For the terrestrial conmonents, lead was highest in plants and voles at Source Area WP38, with 4 concentratinrs of 0.70 gg'g and 2.3S ggl3,:zp'ci y '.t------.-.-*.h.v* lead 1 -id-1 concentrations than plants collected at the same sites. Squirrels showed a maximum lead concentration at Source Area 1103 of 2.26 aggg. All other squirrel samples were less than 0.90 gagg. Lead was consistently higher in all three terrestnial media types at Source Area 1103 as compared to other sites.
kPNL 6.7May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
un-nmca Stream backgigh
s..M.~1C~~tsS720 - r Macrdphytmsr PA*Hg -~~~~ I -~S Low
$ t~ddle Garrison c - - -;~~'-t-t§S1w r~isow-'n- _
~-,U'-v--n.d u b - zm
~~~~flihgh±ime Pond --
Streamdsmm backgr)und------risn Slugh------Lea conenraiosinoivrertswr eaieyhg cteGrio luh-LwradGrio
Sluh-Mdl a-igsie 2. L/ n 07ggg epcieybtweeohriecnitnl OW hncocnrton on n h arphtsclece tte aests PN r ay4=«199 Final Sirrwide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
~~~~~~~~
4.r' g; 5 & t..n ~ -z n' '~ - ,- - ',,.t-~- 2 4wrt,
12 ~~~~~~~~~~2 - 15,- IWO
5535in -Po-
Nt,~ ~ ~ ~ ____ 4'~ns& ~7 '-
DnnA S2.Z~~~~~~zta:J
-F iddle Gariso Detected BoyBrdn f edinEeso eretil it
S'~t~aevendupicaesamples_weemd orla n iue isivrebaemcrpyeplns n
sqires(abe .1) Temavaibiitfomenaiesapsstdi_ 5-gg4,- S.. n evrecee .87.r0f7~ ggg( ISD)
4 PNL 6.19 May 26, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.1995. Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Quary Road bridge _ Middle Garrisorn
r- - owe..
IC, HdenLtC tnt--
oY Th .. >.rPn .
Figure 6.7. DeetdBd Breso ea nEesnvAquticBota
8~~~~~~~~ l 6.10 Analysis o LeadDuplicates 2 y~~~'~~~ b~~potmdoncntraion pg/gdry
masno 2.07 .838 _871 -
U~~idd~eGannon. f lI a v a.D.=.15536
PNLt owr Grrso a my 26,1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
6.2.2 Exposure Analysis - Ingestion
6.2.2.1 Methods
Ingestion exposure for terrestrial receptors was estimated using infonnation on the contaminant concentrations in the receptors' food, with each concentration weighted by the fraction of the total dietary intake for the given food source. This latter weighting is a combined function of the fraction of the usual diet that consists of the given prey type and the fraction of the recep tor's home range that is made up of the contaminated area. Ingestion exposures are calculated separately for each source area. Ingestion exposure was examined for sermivolatiles, PC~s, DDTs, and lead.
For receptors with home ranges that extend beyond any particular contaminated region associated with a source area, the dietary exposure outside the source area is estimated as above except using the background concentration of the contaminant. The background concentration for sernivolatiles, lead, DDTs, and PCBs was assumed to be equivalent to the 'background' concentration in the relevant media sampled from the 'background" location described in Section 5.0.
This additive methodology is employed to account for the fact that certain biota in areis remote from source areas contained detectable levels of PA~s, DDTs, and PCBs (Aroclor 1260). Because the relationship between exposure and toxdcological response is signioidal CHodgson 1987), an estimate of incremental effect resulting from an incremental exposure is not possible without knowing the baseline -exposure as well.
Ingestion exposure in area i for receptor j to chemical k was estimated using the following analysis (see EPA 1993 for denivation):
R =j ~uc0 (intakceimContaminated Area) + UbI,(intake elsewhere) (1)
where
*Uca ra(a Reotmntdceptor home range (ha)(2
while Receptor home range > Contaminated Area; else Uca= 1,
and
Ub =1I- Uc0 (3).
The summations in equation 1 are estimated as
L= (Coc~j&[~a('>daily intalke .[kg]*body weight 1'[kgf prey fraction ij *) (4)
PNL 6.21 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
where the subscripts are referenced as
i= source areai
j = receptor j
k -chemical k,
and L -prey L
This analysis was parameterized using home range, daily food intake, and prey fraction data that were obtained from the literature and are tabulated in Tables A.2 and A.3 in Appendix A. The actual data set used for the intake, weight, and prey fraction elements are presented in Table A.4 in Appendix A.
The spatial extent of the contaminated area for each sampled site was set equal to the maximum spatial extent of wildlife habitat within the source or sampled area and its immediate vicinity as presented in Table 6.2.
Prey concentration data were obtained from the biota body burden data described above for the serniivolatile, lead, pesticide, and PCB contaminants, which were reported on awet-weight basis (i.e., in the form as would be consumed by predators). Lead content was reported on a dry-weight basis, so the wet-weight concentration for the biota at each site was obtained by multiplying by % dry weight for the sample. The body burden of invertebrate prey for all species, including terrestrial ones, was taken to be the body burden of the aquatic invertebrates sampled at each site. This probably overestimrates the actual body burden of all insects. Body burden data for birds as prey for receptor - species were not obtained in the field. Consequenutly, the expected body burdens were estimated by one of two methods:
*derivation of Biological Transfer Factors (BTFs) from observed plant -* vole and plant -+ squirrel field data from Eielson AFB:
* derivation of Biological Accumulation Factors CBAFs) from structure-activity relationships.
BTFs are defined as:
Concentration k
BIF = k[%j Daily intake ~md
where sub- and superscnipts are as for equauion 4. BThs for transfer of tota DDTs to herbivores from their diet were calculated for voles and squirrels using equation I to estimate daily intake (=RDijkr'body weightj), BThs were calculated for each site and pair of animals where field data were available. Th.e median site- specific BiTs for voles and squirrels were then averaged to obtain the overall BiT that was used to estimate bird body burden. Birds ustd in the analysis of exposure were terrestrial or aquatic insectivores Coufflehead and thrushes). These were chosen because they have a moderately high dietary exposure, yet are widely distributed and abundant on Eielson APE. Bufilehead 'were used as prey of larger birds Cowls, goshawk); thrushes were used as prey for shrikes, because bufflehead are too large to be taken by shrikes.
PNL 6.22 May 26,1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
PC~s were not detected in terrestrial Organisms and were only found in fish and invertebrates. The exposure pathway for terrestrial organisms is thus limited to consumption of invertebrates and fish. Consequently, the above methdd could not be used to estimate BTh for this contamninant. Instead, an invertebrate-to-bird BTF was obtained from a report on bioaccurnulazion of PCBs in a forest ecosystem (Winter and Streit 1992).
Because the detected occurrence of PAH in the biological samples was widely scattered and too sparse to use reliably for all PAHs, a BA.? was calculated on the basis of log Kow using an empirical formula to derive a BA? for bird fat reported in Garten and Trabalka (1983):
IogBAF k =-b,-2.743 +0. 542logK .k (6),
and a BA? for nontrurninant mammal fat from the same reference:
logBA F - =] ~-3.8490 61lg ~k(7)
where sub- and superscripts are as for equation 4.
This latter BA? was also used to estimate PAH concentrations for invertebrates where none were available. The BAF is defined as:
Concentration k BAF~~~~~k= ~~Intake rate I (8).die
ingestion exposure of herbivores to volatile contaminants was evaluated for those sites where ingestion exposure to volatiles was likely (i.e. where volatiles were found in groundwater where deep-rooted plants occurred). For these sites, a Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) value was obtained for each volatile organic found in the groundwater. The RME was the smaller of the maximum detected concentration Or the upper 95% confidence interval. Plant root exposure was then assumed to be 100% in groundwater. Under thes conditions, aboveground tisse concentration may be estimated using the Stem Concentration Factor (SC?), which has been empirically related to Kow by Briggs et al. (1983) as:
log SCF k 0O95 llog K ~ - 205 (9),
where
k=Concentration in stemk(1) SCFk = Y ~~~Concnntraoninr '-solution k( ) and the subscripts are as before. Ingestion exposure for an herbivore is then derived as RIo =dailv intake Ijkg] SCFk RME~ / body weight1 (1).
K PNL ~~~~~~~~~~~6.23 May 26, 19-95 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
At Source Area WVP38, BTEX was found in relatively high amounts in soil samples, in contrast to the other source areas. The appropniare relationship for estimating plant uptake of organic contaminants from soils, (Travis and Arms 1988) is:
log SCFk L 588- 0.578log K., (12).
Source area with source terms for PA~s were 1102 (probable), 1103, Garrison Slough - Lower, 5535, Garrison Slough - Middle, STIO, and 5120. PAM exposures were estimiated for these areas only. Source areas with source terms for lead were 1102, 1103, Garrison Slough - Lower, 5S35, Garrison Slough - Middle, ST1O, SS56, and possibly WP38. Lead exposures were evaluated at these sites only. DDTs were widely detected on the base (section 6.2. 1); consequently, ingestion exposures were estimated for this chemical group at all sites. PCBs were detected only in the biota from 1102 and the Garrison Slough area sites, so exposures to PCBs were estimated only at these sites. Groundwater source terms for volatile organics where deep-rooted vegetation was present were known for 1103, STlO, ST19, and 5120. Consequently, ingestion exposures were estimated only for these sites.
6.2.2:2 Results
Ingestion exposure simulations were run separately for lead, PA~s, PCBs, and DDTs, The results for each receptor, chemical, and source area are given in Appendix F.
The highest ingestion exposures from lead were to shrews and shrikes, in pant because of the high trophic position of these species (carnivores) and in-pant because the home ranges of these species are smaller than any source area, consequently, both species receive fuul ingestion exposures from each area. The highest PAN exposures were to shrews, bufflehead, and owls. Results for shrilces were not higher than those for owls because owls were modeled as eating bufflehead while shrikes were modeled as eating thrushes. In general, PAH concentrations were found to be higher in samples of aquatic than in terrestrial organisms- (see Figures 6.4 and 6.5); consequently, aquatic birds received higher PAN exposures than did terrestrial birds. The highest DDT exposures were to goshawks/peregrines, shnikes, hawks, and shrews.
The areas with the highest lead exposure via ingestion were along Garrison Slough (Garrison Slough - Middle and Garrison Slough - Lower). - The highest exposure from a source area was from 5535, followed by [102 (Table 6.1 1). PAH ingestion exposures were similar at all sites, with the highest exposure being for shrews at Garrison Slough - Lower and Garrison Slough.- Middle, 1103, ST1O0, and 5S35 (Table 6.1 1). Exposure to DDTs was highest for receptors at SS35, 1102, Flightline Pond, and Garrison Slough (Table 6.12). PCB ingestion exposure was highes for receptors in the Garrison Slough - Lower, followed by Flighthine Pond and 5535 (Table 6.13).
Ingestion exposure of herbivores (spruce grouse) to volatile organics was greatest at ST19, followved by STLC1,ST12O, and L103 (Table 6.l1i).
PNL 6.24 May 26, iggS Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Table 6.11. Estimated Ineton Exposure to PAHs and Lead forMaiayExoeTresilRcpts Receptor dose (wnmoie/g Receptor dose Contaminant ~ ~~~bw) Contaminant (gg wet wt/g Area Receptor _____ Contaminant Area ID Recepor bw) PA~s 3T20 owl 4.50E-03 Lead 5556 shrew 0.020 Garmson owl 4.51 E-03 5556 shrilke 0.091 Slough -
Lower _____ ST20 bufflehead 1.96E-02 L103 shrike 0.175 L102 owl 2.34E-02 WP38 shrew 0.176 11~~~~L02 bufflehead 2.63E-02 1103 shrew 0.187 Garrison bufflehead 3.64E-02 WP38 shrike 0.210 Slough -
~ ~~~Middle______55~~~~S35 owl 3.92E-02 ST10 shrilce 0.296 5535 bufflehead 4.742-02 ST1O shrew 0.402 STIO owl 5.61E-02 1102 shrew 0.432 11~~~~L03 owl 8.63E-02 S535 shrew 0.443 ~~~~~ST20 shrew 9.19E-02 1102 shnke 0.944 ~~~~~STIObufflehead 9.39E-02 S535 shrike 1.012 Garrison owl 1.12E-01 Garrison shrew 2.648 Slough - Slough - ~~~~~Lower______Lower 1103 bufflehead 1.182-01 Garrison shrikce 2.648 Slough -
_ _ _ ~~Lower _ _ _ LF02 shrew 2.38E-01 Garrison shrew 4.990 Slough -
______M iddle ______Garrison bufflehead 2.502-01 Garrison shnike 10.962 Slough - Slough -
~~~~~Lower______Middle ______5535 shrew J3.60E-01 Garrison shrew j5.27E-01 Slough - _ _ _ _ _ 54 -0
Middlesh w ______
______1103 shrew 5.402-01 Garrison shrew 6.64E+00
PNL 6.2.5 M-ay 26, 995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Table 6.12. Esdtimtd Ingestion Exposure to DDTs and PCB for Maximalfly Exposed Terrestrial i Receptors ______j Comta- Ingestion Conta- Ingestion Area Receptoi minant 1(Jg/kg bw. Area Receptor minmant (lig/kg bw~ £03 ~~~shrew DDTs 0.07 Garrison - Middle goshawk PCB-1260 1.38 T19 shrew oca8 Garrison -Middle hawk 1.83 P03 ~~~shnike 0.31 Flighthine Pond shrew 9.87 r19 shrike 0.38 1102 go-sh-awk 87.82 nO goshawk 0.61 [102 hawk 122.90 S56 shrike 1.20 Garrison -Lower shrew -332.88 S56 srw1.30 5S35 goshawk -530.05 10 shrilce -1.45 5535 hawk 701.61 170 ~~~shrew i~aFlightlinc Pon~d -hawk 707.28 556 goshawk -1.63 Garrison - Lower goshawk 841.27 03 goshawk 1.82 Flight~lne Pond goshawk 866.35 T19 goshawk 2.75 Grrison - Lower hawk 1193.09 38 ~~goshawk 8.27 Grrison - Lower shnlce 1678.54 dhrinePond shrilce 10.30 38 shrike 10.99 igtlePond shrew 11.16 38 shrew 11.92 rion- Middle goshawk 14.96 TiC goshawk 17.50 55 Shrike 20.38 535 ~~~shrew 21.60 Tb ~~~shrike 23.46 riO ~~~shrew 25.42 a *so- Middle shrlce 28.10 ar *o-M shrew 30.08 arion -Lower goshawk 56.31 rion - Middle owl 65.10 02 goshawk 77.56 arsn- Lower shrikce 93.60 dihtine Pond goshawk 97.23 arrison - Lower shrew 101 42 j1102 ~~shrike j132.30 I!02 ~~shrew 1432 53 gshwkf 190.-
-PNL 6.26 May 26, 1995k Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Tabl6.1. Etimuated Ingestion Exposure to Volatiles for Maximtally-Exposed Terrestrial]
Receptors ______RMEMax Crc RME Max Site Co~~ntaint jgkg'tgLaex Site Contaminiant (s'g/L or Grouseex mgk)bw/ld) mg/kg) (jig/kg
F024-merhylphenol 0.0 3.1 6E -0 Si benzene 8.03E 1.37E+0 berizene 02 lI E.( - lethylbenzene -220376E-T- dichloroethylene 0.28 1.34E~e. toluene 3029 5.16E~t toluene 0.1 633- xylene 1012! 172 xylene 0.E 2.ZSE-0 ST2O be~nzene 621 1.06E.+0 03 benzene 33.0~ 5.6375 WP8benzene 35.i 151.7 I(nroun dwater) I dichloroethylene 1.731 4.70 ethylbenizene ~ 782 265.81 (soil) I______trnchloroethene 1E*01 12.153 toluene 355 1321.9 (soil) *vinyl chloride (gw) 0.31! 0.0536 - xylene 320[1110 3 Tb benzene 363f 6.19E.01 ethylbenzene73 1250 toluene652 11EeC xylene 4781 8.15E+s.
6.3 Response Assessment
6.3.1 Aquatic Reetors
To evaluate the effect of bioaccumulation of DDE and DDD, the approach presented by McCarty and Mackay (1993) was used. In this approach, body burdens of organic chemicals can be related corresponding to a effect level. They showed that for organic chemicals which produce narcosis in aquatic fish, estimated body residue that will produce a critical body residue ranges from 0.2 to 0.8 mmnol/kg. The acute level ranges from 2 to 8 mind/kg.
6.3.2 Terresitrial Reetors
1kw data are available on Lh& toxicity of most chemicals to wildlife; instead, most data on terrestrial toxiciries are derived foromla-boratory animalsa, primianly rats, house mice, guinea pigs, cats, dogs, and quail. The most common test endipoint is the median lethal dose (LD50) (Suter 1993). Also, the exposure is generally limited to acute exposures (096 hours). Consequendly, estimating responses of wildlife to chronic exposures to persistent or widespread chemnicalsi requires extrapolating toxic response thresholds across taxonornic groups, from LD50 to other lower-level responses, and from acute to chronic exposures.
PNL 6.27 May ~26,1995 Final Sitewde Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Table 6.14. Txicological LOEL Benchmarks Used in EstimaigEHQs (Plate 1 of 2)
aanaphlykl Receptor ~Ingestion LOEL IngesinLOEL lo lnhalationLOEL IhlahnionLOEL
acenaphthalene mammal 3..50E+02 7.56E+01 7.56E+01
bcenzenhyenemammal 3.43d+02 1.04E+02 5.04E+01 bcetnoaprenemammnal 2.167+03 1.3E03820E+23 1.082+02 benzohbra uorne hnmammal no data 8.272+02 2.272+02 benizo(alinprylene mammal no data 1.95E±022.202.4±2 benzo(j)pyfrntene mammal nodt 2.172±02 128-0 .278E-02 benzo~cfluoranthene marnmal no data 27.2202. 2.27E+02
chrysene mammal no data 1.95E+02 1.95E±02 DDD mammal 7.53E±00 3.77E±00 3.77E±00 DDE mammal 5.27E+01 2.63E±01 2.63E±01 DDT mammal 5.80E±00 2.90E±00 2.90E±00 DDT bird 1.00E±01 1.002E±01 1.002+01 dibeniz(a~harnthracene mammal 1.39E+03 6.93E±02 6.93E±02 dichloroethylene mammal 5.13E+01 2.57E±01 4.62+00 dichloromethane mamnmal 5.60E±02 2.80E+02 4.17E±02 2.08E±02 ethylbenzene mammal 2.33E±02 1.1I7E±02 2.OE±01 ethylene dibrornide mammal 1.67E±01 8.33E±00 2.93E-02 1.47E-02 fluoranchfene mammal 1.33E±02 6,67E±01 6.67E±01 fluorene mammal 2.50E±02 6.99E±01 6.99E±01 fue oil 1D bird 1.33E±00 6.67E-01 6.67E-01 fuloil 1-D mammal 6.OOE±02 3.002+02 3.OOE±02 gasolie mammal no data no data 1.502±02 Indno1,2.3-cd)pyren~ mammal no data 2.40E±02 2.40E±02 2.40E±02 P.4... ~~~~marmmal 3.33E±01 1.67 ±1 b .OE+02 lead ., bird 5.33E±01 2.67E±01 fI13E+02 Ilead mammal 8.87-8Th4.4-01 _ _ __ 1___ _ _ i ~2 '
'One option in extrapolating across taxn is to deveiop a probability density function of responses for known species and select a level of protection base!d on the density function (e.g., the median: 50% of responses lhe below the value), This approach has been wsed to estimate National Water Quality Cntienia (Enckson and Stephan 1985) and was utilized in this risk assessment. Data on tontc responses for all available species were obtained from available databases and compiled (Appendix E). Median LD)50 and LC5 0 values were compiled for volatiles and PARS within major tana to produce separate
,PNL 6.28 May 26.1199 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Table 6.14. Toiooia OEL Benchmarks Used in EsiaigEHQs (Plate 2 of 2)1 Ingestion LOEL Ingestion LOEL Io Inhalation LOEL Inhalation LOEL Chemical. Receptor hi (pPM) (Dom) hi (ppm) methyl Io (ppm) ethyl ketone mammal 9.18E+02 4.59E+02 3.33E+02 1.67E*02 methyl isobutyl ketone mammal 9.44E1+01 4.72Et01 1.OOE+03 5.OOF+02 In-hexane mammal 1i91EtO3 9.57E+02 8.65E+02 4.33E+02 naphchalene mammal 3.55E+01 1.78E+01 1.78 E+Ol PCB bird 1.l1 1E+O00 l.lI1Ei-00 PCB mammal ______4.7E-01 4.7E-01 phenanthrene Mammal 4.67E+0.1 2.33E+01 2.33E+O1 pyrene ~~~~~mammal l. 17E*02 5.83Et-O1 - 5.7E+O0 tetrachloroer~hylene mammal 3.58E+0O2 1.79E+02 1.80E+02 Itetraeihyl lead mammal l.OOE+01 5.00E+00 2.17E+02 1.08E+02 toluene mammal 3.33E+s02 - 1.67E+02 8.OE±O1 trichloroethane mammal 3.87E+01 1.93E+01 6.67E+02 3.33E+02 trichloroethylene mammal 1.95E+03 9.77E+02 9.77E+02 vinyl chloride mammal 1.15E+03 5.77E-0-2 3.83E+o1 1.92E+01 xlene mammal 2.87E+02 1.43E+02 3.OE+Ol 4-methyiphenol mammal 1.20E+2 6.OE+l 6.OE~l
values for birds and mammals. Lowest observed values were used for lead, DDTs, and PCBs. Where -LOELs were available, those were recorded.
Exposures producing lower-level effects (e.g., eggshell thinning in birds) are not available for most chemicals other than pesticides. Instead, specific lower-level responses were estimated from LD50 and other data using methods recommended by EPA. The Lowest Observable Effects Level (LOEL) may be estimated as between 1/15th and 1/30th the LD50 (Tucker and Lietzke 1979; Urban and Cook 1986). Similarly, the lLDi (threshold of montality) can be estimated as 1/5th the LD50 (Urban and Cook 1986). These relationships were used to estimate LOELs and L-Dlos where such were not available in the toxicological databases. Because DDTs, PCfls, and lead produce significant adverse reproductive effects in some species (e.g., mink, raptors) and not others, the lowest LOEL was used for birds and mammals for, these constituents.
Where inhlalation response data were unavailable, they were. estimated as being equivalent to oral values on a ppm basis (i.e., conversion of mg/kg to mg/rn3) following Elov et a 179)
Toxicity data were not available for all PA~s. To fill in the missing data, responise endpoints were estimated from regression of log LOEL on log Kow using data in Appendix E. The regression equation obtained was:
logLOEL k =. Q9 +Q226logK0m~k (12).
PNL 6.29 May 26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Finally, avian coxdciry data were unavailable for many constituents. In all such cases, the nmammnalian responses were utilized.
The relevant toxicological response concentrations derived by the abov e methodologies are shown in Table 6.14.
6.4 Quantitative Risk Assessment
6.4.1 Aquatic Reeeptors
Conventing DIDE and DDD body-burden concentrations to mmol/lcg gives concentrations of 0.0128 and 0.0316 mnmol/lg, respectively. To evaluate potential toxdc effects, the body burden concentrations can be added; DDE + DIDD = 0.0444 inuol/kg. This concentration is approximnately 1/10 the body burden necessary to cause a chronic effect to fish.
PCB effects on reproductive success of fish were found at tissue concentrations of 1.4 ppm (fresh weight) in striped bass gonads and 0. 12 ppm (fresh weight) in flounder fillets (Eisler 1986). Aroclor 1260 concentrations in fish tissue from Garrison Slough and Fliglitline Pond were greater than the reproductive effects level in flounder.
6.4.2 Terrestrial Receptors
The overall strategy used in the analysis of quantitative risk was to obtain EHQs separately for ingestion of the three major groups of contaminants of concern (volatiles, semnivolatiles, and lead), combine EHQs for ingestion of all contaminants at a site for each area, then combine ingestion with inhalation EHQs for those receptors where the inhalation EHQ was above 0.01 (Figure 6.8).
EHQs based on LOELs Clow value) for ingestion of PAHs were sumnmed across PAHS to obtain a composite hazard quotient for shrews, owls, and bufflehead (the maximally exposed receptors) at each site. Inhalation exposures to PA~s were not included, because all such EHQs were less than 2E-4. As shown in Table 6.15, all EHQs for PAH exposure were less than 2E-2, with the mnaximum hazard at the lower Garrison Slough sampling site.
Lead ENQs based on ingestion exposures and LOELs Clow value) were approximately an order of -t magntude larger than PAH EHQs (Table 6.15). The getest haad was at the sampling site Garrison 2Slogh -Middle, followed by the other Garrison Slough sampling area. These hazard levels are -approimtely five times lower than the exposure causing mortality from acute exposures. Inhalation EHQs for shrikes were estimated using an exposure calculated at 36 a~n above the ground (Appendix F), which produced inhalation ENQs less than 3E-4, so this pathwayAwas ignored for shrikes.
PNL 6.30 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Pathway
SrrE ~~Inhalation Ingestion
Volatiles -ME~f!~=EHO MV M =EHIC
* Sernivolatiles
Pesticide/ E E o PCB
Lead
EHO,, EHVO~
SummedEH .,
Figure 6.8 ExposureContaminant EHQ Integration Methodology
EHQs for DD)Ts and PCBs for the maximally exposed receptors are shown in Table 6.16. EH-Qs were summed across DDTs and PCB where contaminants ca-occurred, because these chemicals are known to produce additive effects in wildlife (Dustman 1971). Based on these analyses, the Garrison Slough - Lower had an EHQ exceeding 1 for shrikes and hawks, and over 0.7 for goshawks/peregrmes and shrews. Because the LOEL for DIDTs and PCBs is based on adverse reproductive effects, this area poses a potentially significant reproductive risk to avian predators feeding on organisms in this area. Similarly, Flightline Pond also had an EHQ for goshawks and hawks greater than 0.6, and S535 had an EH-Q for goshawks greater than 0.4, and for hawks of greater than 0.6. Source Area L102 bad a maximumBHQ of 0.11l, which was fora hawk. MaximnumnEHQs for LFO3,ST10, ST19, 520,S5556, and WP38 were all less than 0.004, well below hazard levels for these contaminants. Exposure to volatnles produced EHQs less than one at all sites, based on RME (Table 6.17). Given the exposure scenarios modeled in this assessment, i.e., ingestion of deep-rooted plants with roots fully exrposed to the contamination, -no signuficanu herbivore eflects would be expected at these sutes. In summary, Source Areas ST1O, ST19 and ST20 present no sigpifiant terrestrial ecological risks to herbivores from dietaqy exposure. to volatile organics present in groundwater. Source Area WP38 nresents a moderate potential hazard to small animals from inhalation of BTEX from soils; when risks from BTEX were combined across inhalation and ingestion pathways, the resulting EHQ was 0.273 for small herbivores such as voles. No sites present a significant risk to terrestrial receptors from PAl-s in soils, surface waters, or groundwater,. Garrison Slough presents significant reproductive risk to avian PNL 6.31 May26, 1995 Final Sicewide Biological Risk Assessment Eiedson Air Force Sase
receptors from exposure to DDTs and PCBs (Aroclor 1260). Similarly, the Flightline Pond poses a potential hazard from DDTs and PCBs. Finally Source Area 5535 poses a potential hazard to avian receptors from present DDTs. Contamination at the other sites examined in this assessment does not pose sigmficant ecological nisk.
Table 6.15. Estimated EHQs Based on LOELs for Ingestion Exposure to PA~s and Lead for Maximally Exposed ______Rece tors _ _ _ _ _ Summary jSummary EHQ Contaminant Receptor Area EHQ ContaminantJ Area ID Receptor _____ PA5 bufflehead LF02 1.36E-04 Lead LF02 shrew 9.75E-03 ______owl LF02 1.51E-04 L102 shrike 3.54E-02 shrew LF02 1.22E-03 L103 sh-rew 4.2 12-03 ______owl LF03 5.35E-04 L103 shrike 6.54E-03 bufflehead LF03 6.60E-04 Garrson - shrew 5.98E-02 ______Lower I shrew LFO3 3.O1E-03 Garrison - shrike 9.92E-02 Lower owl Garrison - 3.02E-04 SS35 shrew 1.00E-02 ______Lower ______bufflehe-ad Garrison - 7.84E-04 SS35 shrnke 3.79E-02 ______Lower shrew Ganrison - 1.94E-02 Garrison - shrew 1.13E-01
______Lower 2 25E___04 bufflehead ______Middle I41E0 5535 2.5 4Garrison - shrike 41 0
______~M iddle ______owl S535 2.36E-04 STIO shrew 9.07E-03 ______shrew 5535 1.68E-03 ST10 shrike 1.1I1I2-02 owl Garnson - 2.29E-05 5556 shrew 4.61E-04 ______M iddle ______bufflehead Garrison - 2.09E-04 SS56 shrike 3.42E-03 ______~M iddle ______shrew Garrison - 3.35E-03 WP38 shrew 3.97E-03 ______M iddle ______buffiehead STIO 3.27E-04 WP38 t shnike 7 ______owl ST10 3.37E-04 ______shrew I 5T10 1.75E-03
______owl ST2O 1.28E-05 ______buflh___ 20 1.15E-04 j~~(shrshew ST20 5.65E-04 l
PNL 6.32 M4ay 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Table 6.16. Estimated EHQs Eased on LOELs for Ingestion Exposures to DD)Ts and PCBs frMaximally-Exposed Receptor (Place 1 of 2) _____ Summed Area Receptor Contaminant EHQ EHQ
hhline Pond goshawk DD)Ts 9.72E-03 DTPC lghrline Pond goshawk PCB-1260 7.80E-01 7.90E-01 lightline Pond hawk PCB-1260 6.37E-01 lighiline Pond shrew DDTs L.92E-03 lghtine Pond shrew PCB-1260 2.10E-02 2.29E-02 lghtline Pond shrike DDTs 1.03E-03 F02 ~~~~~goshawk DDTs 7.76E-03 02 ~~~~~~goshawk PCB-1260 7.91E-02 8.69E-02 02 ~~~~~~hawkPFCB-1260 1ilIE-01 02 shrew DDTs 2.47E-02 02 ~~~~~~shrike DDTs 1.32E-02 03 goshawk DDTs 1.82E-04 03 ~~~~~~shrew DDTs 1.12E-05 03 ~~~~~~shrike DD)Ts 3.06E-05 aion- Lower goshawk DDTs 5.63E-03 arion - Lower goshawk PCB-1260 7.58E-01 7.64E-01 arrison - Lower hawk PCB-1260 1.07 arrison - Lower shrew DDTs 1.75E-02 arrison - Lower shrew PCB-1260 7.08E-01 7.26E-01 anon - Lower shrikce DDTs 9.36E-03 anison - Lower shrike PCB-1260 1.51 1.52 35 goshawk DD~s 1.OE-02 35 goshawk7 PCB-1260 4.78E-01 4.97E-01
6.4.3 Population-Level Effects - Terrestrial Receptors
Combined EHQs for PA~s were all several orders of magnitude below minimum toxicity level s; conseqiienzly, Lhere is no likelihood of popuiauon-ievei effects from PAH- exposure. EHQs based on minimum toxicity levels approached 1 for some predators from lead, DDTs, and PCB exosure via ingestion and inhalation pathways; consequently, an estimate of the population-level effects from these contaminants is warranted.
Toxicity standards for DDT said PCB exposures were based on reproductive effects: the LOELs were those found to produce a decline in reproductive success for the most sensitive receptors. There are insufficient data to determine whether all receptors receiving the highest exposures at Eielson AFB can be considered most sensitive. However, raptors such as goshawks, red-tailed hawks, and peregrine falcons are known to be sensitive to DDTs. In lieu of specific infortmation on receptors, a conservative
PNL 6.33 Ma 6 95 Final Sitevwide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
Table 6.16. Estimated EHQs Based on LOELs for Ingestion Exposures to DDTs and PCBsfo Maximally-Exuiosed Receptor (Plate 2 of 2)I 35 hawk PCB-1260 6.32E-01__ ~ 535 shrew DDTs 3.2-3 35 shrikce _DDTs 2.04E-03 lanrison Slough - Middl gToshawk ~ DDTs- 1.50E-03. arrion Slough - Middle goshawk PCB-1260 1.24E-04 2.74E-03 arrison Slough - Middle hawk PCB-1260 1.652-03 arrison Slough - Middle owl DDTs 6.51E-03 antson Slough - Middle shrew DDTs 5.19E-03 amnson Slough - Middle shrikce DDTs 2.81 E-03- T10 goshawk DDTs 1.75E-03 Tb0 shrew DDTs 4.38E-03 PTIO shrikce DDTs 2.35E-03 T19 goshaw-k DDTs 2.752.04 Ji19 shrew __DDTs ~ 139E0~5- PT19 shrike DDTs 3.80E-05 T0 goshawk DDTs 6.06E-05 PT20 shrew ~ DDTs 2.7_2204 PT20 shrike DDTs 1.45E-04 P556 goshawk DDTs 1.63E-04 S6 shrew DDTs 2.252E-04 56 shrike DDTs 1.20E-04 38 goshawk DDTs 8.27E-04 38 ~~~~~~shrew DDTs 2.06E-03 38 shrike DDTs 1.10E-03
approach is taken by assuming all receptors at Eielson are sensitive. This assumpipon is probably accurate for raptors.
An estimate of population-level effects can be made by spatially integrating exposure: high exposure levels over widespread areas have higher population-level consequences, all else being equal, than do high exposure levels over small spatial areas. To evaluate the actual spatial distribution of these contaminants in the Eielson APB envirionmnent, it would be necessary to obtain samples of biota from random locations on Eielson as well as from suspected source areas. This strategy was not included within the futal Biota Sampling and Analysis Plan. However, a spatial display of the sampuling locations along with their respective EhQs for the maximally exposed receptors is useful. These data points may be used to estimate iso-risk contours for the base that, because of the lack of interstitial 'background" data, will likely overestimate the spatial distribution of risk.
PNL 6.34 May 26,'1995 . Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessmnt Ejelson Air Force Base
Table 6.17. Estimated EHQs Based on LOELs for Ingestion Exposures to Volatile Organics for Maximally Exposed Rece tor rue
Site Contaminn (rm EQ 02 4-inechylphenol 6 5.3E-0 2.OE-
dichloroethylee581 2.3E-0 toluene1767 3E-
03 benzene 17167 ~~~3E-0 4.6E-01 dichloohyee587 E- (oil) richloroethene(sLIU7 .2- vinylchloride 57 7 9E - T0 benzerie 171.671 0.0 0.02 ethylb ee1 0 0071 tolee126 000 xylene11 0 7 T19 lbenzene 166 C 0.04 - ethylbernene 17 .0212 - toluene 667 0.00311 xylbnene I11 0.015~ no benzene ~~~~17167 0.0001 0.0006 38 benzenejj 7 F03 er~hylbenzene 1 0.01 toluene 172.671 0.007 xylene 11~~~~li0.01011
The method used to estimate contours was kriging, which provides a minimlum-variance estimate based on sampies. The laiging method used spherical geometry, i.e., concentration~sdecreased asa function of the inverse oldihe distance squared from the sampled area. The resulting EHQ contours are distlayed for shr-.vs (Figure 6-9) and goshawks (Figaurc 6.10) or DDT and PCB exposure, and for shrikie (Figure 6. 11) expos~ure to lead via ingestion.
The greatest risk from DDT and PCB torptors lies along Garrison Slough, with risk levels increasing northward from Source Area 5535. Risk levels are greater than 0.3 for approximately the northern third of the main base. The risk contours should riot be closely relied upon to define the spatial extent of conlamination, however, because most of the exposure to these contaminants is likey attributable to aquatic sources.
PNL 6.35 May 26, 17995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base
7180000
7178000 - 0.012
7174000 - N
7174000 iSC,,* E
71720000
7170000~ ~ 0.0s
7168000 N
494000 496000 498000 500000 UTM East
0.006 0.012 0.018 0.024 Shrew EHO-DDT&PCB
Figure 6.9 LOEL Risk Contours for Shrew Ingestion of DDTs/PCB
PNL 6.36 May 26,1995 Final Sitewvide Biological Risk Assesment Ejelson Air Force Base
7180000
7178000 0.00
a, ~0.10
7176000 0.20!
7174000 5%/
71720000~C. 0
716M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
'.5.'~ ~ ~~~000 UTMEast '-~
0 Figure6.10Rik OELConours or Gos awk Igestio of D ~ s/P. PNL OJ7 ~t T 72y2 =19 9 5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~ Final Sirewde Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base 7180000- 7178000- 7176000 s" %~~ 71740D 0.y >0.20 .004 PNL - ~~May-"0. 2XV6 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessmrern Ejelson Air Force Ease Lead risk is concentrated in an area toward the middle of Garrison Slough, primariy from 5535 and the Slough area. EHQs Surce:re greater than 0.3 exend over the central portion ofielSori covering less than one fourth of the main Are, base. Thsrusk eeantab atrbue tOfthelsourceB areaisa whee co led an'nantof cncer. A ri iy additional source of lead found in biological samples is likely to be automobile exhaust, which is confined to the near-ground level especially winter. Lead levels in biological in tissues are typically higher near roadways than in (Davies 1990). untravelled areas 6.5 1994 Aquatic Sampling A second tisse sampling campaign was conducted in 1994 to estimate the sire-wide distnibution of PAH, DDTs, and PCBs in aquatic biota, and oC~~etoecnetain characterized background.dt ih2mr ral opr hs ocnrain ihamr ral 6.5.1 Sampling Locations Fourteen locations were selected for sampling of aquatic organisms in 1994 (Figure 6.12). These comprise locations both on and-off base and in~clude both struam and lake environments. Three locations were sampled on French Creek, three locations on Garrison Slough, two on Moose Creek, two on Piledriver Slough, and one each on Hidden Lake, Grayling Lake, and 28 Mile Pit. The final location was on the Chatanijca River, well outside the influence of the settled areas along the Fairbanks -Eielson AFE corridor. Sampling was conducted in July, 1994. Fish were obtained at all locations and consisted primarily of Arctic grayring Cmhymalbus arctbcus), although northern pike (Eso lucius ) were the only species obtained at the SS-35 location and Pit. Rainbow trout (Sal velinus namaycush) 28 Mile were the only species found in Hidden Lake. Aquatic macrophyte vegetation and benthic invertebrates Were obtained at all stream locations except Piledriver Slough. None were obtained at the lake areas. 6.5.2 Sampling and Sample Preparation fjsh- Fish were collected by hook-and-line or by backpack electroshocker at all collection sites. Samples were wrapped in aluminum foil, individually bagged, and placed in an ice-cooled container foWowing collection in the field. Skin-on filets were prepared using a stainless steel knife. All samples were rinsed in decionized water, placed in certified precleaned glass containers, and frozen for shipment to the analytical laboratory. Macxivegiebrat Aquatic invertebrates were collected at all stream locations except for Piledriver Slough. A variety of methods were utsed, including kick-sampling with a modified Surber sampler, dip netting, and hand-pciciong available substratum (e.g., rocks, woody debris, submerged vegetation). The objective was to collect a minimum of 50 g of invertebrates for analysis. Samples were placed in certified clean jars in the field, stored on ice, and later frozen for the anralytical laboratory.- shipment to PNL 6.39 May 26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Bielson Air Force Base ½-N / I / I, -4-, I. - 4-a *0 I -- *1 - I- Lv -- 4- I, 4, -. - 4-I I ,t -i Ye / - j ' It a g C.a I - I): -4 I ' if'C - 1*. * 4 - 4- / .. 1.-I - I I I -4- 17%' -J - I - - I I *1 * iIfi - -4 - "Iii 1 : : I * = a a c-i- * £1 Q QQQiQ-4-j I 0 j 1' * I - 0 1 9 -. I. - K - - - - - 0 - - ./j - U Ia "-6/ ,-- Figure 6.12. Locations of Aquatic Biota Samples, 1994 Campaign PNL 6.40 May 26, Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Mir Force Base Aquatic inacroplhytes Approxdimately 500 g of submerged vegetation were collected at the stream sites (except for Piledrinver Slough, where none were found). Samiples were placed in certified clean jars in the field, stored on ice, and later frozen for shipment to the analytical laboratory. Sample Splitq And Duiplicates - Duplicate and split samples were made to determine intra- and interlaboratory error, respectively. Duplicates were made for 15% of the total number of fish samples sent to the analytical laboratory. Splits were made for 5% of the fish samples collected. No spits or duplicates were obtained for invertebrates or niaaophytes. 6.5.3 Analticrall Methods Analytical methods were those used in the 1993 sampling campaign described earlier. 6.5.4 Analytcal Results PAHs As done with the 1993 tissue results, PAHs were combined into two groups: those with 3 or fewer benzene rings and those with more tha 3 rings. Tissue concentrations were then expressed as low molecular weight (MW) PAl-s or high MW PAl-s by summing molar concentrations. PAHs not detected in any tissue in any sample were disregarded. The results are shown in Figure 6.13. The greatest concentration of PAHs were found in samples from Garrison Slough, with peak concentration at the middle Garrison (SS-47/Burgcr King) collection site. The second highest concentration of both low and high MW PAl-s was from the Moose Creek location, which is also located on the base. The lowest concentrations were found in samples collected from off base, where results were generally below detection. Concentrations were highest in invertebrates, followed by macrophyte vegetation, with the lowest concentrations in fish fillets. Low MW PAl-s were detected in grayling caught in the lower Garrison (55-30 vicinity) and middle Garrison locations. High MW PAHs were detected in pike from the SS-35 Treatment Pond location. The 1993 high MW PAH concentrations in fish were similar at all sites resampled in 1994 (Garrison miuddle, Garrison lower, 1102, and Quarry Road Bridge on French Creek), with all concentrarions below 0.1 u;molelkg wet wt. Concentrations of high MW PM-Is were a factor of 2 higher at the Garrison sites in 1994 than in 1993 (0.2 vs 0.1 pmocle/kg). Both low and high MW PAH concentrations were a factor of 2.5 higher in invertebrates sampled in 1994 than in 1993. These differences are well within the sampling and abalytical error bounds and so do not constitute a difference between~years. Accounting for !nailytical souarces of variance, differences among samples within a location accounted for 5% of the total variance in the fish low MW PAH data set, with differences among locations accounting for the remaining 95% of the variance. For high MWPA~s, sampling contributed 37% to the overall variance, with differences among locations accounting for the remaining 63% of the variance, (PNL 6.41 May ~26,1995 Firial Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Low MWPA~s (benzen j 10 .0 Deteetio, Umit -I[mnvts HI1WP0 (3bnees .0 INVERTEBRATES - I ~~~APIKE Q RAINBON TRour 4.VEGETATION 1IE-2 I x CM~~~ z< z~ 0~~~~~ XM Figre .13 ofLoSctteplo Moecuar eigt ad HghMoeuaWigtPyclc AromaticHydrocarbonT IssuCocnrain fro 199an194ioSmlg Campaigns PNL 6.42 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base The highest risk to biological receptors from PAH exposures based on 1993 data was found at the lower Garnison sampling location. There, the mannum risk was to shrews consuming insects containing PAH body burdens, with a hazard quotient of 0.02. Because the relationship between exposure and hazard is linear, increasing the exposure by a factor of 2.5 based on the 1994 data will not produce a hazard quotient approaching 1. Consequently, the 1994 data reinforce the conclusion that no significant risk to biological receptors results from exposure to PAHs at the sites sampled in 1993 or 1994. PCBs The PCB congener Aroclor 1260 wa~the only congener detedted in any sample. AroClor 1260 was above detection limits in fish tissues collected from throughout Garrison Slough, from below the confluence of Moose Creek and Garrison Slough, and from the vicinities of Landfill 2 and the QuarTy Road bridge on French Creek (Figure 6.14). Aroclor 1260 was detected only in invertebrates from lower Garrison and not at all in aquatic vegetation. No PCB was detected in any samples from the control sites off Eielson AFB. The highest tissue concentrations were in fish, with the highest concentrations at lower Garrison, where all four fish samples were above detection limits Cd~l.), followed by the SS-35 area (2 of 4 above d.l.), middle Garrison (3 of 4 above d~l.), Garrison/Moose Creek confluence (2 of 4 above d.l.). French Creek and the sites (1 of 4 above d.l. at both sites). The 1994 results reproduced the pattern same spatial of concentration as was obtained from the 1993 sampling (USAF 1994). The 1994 results from lower Garrison were approximately twice the 1993 results; no PCB was detected from the middle Garrison location in 1993 versus 3 detections in four of the 1994 samples from that location. The 1993 results for the other locations were approximately 10 times higher than the 1994 avenages (Figure 6.14). Spatial variation in Arodlor 1260 exceeded variation among samples at the same site by three times. variation due to analytical sources comprised only 4% of the total variation in the results. Both the pattern of detection among the samples and the lack of hits in the invertebrate samples at any location other than the lower Garrison site supports the hypothesis that the sediment source of PCBs lies within the or just upstream of the lower Garrison sampling location. A second concentration high for PCB was in the SS-35 area, which occurred in both the 1993 and 1994. This high at may be due S535 to differences between fish species captured at the two sites, or may indicate source of PCB. an additional Detection patterns outside of these areas are consistent with offsite movement that of fish have picked up contaminants from feeding in the lower Garrison area. Based on the 1993 tissue data, hazard quotients of 1.5 for shrikes and 0.8 for goshawk were found at the lower Garrison site. Based on the 1994 data, the hazard quotients for these receptors could be twice the 1993 estimtate, putting individuals of both species in jeopardy at thsst.Bsd on the 1994 data, PCB risks a, the other- sites -would not be greater than those from the 19J93 data (all below 0.5). DDT and Metabolites DDT and its inetabolites (ODD and DDE) were detected in all samples except vegetation from upper French Creek control, upper Moose Creek, and Chatanika River (Figure 6.14). Animal tissue samples all contained detectable levels of DDTs, tesd4'ing to the widespread occurrence of this xenobiotic in the environment. PNL (J.4 May -26,1995 Final Sizewide Biological Risk Assessment EieLson Air Force Base A'"ROCrL6R 12601 - I L 100 A' 100 ~~~~owo~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J Fs I Ddew ni A 0 101~~~~~~~~ A~~~ Figure 6.14. Scatterplots of Aroclor 1260 and Total DDTs Tissue Concentrations from 1993 and 1994 Biota Sampling Campaigns PNL 6.44 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejels=n Air Force Base The greatest tissue concentrations of DDTs were found in fish samples from Eielson, with the highest concentrations in fish from Garrison Slough. Concentrations in invertebrates were generally about a factor of 2 to 4 below fish concentrations in the same location, except for the SS-35 treatment pond area, ivhere invertebrate concentrations were greater than fish concentrations (Figure 6.14). The fish collected at this location were northern pike, consumers primarily of vertebrates, whereas fish collected at the other Garrison locations were grayling, whose diet includes more invertebrates. Spatial variation in DDTs concentration in fish accounted for 90% of the total variance (less analytical variation), while variation among samples from the same location accounted for only 10% of the variation. Fish tissue concentrations obtained in 1993 were within a factor of 2 of those obtained in 1994 at the same locations (Figure 6.14). 1993 results were higher than 1994 results at the Quarry Road and 55- 35 treatment pond locations, approximately the same at the Landfill 02 site, and lower at the middle and lower Garrison sites. The hazard quotients for DDTs exposure found from the 1993 data at the middle and lower Garrison sampling sites were 0.009 for shrikes at lower Garrison and 0.003 at middle Garrison. Using the 1994 data, the hazard quotients would be no more than 0.02 at these sites, well below significant risk levels. The hazard quotient to goshawk at 55-35 was 0.02 based on 1993 data; based on the 1994 data, the hazard-quotient would be approximately half that level. Consequently, DDTs at Eielson APE do not pose a significant hazard to terrestrial vertebrates from direct~toxicity. 6.6 Summary Exposures of aquatic and terrestrial organisms were estimated for sites where exposure pathways were complete. Exposures of fish to DDTs (the only contaminant detected in water surface samples that exceeded screening risk levels [Chapter 51) was evaluated for both gill uptake and ingestion of contaminated prey using the FGETS model. Exposures of terrestrial organisms were evaluated on the basis of the ingestion pathway; the inhalation pathway was evaluated in Chapter 5 and found to be potentially significant only for ETEX at WP38. Ingestion exposures were estimated using two methods: 1 Exposures of herbivores to volatiles were estimated usifig plant stem concentration factors obtained from the literature and daily vegetation intake rates for herbivores also obtained from the literature. 2 Exposures of maximally-exposed receptors to sernivolatiles, DDTs, PCBs, and lead were estimated using prey composition and intake rates obtained from the literature, and prey tissue concentration data for these contaminants that were measured in prey organisms at each site. Where tissue data were not available, they were estimated from Biological Transfer Factors derived from Eielson tissue samples or Biological Accumulation Factors obtained from the literature. Exposures were compared to toxic concentrations for, ingestion using data from published laboratory studies. Lowest Observed Effects Levels (or Concentrations) (LOEL)were PNL 6.45 May 26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base obtained from the literature or were estimated as fractions of the median lethal dose following EPA-suggested methods. The median LOEL was used as the reference value for volatiles and semnivolatiles; the lowest LOEL was used for the remaining contamninantsbecause L~heir potential reproductive effects can be severe at low exposures in some species. The ratio of exposure to LOEL (the EHOJ was used to indicate hazard. EH-Q's for receptors were summed across contaminants and pathways to develop a composite risk quotient (Table 6.18). Risks based on 1993 tissue data were similar to those based on 1994 data, although lower Garrison Slough risks may be greater than identified in the 1993 data by a factor of 2 to 2.5. Table 6.18 Summary EH~s Across Contaminants and Pathways for Key Receptors by Site Ingeton Summary Receptor Receptor Site Inhalation Volatile Sernivolatile Pesticide/PCB Lead EHQ Hazard Shrew WP38 0.24 . 0 _____ 0.002 0.004 0.246 Potential LF2 0.02 0 0.001 0.02 0.01 0.051 Low 113 0.07 0 0.003 0.030001 0.004 0.71 Low STO 0.0001 0 0.0006 0.0003 ____ 0.001 Low 555 0.08 0 0.02 0.004 0.01 0.114 Potential 556 0.0001 I 0 .0.0002 5E-04 0.0008 Low STQ 0.04 0 _____ 0.00001 0.04001 Low G-lower 0 0 0.02 0.7 0.06 0.78 Poten-tial C-middle 0 0 0.003 0.005 0.1 0.108 Potential STIC 0 0 0.002 0.004 0.01 0.016 Low Grouse WP38 0.02 0.034 ______0.054 Low LFO2______2E-05 ______0.00002 LOW LFO3______5E-05 ______0. 00005 Low 5T20______6E-04 0.0006 Low 5 ______55 ______0 Low SS56 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0Low S~~~iP~~~0.04 ______0 0 Lo w G-lower ------___ 0Lo _ _ C-miuddle ______. _ _ 0 Low ST1O 0.021 0.021 Low Shrike ______WP38 _____ 0.001 10.008 0.009 Low I 1102 [ .01 O.G_____J41 0.05 Low I 1L03 0j00 0.0 _0.00703 f Lo ______0.0001 0.0001 I Low ______~~~~~~ ~~0.00010.003 0a0031 Low ______I______000024 04 0.00042 Low Cowe 1.3 0.1 1.6 Hih C-middle j ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~0.0030.4 0.403 PoLtential PNL 6.46 May 26, 1995 Finial Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base 7.0 ANALYSIS OF UNCERTAINTY This section presents an analysis of the uncertainties in the screening-level and quantitative nisk assessments. Uncertainties are examined with regard to their possible range of influence on the risk assessments, and an analysis of significant unresolved issues is presented. 7.1 Uncertainties in Risk Assessment Screen The primary uncertainty in the screen and the full risk assessment concerns the temporal and scales of variability spatial in the contamniant concentrations in abiotic and biological media. Abioric concentrations media were used in the risk screen. Because of the number and extent of sail sampling coverage, most sites that were included in the inhalation screen were reasonably well covered spatially. Temporal information was, however, limited to at most two dates during correspond any year. These dates approximately to the groundwater elevation peak; the second date predates the groundwater low in November. Uncertainty in temporal and spatial sail concentration values for most sites is considered to be low. No information on the extent of spatial variability of surface water concentrations is available appropriate on a scale to aquatic invertebrates. Also, no information on temporal variability is available annual scale. Because for an 1993 surface water data were obtained in August, approximately 3 months before the expected maximum discharge from the contaminated aquifers, the uncertainty in the screen on surface water values is considered to be high for volatile organics. Without additional sampling for volatiles mn November, the magntude of this uncertainty cannot be quantified. 7.2 Uncertainties in Full Risk Assessment Because of uncertainties in temporal and spatial variation in the occurrence and transport of contaminants with the potential to bioaccumulate, actual concentrations were obtained from biological samples collected at the source areas rather than using concentrations estimated from transport models. These concentrations were obtained for composited material from samples of plants, voles, macrophytes, and invertebrates. Compositing produces a reasonable estimate of mean concentration within the composited are; however, all information on local variability is lost. As a result, ingestion the estimates based on these values are averages rather than maximal exposures. Tissue samples for fish and squirrels reflect concentrations in samples of one or two animals. Again, because these values are the best wsimate of the mean concentration, no informnation can be range had on the of concentrations in these groups within any site. Furthermore, the estimiates con~centratiorns of mean are themselves uncertain because they were. baed on so few individuals. Consequently, there is at least a moderate uncertainty associated with estimated ingestion dose for organisms feeding heavily on fish and squirrels (e.g., bald eagles, kingfisher, grebes, and owls). Estuimtes of risk are also affected by variability introduced from contaminant analyses of biological tissues. The uncertainty in the estimates of nisk from DDTs, PCB, and lead is low: the average coefficient of variation (CV) for these contaminants ranged from 12% to 18%. The CVs for PA~s were much higher: low molecular weight PA~s had an average CV of 25%; high molecular weight PA~s had an average CV of 42%. However, because the EHQs for PA~s were all low (0.00002 to 0.02), inclusion of the uncertainty in actual tissue concentration would not produce an EHQ approaching 1. PNL 7.1 May 26,1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Uncertainty associated with PCB exposure to terestria receptors that consume fish is probably under- estimated for some species, since the data were based on measured concentrations in skin-off fillets and liver. Bufflehead consume prey whole; osprey and eagles may not consume much skin. PCB concentrations in skin on fillets have been found to be 3.5 to 4 times that in skin-off fillets. Similarly, concentrations in the high-lipid eggs will be much higher than in muscle. There is a moderate amount of uncertainty associated with the ingestion exposure estimations because of use of average diet fractions for receptors of interest. Daily intake rates were estimated from body weight/intake regression data, which does not take into consideration the metabolic demands of the cool Eielson enviromnent. Maintenance of thermal equilibrium will require mammuals and birds to increase their food intake rates, and will also require more consumption of water. Direct water consumption was ignored in these analyses. Consequently, ingestion exposures are potentially underestimates. Because mass scales to ingestion at a rate less than 1 (Cader 1984), the uncertainty associated with dietary exposure (jig/kg body weight) will be less for large animals than for small animals. Negecting ingestion of water did not produce a significant effect on ingestion exposure for DDTs (the contamninant only bf concern above screening nsk levels for surface water samples). Water ingestion may be estimated from body weight using the following relationship (Calder and Braun 1983): Watecosumtio bir [m / ] =59 * body weight 0O67[g (14). Using this equation, water intake by goshawks is estimated to be 5.8 m~Ld. Using the surface water maximum value for total DDTs (site GSOI on Garrison Slough), ingestion of water would contribute 0.3 jggd to the goshawk exposure, which was estimated to have been 53.5 Mig/d via ingestion of prey. The resultant difference is less than 6 parts per thousand. Uncertainties associated with toxicological benchmarks and theft relevanc& to field exposures produce a moderate to high degree of uncertainty in the risk assessment. Potential considerations include: * extrapolations from one taxonomic group to another, especially from mammals to birds * relevance of response of laboratory animals to wildlife * relevance of laboratory presentation of the chemical to wildlife dietary exposures * relationship between chromic wildlife exposures and 96-hour laboratory animal exposures * toxic responses at different life stages * extrapolation of toxic effects between exposure modes (i.e. ingestion to rinhalation LOEL) * effects of environmental conditions * effects of animail's nourishment status. PNL 7.2 May 26. 1995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base EPA has recommended an uncertainty factor of 10 be applied to taxonomic extrapolations for aquatic receptors where data are available for fish and microcrustacca (OWRS 1985). No such factors have been defined for terrestrial species; however, all sites for which a potential risk was identified would be elevated into the significant risk category (EHQ > 1) by application of a l OX LOEL Chronic exposures may lower all toxicological endpoint values as a function of time. Clearly, most wildlife exposures at EieLson are chronic. Migratory species are present at the site for months at a time; resident species evaluated in the risk assessment do not hibernate and continue to feed throughout the year. The effects of age on toxicological responses may add from 2.5 to 7X to the vaniance in toxicological response endpoints for birds (Chapman 2983). Toxicological response concentrations for DDT decline as a function of ambient temperature in at least some species (Mayer and Ellerseick 1986). Furthermore, state of nourishment may produce a 2 to 6-fold difference in toxiccological response to a given dose (Suter 1993b). Consequently, toxicological benchmarks have a moderate to high degree of uncertainty associated with them. Incorporation of these sources of uncertainty will elevate the degree of concern for the sites already noted to be posing a potential, risk. Risk from DDTs at Source Area 1103 could approach an LOEL with the maximum uncertainty applied. Finally, there is a large amount of uncertainty associated with estimation of ingestion exposure for volatile organics. The uncertainty arises from using RME groundwater data, using mnaximial root exposures, and using bioaccumiulation estimtates derived for barley but applied to trees and shrubs. Because there has been no work published on tree and shrub uptake of BTEC, it is not possible determine to whether the use of this estimate is conservative or not. The other sources of uncertainty produced a conservative estimate of exposure (i.e., actual exposures are likely to be less than those estimated). 7.3 Probabilistic Risk Assessment With the exception of inhalation or ingestion of volatile organics, the primary contaminants contributing to EHQs near 1 were DDTs arid Aroclor -1260, with the greatest risk being to avian predators at Garrison Slough - Lower, 5535, and Flightline Pond. To evaluate the effects of the various sources of uncertainty in the ingestion exposure calculations for these sites, a probabilistic risk assessment was performed wsing Monte Carlo methods. Simulations were run for goshawk at all three sites and shrnke at Garrson Slough - Lower. The model parameters that were allowed to vary in the simulations were the regression coefficients for daily intake rate and home range size, body weight of the receptor, dietary composition, and prey body burdens. Standard deviations for ri~eson coefficients were obtained from the origina references (Calder 1984); body weight was assumed to be log-normally distributed with a coefficienc of variation (CV) of 10%; dietiry composition of primary prey (birds) was allowed to vary uniformnly (goshawks: 50% to 100%; shrikes: 25% to 55%); prey body burdens were assumed to be log-normally distributed, with Cvs for estimated prey burdens (i.e.. birds) set to 100% and for measured body burdens at 50%. Monte Carlo simulations were run for 5,000 iterations. The parameters for the simulations and detailed statistical results are given in Appendix C-. As shown in Figure 7. 1, the greatest risk from dietary exposure to PCBs for goshawks was at Flightilne Pond near DP-44 and at the Garrison Slough - Lower sampling location. About 25% of the PNL 7.3 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Goshawk - DP"4 .04 Detsmiinisvic (97.23 igqcg) LOEL (1100 tig~g) ,lhIIAi3, a a.M.02 ui34%IIIIIIIiL .01 .01 0.00 875.00 1,750.00 2,82S.00 3,500 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 zgoPcsftbw pg ODTs&g bw Goshawk - SS58 a 2 LOE. (1100 itnp) 0 0.00 562.50 1,125.00 1,687,60 2,250 0.00 2D0.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 itg PCBMg bw 1'g DDTaAg bw Shrtiw- Ganhson - Lower .05~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 LOEL(1 Oflhlic ~~~~~~~~~~~~(93.6i'g~g) 0 a 81% - 01 I - 01 0.00 3,750.00 7.50000 11.250.00 15.000 0.00 250.00 800.00 750.00 1,000.00 qL PCB/kg bw ige ODTs~g tbw Goshawk - Garuo - Lowe .04 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.03 `0`trmIniutlc (56.31 1109) >..03 0 * rn .01~~~~...... 00 000 875.00 1,7150.00 2,62.00 3,500 0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 ~gg C/g pgODOTs~g bw Figure 7.1 Frequency Histograms and Distribution Percentages from Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Goshawks at Flightline Pond, 5S35, and Garrison Slough - Lower, and for Shrikes at Garrison Slough - Lower. PNL 7.4 May 26, 17995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Hielson Air Farce Base simulations at these sires produced exposures greater than LOELs for reproduction None of the simulations effects (1.1I ppm). produced total DDT exposures above the LOEL for reproduction for goshawks, and nearly (10 ppm) two thirds Of simulations for goshawks produced exposures thlat were estimated deterministically. less than those 1 In contrast, over 90% of simulations for shrike exposure to total DDTs at Garrison Slough - Lower were greater than the deterministic level. This difference was due to the uncertainty in the avian component in the shrike diet. The maximum DDT exposure for shrikes in the simulations was one order of magnitude lower than the LOEL Over 80% of the simulations for PCB exposure for shrikes at Garrison Slough - Lower were above the LOEL, with the maximum simulated exposure to PCBs approaching an LD50 level. In summary, there is an 11 % risk of reproductive effects from PCBs for goshawks and similar raprors feeding at Flighrline Pond and a 25% risk at Garrison Slough - Lower. There is an 81% risk of reproductive effects from PCB exposure for shrikces feeding near Garrison Slough - Lower. Exposure DDT alone posed no risk at any site. Although to PCB and DDT effects are toxicologically additive, the primary contribution to risk at these sites was PCB. PNL 7.5 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base PNL 7.6 May 26, 1995 8.0 REFERENCES Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1989. Wildlife Notebook Series. Anchorage, Alaska. Ambrose, R. B., and T. E. Barnwell. 1989. Environmental Software at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling. Environ. Software 4:76-93. Arsrog R. H. 1990. Guide to the Birds of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Books, Seattle, Washington. Briggs, G. G., R H. Bromilow, and A. A. Evans. 1982. Relationship between lipophilicity and uptake and root translocation of non-ionized chemicals by barley. Pestic. Sci. 13:495-504. Briggs, G. G., R. H. Bromilow, A. A. Evans, and M. Williams. 1983. Relationships between lipophilicity and the distribution of non-ionized chemicals in barley shoots following uptake by the roots. Pestic. Sci. 14:492-500. Burt, W. H. and R. P. Grossenlieider. 1980. A Field Guide to the Mammals: North America North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. Calder, W. A. 1984. Size, Function, and Life History. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Calder, W. A., and E. J. Braun. 1983. Scaling of osmotic regulation in mammals and birds. Regulatory Integrative Comp. Physiol. 13:R601-R606. Chapman, G. A. 1983. Do organisms in laboratory toxicity rests respond like organisms in the field? pp. 315-327, In W. E. Bishop, R. D. Cardwell, and B. B. Heidolph. eds., Aquatic Toxdcology and Hazard Assessment: Sixth Symposium. ASTM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Davies, B. E. 1990. Lead, pp. 177-196, In B.J. Alloway, ed., Heavy Metals in Soils. John Wiley and Sons, New York. DiToro, D. M., C. S. Zarba, D. H. Hausen, W.J. Berry, R. C. Swartz, C. E. Cowan, S. P. Pavlou, H. E. Allen, N. A. Thomas, and P. R. Paquin. 1991. Technical basis for establishing sediment quality criteria for nonionic organic chemicals using equilibrium partitioning. Environ. Toxicol. Chemn. 10:1541-1583. Dustman, E. H.. L F. Stickel, L . Blus, W. L Reichel, and S. N. Wiemeyert 19721. The occurrence and significance of polychlorinated biphenyls in thc environment. pp. 118-133, In Transactions, Thiry-Sixth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC. Eisler, R. 1986. Polychorinated Biphenyl Hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic Review. USFWS Biological Report. 85(1.7). Patuxent Wild life Res. Center, Laurel, MD Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base (EPA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemnical Methods. SW-846. U.S. Document No. 955-001-00000, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. (EPA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. National Ambient Water Quality Criteria. EPA- +40/5-86-001, Washington, DC. (EPA) U.S.j Envirounmental Protection Agency. 1991. Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples. EPA-600/4-91I-01I0. Environmental Services Division, Monitoring Management Branch, Washington, DC. (EPA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. (EPA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/R-93/l87a. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. Erickson, R.J., and C. EI.Stephan. 1985. Calculation Of The Final Acute Value For Water Quality Criteria For Aquatic Organisms. National Technical Informnation Service, Springfield, Virginia. Filov, V. A., A. A. Golubev, E. 1.Liublina, and N. A. Tolokontsev. 1979. Quantitative Toxicology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Garten, C. T., Jr., and J. R. Trabalkca. 1983. Evaluation of models for predicting terrestrial food chain behavior of xenobiotics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 17:590-595. Green, R. H. 1965. Estimation of tolerance over an indefinite time period. Ecology 46:887. Harding Lawson Associates (HLA). 1990. Installation Restoration Program Remedial Investigationi/Feasibility Study, Stage 4, Volume 1II. Draft report for Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Prepared by HLA for the Alaska Air Command, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska. Haresrad, A. S., and F. L Bunnell. 1979. Home range and body weight - a re-evaluation. Ecology 60:389-402. Harrison, H. L, 0. L Loucks, J. W. Mitchell, D. F. Parkhurst, C. R. Tracy, t D. Watts, and V.J. ---Yannacone, Jr. 1970. Systems studies of DOT transport. Science 170:503-508. Hodgson, E. 1987. Measurement of Toxicity. pp. 233-285, In A Textbook of Modem Toxicology, E. Hodgson andP. E. Levi, cds., Elsevier, New YorkL Johnson, L M. and S. Johnson. 1982. Voles, pp. 326-355, In Wild Mammals of North America, J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamner, edis.. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Krahn et al. 1988. PCB Analysis. National Status and Trends Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.. Lemon, E. 1965. Micrometeorology and the Physiology of Plants in their Natural Environment. pp. 203-227, In, Plant Physiology: A Treatise. Vol. IVA, F. C. Steward, ed. Academic Press, New York. PNL 8.2 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eidlson Air Force Base Lipton, J., H. -Galbraith, J. Burger, and D. Warteniberg. 1993. A paradigm for ecological risk assessment. Environmental Manage. 17:1-5. Martih, A. C., H. S. Zim, and A. L. Nelson. 1961. American Wildlife and Plants- A Guide to Wildlife Food Habits. Dover Publications, New York, New York. Mayer, F. L, Jr., and M. R. Ellersieck. 1986. Manual of acute tondcity: Interpretation and data base for 410 chemicals and 66 species of freshwater animals. Resource Pub. 160. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. McCarty, L S., and D. Mackay. 1993. Enhancing ecotoxicological modeling and assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27:1719-1728. McKone, T. E., and P. B.Ryan. 1989. Human exposures to chemicals through food chains: An uncertainty analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 23:1154-1163. Mill, T. 1993. Environmental Chemistry. pp. 91-127, InCG. W. Suter II, ed. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Nicholls, P, H. 1992. Organic Contaminants in Soils and Groundwaters. pp. 87-132, in K. C.Jones, ed., Organic Contaminants in the Environment. Elsevier Applied Science, London. O'Farrell, T. P. 1965. Home Range and Ecology of Snowshoe Hares in Interior Alaska. J. Mammal. 46C3):406-418. COWRS) Office of Water Regulations and Standards. 1985. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxtics Control. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC Paterson, S., D. Mackay, E. Bacci, and D. Calamaria. 1991. Correlation of the equilibrium and kinetics of leaf-air exchange of hydrophobic organic chemicals. Environ. Sdi. Technol. 25:866-871. Schoener, T. W. 1968. Sizesof feeding territories among birds. Ecology 49:123-131. Spector, W. S.(ed.). 1956. Handbook of Biological Data. W. B.Saunders Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Spofford, W.RIt 1964. The Golden Eaglein theTrans-Pecos and Edwards Plateau ofTexas. Audubon Conserv. Rep.. no. 1. New York: National Audubon society. Suter, G. W., II. 1993. Exposure. pp. 153-172. In Ecological Assessment, C. W. Suter, 11, ed. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Suter, G. W., II, R.J. Lunanoore, and E. D. Smith. 1993. Compacted soil barriers at abandoned landfill sites are likely to fail in the long term. J. Environ. Qua!. 22:217-226. Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North Amnerican Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New York. Thomann, R.V., and J. P. Connolly. 1984. Model of PCB in the Lake Michigan lake trout food chain. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18:65-7 1. PNL 8.3 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Topp, E., 1.Scheunert, A. Attar, and F. Korte. 1986. Factors affecting the uptake of 14C-labeled organic chemicals by plants from soil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 11:219-228. Travis, C. C., and A. D. Anrms. 1988. Bioconcentrarion of organics in beef, milk, and vegetation. Env. Sci. Technol. 22:271-274. Tsuchiya, K. 1979. Lead. pp. 451-484. In L Friberg, G. F. Nordberg, and V. B. Vouk, eds., Handbook on the Toxicology of Metals. Elsevier, New York. Tucker, R. KC.,and J. S. Lietzke. 1979. Comparative toxicity of insecticides for vertebrate wildlife and fish. Pharmac. They. 6:167-270. Urban, D.J., and N. J. Cook. 1986. Hazard Evaluation, Standard Evaluation Procedure, Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA-540/9-85-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. U.S. Air Force (USAF). 1993a. Operable Unit 1 Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Volume 1: Text and Appendixes. Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. U.S. Air Force (USAF), 1993b. Surface Water and Sediment Investigation, Work Plan, Eielson Air Force Base. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory. U.S. Air Force (USAF). 1993c. Operable Unit-2 Draft Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Remedial Investigation Repbrt, Revised Draft, March 1993. Elelson Air Force Base, Alaska. U.S. Air Force (USAF). 1993d. Operable Units 3, 4, and 5 Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Volume 1: Text and Appendixes A-G. Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. U.S. Air Force (USAF). 1993e. Operable Units 3, 4, and S Draft Baseline Risk Assessment. Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. U.S. Air Force (USAF). 1993f. Forest Management Plan, Second Reiion, November 1 993 to October 1998, Eielson Air Force Base, Fairbanks, Alaska. U.S. Air Force (USAF). 1994a. Fish and Wildlife Management Plan, Fifth Revision, January 1994 to December 1998, Eielson Air Force Base, Fairbanks, Alaska. U.S. Air Force (USAF). 1994b. Surface Water and Sediment Investigation, Draft Report. Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Winter, S., and B. Streit. 1992. Organochlorine compounds in a 3-step terrestrial food chain. Chemosphere 24:1765-1774. PNL 8.4 Ma2y26, 1995 Finial Sirewvide Biological Risk Assesment Eielson Air Force Base APPENDIX A - WILDLIFE AND FlSH SPECIES RESIDENT TO EJELSON AIR FORCE BASE PNL A.1 -May 26.1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment EieLson Air Force Bas Contents Table A.1 Wildlife and fish species resident to Eielson Air Force Base ...... A.3 Table A. 2 Ecological data for mammalian receptor species on Eielson Air Force Base ...... A. Table A.3 Ecological data for avian receptor species on Eielson Air Force Base ...... A.1O0 PNL A.2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~May26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Asse~ssment Eielson Air Force Base Table A.1 Wildlife and fish species resident to Eielson Air Force Base (Plate 1 of 4). SpeciesJ ScintificGroup name J Conion~narne Mammals IAlaes alcas moose Apermwphilus undulatus Arctic ground sQuirrel ______Canis latrans c r Qethrimwmysnathis tundra red-backed vole ______re hzndrawrn porcupine Glaucomyssabrinus northerflyngI s uirrel Li pus wnericanus snowshoehare Marrnot cabjat hoarymannot ______I Microsoraxhovi o ______MicrotusmniunssAl ______Micraotus occamus nd vl ______Microrus pennsvlvanicus meadow vole ______Mustela erminea sotalwae ______Mustela frenata longttail weasel Musteta rixosa latwae ______Mustela vison mink Myotis lucifutigs little brown in otis ______Ondatra zibathicus inusicrat ______Srax articus arctic shrew Sarax cinaeru maskedshrew ______Sore obscunus dusky shrew ______Synaptomy borealisnorthern bog lerrming ______Tamiasciunn hudsonicus red sq~uine ______Ursus arciricanus black ba Ursusarctos brown bear ______Vulpes tulva red fox ______Zamas hudsonius- meadow jumping mouse Birds Accdpitergentilis northern goshawk ______Accipiterstnatus sharp-shinnred hawk ______Actitus macularia cpoted sandpiper ______Aezolius f~r.sboreal owl, ______Anas acut northern pintail Ansamericana American wi geon ______i Ariasclypeata northernshoveler ______I Anias crecca gren-winged teal ______I Arias discorn blue-winged teal ______~Anas platyrhvwJchos mallard Arias strepera adwall ______Anser albi forns greater white-frontedgoose Aquila chtysaetos golden ea le PNL A.3 May 26, 1995 Final Sicevtde Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Table A.1 Wildlife and fish species resident to Eielson Air Force Base (Plate 2 of 4). SpeciesGroup Scientific name Common name Birds (corn.) Ant his spinoletta water pipit ______Aphriza vtvxaza surfbird ______Asia flamnmeus short-eared owl ______Aythya aftinis lesser scaup Aythya americana redhead ______Aythva maila nreater scaup ______Aythya vajisinenia canvasback ______Bartramia longicauda upland sandpiper ______Bonasa urnbellus ruffed grouse ______Branta canadensis Canada gtoose ______Bubo virrnianus great homed owl ______Burephala clangula comnmon goldeneve Bucephala islandica Barrow's goldeneve Buteo harlIant Harlan's hawk ______But to iarnaicensns red-tailed hawk ______Buteo faizopus rough-legged hawk ______Bustro swainsoni Swainson's hawk ______Calcanus lapponicus lapland longspur Calidris alpina dunlin ______Calidris mauni western sandpiper ______Calidris mi nut!in least sandpiper ______arduelisflarruea common redpoll ______Cathanssizutatus hermit thrush ______Cat harusmirdmus nray-checkedthush ______Catharus ustulatus Swainson's thrush ______Certhia arnericana brown creeper ______Ceryle alcyvan belted kingfisher ______Charoadriws semipalmatus sernipalmated, plover ______Cirtclus mnaicanus American dippr ______Circus cyaneus northern harrier ______Clanrula hyernalis oldsguaw ______Colaptes auratus norther flicker ______Contovus borealis olive-sided flycatcher Corvus corvax common raven -~~~ ~Cygnu bucciator trumpeter swan ______Cygnus colwnbiarnus tundra swan ______Dendrayopus canadensts spruce grouse ______Dendroica vetechia yellow warbler ______Dendroica striata blackpoll warbler ______Ernmvdonax traillii willow flycatcher Ererophila alpestris homed lark ______Euphaexus carolinus rusty blackbird Folcocolumbariu~s merlin ______Falco rusdicolus gyrfalcon ______Falco sparverious American kestrel. Gallinago gallinagoI common snipe PNL A.4 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Table A:1 Wildlife and fish species resident to Eielson Air Force Base (Plate 3 of 4). Species Group Scientific name Commnon name Birds (cont.) Gavia immer common loon ______Gavia pacifca Pacific loon ______Gavia stellata red-throated loon ______Gnus canadensis sandhill crane ______Haliaeetu leucocephalus bald eagle Heteroscelusincanus wanen ate ______~~Hinindo pyrihonota cifsalow ______1-Histrionicus histrionicus harlequin duck ______xoreus naevitus varied thrush ______unco hyermalis dark-eyed Junto ______Largopus lagous willow ptarmigan ______Lagzops MUMuS rock pzanuwan ______Lanius axcubitor northern shrike ______Larua argentatus herning gill ______~Lanus cartus mew gull ______LanasPhiladelphia Bonaparte's gill ______Leucostitet arctos rosyfinch ______Loxia 1eucoptera white-winged crossb~ill ______Melanitra fusca white-winged scoter ______Melanitta verspicillata surf scorer Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's sparrow ______Mernus serrator red-breasted me ganser ______Numenius phaeo pus whimbrel -.Nyctea scandiaca snow owl ______Oenanthe oenanthe northern wheatear ______Pandion haliattus osprey ______Parus atTi ca pillus black-capped chickadee ______~Panus hudsonicus boreal chickadee ______PassercuLus sandwichensis savannah sparrow Passerella iliac fox sparrow ______Perisoreus canadensis nriy lay ______Phalaropus lobatus red-necked phalarope ______Picoides anticu black-backed woodpecker ______Picoides pubescens downy woodpecker ______Picoides tridactylus three-toed woodpecker ______Picoides Alioszu hairy woodpecker Pinicoia enucleator pine gr sbeak ______Plectrophertax nivclis snow bunting. ______Pluvialisdominica lessergolden-Dlover ______Podiceps auritus horned grebe Podiceps rse cnn red-necked grebe ______Riparia ripana bank swallow ______Sayomnis saya Say'sphoebe ______Sciunrs noveboracensis northern waterthrush Spizella arborea Americantree sparrow Steroa u oiicuu on -tailed jaeger PNL A.5 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment EieLson Air Force Base Table A. 1 Wildlife and fish species resident to Eielson Air Force Base (Plate 4 of 4). Species Group Scientific name Common name Birds (coru.) Sterna yaradisaea Arctic tern ______Strix nebuLosa greatnaow ______Surmia uiuia northern hawk-owl Tachyrineta bicolor tree swallow ______Tachycineta thalassina violet-greeta swallow ______Tringa flayipyes lesser yellowlezs Trhnza melanoleuca greter yellowlegs ______Trinea solitaria solitar sandpiper ______Tyrnpanuchus phasianellus sharptailed grouse Vermivora celata -Orange-crowned warbler ______Zonotrichia auricapilla golden-crowned sparrow ______Zonotrichia Imcuchrys white-crowned sparrow Fish Cat ostomus cat ostomus lonviose sucker ______Coregonus oidschian hupbckd hiefs ______Core zonus sardinella lat c di hitfio ______Cottus cofnatus slmy scupin ______Couesius plumbeus lake chub ______Esox lucius northern pike ______Lam peta iaponica Arctic lampe ______Lowa lota burbot ______~Oncorhynchus heta chum salmon ______Oncorhynhus kisutch cohoc salmon ______Oncorhyrnchus tshawytscha kcing salmon ______Prosopiurn cylindraceurn round whitefish ______Salodm gairdrner rainbow trout Sadvelinus alpinus Arctic char ______St en odus leucichthys sheefish Thyrnallus arcticus gaylingw_____ Amphibians______Rana___sylvat___ca__woodfrog a Table adapted from U.S. Air Force (1989). PNL A.6 May 26, 1995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base 0 E i CC to~~~~ CL CNt - a oD -SEE a - o 0 0 C C - C 0 C C =- 2 O a b0 ,-~~~~~~~;g~~~-j S 2E Ob E E La C. ?N .7my2619 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air force Base m CY~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0' 0' NC .0i C~~~~~~~~~~~0 9 9~~~~~~ 3~~~~~~~. i~s. it~~~~~~ '9CZ N a -~~~~~~~~~~~~~ iI ~~~~~~ I ~~~~~~~~§ J a = 0~~~~ 1 i'll II ~~~~O41 - I.8I- 0 !u if.2 o 0 U U~~~~~~~~~~~~~mU"0 PNL A.8 May 27'1995~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base tL 0~ - C, Cli0~~~~~0 C. 0 CC a PN ASMy 6 19 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base J I'4 co~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ' CD -- EE ?0 .5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c 0 it o L~~~N M 2L a 22 w ' -~~~~ '---E/ CD ~ co C) Cu~~~ PL.A.EO0 MNy 26,199 Final Sitewvide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelsorn Air Force Base M -; 1. I2 C Co E E.E. d~~~~~~~ CN C~~ o Cs ocd me Cs - ~ 5S d d C~6 C c 0 ~~ ~~;s;~~ g q ~~cc qo co so~~ oil1 iIl. l h1 IJ I *E,. E.. 2.E C -~~~~~~~~~E 0 ~ ~ -~ Cli~~a PNL A.11 May 26dddo19 95 Final Sitewidc Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base vii t -22 N~~~~~~~~~ 0 a q 0 C N 0 0 Cs" Nin - S N ~~ ~ ~ ~~N o 0 9~~~~~~~~ ICs; (D 0 r:~~O . U~ E~~'bc. E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0~~~~~ PNL A. 12 E7 May 26, 7, Final Sicewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base i I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L c08 E 0 i 0 N NN 8 C~~N CZififg-L -.- d If = A-8 H c, -5---2o C I E~~~~~~~~~UI PNL~ A.13sar-619 Final Sitewride Biological Risk Assesment Eielson Air Force Base to I~~~~~~I 0,; 8 1 '4- 00-S ?~~~ -e~~~~~~~~~9 C LDC ~ - 00 ~ 0 0C C 5 -5 f?0 JU I, 1! a m E c 0 a a ~-a- PNL~~~~0 .y2, A.1 9 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessmnent Elelson Mir Force Base APPENDIX B - DISTRIBUTION AND CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN OPERABLE UNIT SOURCE AREAS Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Contents Table B.I Contaminant Concentrations and distributions in Operable Unit Source Areas...... B.3 PNL B.2 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewidle Biological Risk Assessment Elelson Air Force Base Table B.1. Contamoinant Concentrations and Distributions in Operable Unit Source Areas. (Plate 1 of 10) Concenuuttons whene detected Qi&A. or mg&q) ("Uar (soil) Operable Sourc" Area COCS meour, Estirrated Media Sampling Due Refereince Unit Am. (N2) 1 S20-El fluating petrolcun, ro-dUtI 3. 14 95 sdcewtrMy3 UA 93 thlcknmss (cm) wL m b-3 U 9 hemene ~~~147. 5. 137 groundwatier May-93 5T20-ES bernnnc 570. - 29 groundatr a-Z93 ST20-E9 berizene 367.31 33.! 659 oundwater Ma1y-93 floating petroleum product 1. 21 581 sraewlrMy9 thickness (cm) 1.7 2.1 581 mfw, y9 totalvoladlorgnam 6500.61 11196.2: w3itsoI(ndepth may-93 benzo~aranhracene 4067. 1480.2- 28249 wd silMy-93 5748 TPW 230583.31 271031. 15009 sols (no depth Sep-89 ghven) bentene 290.31 417.2. 2570 g=madn,,n May-93 mncbloroethen 1.5 0.7f 1285 grounrA~ter Ma-93 naphthalene 244.61 209.1! 4450 gmru'ndnrn Sep-49 toW volatile orpruxo 512.33 676. 2692 soib (no depdMa-9 DDT reponecd as - - sotl (no depth May-93 exceeding gmvn) ARAR ODD 32.75 39.95 1349 soils (no depth May-93 given) DDE 23.50 31.82 1349 oil. (no depth May493 given) lead 5.00 6,00 2F697 groundwae May-93 in~enie 19.50 11.79 4046 groundwac May-93 iron 21350.00 25053 04 4046 groundwater May-93 nuanganemse 30L7 11.3 4046 groundwater My9 PNL B.3 May 26, 1995 Final 5irewide Biological Risk Assessment Efielson Air Force Base Table B.1I. Contaminant Concentrations and Distributions in Operable Unit Source Areas. (Plate 2 of 10) Concentntrons whert detected (sss/1-or mg/kcg) (water) (soil) OprbeSource AMe cocsMa Ungt Estirrtd Media Samrpling Date Referec Amc (m2) 5T49 TPH -491333.33 535874.345 6149 sois (no depth Sep-49 gien) ernui vlatileorganla122.43 120.28 740 ntgiven ND benrien 3.44 3.29 10862 p oundwutr May7-93 DDT 11E0.00 1.4 5431 oils (no dethMy-93 oiven) DDD 64.50 204.51 5431 soIl (no depth May-93 given) alpih-EHC 029 - 2715 wtb w-dep. My 93-- bet-BHC 0.98 -2715 soils (no depth May-93 given.) uldrin 2.60 1.27 5431 7als(no depth May-93 chlordzrg 690 00 721.25 5431 woits (ndepth May-93 given) eileldnin 38.50 16.26 5431 oIls (no depth My9 heptucldonite 5.15 1.91 5431 Wisoi(nodepd, May-f3 irethoxychlorine 14 00 -2715 satls (nodepth May-93 eptoade 0230 -2715 Soils (w depth May-93 trichloroeeher~e 8.20 -. 2715 ronwerMay-93 Blair Lakes arsenic 15.50 8.71 26709 grunwMter May-93 Target Facility Iron 48050~00 36738.94 30524 groundwaeter May-93 rrtiinnpin 5825.00 345809g 30524 groundhwater M~ay-93 PNL St4 May 26-,1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Table B.1. Contaminant Concentrations and Distributions in Operable Unit Source Areas. (P~at 3 of 10) Ccncentrations where detectd (j'gA or ingkt ("flee) Cacti) Operable Souce Am COOa mma a Estimated media Sampling D~ate Referm,,c Unit Ame(mn2) I Blair Lakes, floating petroleum product 2Q.03 26.50 2173 surface, "(t May-93 ___ _ _ Target_ Factity thickness (cm) I___I__I berzem 159.0 185.26 800 proundvawe May-93 naphthulenie 256600 4007.8 317 groundwater Sep-89 2 5T105514 TlK 1754.6 286.1 9555 surfac sods 1991-1992 USA 1993b TPH 3916.84 5844.27 1 166936 subsurface woils 1991-1992 floatng fuel dhlcibx (an) 0.6 0.4 43019 surfacer waxer 1991-1992 Xyleme 767.0 1042. 2500 grundwate 1991-1992 benrtzne 367.0 478.0 94267 ground waterand 1991.1992 ______surface %,atr ethylberaxne 91.3 112.0 25005 groundwater 1991-1992 toluene 1916.0 3494.82 47110 gpoundwatersand 1991-1992 ______s rf=c water TMH 95.0 197.11 62190 groundwater 1991-1992 lead 10.4 13.1 16132 pround wtr1991-1992 lead 52.5 50.9 7014 surface soils 1991 bermei 0.7: 2.0 9820 subsrarn soils 1991 ethylbenzenc 2.5! 9.1 16366 subsurface soils 1991 toluente 1. 5.6 25250 subsurface woils 1991 xyleme 16.8 78.1 21042 subsurlan soils 1991 5711I TPH 6337.0 6861.5 4960 subsurf= seoll 1991-1992 5T13/Dfl26 7PM 11202.1 12938.0 6313 subsurface sod 1991-1992 beunzem 199.6 33323 118676 ground water 1991-1992 lead 84.7 214.1 22725 ground wtr1991-1992 toluent, 722.6 1387.8: 35561 pround wvatar 1991-1992 - flmilng fuld t~klo (ft) 0.21 0.4' 17507 surfacewatrm 1991-1992 $118 7PH 8257.2 12486.4; 11918 subsurface: soil 1991-1992 5T19 ThH 2919.55 2444.4f 31617 subs~urfmcsot 1991-1992 bernze,: 8.2 5-A 2626 ground wae 199 1-1992 toluene 570. 799. 2171 ground water 1991-1992 II e~~~~~~~~thiylbentrene 271.0 229. 912 pround w~ater 1991.1992 xylem ~~~~~1094,O1455.0 1369 pround water 1991-1992 PNL B.5 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Table B.l. Contaminant Concentrations and Distributions in Operable Unit Source Areas. (Plate 4 of 10) detected (usAVor mng/Ic ('mater) (soil) Operable Source Amt COCa Mean s Estimated Media Sampling Date Reference Unit Ame(m,2) 3 DP4 lrehln ~~~~~Eric 4. 429.31 3651 groundwatrnf un-9 USAF 199kc dichloroethylene 33. ~~~77.4117211 grundrater henzene 4.3 ~~~~ ~~~0.924 groundwaterJu- tECL1clrehln . 0.11 175 groundutr. Jd- soils (depth 0.0 - ______Ol in) TPH ~~~~~ ~~~~687.1929.1 151 soIscepho0.Ju- IdIesel/kerceene 0.1 0.21 24 sis(etE 0.0Jv- Wtoluee 0.011 0.011 298 sols(dpt 0.0 -Ju9 tetnichiorcethylente <0.01 - 12191 woitsAuet - dichlorcethylene <00 -12191 soi-ls AgSp.9 WP45 clrehln 732.1 2149.11 7421 groundwiterJn- dtchloroeehtem ~~~~23.1127.51 125 grou~nd,,aterJw9 trichloroethasne 100.1 - I 9 groundwater Ag9- bennett ~~~~~~~143.1257. 2 groundwater Ag.9 tolunem 1055.1 1195.011 2 groundwater Au-9 ethylberncenre 107.5 102.5 20 pmzondwuiir Ag-9 towsxylene 6+30. 52~32 2 groundwaterr Aug,-9~ tnchloroethylene3.3 - ~~~~~~~~121soils(depth 2.4-3.7 Ag.9 tota zylenns 3.31 - - 121 sod dpt24 Aug-9 teciclorciethylcete 0.61 - 1 121 soils (depth 2.4 .3.71 Aug.91 ______in) £557 lead 7. 2. 142groundwaaverAu- dihooethylenc 25.31 41.21 21951 groundwaterAu- ITPH 675.W 190.9z 1561 sils (depths 0.9 . -. , ~ i 1A4insad3.8 -4.3 -6 PN L B.6 May 26. 1-99 5 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eiel~son Air Force Base Table B.1. Contaminant Concentrattions and Distributions in Operable Unit Source Areas. (Plate 5 of 10) Conccntnuors wncre detected (pg4L or rmg/a &nter) (soil) Operable Source Amt coca mm Estimated Media Sampling Due Reference Unit Ama (m2) 3 5557 toluene 9.911 18.71 251 soils (depths 0.9 - Aug. 1.4mt and 3.8-423 edtylbematne 7.11 12.81 1853 oils (dptxhs 0.9. Aug-9 1.4 rn and 3.8 -423 total aylena 39.5 73. 191soiis(depcMOi.9. u- 1.4 m ind 3.8 .4.3 bernzen . 0 - ois (dep.)h 0.9 -1.4 u- 4 Dnfl Inld W0 1. 2751 pourdun 19te berzere 65.8 1.51 17581 groundwater jun-C edryibenuene 62.1 76.0 17581 groundwater jun.9; toluene ~~210.0 - 187 groundwater Aug-92 total xylem. 313.3 152.7. 17581 gruadw tu Jun-91 dtchlorvethylen 1.c - 1871 groundniux Jun-9 577 lead 17.81 34.51 10971 1grouidwate jun-V 5S35 lad 11.5 4.Y 15 ground'nw Aug-V1 4,4'.DDD 0.93 2.0 21 soils (depth 0.0 - Aug-V 0. 15 in) 4.4'-DDE 5.41 8.31 3711 sells (depdtO .O. Aug.91 0.15 in) Iad 75. 38.61 21 solls (depth 0.0 - Aug-V2 1 ~~~~~~~~0.15in) TPM 680.1 2025.61 10651 sorilh(surfac nd 1991-1992 ____ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ns~urhoe) I DDT 19.1 39.1 7181 soih (suriaaanmd 1991.992 ____ t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ner-grfaa) trichloroeehyle - 3.2 - 1211 solls 1968 dichlaritylene1. - 1211 soils 11988 PNL B.7 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air force Base Table B.i. Contaminant Concentrations and Distributions in Operable Unit Source Areas. ' (Plate 6 of 10) Concenirsuions when. detected (j±ST or MgSz (flir) (soil) Operable Stoure Area cocs Mean s Esnaiued Media Sampling Diae Reference Unit AMi (mi2) 4 S539 TI'H 3786.2!1 7774.1 42.3!1soils(dcpthso.0- ~ Ju- 9 0.15 n. 0.9 - 1.2 in. ______and 2.1 -2A4n,) I ______I __ _ _ dim fternn 25.1 30.3: . 20911 soils (depths 0.0 - .1uP9 0.15 rn,0.9 - 1.2 M. ______~~and2.1 -2.4 rn) - 5563 TPH 3303.31 5280.4 66 soils (depiths 0.0 -Ju- 0. 15 mmndd0.9-1.2 diesel~~~~trosene11. - 1~~~~soils (depth 2.1 -2.4 Ju.19 5 1 F03/Frog benzmne 6.4 ~ 9.03 64791.1 aroundwarer Jun.91______~~~I~vinl chlortde 2.20 2.32 43284. jxroundwuyer ]un-91______I__dichlosoethYlene 2.1 1.4 338347 cormindinter Jun-91 ______I TPH _ __ __ 100.0 - 5431 soils 19 ______I__lenzo~aanthrimne I 0.1 0.07 5431 soils 198 ______I benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 0.0 81 soils 198 ______IbenZo ~lontee0.! 09 81 soilsl9 ______benzo~g~hl~perylene0.2 - 2715 soils 1988 ______b nzo(k)fluoranthent 0.1 0.05 81 soils 198 ______chrvsene 0.1 0.08 1086 soils 19 ______fluomihee0.2 0.13 1006 soils 19 ______ideio<1,2.3-cd xvrene 0.2 - 1 2715 sils 19 ______kerosene 25-. 43.4 1629 solls 19 ______2-mthytriphthader~e 4.1 - 271 soils 19 _ _81 ______napthalene 0.7 1.011 5431 soits 198 ______perandirene 0.0 0.02 1357 soils 1988 ______mrene 0.1 0.111 1086 soils 19 ______I bits(2-ethyllhexiI)phyhalate 0.1 0.03 543 soIls 19 ______1+____5541 1dichlorocebylene 0.8 0.42 1331 joandwtatnJn9______5S1S37fP bnee16.6 13.7 16349 gnoundiiater Aug-9 6 WP3S bernzene 29.4 5.4 81I soils OCL. 198 ______thylbennem 42.C 37.94 1357 soils t Oct..19 __g ______toluene 159.1 238.5 ~ 16294 sois Ocm.196 ______Wien"s 204.+ 267.11 2443 soils Oct. 198 - -. ~~~TPH 862. 2003.74 s______soih Oct. 19 ______beunzem <0.0 <0.0 ]I 8! surface soins 1993______- ~~~~eehylbenztn < 0.0 < 0.04] 814 surfnsollwis 199 ______- r~~~~oluene 0.01 0.021 1629 surfacesoils 19l ______Wklnes samples namplnI 811 surface soits 1931 dtcuteed but detected but no -Alus no values ______rovided pvavmded______ecicur.hydrxofcrs 45.8 42.3d 2715d surfaceso,! 19 ______chromium 28.24 6.6A 2443 s r sol l99 ______led 13.5 8.3 2443 s ra eo l 199 ______berizent .01 0.21 81R groundwaer 1988, 19. 92 touene <0.001 0.011 5431 groundwater 1988. 19.92 ______I and 9 xylem 0.0-~~~001 5431 gioundwter 1988. 19,'92 xylene ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~and'9 PNL B.8 Maaay~26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Table B.1. Contaminant Concentrations and Distributions in Operable Unit Source Areas. (Plate 7 of 10) Concentrations where detced (jsg& ormg (flat) (sil) Operable Source Arms COCa mm4, Estimated Media Sampling Date Referen~ce Unit Are (rn2) ______petroleumtX hyrorbons 0.6 0. 90 drrul 199 ______cacmium '00 <. 75nchndarer July 199: ______chrmmumn 0. < . 43 ndnte 1988 & 199: ______lead <0. <0.0 41 988 &199 ______SEX SS56 benzene 0.2 0. 41rud~r1991 -199 ______n-butyberacne II. - 27 5 go n w tr1991 ______ten-burybenzene 2. - 75conwer1991 ______chlorobenterm 0.7q - 2715 Ermmd..1991 ______~~~~1.1-dichloroethylene 0.41 - 271 rudae 1991 ______wsoproylbenzcne 4.1 - 271 rudae 1901 ______~~~~nrohulhzene 0.d - I 275 ~1991 ______n-croavibenzene 5.7q - 1 27151 uundwater 1991 ______11.1.2.2-tetrachlonoethane 48. 2 15 roundinter191 ______1.1.1r~choroe1~tW0.4 - I 27151 mna 1991 ______richloroethylent 15.7~ 20.2 54311 groundwater I 1991 ______1.3.5.omeehylbeanene 15. ~- 27151 goumncater 19911______l,2.-ettmthvibruene 38.o - 27151mwte 19911 0-dichlrombenzee - 0.11 1 27151 Kroundwaer 19 ___g _____ ethvlbenzene 13.5d 1&. 54311 mrundwater 1991.19 _____g______methylene chloride 0.11 - 27151 vrom dcater 19l ______tetrachlarmthlient 4.7d 4.04 814 gm md 1991 - 199 ______oltern 0.7d 0.42 54311 mtoudwae 1991-.199 ______I ryene 100.04 139.94 5431 UroundWIte 1991 . 199 ______I alummunu 3800.o - 271~ goundwate 199 _____ 1bnum 570. - 27151 croundwaer 199 ______Ibeyllium 2.4d - 27151 im m 199 ______calcium 61000.0 -2715 Xroundhwater 199V ______chromium 64.Od -- 2715 goundwater19921 ______cobalt 27.M - 2715 Kroundwae 19l ______~copper 98.d 12.02 5431 grondwae 1990.1 ______ron 29635.5d 41527.70 5431 grondwte 1990.! 1 ______~~~~nUMMMum 26000,d - 2715 1 _nd____r_____ MA"Emes 1142.5 1071.27 5431 ivmd 1990.1I99q ______nickel 69od - 27151 zru chac 199 ______poswurn 8100. 0 - 1 27151 aroundhwater .199 ______sodlurn 2900.O - 2715 groundwae 99______, nanlumn 11G.d -2715 u undwueer19 2 ______~~~~~Zinc 533.o 3011.23 5'4311 mrundat1990. 1994 ______I lad 29. -2715 gr un w te 1 9 ______anenl1191mc 24.d 4.241 541 gonwtr 90192 ______chleodde 2. - 27 15 r u d ae 19 _ _ol _ __ _ ______r_ _um 13 xA 54311 ndns e I I9 PNL B.9 My2,19 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base Table B.I. Contaminant Concentrations and Distributions in Operable Unit Source Areas. (Plate B of 10) Conciunuations where detectied (sq&1or mg/kg) (water) (soil) Operable Source Ama COs mma £ Esumtated Media Sampling Due Reference Unit Am (m2) mntlmo 3900. - 2715 soils i~~~~~~~~~an 1 barium ~~~~45k1 77.733 ol 19 ______~~~~~~chromium 2450. -51sol19 ______cobalt 890 0.1 41sil19 iron 201 w41sil nickel 2250 211243 sol 19 ______ sodiumv,0 77068 53 ol 9 ______vandium 450 707.11 53sol199 ______zinc 51500 ~~~~~4949.73541sil19 ______lead 7700.0 282.84 53 ol 9 ______anenic ~~~~~~I10150.O 2616.30 1 5431 ol 9 ______1302 beeazne OIA 0.03 81gondae MyS99i______cis-1.2dLchloroeehylenc, 3.9!5 2.33 53 oud teMa. 199 ______trions-1.2-dichloroeehviene 1.1 0.8 S a. 9 ____ Jrudae ______t ~ m0.0 00 1086~M y 9 ______ ______tetrach~oroehylee00 .181vndwer My19 mcloroeehyleme 5.3 14 41gonwtr a.19______rylise 0.2 -21 groumndwtr a. 9 ______aiunulnum ~~4673.751 62496_ 217-2 roundwater may199 ______I banumn 214.2 132.18 1 21724 aroundwater Ma.19I______cadmiu m 4. 0. 08144Ma. 9 I____ I______caklcum,350 1763 217241onwtr a.19______ChromTiu, 164 1.0811 zroundwate ff__ a .19 _ _ ______liron 2 5 1 2 5251 2 1 2 g o n w t rM y 9 ______magnes~~um 15312.3 8423.68 ~ 21724 aroundwater M".igg19 ______1157.5 290.36 2717 grundwater May. 199______ck ______2. -27 15 grundwter a. 1993 ______potaslum 337~~~~5.3322.54_ 21724 groundwater .199 ______sod~~~~~~~~~~um I 10125. 8511.53 V 21724 groundaitr .99 lead2 5.3 5.0272u9wae 9 arnie ~~~73.3004 272 udwtr 9 oil 1500 01 424 26 1 54311 udatr1 PNL RIO0 -My 26.1995 Finai Sirewide Biological Risk Assesment Elelson Mir Force Base Table 3.1I. Contaminant Concentrations and Distributions in operable Unit Source Areas. (Plate 9 of 10) Conceneratuons wei detected (ui# or mg/kg) (watr) (soil) Operble Source lAm COC. Meon S Estimated Media Sampling Date Reference Unit Am. (n,2) Ms5125108 groun atr1 TOX 10 7 .07541gonwtr1 ______ 1,2-dichloroietharc04 -215gonwte 9 ______trrnis-1.2.dichlorcue0 .0 41gond te ______1,1.2.2-tatrchlo m7.9o e a e07 ______uichloroethane 08 -273gon atr1 ______richjorofluornieglune 39 2.06106gonwtr ______ nmolybdenu,32 -21 gonmtr1 ______hAll~um,20 7 ronwtr1 ______~~TDS 100 27151 suraew er1 ______1.2-dichloroethmnt 2 -21 uraewtr1 *fler'ic ~ ~ ~~31- 71 suriaotWarter1 ______iron 30700. 7 5 s ra ewt r1 ______Mamagum 8430 -21 ufaewtr1 ______mn umi 720. -2 1 ufc ae 9 _ _ _ _ _ taossium 1820 -21 ufaew tr1 ______~~~chiorlde 903. -21 ufc Waer 1 _____ sulfate 6198. -21 ufc ae 19 ______cis-I1.2-dichlormeihylene <00 - 75sbufcssAg.199 ______aluminum 7725. 2490106sbsurfac soil Aug,- IodmLuMI 0.1N21 uufasib, A;19______~~~~mclcum 40 178108suurfce soils Ag,19_____ chromium 13 7 06subsurface soils Aug.,19 ______cobs], 54 1 63 ~~~~~~~~~~~10861subsurfac~e soils Aug. 19 ______MINIron ea iiiw427l08 eusurfacesoil Au.9 vanadium 2__ 100.5 08 subsurface soilsAu.1 zinc 185L.70 soils .9 PNL 83.11 May 26, 1995 Final Sicewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Table B.1I. Contaminant Concentrations and Distributions in Operable Unit Source Aes (Plate 10oaf 10) Aes detected (jug/t or mg/kg) (Wate) (soil) Operble Source Ame COOS Ma Unit Estimatd Media Senmpling Date wierence Ame(m2) ______oune 0. 75 jsd sisi PNL ______trlemyoobn, 220012850054199sufsols1 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base APPENDIX C -ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENTS Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Elelson Air Force Base Table C. 1 Total metals detected in surface water samples ...... C.3 Table C.2 Metals and arsenic in sediment samples ...... C.4 Table C.3 Volatile organic compounds detected in surface water samples...;...... C.5 Table C.4 Diesel range organics in sediment samples...... C6 Table C.5 Pesticides detected in surface water samples ...... 07 Table C. 6 Semovolatile organic compounds in sediment samples ...... C.8 PNL C May 26, 1995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base 0000000cgoo00 0 0 0 01-0 Co CY-) cm0000O)ON(On oo. o 00 Cu E ~~~ ~0000 80 0 ON C m mmo cm 0U)coc0cm CY 0 00C\ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 CoO OO C NOW-c cor-c OOO4U2 ) C C cc I- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OI Ocooooocoooooc0 ouo C OOOOOCO~~~~cooocc 000 C~~~c C0 O 00 j NJ 'N-'.-.-. .NJ C o ~~~~~CDC o ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4qC CD t. vL6C~4L WCY(0CmCD0 ~~~~~~~~0 'CD PNLo Zc Mhnoy26j Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base (a~~~~~~ (OCCDto qN tt co -L ZE N04 NCY C~~~~~C 4) CD ~~~~~DMC) 2NC)cN M 0I -WCOCM C) W)'ItM V0) tpcu-CyM E Co~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C a) IMI) Mc co OC6u OO O ~u ooMoooCyccdoov d E ell ((0MsgsM C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C =2E JOv t CY - cv) ~~~~~~~ - -c ( CD r(L CYNC - CD Cm E~C :3CQ CD0) Co - )CL_ - C>j000 .2 t0aO 0 U.O) U. IL U.-jcC PNL - -Gy ~~~~~2619950 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base 0 - r-c oco I) 0vCONC000 CD Cu (bI D )0a co .r- cj) QC C 0 (QWD( CS .0~~~ O O (0 (DO (D~~~~oN (aul V~~~~c C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C C C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C = we~~~~~~~~ E.E 00000000 : PNL C.5 Mayd26d1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base LIP E~~~~~6VS LOdA £6VOOV4 LI. £~~~~6YSCOO4 £6VS9SOS St CMVSOSD) SC £OVSLOSD) (wM Aip 6xjw) JequJnfN oUa ejdwug seldwus Juewipe9 U; SOI!uuto G~Ouv Iese!C) VF51WI PNL C.6 -May26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base IAILEiZZ. Pesticides Detected in Surface Water Samples Sample Defta-BHC 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE Dieldrin Number 44gL) Gigi9/) (gg149±g/ GSOOWA93 0.0049 0.022 0.0009 U~a) 0.019 U GSO1WAQ3 0.0057 0.052 0.0018 0.019 GS02WA93 U 0.0051 0.033 0.0012 0.019 U GS03WA93 0.0014 U 0.034 0.0035 0.019 U GS04WA93 0.0014 U 0.011 0.0009 U 0.019 GS05WA93 U 0.0014 U 0.0071 0.00098 0.019 U GS06WA93 0.0014 U 0.0075 0.0009 U 0.019 FCOIWA93 U 0.0027 0.0005 U 0.0009 U 0.019 U FC02WA93 0.0020 0.0013 0.0009 U 0.026 FC03WA93 0.0028 0.00085 0.0009 U 0.019 FPP1WA93 U 0.0051 0.0005 U 0.0009 U 0.019 U (a) U Not detected above the given concentration. PNL C.7 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base TABLELC-. Semnivalatile Organic Compounds in Sediment Samples Sample Number (mg/kg dry wt) Analyte MC01SA93 FPO`ISA93 ~ LLO1SA9a Anthracene 177 U(&) 370 210 Benzo[alanthracene 170 U 650 170 U Benzo[b]tluoranthene 178 U 880 176 U Benzo[k]fluoranthene 248 U 730 248 U Benzo(g,h,ijperylene 216 U 400 218 U Benzofajpyrene 184 U 870 164 U Chrysene 184 U 960 240 Diethylphthalate 460 133 U 133 U Fluoranthene 212 U 2300 1300 Phenanthrene 185 U 1300 980 Pyrene 177 U 2600 1400 (a) U Not detected above the given concentration. PNL C.S May ~26, 99 5 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base APPENDIX D -ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR BIOTA Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eidlson Air Force Base QAIQC Summary - Lead...... D. Table D]. Lead in Tissue ...... D.7 QA/QC Summary - PH...... D.19 Table D.2 PAHinirTissue ...... D. 13 QA/QC Summary - Pesticidess'PCB's in Tissue...... D. 15 Table D.3 PesticidesipcB's in Tissue...... D. 19 PNL DI May 26,1995 Final Sitewvide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air force Base QA/QC SUMMARY PROGRAM: Eielson Air PARAMETER: Force Base Lead (Pb) LABORATORY: BateflleMiarine Sciences Laboratory, Sequirn, Washington MATRIX: Various Tissues SAMPLE CUSTODY A tots] of 70 tissue samples were received on 8/26/93. All samples were received in good condition. Samples were assigned a Battelle Central File 1ID Numbers (627EL) and were logged into Battelles log-in system. Three samples were archived and are currently being held frozen. The. following lists the samples included in this report. BATTFTI SPONSOR DIGESTION CC)DF lE _QDE BATCH MATRIX A 627ELq1 1 B07DBO 5 Plant 10/28/93 627EL*2 I B07DB2 5 Plant 10/28/93 627ELU3 1 B07DCI 5 Plant 10/28/93 627EL*4 1 B07DC5 S Plant 10/28/93 627E125 1 B07DF7 5 Plant 10/28/93 627EL*6 1 B07DF9 5 Plant 10/28/93 627EL*7 I B07DGO 5 Plant 10/28/93 627EL*8 1 B07DG3 5 Plant 10/28/93 627EL*9 1 B07DG8 5 Plant '10t2893 627EL*10 1 B07DH8 5 Plant 10/28/93 627EL*11 1 B07DH9 5 Plant 10/28/93 627EL*12 1 B07DJO 5 Plant 10/28/93 627EL*13 I B07DB3 3 Fish 10/26/93 627EL*14 1 B07DB4 3 Fish 10/26/93 62TEL*15 1 B07DB6 3. Fish 10/26/93 627EL*16 1 B07DB7 3 Fish 10/26/93 627EL417 1 80O7DF8 3 Fish 10/26/93 627EL*18 1 B07DGI 3 Fish 10/26/93 627EL*19 I B07DG4 3 Fish 10/26/93 627ELU20 1 B07DG9 3 Fish 10/26/93 627ELj21 1 B07DHOi 3 Fish 10/26/93 627EL*22 1 B07DB5 1 Invertebrates 10/22/93 627ELP23 I B07DC8 I Invertebrates 10/22/93 627ELi24 1 B07DD6 1 Invertebrates 10/22/93 627EL225 1 B07DF2 I Invertebrates 10/22/93 627ELi26 1 BO7DF5 1 Invertebrates 10/22/93 627ELi27 I B07DG2 1 Invertebrates 10/22/93 627EL*28 1 B07DH2 I Invertebrates 10/22/93 627EU*29 1 B07D32 1 Invertebrates 10/22/93 PNL Di May 26, 1995 Final Sitewde Biological Risk Assesment Ejelsn Air Force Base BATTFII FSPONSOR DCSO CQnDE CDfl BATCH MATRIX DAhE 627EL*30 1 B07DJ3 1 Invertebrates 10/22/93 627EL*31 1 B07DB8 4 Macrophytes 10/27/93 627EL*32 I B07DC2 4 Macrophytes 10/27/93 627EL233 1 B07DC9 4 Macrophytes 10/27/93 627ELU34 1 B07DDO 4 Macrophytes 10/27/93 627EL*35 1 B07DD7 4 Macrophytes '10/27/93 627E1236 1 B07DF3 4 Macrophytes 10/27/93 627EL237 1 B07DH4 4 Macrophytes 10/27/93 627ELU38 1 BO7DJI 4 Macrophytes 10/27/93 627EBU39 1 B07DB9 2 Squirrel 10/25/93 627ELM40 1 B07DCO 2 Squirrel 10/25/93 627EL241 1 B07DC3 2 Squirrel 10/25/93 627EL*42 1 B07DD2 2 SquinI 10/25/93 -- 627EL*43 1, B07DD3 2 Squirrel 10/25/93 627EL4+4 1 B07DD4 2 Squirrel 10/25/93 627ELj45 1 B07DD8 2 Squirrel 10/25/93 627EL*46 1 B07DFO 2 Squirrel 10/25/93 627EL*47 1 B07DFI 2 Squirrel 10/25/93 627ELi48 1 B07DJ4 2 Squirrel 10/25/93 627ELP49 1 B07DJ5 2 Squirrel 10/25/93 627ELU50 1 B07DH 1 3 Voles 10/26/93 627EL'51 1 B07DH3 3 Voles 10/26/93 627ELi52 1 B07DH5 3 Voles 10/26/93 627EL*53 1 B07DH6 3 Voles 10/26/93 627EU534 I B07DH7 3 Voles 10/26/93 627EL*55 1. B070J6 3 Voles 10/26/93 62 7EL256 1 B07DC4 archive Squirrel NA 62 7EL 57 1 B07DD5 archive Squirrel NA 627ELi58 1 B07DD9 archive Squirrl NA 627ELi59 1 B07DF6 5 Plant '10/28/93 627E1260 1 BO7DC6 1 Invertebrates 10/22/93 627ELU61 1 B07DC7 I Invertebrattes 10/22/93 627EL*62 1 B07DF4 1 Invertebrates 10/22193 627EL*63 1 B07DBI 4 Macrophytes 10/27/93 627EL*64 1 B07DDI 4 Macrophytes 10/27/93 627EL*65 I B07DJ7 4 Macrophytes 10/27/93 627EL*66 1 B07DJ8 3 Voles 10/26/93 627ELU67 1 B07DJ9 3 Voles 10/26/93 627EL*68 1 B07DKO 3 Voles 10/26/93 627EL*69 1 B07DK1 3 Voles 10/26/93 627ELi70 1 B07DK2 3 Voles 10/26/93 QAIQC DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES Reference Range of SRM Relative Detection MethodRecove Arim ~ Ircoimitr(d y w) Lead 7 ICP/MS 75-125 !525% 525% 0.09 PNL DA4 M-ay28 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base METHOD One metal, lead (Pb) was analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry CICP/MS) following SOP MSL-M-025, Metals and Trace Elements in Sediment and Tissue by ICP/MS which is based on EPA method 200.8 (EPA 1991) To prepare tissues for analysis, samples were first homogenized using a stainless steel blade to grind the wet sample. A portion was then freeze-dried and blended in a Spex mixer-mill. Appruxiately S g of mixed sample was pround in a ceramnic ball mill. For ICP/MS analyses, 0.2- to O.5-g aliquots of dried homogenous sample were digested using a mixture of nitric acid using a microwave digestion technique following SOP-MSL-. HOLDING TIMES 0 Samples were frozen to -80C and subsequently fireeze dried within approximately 7 days of sample receipt. No holding time exists for metals in tissues, however, all samples were all analyzed within 180 days of receipt. Actual digestion dates are listed above. All samples were analyzed on 11/1 6/93. DETECTION UJMITS Target detection limits were met for Pb. The MDL of 0.081 mg/kg dry weight was determined by multiplying the standard deviation of 7 method blank results analyzed with these samples by the studentt value (99th percentile) for 7 reps. M[ETHOD BLANKS A total of 7 method blanks were analyzed with the samples. An average value of 0.629 mg/kg dry weight of Pb was detected in all samples. All data were blank corrected for this value. No source of this blank contamination was apparent, however, the level was very consistent throughout the samples and blank correction resulted in compliance of almost all QC sample results. MATRIX SPIKES Pour samples were spiked iii duplicate with Pb. These samples represented four of the matrces present (fish, macrophytes, squirrels and plants). Spike recoveries for fish, macrophytes and plants were all within the control limits of 75-125%. Recoveries for the squirrels were low ranging from 31 to 58%. The result for the sample spiked appeared anomalously high compared to the results for the other squirrels analyzed. This may be due to non-homogeneity of the sample, since the whole body was homogenized. Since all samples were digested and together, and all other spike recoveries analyzed and the majority of SRM (see below) results were acceptable, no data were flagged. Precision between the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recoveries were determined by calculating the relative percent difference (RPD) between the percent recoveries. RPDs were good, ranging from 0 to 2% with the exception of the RPD for the spikes on the squirrel sample as discussed above. REPLICATES Not Applicable SRM~s Pour different SRMs were aniayzed in duplicate at a minimum of one per 20 samples. SRMs were chosen to match the matrices being analyzed. SRM. DORM-I1, a Dogfish muscle tissue, obtained from the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC), was analyzed with the fish samples. SRM 1577, bovine liver tissue was anlayzed with the squin-els and SRM 1571, dried peach leaves, was analyzed with the plants. Both were obtained from, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (N41ST). SRMl Sargasso, a dried seaweed sample otained from the National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan Environmental Agency, was analyzed with the rnacrophytes Results for all SRMs were within 25% of the certified value with the exception of the first replicate of SRM1 1577. This value was above the upper control limit, however, since all other QC was acceptable, and no cause for this exceedence was apparent, no data were flagged. PNL D.5 ~May ~26,1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base REFERENCES Bloom, N. S., and B.A. Crecelius. 1983. "Determination of Mercury in Seawater at Sub-Nanogram per Uiter Levels.' Mar. Chem. 14:49-59. EPA. 1991 Methods for the Determination of Metals in EnvironmnentalSamples. EPA-600/4-91-010. Enivironmental Services Division, Monitoring Management Branch. 7- PNL D.6 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessiern Elelson Air Force Base Table D.1 Lead In Tissue, gg/g dry wt. .OCATICN Sponsor ID Tissue type % dry wt Pb Qual DP44 8070G1 Fish 23.31 8.18-2 U FCC 907DG4 Fis 21.92 8.l e-2 U IlL 907D69 Fis 24.18 8.le-2 U HL B07DHO Fis 23.48 8.le-2 U LF02 607D96 Fish 22.81 8.1e-2 U LF02 B07D97 Fis 22.94 8.1e-2 U 8830 Area 907083 Fts 22.01 8.18-2 U SS35 807DFB Fts 22.16 8.1e-2 U SS47 Area 607D64 Fis 23.09 8.l1e-2 U DP44( B070D8 Invertebrates 20.07 0.368 LF02 807DB5 Invertebrates 19.56 1.74 SS30 Area 907DF2 Invertebrates 23 10.7 SS30 Area S07DC7 Invertebrates 17.54 0.494 SS35 B070C8 Invertebrates 24.58 1.77 SS47 Area B07DF4 Invertebrates 31.92 20.2 ST10 B07DF5 Invertebrates 18.91 1.62 ST20 807DJ2 Invertebrates 17.61 0.209 ST20 B07DJ3 Invertebrates 15.55 0.162 ST56 S07DH42 Invertebrates 17.01 8.l1e-2 U STUB 907D06 Invertebrates 19.37 8.3e-2 WP38 807062 Invertebrates 21.22 0.689 DP44 B07009 Macrophytes 8.73 0.266 LF02 B07D68 Macrophytes 9.59 1.09 S830 Area B07DB1 Mamrphytes 33.18 0.21 SS30 Area 607D01 Macrophytes 5.14 3.15 f S35 507007 Macropytes 10.21 1.54 SS47 Area B07000 Macrophytes 10.73 1.22 STIO 607DF3 Macrophyles 15.8 1.26 ST20 B07DJI Macrophytes 5.3 2.07 ST20 9070,17 Macrophytes 5.5 0.838 ST56 B070C2 Macrphytes 5.53 1.18 WP38 B07DH4 Macrophytes 9.27 1.84 0P44 807DG8 Plant .34.98 0.314 FCC B07DG3 Plant 31.96 0.14 LF02 B07DCS Plant 43.35 0.114 LF03 B07DF6 Plant 32.22 0.372 SS30 Area 607062 Plant 31.61 0.196 SS35 B07DF9 Plant 37.46 0.628 S547 Area B07060 Plant 44.37 0.249 STIO 907DF7 Plant 41.39 0.174 .ST19 607060 Plant 40.7 0.219 ST20 B07DH9 Plant 40.81 0.165 ST20 B070J0 Plant 38.6 0.172 ST56 807001 Plant . . 37.06 8.l1e-2 U WP38 B07DH8 Plant 28.34 0.701 FCC B07DJ4 Squirrel 24.58 0.19 LF02 B070F0 Squirrel 24.58 0.179 LFO2 8070F71 Squirrel 25.37 0.274 LF03 907008 Squirrel 23.82 2.26 PNL D.7 May 26. 1995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assesment Ejielson Air Force Base Table D.1 Lead in Tissue, fgg/g dry wt. LOCATION Sponsor ID Tissue type % dry wt Pb Oai SS30 Area B07DB9 Squirrel 28.19 0.491 SS30 Area B07DCO Squirrel 27.27 0.595 ST10 807DD4 Squirrel 24.42 0.923 ST1S B07DD2 Squirrel 28.02 0.547 ST19 B07DD3 Squirrel 24.25 0.496 STSB 807DC3 Squirrel 24.91 0.212 WP3B B07DJ5 Squirrel 24.44 0.414 DP44 B070IK2 Voles 25.29 0.212 FCC B07D,19 Voles 26.84 1.2 LF02 807DKO Voles 25.88 0.478 LF03 B07DJ6 Voles 24.7 1.61 SS30 Area 80701-15 Voles 25.2 1.12 SS35 B07DH13 Voles 24.03 1.1 SS47 Area B07DK1 Voles 27.44 0.575 STIO B07DH11 Voles 21.37 1.97 ST19 B070DH6 Voles 25.19 0.889 ST58 60701-17 Voles 24.9 1.69 WP38 BO7DJB Voles 26.17 2.38 PNI- D8 ~May 26,1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielsori Air Force Base QA/QC SUMMARY PROGRAM: Eielson Air Force Base PARAMETER. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons LABORATORY: Battelle/Marine Sciences Laboratory. Sequim, MATRIX: ~~~~~~~~~~~~Washington MATRIX: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Tissue SAMPLE CUSTODY A total of 70 tissue samples were received on 8/26/93. All samples were received in good condition. Samples were assigned a Battelle Centra File ID Numbers (627EL) and were logged into Battelles log-in system. Three samples were archived and are currently being held frozen. The following lists the samples included in this report. BATTELLE. SPONSOR- EXTRACTION- C,(r~pEa ODF AC ATEDI 627EL*1 1 B07DBO I Plant 10/5/93 627EL*2 1 B07DB2 1 Plant 10/5/93 627EL*3 1 B07DCI 1 Plant 10/5/93 627EL*4 1 B07DC5 1 Plant 10/5/93 62TEL*5 1 B07DF7 1 Plant 10/5/93 627EL*6 1 B07DF9 1 Plant 10/5/93 627ELU7 1 B07DGO 1 Plant 10/5/93 627EL28 1 B07DG3 1 Plant 10/5/93 627ELj9 1 B07DGS 1 Plant 10/5/93 627ELV10 I B07DH8 1 Plant 10/5/93 627EP1 1 1 B07DH9 1 Plant 10/5/93 627ELH12 1 B07DJO 1 Plant 10/5/93 627EL*13 1 B07DB3 1 Fish 10/5/93 627EL*14 1 B07DB4 1 Fish 10/5/93 627ELf15 I B07DB6 1 Fish 10/5/93 627ELP16 1 B07DB7 1 Fish 10/5/93 627EL*17 1 BO7DF8 1 Fish 10/5/93 627EP*18 1 B07DGI 1 Fish 10/5/93 62ThL*19 I B07DG4 1 Fish 10/5/93 627EL220 1 B07DG9 1 Fish 10/5/93 627EL*21 1 B07DHO 2 Fish 107193 627EL*22 1 BO7DB5 2 Invertebrates 10,7/93 627ELP24 1 B07DD6 2 Invertebrates 1017/93 627ELU25 1 B07DF2 2 Invertebrates 10/7/93 627EU*26 1 B07DF5 2 Invertebrates 1017/93 627EL*27 1 B07DlG2 2 Invertebrates 10/7/93 627EL*28 1 B07DH2 2 Invertebrates 10/7/93 627EL*29 1 8070J2 2 Invertebrates 1017/93 627ELi30 1 B07DJ3 2 Invertebrates 1017/93 62TEL*31 1 BO7DB8 2 Macrophytes 10/7/93 627EL*32 1 B07DC2 2 Macrophytes 1017/93 PNL D.9 May 26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessmient Eielson Air Force Base BATTELLE,. SPONSOR EXTRACTION BEE ARI fl~~~13THAUl 627EL*33 I B07DC9 2 Macrophytes 10/793 627EL*34 1 B07DDO 2 Macrophytes 10/7/93 627EL*35 I B07DD7 2 MacroPhYtes 10/7/93 627EL*36 1 B07DF3 2 Macrophytes 627EL*37 1079 1 OD4 2Mcohts 10/7/93 627Eli38 1 B07DH4 2 Macrophytes 10/7/93 627EP~39 1 B07DB9 2 Squirrel 10/7/93 627EL*40 1 B07DCO 2 Squirrel 10f7/93 627ELA41 1 B07DC3 I Squirrel 10/7/93 627EL*42 1 B07DD2 3 Squirrel 10/12/93 627ELM43 1 B07DD3 3 Squirrel 10/12/93 627ELM44 1 B07DD4 3Sqirl 1129 627ELP45 I B07DD8S Squirrel I1012/93 627EL*461 B07DF0 3 ~~~~Squirrel 10/12/93 A,627EL*47 1 B07DF1 .3 Squirrel 10/12/93 627EL*47 I B07DJ4 3 Squirrel 10/12/93 * ~~~627EL*49 1 B07DJ5 3 Squirrel 10/12/93 627EL490 1 B07DHI 3 Squirel 10/12/93 627EP*51 1 B07DH3i 3 Voles 10/12/93 * - ~~627EL!51 1 B07DH5 3 Voles 10/12/93 627ELU53 1 B07DH6 3 Voles 10/12/93 627ELi54 1 B07DH7 4 Voles 10/12/93 627ELU55 1 B07DJ6 4 Voles * 10/12/93 ~~~627EL256 1 B07DC4 archive Squirrel NA 627EL*57 1 B07DD5 archive Squirrel NA 627EL*58 1 B07DD9 archive Squirrel NA 627EL*59 1 B07DF6 4 Plant 10/12/93 627EL*60 1 B07DC6 4 Invertebrates 10/12/93 627EL*61 1 B07DC7 4 Invertebrates 10/12/93 627EU*63 I B07DB1 4 Macrophytes 10/12/93 627ELi64 1 B07DDI 4 Mag~rophytes 10/12/93 627EL$65 1 B07DJ7 4 Macrophytes 10/12/93 627ELi66 1 B07DJ8 4 Voles 10/12/93 627ELP67 I B07DJ9 4 Voles * 10/12/93 ~~627EL*68 1 BOTDKO 4 Voles 10/12/93 627ELi69 1 B07DKI 4 Voles 10/12/93 - ~627ELP70 'I B07DK2 4 Voles 10/12/93 QA/QC DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES Reference Range of Relative Detection PAH ~~Method Recovery ~ Precision Unmit (wit wt) P~~l-I~ Mod.8270 40-120 /50-130% S30% 2 0Ong/g METHOD To prepare tissues for analysis, samples were first homogenized using a stainless steel blade to grind the wet sample. Samples were extracted with methylene chloride using a roller under ambient conditions following SOP MSL-79, Extrction and Clean-up of Sediment and Tissue for Semnivolatile Organics Following the Surrogate Internal Standard Method which is based on methods used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for their Status and Trends Program PNL D.0 Mgay 26,1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base (Krahn et al, 1988). Samples were then cleaned using Silica/Alumijna (5% deactivated) chromatography followed by H-PLC cleanup (Krahn et al. 1988). Extracts were quantified using chromatography/mass gas spectrometry (GC/MS) in the selected ion mode (SlIM) following SOP MSL-M- 043, Identification and Quantification. of Polyrnuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons by CC/MS which is based on EPA method 8270 (EPA 1986). HOLDING TIMES Samples were received on 8/26/93 in good condition. Samples were lagged into Battelle's log-in system and stored at approximately -2Oc C until extraction. Samples were extracted in four batches. Extracts were analyzed by GC/MS within the established holding time of 40 days from time of extrction (EPA 1986). DETECTION LIM[ITS Target detection limits of 20 ng/g wet wt. were met for all PAR compounds. Sample data are reported using actual sample MDLs based upon sample weight extracted. Note that results are reported in gg/kg wet weight. The percent dry weight of each sample is reported on the Pb results table. Method detection limits were determined from multiplying the standard deviation of 7 spiked replicates by the student-t value. METHOD BLANKS One method blank was extracted with each extraction batch:- Naphthalene was detected in all four blanks. Phenanthrene and benzo(b)fluoranthene were detected in the blank from one out of the four blanks and benzo(a)anthracene was detected in two of the method blanks. Sample results for these compounds were flagged with a "b" if the sample value from that batch was less than 5 times the blank value. SURROGATES Five isotopically labelled compounds were added prior to extraction to assess the efficiency of the method. These were d8-Naphthalene, dIO-Acenaphthene, d12-Chiysene. d12- Perylene and d-14flibenzo(ah)anthracene.. Recoveries of most surrogates were within the quality control limits of 40-120%. A number of recoveries for the plants were below the lower control limit. Plant samples were very dry and absorbed large quantities of solvents which were difficult to quantitatively retrieve. Results, however, are quantified based on the surrogate internal standard recovenies. Therefore, sample results should not be affected. MATRIX SPIKES One sample from each extraction batch was spiked in duplicate with all PAH compounds. Matrix spike recoveries for all compounds were within the control limits of 50-150%. BLANK SPIKESThe method blank from each batch was also spiked in duplicate with all the PAH compounds pnior to extraction. Recoveries for all compounds were within the control limits of 50- 150%. REPLICATES Not applicable REFERENCES Krahn et al. 'New HPLC Cleanup and Revised Extraction Procedures for Organic Contaminants," NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS FINWC-153. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Cheniical Methods. SW-846. U.S. Document No. 955-(X1l-O0(YJ0, U.S.E.P.A., Washington D.C. PNL D.11 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assesment Eielson Air Force Base PNL D.1 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Elelsan Air Force Base ...... m..... ~ =.. .. .,...... n !!!!!5~!5!!!!! DI fl55 4qq!f3vQQQQ~!* !!!!q! ! v!!~! * ~~~~~~~~ .. ~~~~~...... n.. .. ------! ------ * =. =. .. .n==n , . ~ ~ ...... * . **~~~~~~~...... 3 ~~ ~~ 3~4 I;44nr~~~a,~~me;Pggv.. . . . * ==~..Xs;n Ox OAM z.=,Z!!! !!! -av . nM!! ! di -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i iJ 1~S3Bu!2 ..... ; ~niiamt...*.. n.naii..a - S S;; JI K Ii ~rrr~rpirrrPPP~~ ~p~pppzpflj~qapppppw ovsw -----p -ppa.p.. RRNI 11§1111 PNL D.13 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Id511!~~~~~~'3 . .. I 5!!!I~ 1 PNL D.14 -- 7ay26 =9- Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base QA/OC SUMMARY PROGRAM: Eielson Air Force Base. PARAMETER: Chlorinated Pesticides and PCB Aroclors LABORATORY: Battelle/Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim. Washington MATRIX: Tissue SAMPLE CUSTODY A total of 70 tissue samples were received on 8/26/93. All samples were received in good condition. Samples were assigned a Battelle Centra File ID Numbers (627EL) and were logged into Battelles log-in system. Three samples were archived and are currently being held frozen. The following lists the samples included in this reporL BAlTELLE.. SPONSOR- EXTRACTION.. conF EE LDF BATCH MATIX~ DATE 627EL*l I B07DBO I Plant 10/5/93 627EL*2 I B07DB2 1 Plant 10/5/93 627EL*3 I B07DCI I Plant 10/5/93 627EL*4 1 B07DC5 I Plant 10/5/93 627EU*5 I B07DF7 I Plant 10/5/93 627EL*6 I B07DF9 1 Plant 10/5/93 627E2*7 I B07DGO I Plant 10/5/93 627E128 I B07DG3 1 Plant 10/5/93 627EL*9 1 B07DGS I Plant 10/5/93 627EL*10 I B07DHB I Plant 10/5/93 627E121I I I B07DH9 1 Plant 10/5/93 627EL*12 I B07DJO I Plant 10/t5/93 627EL* 13 I B07DB3 I Fish 10/5/93 627EL* 14 1 B07DB4 1 Fish 10/5/93 627E12 15 1 B07DB6 I Fish 10/5/93 627EL* 16 I B07DB7 I Fish 10/5/93 627E1P 17 I B07DF8 I Fish 10/5/93 627E221 8 1 B07DGI I Fish 10/5/93 627EL* 19 1 B07DG4 I Fish 10/5/93 627E1220 I B07DG9 I Fish 10/5193 627EL*22' I B07DB5 2 Invertebrates 1017/93 627EL*24 I B07DD6 2 Invertebrates 1017/93 627EL*25 I B07DF2 2 Invertebrates 10V17/93 627E2226 1 B07DF5 2 Invertebrates 1017/93 627E2*27 I B07DG2 2 Invertebrates 1017/93 627EL*28 I B07DH2 2 Invertebrates 1W(7/93 62-/EL*29 I B07D12 2 Invertebrates 1017/93 627E2*30 I B07D13 2 Invertebrates I1W7/93 627EL*3 1 I B07DB8 2 Macrophytes 1017/93 627EL*32 I B07DC2 2 Macrophytes 101/93 PNL Di15 May 261 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base BArTIELLE_ SPONSOR EXTR.ACTON_ ODE. BEa COD BATCH MAIBIX t DAME 627EL 33 I B07DC9 2 Macrophytes 10/7/93 627EL*34 1 B07DDO 2 Macrophytes IAY7/93 627EL*35 I B07DD7 2 MacrophYtes 10f7/93 627EL*36 I B07DF3 2 Macrophytes 1017/93 627EL*37 I B07DH4 2 Macrophytes 10(7/93 627EL*38 I B07DJI 2 Macrophytes 10f7/93 627EL*39 I B07DB9 2 Squintel 101793 627EL*40 I B07DCO 2 Squirrel 10f7/93 627EL*41 I B07DC3 2 Squirrel 1G(7/93 627EL*42 I B07DD2 3 Squirrel 10/12/93 627EL*43 I B07DD3 3 Squirrel 10/12/93 627EL*44 I B07DD4 3 Squirrel 10/2/93 ,627EU*45 I B07DDS 3 Squirrel 10/12/93 627EL*46 I B07DFO 3 Squirrel 10/12/93 621EL*47 I B07DFI 3 Squirrel 10/12/93 _627EL*48 I B07D14 3 Squirrel 10/12/93 627EL*49 I B07DI15 3 Squirrel 10/12/93 627EL*S0 I B07DHI 3 Voles 10/12/93 627EL*51 I B07DH3 3 Voles 10/12/93 627EL*52 I B07DH5 3 Voles 10/12/93 627EL*53 I B07DH6 3 Voles 10/12/93 627EL*54 I B07DH7 4 Voles 10/12/93 627E2*55 1 B07D36 4 Vales 10/12/93 627E2*56 I B07DC4 archive Squirrel NA 62'7EL*57 I B07DD5 archive Squirrel NA 627EL*58 I B07DD9 archive Squirrel NA 627EL*59 I B07DF6 4 Plant 10/12/93 627EL*60 I B07DC6 4 Invertebrates 10/12/93 627EL*61 I B07DC7 4 Invertebrates 10/12/93 627EL*63 I B07DB91 4 Macrophytes 10/12/93 627EL*64 I B07DDI 4 Macrophytes 10/12/93 627EL*65 I B07D37 4 Macrophytes 10/1293 627EL*66 1 B07DJ8 4 Voles 10/12/93 627EL*67 I B07D.19 4 Voles 10/12/93 627EL*68 I B07DKO 4 Voles 10/12/93 627E1269 I B07DKI 4 Voles 10/12193 627ELf70 I B07DK2 4 Voles 10/12/93 QA/QC DATA QUAITY OB3ECTflVE Reference Range of Relative Detection Method Recovery Precision Limit (wet wt) WCB/PEST Mod.8080 40-120 /50-150% S530% 2 -130Ong/g METOD Tissue samples were extracted with methylene chloride using a roller under ambient conditions following SOP MSL-M-079, "Extraction and Clean-up of Sediment and Tissue for Sernivolatile Organics following the Surrogate Internal Standard Method" based on EPA method 3510 PNL D.16 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base and 8080 (EPA1986) and NOAA status and trends methodology (Krahn et al. 1988). Samples were then cleaned using Silica/Alum-ina (5%deactivated) chromatography followed by HPLC cleanup (Krahn et al. 1988). Extracts; were analyzed using Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection (GC/ECD) following SOP MSL-M-04.4, "Analysis of PCBs and Chlorinated Pesticides by GC/ECD" based on EPA method 8080 (1986). The column used was aIJ&W DB-17 and the confirmatory column was a DB-170 1, both capillary columns (30m x10.25mmn I.D.). MOLDING TI1MES Samples were received on 8/26/93 in good condition. Samples were logged into Battelle's log-in system and stored at approximately .200 C until extraction. Samples were extracted in four batches. Extracts were analyzed by GC/ECD within the established holding time of 40 days from time of extraction (EPA 1986). DETECTION LIMITS Target detectionlimits of 2nglg wet wtwere met for all pesticide compounds. Toxhaphene detection limits were higher. 30 nglg wet wt. PCB aroclor detectection limits of S ng/g wet wt. were also met. Sample MDLs are reported based upon an average sample weight of 20 grams wet extracted. Note that results are reported in I.Lg/kg wet weight. In addition, the detection limits for the plants and fish are twice that of those reported for the other matrices. This is due to having to pas the extracts through the clean-up procedure which effectively dilutes the samples by a factor of two. The percent moisture and patcent dry weight of each sample is also reported. Actual method detection limits were determined from multiplying the standard deviation of 7 spiked shellfish replicates by the student-t value. METHOD BLANKS One method blank was extracted with each extraction batch. No pesticides or PC~s were detected in any of the blanks. SURROGATES Two compounds, PCB congeners 103 and 198. were added to all samples prior to extraction to assess the efficiency of the analysis. Sample surrogate recoveries for all samples were within the QC guidelines of 40-120* for both surrogates with the exception of a number of plant samples. Plant samples were very dry and absorbed large quantities of solvents which were difficult to quantitatively retrieve. Results, however, are quantified based on the surrogate internal standard recoveries. Therefore, sample results should not be affected. MATRIX SPIKES One sample from each extraction batch was spiked in duplicate with 7 pesticides and Aroclor 1254. Matrix spike recoveries for all compounds were within the control limits of 50- 150% with the exception of heptachlor for two spikes. Since no heptachlor was detected in the samples, no data were flagged. BLANK SPIKES The method blank from each batch was also spiked in duplicate with 7 pesticides and Aroclor 1254 prior to extraction. Recoveries for al compounds were within the control limits of 50~-150% with the exception of heptachiorin one blank spike. Since no heptachlor was detected in the samples, no' data were flagged. REFERSENCES Krahn et al. "New HPLC Cleanup and Revised Extraction Procedures for Organic Contaminants," NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC-153. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: PbysicallChemical Methods. SW-846. U.S. Document No. 955-001-00000, U.S.E.P.A., Washington D.C. PNL D.17 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base PNL D.18 May 26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base .3. .33. .3 Baas as a a I M H~~~~~~~ U~~ ~ ~~...... j .. 3in..333...33 33... 33...... ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3.33.333.33=.33.333.3... 3 . 33 33333 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 = 3 = 3 3~H 3 = i3 3 3 3 egg3 u e3333I3=333r 33 3 = 3 3 3 =3ag 3 sa 3 3 3 3 = =33333=O 3Z; =3333333= 33 ~~~~~~~ amnxigg~- NA a t;Z Iga -=3=3=------3 ------3-3-3--=-3-3 33-3=-33-33-33-3-=--3-3-33-3-3--=-3-= -33- 3 - -SS --- S fla---aaa----sa---- 2895---888------ *OccC~~~~~APRC CCOC.C CoCPr C PocP P po;. = 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 333333 333=3 =3=333 =33=33 =333=3 3=33 PNL D..19oMayC26,C1d9. Final Sitewide Biolovcal Risk AssessinenO Ejelson Mr Force Base I In S. i I!! h i3 - I I =02 I!! S.- -I In a: *I Hi 9 I I 3 ii I #s; .9' V FNL D.20 May26, 1993 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assesment Eielson Air Force Base ' !II~~hi!I!!!Ia~~mnl;!!s~~~ass~g!!a~~ssesgh~~a~~s~ass. 1~~ 2 3 8 8 3 8 2 3!!!3m~88 88s8 8 2233 3233332 33 = 2 = 2 2323 323 3,3 ,3-3 2-= 2...... 333 . I' !!!I!!hhi!!!!!1u i.I. !.1.!...... i.a.ii.j.g.ia.s.s.aa.g.a.ss.i.s.ta.s.a. 3333322333323 2 3 3 3 2 3 .3 .32 .3 3...... 3 ...... 3 ... 8$B8 688888d.dd~b. !! 88sd AIRA!8868 8! dsag~ 3 33 3 3 2 33 33 32 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3.3.3..3.3.3.3.3.3.3.3.3.3.3.2 3 * III~iI~!I~I~aa~!:!a~~ah~aaghudh!8!,s,.I; 6151S 1 si' 1ait8sshsEaaitsusa a! I! N!1! 1151! .15 IIdd3 333 32 333 33 33dd= 333 23 333 33 33 it I ... . .B.Q1 .!, 4 WN I n ,n u s ! fl ! II!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~d 33 ...... 33 333 . . .2 .3fl . .s' . . . 2 3 I ------2- - -t--!--!--!-! - - - ! 33 3 2 3 3 33 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 i3 r 2 P p;1PI3 2 3 p r3 p 2; pp3 2 3 I 2 3 ML !D32!3-May!26,199 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base L a " I El! z I!! 9 1!! I a;; III I I I5!!C 1 5!! I I I I !!! JR I I I--- it('liii ii V fl PNL D22 May26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Hielson Air Force Base APPENDIX E - TOXICOLOGICAL DATA FOR CHEMICALS EVALUATED IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Table E.1 Toxicological data for Eielson contaminants of concerm...... E.3 PNL E2may 26-,1995 Findl Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base r~~~~ I Jj~~IIN101 tillIIJ I Ia-1 ~~~~~~~ IlII1 I111 III W 1 I III 1 iI1 11 1111 PNL 3 1995II Ma26 Final Sitewide Biologiral Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Ii *1f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ 33 j~~~~~~IjII1 i~r ~ ~~ ------ I~~~~~~~~~E4M 219 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessmwt Eielson Air Force Base - _ ills I 1 * I - I £ ' iii Jjrj j j jJi S U L f a I jt iii LI JHH 1:1.1. j - p H) n . - ; - - IIW II! _ J hI - - _ _ ihihhi;ihh liii Ix' , I' - - - - _ I __ ------JJh .j - 11111 'I .1 Ii J - -- U - I.3 5-II S 3 i1 I -...... *1U -- I- - - ------I -- 3 4----- - K I PNL I *:--*--**--' - - - May26.- 1995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base A I _ udlg' iJi Ia _ I i i3I 111111 111: 1miii I IL ''I LI1 Hz I I J - 3 3 I ) 3 ii, -- I J S 'I z I' -S I- S S I Ed PNL E.6 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessm em Ejelson Air Eorce Base -. 4 j 4 111 I 8J% ;;:;;; ;; I II _I -- V Er 1 4 C ii gig I j _ I !' iL. I 1W II A is' B inhif IIIUJtTiVT f !H f K ii IL 1 PNL Ii El May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Elelson Air Force Base i7 rrv -1 I S -g * I 'II i ii ill liii g a: ii: I I 'I I I I I lb t I I 'p I.I Iji .1 £ 1j - gi I I ------0 *1 I !g J K. * Li -.-- 1. PNL ES May 26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessmnent Elelson Air Force Base APPENDIX F - INGESTION EXPOSURE RESULTS BY SOURCE AREA AND CONTAMINANT PNL F.1 May 26, 1995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Eieison Air Force Base Table F. 1 Exposures and LOEL EHQs for lead ingestion ...... P.3 Table F.2 Exposures and LOEL EHQs for ingestion of DDTs and PCBs...... PF.7 Table F.3 Exposures and LOEL EHQs for ingestion of PA~s ...... F. 11 Table P.4 Inhalation exposures and LOEC EH-Qs at 36cm from surface soils and surface plus subsurface soils...... F.29 PNLF. May 26, 1995 Final Sicewide Biological Riskm*4wFav Exposures and LOEL EHQs for Lend Ingestion EieLson Air Force Base Recent( Receptor dossaAe D ao ~ Thrush 0.225643115 ff02 bird [8.45E-03 voles 0.017311959 ff02 mammal I3.91 E-04 coyote 9.52283E-05 ff02 mammal 2.15E-06 owl 0.182393029 ff0 bird 6.83E-03 hawk 0.415899849 lf02 biFrd 1.56E-02 shrew J0.431 820551 ff02 mammal 9.75F-03 shrike 10.943901725 1102 bird 3.54E-02 woodpecker 0.25512836 ff02 bird 9.56E-03 !!9!agle ..... 0.014940007 1102 bird 5.60E-04 plover 0.191522184 ff02 Jbird 7.17E-03. bufflehead 0.087015758 11`02 Ibird 3.261E-03 kingfisher 0 ff02 Jbird 0.002400 grobe 0.03020259 1102 bird 1.13E-03 THRUSH 0.054164499 jp4j bird 2.03E-03 voles 0.019936078 dp44 mammal 4.50E-04 coyote 0.000385808 dp~4 mammal 8.71 E-06 owl 0.042797535 dp,4 bird 1.60E-03 hawk 0.093249017 dp4 bird 3.49E-03 shrew 0.09334846 dpff4 mammal 2.1 1 E-03 shrike 0.199318605 ..... pL..~bird 7.47E-03 woodpecker 0.056067702 d4 Ibird 2.10E-03 ( ~~~~~~~eal 0.008210957 dp4, Jbird 2.33E-04 plover 0.043931601 d{4 lbird 1.65E-03 buff [ehead 0.018866986 d4 Ibird 7.07E-04 kingfisher I 0 dp44 Jbird 0.00E+00 grb 0.006374041 d44{ bird 2.39E-04 thrush 0.103543864 1103 bird 3.882-03 voles 0.025529191 ff03 mammal 5.76E-04 coyote 0.0005629 1103 mammal I1.27E-05 coyote 0.000805772 1103 mammal 1.37E-05 owl 0.147507019 ff03 bird 5.52E-03 hawk 0.112916287 1103 bird 4.23E-03 shrew 0.186607851 ff03 mammal 4.212E-03 shrike 0.174508445 ff03 bird 6.54E-03 woodpecker 0.111307457 ff0 bird I4.172-03 egle .0.042105726 1103 bidI1520 plover j0.085610299, ff03 bird 3.21 E-03 bufflehead 0.030720684 ff03 bird 1.15E-03 Grebe j 0.38649885 ff03 bird 1.45E-03 thrush 1.374047531 SS30OArea bird 5.15E-02 voles 0.077842923 S530 Area mammal 1.76E-03 coyote 0.000101052 SS30 Area mammal 2.28E-06 owl 1.011576281 8830 Area bird 3.79E-02 hawk 2.467374741 6830 Ameabr 9.241E-02 shrew 2.647574506 S830 Area mammal 5.98E-02 K ~~~~~~~shrike 2.647574506 SS30 Area bird 9.92E-02 jegf 0.063988809 8S30 Area bird 2.40E-03 PNL F.3 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewride Biological Risk~dgfrjrt; Exposures and LOEL lEHQs for Lead ingestion Eielsorn Air Force Base Receptor dose Rieceptar (1cl wet t Area ID TaxonEO woodpeckri .56240758 830 Area bird 5820 plover 1.169838469 8S30 Area bird 4350 buff lehead048698 880Aebid12-2 kin ier083Arabird 0.002+0 grebe ~~~0.18544872 883 Arabr . -03 trush 2.584359 887Ae id9620 voles 0.~~~1399 i 84 Are mama 3.16E-3 coyote ~~~0.00038708 887Aream ml 8.74E6 owl 0003878 84Arabird 14E0 hawk 4.577700285 SS47~~~~Are brd 1720 she 4.9899200 84 Are mammal 11E0 shrk 10.96234335 887Am bird 4112-01 woodker 2.4788 87Are bird 1.0-1 eagle 0.037074213 88~~47 Arabird 1320 plvr 2.0744 87Aabird 8220 bu ehead 0.5473 87 Amea bird 3120 knfshera887Aebidoaso Grebe 0.4525 87Ae id1.31 E-02 thrush 0.2113238 st id7915E-03 voles 0.01990887 al mama 4.49E-04 coyote 0.000462317 ~stl mammal 1.04E-05 c owl 016521 etO br 5.505-03 hawk 016314 stO br 6.242:-03 srew 042325 si mamj907E-03 shrike 0.295589033 silO ~~bird 1150 woodpeckr . .3760 tG bird 8920 eagleI 0.007704049 stlO ~bird 2820 lover 0.1788899~24 ti bird 6.70-03 bufeed j008255 O bird 3.16203 kin hr0 al bird 0.00E+001 gree 0.028080799 stl, O bird 1.05E-031 thrush 0.06091144 ti bird 28-03 vole 0.01501 798 stl9 mammal 3.39E-04 coyt 0.0004534 i9 mammal i.02E-051 OW 0.054470852 Wi9 br 2050 hawk 0.53904768 ~S br 2.02E-031 shrew 0~~~.109810528 stl mammal 2.8-03 shrike 0~~.090262823 stS bird 3.8-03 woodecker 0.065478499 st9 brd 2.5-03 ea le ~~~0.004193952L sti9S bird 1.57E-041 loe 0.05036171 atll 9 bird 1.=89E-03 bufeead 0.018071963 St1i9 Jbid 6.7'7E-04 grebe 0.0075887 St19 Jbird- 2.84E-04 Ithrush 10.02751031 812 bird 1.03E-0 Ivoles 0.01061114 510 mammal 2.40E-04 coyote 0.000469899 9s2 mama1.0E5.- [owl 0.046520125 s0 bird 1.74E-03 PNL F.4 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk7WAWpg;1 Exposures and LOEL EHQs far Lead Ingestion Eielson Air Force Base o IReceptor doese FRecaptar Wet wtL ArealID Taxon 1EHO hawk 0.~~~~023375096 stO bird 0 shrew 0.~~~~047094585 s120 mammal I1.06E-03 shrike 0~~~.039519675 st2O bird T14E0 woodpecker 0~.028317642 ~st birdE-0 ea Is 0~~~~.00378861 $120 bird plve 0.0222!50Z14 1 1260 br8.33E-041 bufehead 0.027678377 s2 bid104E-031 reb 0.0032102 tO br .20E-041 trush o.oi056089 S5 br.96E-0.4 vales 0.0005125 S6 mama 1.16E-05 cc at 0.0051724 8856 mammal11E0 owl 0.0894987 S5 id3320 srew 0.02045784 ~SSS mammal 4.61 E-04 shrike ~~~0.09278 S6 br3.42E-031 woodecker 0~~.01203903 S56 bidE.1-041 !!9!~~.~~.I 0.00384845 558 br 1.44E-04 pover 0.009003123 S58 br.37E-04 bu fehea 0.019689566 556 br .7-04 g~~p 0.00143129 55 id5320 thrush 0.104078558 b~~~ ~ ~~~ird39E0 voles ~~0.04369-1 ie1 p aml98E0 cc ate ~0.00374528 maal84E5 aw 0.140350139 p~ id5.26E-031 hawk 0.150715406 .p bidA564-031 shrew 0-1 75853814A pI mammal 3.97E-031 shrike 0.210426916 ~~ id7820 wodecker 0.10596957 p§ bid3923 loe 0.08371873 38 brh3120 bu feed 0051125358 bid1.91E-03 rebe- 0 . .11.... ir 4.4.8E.04 thrush ~~~0.241004847 ss5 bird 9.03E-03 voles ~~~~0.046381112 sS maml1.05E-031 CO ~~~~~~0.00054489 saS mammal I1.23E-05 owl ~~~~0.209895929 $3 bidI7.88E-103 hwk 0.452600908 ssS birdI 1.70E-02 shrew ~~0.442998917 ss3 aml1020 shrk 1.011782382 93 id37E0 butflehead 004097 sS id3520 Kin isher 0 8835 bird ~~~0.00E+00 Grebe 0.3700 s id1.15E-03 PNL F.5 Ma 6 95 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Mir Force Base P'NL F.6 May 26, 199s Final Sitewide BiolorJijS4*1jsaa&s and LOEL EIIQs for ingestion of DDTs and PCIx Eielson Air Force Base Receptor dose LOEL Receptor ficg Area ID Chemical ID Taxon EHO 4LS vales 0.28182913 dp4 DDTs mammal 4.86E-051 5.8 owl 40.11911593 dP44DDTs bird 4.01 E-031 10 shrew 11.16134531 dP44DDTs mammal I 1.92E-031 5.8 thrush 5.777142436 dp4 DDTs bird 5.78E -010 hawk 79.42072465 dp 4DDTs bird 7.94E-03 10 shrike 10.3 dp44 DDTs bird 1.03E-031 10 woodpecker 6.584984621 dp 4DDTs bird 6.58E-04J 10 goshawk 97.23347293 dp 4DDTs bird 9.72E-03j 10 eal 1.400763707 dp44 DDTs bird 1.40E-04j 10, p2lover .... 4.924435243 do44 DDTs bird 4.92E.041 10 bufflehead 6.987365146 dp"DOTs bird 6.99E.041 10 greb 22.14228008 dp 4DDTs bird 2.21 E-031 10 voles 4.094979883 1102 DDTs mammal 7.06E-041 5.8 owl 42.0758358 1102 DDTs bird 4.21 E-03 10 hawk 127.1518424 1102 DDTs bird 1.27E-02 10 shrew 143.3177468 1102 DDTs mammal 2.47E-02 5.8 thrush 74.34003416 11`02 DDTs bird 7.43E-03 10 shrike 132.3 1102 DDTs biird 1.32E-02 10 woodpecker 84.58170854 I102 DDTs bird 8.46E-03[ 10 goshawk 77.5648841 1102 DOTs bird 7.76E-031 10 eagle 1.253203857 110 DDTs bird 1.25E-041 10 plover 63.30680554 ff0 DDTs bird 6.33E-031 10 buff lehead 9.332739808 11`02 DDTs bird 9.33E-041 10 grebe ..... 13.82730448 110 DDTs bird 1.38E.031 10 voles 0.477782348 1103 DDTs mammal 8.24E-051 5.8 owl 1.433336016 1f03 DDTs bird 1.43E-04J 10 hawk 1.020673074 11`03 DOTs bird I .02E-041 10 shrew 0.065023116 110 DOTs - mammal 1.12E.051 5.8 thrush 0.192037976 1103 DOTs bird 1.92E-05 101 shrike 0.305898409 1103 DDTs bird 3.0SE-05 10 woodpecker 0.065283417 NM0 DOTs bird 6.53E-06 10 gosaw 1.824263582 M0 DDTs Jbird 1.82E-041 10 eal 0.140594134 11`03 DOTS bird 1.41 E-051 10 plover 0.10306605 1103 DOTs bird 1.03E-051 10 01103 DOTs bird 0.OOE+00J 10 voles ~~~2.780297716 SS3O Area DDTs -mammal - 4.79E-041 5.8, owl 39.76333416 SS30 Area DDTs bird ~ '3.98E-031 10 hawk 108.2794322 SS30 Area DDTs bird 1.08E-021 10 shrew 101.419911 ISS30 Area DDTs mammal 1.75E-021 5.8 thrush 52.6 56S30 Area DOTs birdI 5.26E-03. 10 shrike 93.6 6830 Amea DDTs bird 9.36E-03 10 woodpecker 59.84825212 SS30 Area DDTs Jbird 5.98-03 10 goshawk... 56.31239062 SS30 Area DDTs lbird 5.63E-03 10 eagl 1.909372605SSS0OArea DDTs Ibird 1.91 E-04 10 plve 44.78118828 SS30 Area IDOTs . bird 4.48E-03 10 bufflehead 8.895436389 SS30 Area IDOTs Ibird 8.90E-041 10 PNL F.7 May26, 1995 Final Sitewide BiologUIriFAMsEsqnWMe and LOEL EHQS for Ingestion of DDTs and PCBx Eielson Air Force Base Receptor dlose LE -Receptor (ggtg)* Area ID Chemical ID ITaxon *EHMGW greb 22.39338881 6830 Area DDTs bird 2.24E-031 10 voles131769 87Ae DTS mammal 2.35E-04f 5.8 owl 65.10476958 SS47 Area DD)Ts bird 6.51 E-031 10 hawk ~ 20.70097234 6847 Area DDTs bird 2.07E-031 10 shrew 30.0787371 SS47 Area DDTs mammal 5.19E-031 5.8 thrush 15.76914189 SS47 Area DDTs bird 1.58E-031 10 shrike 28.1 SS47 Area ODITs bird 2.81 E-03 10 woodpecker 17.7799385 SS47 Area DDTs bird 1.78E-03 10 goshawk .. 14.96483302 8647 Area DDTs bird 1.50E-03 10 eafe0.660999872 6847 Area DDTs bird 6.61 E-05 10 plover .... 13.36493847 8847 Area DOTs bird 1.34E-03 10 bufflehead: 7.6921 21 228 88~47 Area DDTs bird 7.69E-04 10 greb 26.17876888 SS47 Area DDTs bird 2.62E-03 10 voles .0.641987501 stlO0 DDTs mammal 1.11E-04 5.8 owl 4.0488679771st10 DDTs bird 4.05E-04 10 hawk 9.902675771 ~stI0 DDTs b[Md 9.90E-04 10 shrew 25.42478197 stlO DDTs mammal 4.382-03 5.8 thrush 13.15993573 st1O DDTs bird 1.32E-03 10 sChrke 23.45920907stWV DODTs bird 2.35E.03 10 woodpecker 15.00014502 sti 0 DDTs bird 1.50E-031 10 goshawk 17.50310719 stlo DOTs bird 1.75E-031 10 eal 2.067160169 st1a DDTs bird 2.07E-041 10. plover ~ 11.217527 stiC DDTs !bird 1.12E-031 10 bufflehead 4.2489643431silO DDTs bird 4.25E-041 10 greb 1.7818829061stlO DOTs bird 1.78E-041 10 voles 10.592543794 stli9 DDTs mammal 1.02E-04 5.8 owl 0.476587628istl9 DDTs bird 4.77E-05 10 hawk 0.8294934741stl9 DDTs bird 8.29E-05 10 shrew ~.. 0.0806414131stl9 DOTs mammal 1.39E-05 5.8 thrush 0.2381647441 Ist DOTs Jbird 2.38E-05 10 shrike .0.379873842 jstl9 DDTs bird I 3.80E-051 10 woodpecker 0.080964237jst'19 DOTs bird 8.102O-061 10 goshawk 2.750471232jst1 9 DDTs bird 2.75E-041 10 eale0.144147396I sti9 1DDTs bird 1.4.4E-051 10 plover .. 0. 1278221 1st1l9 JDOTs bird 1.28E-051 10 voles 0.0398151961st20 DDTs mammal 6.86E.06[ 5.8 owl O.221193831st20 DDTs bird 2.212E-051 10 hawk 0.565751 1351st2O DDTs bird 5.66E-051 10 shrew 1.5768105561St20 DDTs mammal 2.72E-041 5.8 thrush 0.8161613971 st2O DOTs bird I 8.16E-051 10 shrike 1.452517611 Ist2O DDTs bird 1.45E-041 10 woodpecker 0.9302886861st2O DDTs bird 9.30E-05I 10 goshawk 0.605639158 tst2o DDTs bird 6.06E-051 10, eagle ~0.0070697 st20 DOTs bird 7.07E-071 10 plve 0.95695838st2 DDTs bird 6.96E-05j 10 buffihead .26355016st2O DDTs bird 2. 4-5 10 PNL F.8 May 26. 1995 Finali Sirewide BiologrWFl&4MsemnArs and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of DD)Ts and PCBx Elelson Air Force Base Receptor dose LOEL Receptor i gg~ Area ID Chemical ID- Taxon 2140 I (ggnqL grebe ... 0.110509965 stO DDTs Jbird 1.1 1E-051 10 voles 0.0329191 8S-56 DD~js mammal 5.68E-061 5.8 owl 0.4961577 SS56 DD bid I 4.96E-051 10 hawk 2.073840572 58S56 DDTs lbird I 2.07E-04j 10O srew 1.303702845 SS56 DTs Imammal 2.25E-041 5.8 thrush 0.6748-00109 TSS5O :~ DOTs Jbird I 6.75E-051 10 shrike 1.20010144 SS56 JDDTs bid1.20E-041 10 woodpecker 0.789160254 SS56 1DDTs br .9-5 1 goshawk 11.626838571 ISS56 JDDTs bird 1.63E-041 10 eale0. 14243601 SSS6 IDDTs bird 1.42E-051 10 plover ~ 0.57519951 S856 jDDTs bird 5.75E-051 10 bufflehead I0.342351075 8856 DDTs bird 3.42E-051 10 grb I1.001402514 SS56 DDTs bird 1.OOE-041 10 voles I0.3010861531wp3 DDTs mammal 5.19E-051 5.8 owl I2.5246723421wp3 DDTs bird 2.52E-041 10 hawk 475257w038 DI)Ts bird 4.76E-04 10 -shrew193951i DTS mma 2.06E-031 5.8 thrush 16.171887184 wp 8DDTs Jbird 6.17E-041 10 shrike I10.993349051wo DDTs Ibird 1.IOE.031 10 woodpecker 7.034928169 1 P3 DOTs 1bird 7.03E-041I 10 goshawk 8.2744097731wp38DDTs Jbird 8L27E-_04 10 eagle 0.1 90397191 1 p3 DOTs Jbird 1.90E-05F 10 plove 5.2609155821wp3W DI)Ts Jbird 5.26E-041 10 bufflehead 1.9927248641w38 DDTs Ibird .1.99E-041 10 grebe 0.835688471wo DDTs Jbird 8.36E-051 10 voles 1.4464628381ss35 DDTs mammal 2.49E-041 5. awl I 726.3324771ss35. DDTs bird 7.26E.02[ 10 hawk 1254.3087533Isa3S DDTs lbird 2.5E 2 0 shrew 21.60475892 85s35 DDTs Imammal I 3.72E-031 5.8 thrush 11.482364771ss35 DDTs Jbird I 1.IS5E-0~3J 10 Shrike 20.377632480 ss35 jDDTs Jbird I .0E-031 10 woodpecker 12.79734174iss3S Osbr 128E-03 10d goshawk 190.27186971ss35 DOTs Ibird 1.90E-~2 1~0 eagle 4.199479109asas3 DI)Ts Ibird I 4.20E.041 1 plover ..... 9.872849839 ss3S DOTs Jbird I 9.67E04 10 butflehead 41.00282237iss35 DDTs !bird I 4.10E03 10 grebe153.253827 IsasS DOTs Ibird I 1.53E-021 10 bufflehead {10.40837715dD4 PCB-1260 Ibird 6.37E-03J 1.633 thrush 5.11034391 1D44 PCB-1260 Ibird 3.13E-031 1.633 voles 0.249300376 dp4j PCB-1260 Imammal 3.74E-06 66.7 owl 8.3032760671 dp PCB.1 280 Ibird 5.08E-03 1.3 hawk 707.2759579j dp4 PCB-1260 bird 4.33E-01 1.3 shrew 9.873101389 dp4 PCB-1260 mammal I 1.48E-04 8. thrush 5.11034391 dp44 P0B-1260 bird j 3.13E-03 1.3 woodpeker 49.7414-8058 dp2.....PC8-1260 [bird f 3.05E02!~1.833 [W-7,Qeker 5.824944845.d4 PCB-~1260 bird I 3.57E-031 1.833 PNL F.9 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide BiolOgt.M Flseyokure and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of DD)Ts and PCBx EjeLson Air Force Base Receptor dose LOEL Receptor (Romg Area ID Chemical ID Taxon EHIO .. krsL goshawk 866.3522288 cl44PC8-1260 bird 5.31 E-i .3 eale5.279116529 ILA_ _ PCB-1260 b7ird 3.2-03 1.633 Plover 4.35605629d PCB-1260 bir 2.7-031 1.633 buflehead 10.40637715 ~p ~ P0B-1260 br6.7-3 1.633 grbe36.1626399 p ~ P05-1260 Jbird . 21 -2 1.633 hawk 122.898554310 PCB-1260 Ibird 7.3-2 1.833 goshawk 87.81509383J1102 P516 id5320 .3 eagle...... 0.946795652]10 PCB-1260 Ibird 5.0-4 1.633 bufffehead 1.8076743211f0 PCB-1260 br11103 1.633 greb 7.014522816961102 __P08C-1l260 bird 43E0 .3 voles 8.4054301 98ISS30 Area P5260 mammal .6-4 6. owl 280.201 5374 I8830 Area IPCB-1260 bird172-1 183 hawk 119.81983 ra PCB-1260 bird 7320 .3 shrew 332.8822285 1 S30 Area IPCB-1260 Imamnmal 4.9-3 68.7 thrush 172.3007393 88S30 Area IP05-1 260 bid1.E-1 1.633 shrike 1678.542.547 8830 Area PCB-1260 br .3+a .3 woodpecker 196.3942782 SS30 Area PCB-1260 bird 1220 1.633 oshawk 841.2689306 8830 Area PCB-1 260 bird 5IE0 1.633 !~9...... 7.294325853 8830 Area PCB-1260 lbirdI 4.4712-03~ 1.633 plover ~~146.8691213 SS30 Area PCB-1260 Ibird 8.99-0 1.3 buffeead 23.11951449 5830 Area PCB-1260 Ibid1422 1.3 prebe ~~~50.589233 8830 Area PCB-1260 Jbird 3.110E-021[ 1.833 hawk ~~~~701.6056321 ses3 P05-1260 Ibird 4.30E-01 1.633 goshawk- 530.05347]8835 PCB-1260 Ibird 3.25E0 .3 eag!le j.. 3.852585097 ss35 IPCB-1260 Ibird 2.323 1.3 bufflehead 19L.09939:983 ssS3 IPCB-1260 br 1.1720 .3 grb 74.47818s5PCB-1260 bird 4.56E-021 1.633 hawk 1.825162489 SS47 Area P0B-1260 Jbird 1.12-3 8.33 goshawk 1.378885326 8847 Area PCB-1260 Jbird 8.44E-041 1.633 2Al 0.01 6412238 8S47 Area PCB-1260 J bird 1.01E2-051 1.633 buffiehead 1.2104tS7Area. PCB-1 260 Jbird 7T.61E-051 1.633 Q~rebe 0.484018968 IS47 Area IPC8-1260. IbirdI 2.96E-04i 1.633 PNL F.10 May 2671995 Final Sitewide Biological Rqjkv c~pone and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of PA~ls Eielson Air Force Base Receptor dos~ Receptor ( i/kg)) Area ID Chemical ID LIC LOEL (iia/kg butflehead 0.402842591If 02 lBenz(a)anthracene 2.07E-06 194.94 bufflehead I0.087880781ff02 __Eenzo(b)fluoranthene 3.88E-07 226.69 bufflehead 14275102 Fluoranthene 2.20E-05 66.67 bufflehead I1.20590087 1f02 Naphthalene 6.79E-051 17.77 bufflehead I0.74675749 11f02 Phenanthrene 3.20E-05 23.33 bufflehead 0.67650663 ff02 Pyrene 1.16E-05 58.33 coyot 0.00758636 11f02 [Benz~alanthracene 3.89E-08 194.94 coyote Oj~~0ff02 Bnobfluoranthene 0.002+001 226.69 coyot 0.00460552 ff02 Fluoranthen 6.91 E-081 66.67 coyote 0.034109451 1f02 Naphthalen 1.92E-a6 17.77 coyot 0.00307673j1f102 Phenanthren 1.32E-07 23.33 eale0.049031 45j1t102 Benz(a)anthracene 2.52E-07 194.94 Ga9f 0.00010857 ff02 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 4.79E-10 226.89 eal I0.18933332 1102 Nahtlns1.720 17.7 eal 0.02039269 F1102 Phenanthrene 8.74E-07 23.33 greb 0.96166168 ff02 Benz(a)anthracen-e 4.93E-06 194.94 web 0.03048918 1f02 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.34E-071 226.69 greb 1.84441708 1f02 Fluoranthene 2.77E-051 66.67 grb 1.20590087 11f02 Naphthalene 6.79E5-051 17.77 grb 0.45S9B7681 jff02 Phenanthrene I 1.97E.051 23.33 grbe0.1773551 j102 Pyrene I 3.04E-06L_ 58.33 owl 0.60807885 ff02 Benz~a)anthracene- 3.12E-061 194.94 owl 0.01 327163 11f02 Benzo(b)fluoranthene I 5.85E-081 228.69 owl 0.05444771 1f`02 Fluoranthene 8.17E-071 66.87 owl 2.40131424 1102 Naphthalene 1.35E-04 17.77 owl 0.26667468 1102 Phenanthrene 1.14E-051 23.33 owl 0.02756415 1102 Pyrene 4.73E-071 58.33 shrew 1.17934082 1102 Benz(a)anthracene 6.OSE2-061 194.94 shrew 1.61 389073, If02 BEnz lfurtee 7.12E-061 226.69 shrew 12.5 902 601 11If02 Fluoranthene 1.89E04 66.67 shrew 111.4746875 ff02 Naphthalene I 6.46E-04{ 17.77 shrew 4.96173121 110f2 Phenanthrene I 2.13E-04 2~3.33 shrew I9.38797795 1f02 Pyrene 1.612E.04T 58.33 beavar I0.2C980208 ff03 Benz(a)anthracene 1.O8E-0-6 194.94 beaver 0. 01 571941 1f03 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.46E-07 107.92 beaver I0.33779955lff03 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.49E-06 226.69 beaver I0.02023168 11f03 Benzo(k)fluroanthene 8.92E-08 226.69 beaver I0.049316251f03 IChrysene . 2.53E2-071 194.94 beaver 10.8266521 110O3 Fluoranthene I 1.242-051 _ 68.67 beaver 0.02828348 1f03 Fluorene . 4.64E-o7jL 6 9. 93 lbeaver 0.54121684 ff03 Naphthalene. 3.05E-05; 17.77 lbeaver 0.39910851 1103 Phenanthrene I 1.71 E-05i 23.33 beaver. 0.3668742 1f03 Pyrene 6.29E-061 58.331 PNL F.li May 26,19g95 Final Sitewcde Biological Ri2bAlslaWJExPOsM~ and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of PAils Eielson Air Force Base ______Receptor do0 J Receptor 8 _ } /g)g Area ID ChemicalI BG} LOEL / bufflehoad 01If03 Acnahhe.0+001 7.6 bufflehead 0.323495 13 Benz(a)anthracne 1.6-6149 bufflehead 1.393780 10Senzo(b)fluoranthone 6.1201 266 butlehad 0 13 Benzo(k)fluroanthe0.000 269 bufloead 1.219183 13 Crsn .5-6149 buftlead 0.6736585 113 Fluoranthene 105o 66 bufllead 0:0397281 113 Fluoreno .8-0 99 bufleead 5.6545268 1108aptaln bu leed 4.98407614 11f03 Phenanthrene 2.3-423.33 bufflehadi 6.106625f0 yrn .S-458.33 oyot -* 0.00127710Acnptee.6-8 75.61 coyote o~o 124158 103 Bezaatracene .7E0 194.94 coyote 0.0082474 103 Bez~~loranthene 3.4-a 226.69 co at0.049E05103 Chyenzo )flroanthene 3.9-0226.69 co atF.171410 luoranthene 2.7-076.7 cc ate 0.0009991 1103 Fluorene 1450 99 cc ate ~0.01474 13 Phenanthrene 6.9-07233 ccoto 0.00467 13 Prre7120 83 leao 0.001648 113 -bna- ten-218-08756 sa Jo0.040522103 Bezaatrce20807 149 08 to 0.00134428 ff03 Crysenoe.0-9 149 * !2....zz .01913 10 lureo1.705-08693 a E..b 01544610 ahhlne 9.8750 77 oa 18... 0.02387428 110 Phaenanhne 1.0250 33 08 Jo 0~~.00587227 11`03 1.01 E-0( 583 re a ~~0 1103 AceLna thn 0.00E+00756 re 001743 113 Benz a anthracene5.E07149 roe 0.38838f03 Benza b fluoranthene 1.93E-0 226.69 roe010 Benzo k fluroanthone 0.00200 226.69 robe 0.38346525 1103 Ohysene 1.97E-061 194.9 robe 02188336 110.3 Fluoranthene 3.18E-06.7 roe 0.12957113 Fluorene 1.79E-7693 reb 1789886 1H03 INaphthalene 1.005-0177 roe 1.561L33384 1103 I Phenanthrene 6.69E-0 33 roea 1.92071067 11`03 ree3.29E-05583 rouse ~0.48009237 ff03 lBenz a anthraceno 2.46E-06 194.94 rouse 0.27699696 ff03 1Benza a rene 2.5~72-06 107.92 rouse 0.99994946 11f03 Betnza (b fluora~nthene ~4.41E5-06 266 PNL F.12 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Ri~tspMMgposurrs and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of PA~s Eielson Air Force Base Receptor dosq Receotor (Uglkg Area I hmclI _____ILE jgk rou~se 0.356 505ItSenokfronee1.7-6 2.9 rouse 0.8690184 f0 hsn 6-6149 grouse 2.147986113 Fluoranthene 32E0 66 rou!se 0.4983981f3 Fluorene 7IE0 99 roueqj_ 0.813924 f3 Naphthalene45EO 77 rouse 2.348 f3 Phenanthrene 8720 33 rous 1.518814 103renae.0-0 83 hare 0.2869710Bezaatrcn2.E-6944 hare 0.803943103 Bnzo a rnav.62-6n079 hare 0.9~~~23!99402J 11f0 3 B8enzo(b)fluoranhni.8-8 266 hre 0.360878211 O ez~~fuonhn .5EOJ 266 hare ~0.87966797lff03 ihyene .SE06 949 hate 1.95311681 1103 Fluoranthene 2.93E-051J 66.67 hare 0.50450045 10 Fluorene 7.212E-061 69.93 hare 0.6853599 113 Nptalene 3.76E-051 17.77 har J19134278 ff3 Phenanthrene 8.5-01 23.33 hre I16920163 1103 yrn2.0-05 58.33, owl 0.449047 113 Acenaphthene 5.5-675.81 owl 0.77507884110 Bezaatcene 3.8-0 14.9 owl 70.92091499 1103 Bzobfornthene 4.0E-6 2.9 owl 0f0 Benzo(k)fluroanthene 00000 269 owl 01 225073 f0Chsene 6.28E-07149 owl 0.76635155 1103 IFluoranthene1.5-5667 owl 0. 3 2 5 1889:6 IFl uorene 4.SE 69.93 owl 7.76050044 1f03 1,phthalene 4.7-417.77 owl 1.4754989 110 Phenanthrene 6.2-523.33 owl 0.24841769 1103 Pyrene 4.6-858.33 shrew 1.44064 11`03 lBenzra)anthracene 7.3-6194.94 shrew 0.06129385 jf03 Benzo a torne 5.8-7107.92 shrew 6.47055 RIOenzo b fluoranthen 2.5-5226.69 shrew 07888341ff03 Be9nzo Wflroanlthee 3.48E-07 226.89 1shrew 5.6637671 11103 Oh ysane 2.1-05 194.'94 shrew ~3.450293 13 Fluoranthene SiB-O 66.67 shrew 0.28857726 fOFlorene 4.13E-06 99 shrew 2~~5.5233f0 _N taee1.44E-03 77 shrew 22.7088~169 ff0 Phenhree .73A0 233 she 277490 1f03 Pyrene 4720 83 voe0.226210Dnzanhaen37206 vole 149 0.45038013 11`03 S~enzo(alpyrene I 4.17E-06 107.92 vole 1.64211337 1103 enzo(b)fluorantjhene 7.24E-061 226.69 vole 0.57966241 lff03 IC nzo(k)fluroanthene 226.690 vole 1.55112821f03 Ihysne7.96E-061 149 vole 3.13418r 1o3 Fuoranthene F 82E-06.7 PNL F.13 May 26, 195 -- Final Sitewcde Biolo gical RLIW~sFgnjuxpasum and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of PAHs Ejielson Air Force Base Receptor darn Recaptor j 1/k9 AreaI CheIca ID EHO OE voles 0.814883103 Flurene 1150 99 voles 1.74675 iO3 Nahtaiee95-5 77 voles 3.2055ItO heanthrene 1.60r-04 233 vole 3.0296 ff03rene .4-O 58.33 beaver 0.123753 raAcenaphthene 1650 56 beae 0 5830 Area Anthracene 0.0+00 beaver 43 01973880AeBezaatrce102-e 94.9 beaver 0.948283 raBnobfurnthene 1.2-6 2.9 beaver 0S5830Araonokfucnhne 00.OE.o 22.69 beaver 0 SS30 raCisn .O+oo 194.94 beaver 0 5830 AeDinzahanthracene 0.0+00 bever 6933 0.250983 raFurnhn .4-05 6.8 beaver 00469850AeFloee31 -07 693 beavr083Arandn1,,-dre 0.00+00 24.0 beaver 0.4077024ISS30 Are Nahtalone 3.04E-05 177 beaver 0.112894 S530 Area Phnnthrene 2.2-05 233 beaver 0.00799 S830 Area yen530-06 583 buffleead 0832368 5530 Area Acena halene 1.0-06 756 bu fieead 02823908 8830 Area Acena htene3.1-0756 buffleead 4217360 5830 Area Benoraflarnthne.6-5 266 buffihead 14902830 Area Benzo afuranthen .6-6 286 buflehed 4.82006398530 Area-Ch 1ee2E47-05 149 buffeea 0.310697 80Area Diez hatrcne 4.807 633 buffeea 141551530 Area loatee2150 66 buffeed .0755830 AreFuone7250693 buffhead 1.1862228530 Area Inenh12,-sene 20014.94E-6 bu0eea .3159239 53 AeaPenzoahanthrene en 1.78E-4 233 bufflehead 141.35500 80AraPree14-4 cc ate 0~~~'5530 Ara Acenaahthaene 583 cc ate .3348205 583 AreaAcnhtee30517.6 0020 56 ccflhate 822881300 Area Anhacn4.00+0 8.34 cuffoteha 0.006023498530 Area~Bezh anhaene 3.70E-05i ccf hate 149 0.00398823= 85SS30AArea henz loanthenee1.76-8 22.6 ccf ehate 11345008S30 Area BeIokflronhene 094E0420 226.69 cc ate0a 8S30 Area Ohenstene 0.00+0 19.9 cc at 0SS30 ArealDbna nthracene~ 0O+O 69.3 ccae 0.0148458 8830 Area Fluor~aanthenee 2.90E-07868 cc ate 4.3762-05 8 30Area FluI oar tene 26 - 069 3 PNL F.14 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological RithvphMu n O.EQ o neto fPH Eielson Air Force Base tbM rE~SM n OLIH sfr neto fP~ Receptor doe Receotor I .1 Are ID Chmcl D 2 i OL c0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0830 Areandn1,,-d re 0.E002.5 0 ~~0.0410555 630 AreNahajn caI 0.0164424 630 Area Bhenzbfloanthre en7.5-s269 sal 0.0013976 530 Are Bsa ,fiein5. E-s205 ea lo0.0039009 830 AreaC en2.0-8149 sa Ii 0.00041721053 Area Dbnaahnthracene6.2-093 3 sa le 0.05465784 830 Are --oaten-.0-0 eale00025 66 530 Are Puren 7.25E-0893 ealo 0.00~1481 830 AeInno123c rne 675-0 4.05 ea le 0.0210870 530 AraPeanhee9.4-72.33 ale 0. 0065630Ae on 142-0 5.3 rebs ~~0.1904989 880rraantceen.1e068.34 robe ~0.9192072 880 AraBnoa rne91900.92 robe 1.9~~0418716 S3Ara enobfoaths 8.57E-62 .9 rebe 0.451393283 Are B azhIelone188-8205 roe 0.1819 63 Are Boz ctronhs271-62.9 rebo 20782995 8830 Area C e107-5.94 roe 0.3567 830 Are 4 DlA z ~ nhaee 1920, 633 roe 73732 89 3 Area Fluornhthene 1.10E-4 66.67 robe 051681I 8830 Are Indhaeno123cnoee4-6200 robe 2.14260 53 raN hthle en2e-4177 rouse0~.2153937 6DAeaAcn hton 285-06 56 rouse 0.3~2346811530 Area Bernob floanhnee142062.9 rouse o~89580AraChsne 0. 06+0149 rouse 0 3630 AreaDibanzon renhanhaeo .0 0 693.331 rus 2.095089 553 Area Beornztheorne 3.14-05 6.67 PNL FISMay 26. 1995 14 Firnal Sitewidce Biological R *~kslsntExpOsures and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of PA~ Eielson Air Force Base Ai Rece pto d084 Rleceotor (igk) Ara lD Chiemlcaj ID i_____LOEL (ugtikg 0S se 0.43295614 6830 Area Flucrene 6150 99 RLO~~~~~ 08830 Area lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.0+0 240.05 9!2s ! 0.80605768 5830 Area Naphthaiene 4.4-5 17.77 gLO ~ 4.11508697 8830 Area Phenanthrene - 1.76E-04 23.33 2[2~ 0.73326,95 5830 Area Pyrene 1.6-558.33 hare 0.29760157 8S30 Area Acenaphthene 3.4-675.61 hare 0S8830 Area Anthracene 0.O+0 84.341 hare 0.062921 8830 Area Bezoatrcne1.S-6944 hare 01271 SaS30c Are Bnobturnhen.1E0 228.69 hare ~ 80Ae ez~cfuonhn .0+0226.69 hare 0830 AreChsne00+0 194:94 * ha~~re 083AraDbnoahntracene 0.OOE+001 693.33 hre 2.1489 10 80Ae loatee3.22E-05 66.67 * hare ~~~~0.59819914 8830 AreaFurn 8.55E-06 69.93 hare 0 8830Area lneo123cd yen .co0 200 hare 0.91195830 Area Nahhln .32O 77 hare 5.8644401 5830 Area Phenanthrene 23 -4 hare 0.73935783AraPrn1.5015.3 33 o wl 2. 04 1 E- 0S 88 3 A r ea A e a h h l n . 0 - o 5 6 owl 0~~.00241 79088320 Areaa Acenaphthealne27 -8756 owl 0.00374328 5530Area Anthracene 4.44-0 84.34 owl 1.01675 S830 AreasBenz aianthracerne 5.9-06 194.94 owl 0.79629779 8830 Area Bnablurantlhene . .1-61 226.69 owl 0.2279997988S30 Area Benzo(g,h~eyen .0-071 240.05 owl 0.309673 83 Ae Benzo(k)fluraanthene 1.7-O 226.69 owl 0.63835763 883 Area Chrysene 3.26E-061 194.94 owl 0.6805964 S0AraDbezahatrcee.98-01 633 owl 0.53086519 8830 Area Fluoranthene796066.7 owl - - ~0.005780 680Ae lorene . .7-869.9 owl -A 0.24161172I8830 Area lIndn1,3-dprn101Os 2.5 owl 4.19958605I8830 Area Naptaee23E0 77 * owl 0.784A86~3776830 ~Area Phenanthrene336-52.3 * owl 0.4628055518530 Area Prne 7.93E-06583 shrew 12.4291 1227388S30Area Acenaphthalene 3.21 E-O~ 56 7 7 shrew . 955915988S30 Area Acenaphthene 1.03E.041756 * s~hrew 13.1408 83AraAnthracene 1.56E.041 84.3 shrew 11122.31672 83AraBenz a anthracene 6.28E-041.9 sshrew 66.8547064 5530 Area Bnoarneo.0-4179 shrew 120.78575I5830 Area Bez loranthene 5.33E-041 266 shrew 30.4025565 8830 Area Bl~enzo ghi elne 1.27E-041 240.05 shrew 41.41 961 85 8830 AreaI Benzo kffluroanthene 1.83E-041 269 shrew 10077580AeOhane 7.18E-041944 shrew 9.06717599 8830 Area Dibenzo~ahanthracene 1.312E-05 633 PNL -F. 16 May 26. '1995 Final Sitewide Biological RI4i8aIpAIpEXposuCs and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of PARlS EieLson Air ForCe Base Receptor dos Receptor (LL.±gjk )J A~rea ID Chemical ID i4 rHLOEL NIkc shrew 3833533323 5530 AreaiFluoranthene 5.75E-031 66.87 shrew 90029157 580Area Fluorene1.604693 shrew 34.6176906I5530 Area lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyeeE.4-041 240.05 shrew 18056273 5530 Area Nahhln .2-031 17.77 shre asoi3462 6530 Area Phenanthrene 3.7-031 23.33 shrew 32.96069 5530 Area Pyee59-3 5~8.33 voles o~e 362530 Area Aenanphthajene .120m56 vole 0.930453 raAeahhn i~8-os 75.611 voles 0.33 17933 5830 Area Anthracene 3.93E-061 84.341 voles 3.34890035IS530 Area Senz~a)anthracene 1.72E-051 194.94 vole i.8125 83Araenoapene 1..6E-05} 10.9 voles 3.4863530AeBezbtlratee . 1550 269 vo~d 0.7676861 5530 AreaBzoghiprln3.006. 2.5 voles1.484253Ara enokfuonen4.1-Ot 269 voles 3.53656 550Ae hyee1.B1 E-s 194.94 voles 0.228903 53AraDenoah)anthracene 3.30E-o7 693.33 voles .13.81562 83Ara luoranthene 2.072-04 667 voles . .3952S3 raFurene 2350 99 voles 0.874116 550Ae neno 1,2,3-cd Prene .4-6200 voles 1.161583 raNaphthalene 6.82E-0177 voles 14425853 raPhenantlhrene 6.1204233 voles 94248 50Ae yee1620 83 beaver 0.04892 sa enz,,a anthracene105-6149 beaver 0.0115sS ez(alprn .7E01 179 bea('er 0.112 as Benobfloaene140-62.9 beaver 00716sSS Bnokfluroanthene 3.72-081 226.69 beaver 0.07101 88s35 C ee2.962-08E 19 4.9E4 beaver 0.791379661ss3S Fuoranthene 1.19E-05 66.67 beaver 0.54324541 IssSS Nhhalone L3.06E-05 - 17.77 lbeaver 0.32434413iss35 Phnanthrene 1.9E0s 33 lbeaver I0.30362916iss3S5yrn 5.2E0683 1bufflehread 0.42235571 ass3S Benz(a anthracene 27-06 14.94 lbufflehead I0.060917961sas3 1B noaprn .4-07 107.92 1bufflehead I0.5702720216835 Benzo(blfluoranthene . .2-062.9 1bufflehead I 0.7624621 88s35 Benzo(k)fluroanthene 3.6-6226.69 lbufflehead I0.2999635818835 ChrysenieJ 1.4-69.4 1bufflehead I1.773972731ssaS lFluoranthene 2.6-I 66 [bufflehead 11.600588861 Isas3 INaphthalene 9.01IE-05 77 bufflehead 1.61 1 185 Iss3S IPhenarnthrene 6.905-05 33 bufflehead 1.70649756 ss3S Pyrene 2.93E-05 83 coyate 0.008733941sasS Blenz a anthracene 4.48E-08149 Coyote 2.8059E-051sas3 ~Benzo a prene 2.0-0107.92 coyote I0.557544571sas3 Benzo~bfluoranthene I .4E61 226.69 PNL F.17 May 26, 1995 Final Sirewide Biological Ri4abltkaitntposures and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of PAHs Eielson Air Force Base Receptr dosd Receptor (uig/kg) I Area 10 Chem~cal ID LOEL (jig/kg' ccae 4.9866Eo s5 Benzo(~jk furoanth~ene 2.20E-10 cc 226.69 ate 3.88~1720 53 C see 1.9-10 194.94 co ate 0.017650951 ssS Furnhn 2.5-07 66.67 ca ae0058264 8535 Nahhln .2-06 17.77 cc ate 0.00~5663ssS Peahrn cc at0.0486s3ree76E8 .43-07 23.3 58.33 ea le 0.04514769 5835 enanracee2320 194.94 ea le 0 853~~~~5 Bnoare0.0+0 107.9 eagle 0.00071475 855 Bncb fluoranthene 3.5-9 226.69 08 0 '._ 0.00066813 885 BnoI lrathene 2.9E-09 eagle 269 0~~.00017371133 hyee8921 1 949 eagl 0.047520771s3 Flathene I .3E-07 66 08 0.05939372le ssSS Naphthalone 4 e ~0.301250983 35 BezkturcanteneI33-067 266 robe ~~~0.098025sG hsee.tlE-07 149 rob 1.70636558 8854urahn .5-05 66.6 rbe 1.90419ssS Nhtaee95-0177 robe 068317 8535s 8hnntrne42E-0 2.33 roe 0.587448023 ss5 renoth 1.012-0583 rouse 0.07935083285s Benzaree 46.1 E-07 179 reu e170.636936ss35 Brebfuanhn 21-0 6E22.6 reue *- 0.106929835 O ee5.22E-07 149 rou e1.564351 583 Floranthrene 2.92E-06.7 rou e0.4637ss3 Naythene 4.78-0177 rous 0.717999 SsS Peatrn 3.08E-0233 rouse ~0.67372166sa renepe 81.09-05 83 hare 0.341~~~3807 835lez uoatracene 2.1.E-6 149 hare ~~~0.130163719 ss35 Benzo a ee 942-07 1.2 haroe 0.582614041 ss35 Bez luoranthene 2.7-061 266 hroue 0 .1804992483 Benz furantheene7.6-07L 226.69~ hare 0.14050524 8835 Chsn .1-07 194.94 hare 1.35477835 elrnthaene 2020 66 hare 061738 ss35 eNaztaee3620 77 hare 0.9713ss henantranene 2.972-051 236.33 hare 0.359822606s835 IFurante 1.032-05 83 owl 0.434764981ss35 Beniz a anthracene 2.23E-06 149 PN-L F.18 May 26.1995 Fnm I Sitewide Biological Ri &&*P-VjflExposnmC and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of PAHs EjeLson Air Force Base Receptor dose Receptar /.gkg) I Area ID0 Chemical ID' DCn LOEL (mka owl 0sss5 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0500 107.92 owl ~~~0.557547s3 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.46506E 6226.69 owl 0. 1531 3419 Iss 35 Benzo(k)fluroanthene 16.76-0-7 ~226.69 owl 0.0398148 ss5 Chrysene 2 04-07 194.94 owl 0.655483 sS Fluoranthene 98E06 66.67 owl 3.351932 s5 Npthln .9-41 7.77 owl 0.629486 aS Phenanthrene 2.0-05 23.33 owl 0.2722356sasS yen .6E 58.33 shrew 1.30798 S Bn~~nhaee67 -8194.94 shrew 0.0615167sa Be7IMnzoprene 57E0107.92 [~~ra-w 5.3087043 sas Benzo/Mb -tluaanthne 24-0226.69 8.229922683 Benzo~rkffluroaahene 3.3-5228.69 shrew 2.50659011 ss Cren129-05 194.94 s row, 10.56147521ss35 Fluoranthene 1.8-04 66.67 s raw 11.4670964 8335 ]Naphthalene 6.5-4 17.77 s rew 12.1774351 IssSS lPhenanthrene 5.22E-04 23.33 shrew 16.019944318535 1Pvrene 2.5-458.33 voles 0.03086834 ss35 Benz aanthracene 1.5-07 194.94 vales 0.45201957 8835 Benzo~prene 4.9-06 107.92 voles 1.35007269 sas3 Benzobfluoranthene 5.6-06 226.69 voles 1.00837888 sas3 Benzak lroanthene 4.45-6 226.69 voles 0.68647643 8835 Chvee3.52E-06 194.94 voles 2.89245686 ss35 Fuoranthene 4.34E-05 66.67 voles 0.77035801 sasS Nahthalene 4.34E-05 17.77 voles 1.999651 8 ssSS shnanthrenes.750 23.33 voles - 1.75590973i8835 Pen3.1- -5583 beaver 0.00017577 SS47 Area Acenapthene 2.32 9756 beaver 0.2033973 S4Area Benz~a racene 145af 194.94 beaver 0.3131544ISS47 Area Banzobfurnhn .S-06 226 :89 beaver 0.00029226ISS47 Area Benzo(k)fluroanthene 1.29E-09 228.89 beaver 0.00026314I5S47 Area tChrysene 1.35-9 194.94 beaver0.7626507 SS47 Area IFluoranthene 1.8-05 66.67 beave0.0051 172 SS47 Area IFluorene 7.2-09 69.93 beave0.5519341 SS47Area INaphthalene 3.0-517.77 beave0.3185141 ISS47Area lPhenanthrene 1.7-s23.33 beaver 0.29860425ISS47Area 1Pyrene 5.12E-06 _58.331 bufflehead I0.03378445 SS47Area Aceahhn .4-071 75.61 buff lehead I0.41766258 SS47 Area IBen~ nhan .4-06 194.94 bufflehead 0.16699498ISS47.Area Benzo(b)fluoranthene 7.7-07 226.69 bufflehead 0 SS47Area Benzo(k)tluroanthene o0oE0-oo 226.69 bufflehead 0.09408088 SS47Area Chrysene 43-071 194.94 bufflehead 1. 17083205 SS47Area Fluoranthene ~1.762-0~5 666 bufflehead I0.05341946 SS47Area Fluarene 7.645-071 9.93 PNL F.19 ~May 26, 1995 Finial Sitewide Biological RiSk*IasnprixorF n LE Hsfo netono EieLson Air Force Base Xouc n OLE~ o neto fP~ Receptor do4) Receptor 1(iig/kg) I Area ID Chemical ID EBIG LOEL (jig/kg bufffehead 1.32121288 5847 Area Naphthalene 7.44E-05 17.77 bufflehead 2.32534761 S547 Area Phenanthrene 9.97E-05 23.33 bufflehead 0.77705217 $847 Area Pyrene 1.33E-05 58.33 coyote 1.81 73E-05 5547 Area Acenaphthene 2.40E-10 75.61 coyote 0.00779655 5S47 Area Benz(a)anthracene 4.OOE-08 194.94 coyote 0.00400371 5847 Area Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.77E-08 226.69 coyote 1.6341 E-05 85S47 Area Benzo(k)fluroanthene 7.21 S-il1 226.69 coyote 1.4713E-05i5547 Area_ Chrysene 7.55E-1 1 194.94 coyote 0.01 46996155S47 Area Fluoranthene 2.20E.071 66.67 coyote 3.966E-05 5547 Area Fluorene 5.67E-101 89.93 coyote 0.0163 434715847 Area Naphthalene 9.20E-07j 17.77 coyot 0.00418306 ISS47 Area Phenanthrene 1.79E-071 23.33 coyote 0.00384301 55S47 Area Pyrene 6.59E-08 83 eagle0.00289802 55S47 Area Acenaphthene 3.83E-081' 75.81 eagle 0.043027157Area Benz(s)arnthracene' 2.21 E-07 { 194.94 eagle5.5826E-051I5S47 Area Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.46E-l0j 226.69 eagle ~~088S47 Area Benzo(k)fturoanthene 0.00E+001 226.69 eagle21972-OS4E0SS47 Area Chrysene I1.ia3E.ioJ 194.94 eale0.04124733 5847 Area Fluoranthene 6.19E.07} 66.87 eale0.00383774 8547 Area Fluorene S.49E-08t 69.93 eagle0.05727842 5847 Area Naphthalene 3.22E-061 17.77 eale0.00219148 5547 Area Phenanthrene 9.39E-081 23.33 eale0.00340458 55S47 Area Pyrene . 5.84E-081 58.33 grebe 0. 13167151 88S47 Area Acenaphthene 1.74E-06i 75.61 grebe ~ 1.01317739I5847 Area Benz(a)anthracene 5.20E-061 194.94 gree 0.06239627I8547 Area Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.75E-07 228.89 grebe ~~~058S47 Area Benzo(k)fturoanthene 0.00E+00 226.69 grebe 0.03404802I5547 Area Chrysene 1.75E-07 194.94 grebe ...... 1.70952815 55S47 Area Fluoranthene 2.56E-05 66.87 grebe IO....01 78100631 5547 Area Fluorene 2.55E-08 69.93 grebe 2.2071851 85S47 Area Naphthalene 1.242-04 17.77 greb 1.1 0832556ISS47 Area Phenanthrene I 4.74E-051 23.33 grebe ...... 0.1 8871387 5547 Area Pyrene I 3.24E-061 58.33 grose0.00309738 58S47 Area Acenaphthene 4.101E-0 58 grouse 0.36723218 5547 Area Benz(a)anthracene I 1.88E-06f 194.94 grouse 0.56568885 5847 Area Benzo(b)fluoranthene I 2.50E-061 226.89 srous 0.005 15008 8347 Area Benzo(k)fluroanthene i 2.27E-08 226.89 grouse ...... 0.00463691 8S47 Area Chrysene I 2.38E-:08~ 194.94 grous 1.43631007 SS47 Area. Fluoranthene 2.15E-051 66.67 grose0.00901722 5847 Area Fluorene 1.29E-071 89.93 gros 0.98798572I8847 Area Naphthalene 5.56E-0 17.77K grose0.61588442 5847 Area Phenanthrene 2.642-051 23.33 grouse ...... 0.54887301 55S47 Area Pyrene 9.412E-061 -58.33 PNL F.20 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide BiolOgIcal R ctb"aCn~xposur and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of PARs Eielson Air Force Base Receptr dos Raceptar 1k Area IDChemical iD BiEHILOL hare 0.002793857AreaAeathn 5.66E-0 75.61 hare 0.3147816'2 847 AreBnzantrce 1.61-06 194.94 hare 0403469 847 AraBez boluranthene2.4-62.9 hare 0071567 SS47 Are Bez lranthene 3.145-08! 268 hare 0006406 857Area hsn .9-08 149 hare 1.49424 8S47 Area Fluoranthene 1850 66 hare 0.025876 8S47 Area Fluarene 17E0 99 hare 0425042 8S47 Area Naphthaje ne 4750 77 hare 0512808 S847 Area henanthrene 2320 33 hare 0.7889 87Area ea8150 owl 83 ooi13784 Are ceahthene 1.SOE-09 75.61 owl 02476 54 AraBn i nthracene 1.46E-061944 owl 0.126425 5547 Area Bzobfuoranthen 6.73E-0 266 owl054 Area Benza k furoanthene 0.00E+0266 awl 0.06027847 Area Crsn 3.08E-08 149 owl 00988 87Ae Fluaranthn 5.91 E-06.7 owl 0.0347 57 raFloee4E.4-093 awl 0.421284 raNaphthalen 1.92E-05 17.77 owl 0.2343 S847 Area Phenantrn 9.182-07233 owl 0.4374 S847 Area Pyrene -6.92E-07 83 shrew 0538671 887Area Acnptene 7.12E-07 56 shrew 1.472284 raBn~~nthracene 6.92E-08149 shrew 4.476384 raBnzo(b fuoranthene 1.91E-05 22.9 shrew_____ 085661b5 847 AeBnzkfloahee39-07 26.69 shrew____2.375184 587Aeihyee .2-5149 5.2622452 54AraFluoranthene 7.8E056.7 shrew 0.134886 S847AraFurn .7-669.93 shrew 16.365861 9 8547Ae Nahaln921-04 17.77 shrew 48.541775 84Arahenanthrn 2.082-03 23.33 shrew 13.0267225 S87Area yre2.23E-04 58.33 vales 0,395899 857Area Aenaphthene 5.23E-06 75.61 voles I0.65490597I5547 Area Beza anthracene 3.36E-06 194.94 jvales I1.10389821 5847 Area Denza bfluoranthen 4.87E-062.9 Ivoles I0.65812176 5547 AeBenzo kfluroanthene 2.90E-06266 Ivoles 0.65048141 85S47 Area lChrysene 3.34E-06149 IvolesI 4.90128103 8547 Area IFluoranthene 7.355-06.7 voles1.1587002~61 5547 Area IFluoren 1.66E-0693 voles 10 94499 SS47 Area Nahlphthalene I 6.19E-051 17.77 voles 7.97102581 58S47 Area lPhenanthreneI 3.42E-04 23.33 vole 2.992098847 AraPrne 4.45E-05583 baver 0.200319 sta Bnz(a)anthracene 1.03E-06149 beaver I n00318921st1 Bez a anthracene ~ 1.03E-06149 beaver I 01stlO -F 0n005+00reIe 107.92 PNL F.21 MTay ~26.1995 Final Sitewide Biological Ris?*tvbisrntExposures and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of pAils Eielson Air Force Base Receptor doe leceptcr gUQ/kJ jArea ID Chemical IPD ---- Ej LOEL (i/g beaver 0.31401558 stlO Benzo~bfluoaranthene 1.39E-061 228.69 beaver O stlo Benzo~kfluroanthene o.OO -0J 26.69 beaver 0.00479983 stlO Chrysene 2.4208 14.94 beaver 0. 787 621 54{1s tl 0 Fluoranthene 1. E0 667 beaver 0.00994t10 Fluorene 13E06993 beaver O.555002sto Naphthalene 3.2-517.77 beaver 0.330098st IPhenanthrene 1.1-523.33 beaver 0.3022848 St Pyrene 5.18-0 58.33 buff lehead I0.102946j stil0 Benz(a)anthracene 5.8-7194.94 bufflehead 1.591424021st 10 Benz(a)anthracene 81E-6194.94 bufflehead 04404582at 10 Benzo(a)pyrene 3.4-0 107.92 Ibufflehead .844044 stilO Benzo(b)fluoranthen 1.60-0 226.69 Ibufflehead 132952 sti 0 Benzo(k)fluroanthene 60 -6226.69 lbufflehead 2768284 atlO0 Chrysene _1_.43E-051 194.94 bufflehead I3.019112781st10 Fluoranthene 4 1.5350568~.67 buffiehead -ls-tlOO - Fluorene .00+00 69.93 bufllehead 2.0001 30641st1 0 Naphthalene 1.3-417.77 buffiehead 1.830941371stlO0 Phenanthrene 7.S-523.33 bufflehead 2.433983141stlO0 Pvrene .7E0 58.33 coyote 0.008210241stlO Bez0 ntcene 42-0194.94 ESYS!...... 0.00798521stlO0 Benz~aanthracene 41-0194.94 120-1;OI~e 01stio IBenzo~awprene .0020107.92 coyote.... 0.004249681stlO0 Benzo(b)fiuoranthene 18-826.69 coyote 01~CstlO Benzo(k)fluroanthene 0.OO+o 2.69 coyotep 2.1469-5-Os tio Chrysene 1.0-1 9.94 coyote ...... 0.0104251stlO Fluoranthene 1.65076.67 coyote ,,I4.1117E-051stlO Fluorene 5.82106.93 coyotec 0.043144421stlO0 Naphthalene 2.4-0177 coyate -0.0086601 9 stlOa Phenanthrene 3.71 E-07 23.33 coyot e-0.00383577 atlO Pyrene 6.58E-081 58.33 eagle 0.0445584atO Benz(a)anthracene 2.29E-071 194.94 eagl 0. 0421 8771 1 tlO1 Benzwaranthracene 2.16E-0 194.94 eagle.....I0.001 640331stl 0 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.52E-08179 eagle0.021950731stl 0 1Benzo(bmfuoranthene 9.68 -08266 eagle...... 20.008201661sti 0 IBenzo~kfluroanthene 3.62E-08266 eagle 0.011i174771atlO0 Chrvsene 5.73E-08149 eagIs 0.014927511stiC IFluoranthene 2.24E-07 6.8 eagle 0 StliO IFluorene . 0.00E+001 69.93 eagle 0.17524811stlO Naphthalene 9.86E-061 17.77 eagle 0.02511581 Istl 0 Phenanthrene 1.o8E-o6F 23.33 ea ole 0.005830081stlO Prene 9.99E-081 58.33 grebe 0 atlO BgenZ a anthracene 0.00E+001 194.94 grebe I0.62420073tstiD I Benz~aan~thracene 3.205-061 194.941 PNL F.22 My6195 Final Sitewcde Biological R1tAWItwuExposures and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of PANs Ejelson Air Force Base Receptor dosi Receptor (uglkg) j Area ID Chemica IDH94 LOEL 1qkq zt9 - 0.173637881stiG _Benzo(a)pyrene j 1. 61 E-06j 107.92 greb -1.420016941stl 0 Benzo(b)fluoranthene - -6.26E-06 I 226.69 grebe 0.521491 47 st0 BennzaklflItroAnthene 2.30E-061 226.69. grebe 1.07837502 st0 Crse 5.3E-O 949 grebe 1.08415332js10 Fuoranthene, 1.63E-Oj6.7 grbe0tO Fluorene __ 0.E+00 99 grebe2 0.67685548 sti ahhln .1-s 77 grebe 0.62768st0 Phenanthrene 2.5-5I 23.331 rebe 0.8913026 stia en 1.3-os 58.331 rouse ~~0.31296 tl Bnz atacene 1.61 E-06 149 rouse ~~0.31296 st Benz a nhacene 1.61 E-061944 rouse 0.580846 st 0 enzobfurnhn .6-6266 rouse - 0 atlO BSenzo(k)tluroanthene 0.002+00266 rouse 0.08457942 stia Chysn 4.34E-07149 rue 1.46021281 StlO0 Fuoranthen 2.19E-051 66.67 rouse 0.161~98241 a~tlO Fluorene 2.32E-06j 69.93 ;rouse 1.057~33775 stlO Nahtalene 5A520 17.77Y- grouse 0.8118891st10 Phenanthren .1-52.3 grouse0.61355876 stia Pyre~ne .1.05E-05J 58.3 hare 0.2398328 stlO _ enzqKajanthracene .3-6149 hare 0.39823sti Bnzaatrcn123-6944 hare 0 stlO Benzo(a)pyrene 00+00179 hare 0.00108 stia0 Benzo(b)fluoranthene2.306269 hare 0 stlo Benzo(k)f luroanthene 0.0+0026 hare 0.168601 aStl Ch0rysene 5.99E-07149 hare 1.273~~95975T1stC uoranthene I. 91 E-05 66.67 1hare I0. 223 804 97 e tO Fluorene 3.20EW-06j 69.93 hare 098912 stlO oahhlne 5.28E-05j 17.77 hare 0.3621 stPenanthrene I 3.57E-05L _23.33 hare ~~~0.5655360s1 Prn 9.69-06 ~ 58.33 owl 0.5334514 tl Beza anthracnA 2.4-6 1~94.94 owl 0.1973729 stlO ezaatrcn 1.012E-06149 owl 0.05444771alsez ~prn .0521 179 awl 0.89270427 stia Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3920! 266 owl 0.27223856 st IO Benzo~kfluroanthene 10-026.9 owlI 0.370,925041stia IChrn .9020 194.94 owl 0.48655-8371stlO0 Fluoranthene 7.0-666.67 owl 0lstio Fluorene 0.002±001 69.93 owl 4.919691071stlO0 Naphth~alene 2.77E-04j 17.77 owl 0.2953sti Phenanthrene 3.98E-051 23.33 lowl 0.098686481stlO0 PYreno 1.69E-061 58.33 [shrewI 8.906403151stlC Benz(a)anthracene 4.57E-OSI' 194.94 PNL F.23 May 26 17995 Final 5itewde Biological RitaWssuJTuxposurs and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of PAils Eielson Air Force Base q-ec3;tor fALg/iL) Area D Chemical IDLOEL______k shrew 8.9064031 5 stiC Benz(a)anthracene 4.571-~ 1 4.9 shrew 2.4775507 stl10 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.30E-05 107.92 shrew 20.377522 st1 0 Benza~hbffluoranthene 8.99E-05 226.69 shrew 7.44089687 stl 0 Benzo(k)fluroanthene 3.28E-05 226.69 shrew 15.4393776 stl0 Chryserne 7.92E-05 194.94 shrew 15.7624745 stil0 Fluoranthene 2.36E-04 66.67 shrew O.1I0072208 stl1O Fluorene 14E.06j 69.93 shrew 9.88337547 stlO0 Naphthalene E.6-041 17.77 shrew . 9.74038836 st 10 lPhenanthrene 4.7-04 23.33 shrew , 1 2.8657584 stl 0 Pyrene 21E-04 58.33 voles . ~ .0.22489081stlO0 Benz~aanthracene .E.5-06 194.94 vales . 0.2248908IatlO0 Benz(a)anthracene 1.15E5-08 19~4.94 voles 0.06255931stiC Bez0 yrn .0-071 107.92 *voles I 1.3641 25851st1 0 Bez~~loatene 6.2-061 226.69 voles .0.187886091st1 0 Benzo(k~f luroanthene 82E0{ 266 voles 0. 774 96505 st lO Chrysene 3950] 149 voles 2.5 4 5309 9 9sstlO Fluoranthene 3820 66 * ~~voles 0.74009423 st 10 Fluorene 1.6-05 69.93 voles. 1.90204736 stl O INaphthalene 1.072-04 17.77 voles 2.16451538 stl O IPhenanthreneI 9.28E-05 23.33 voles 1.41018657 stlO _FyreneI 2.42E-05 58.33 beaver 0.00685141st20 Acenaphthene 9.06E-08 75.61 beaver 0.203832291st2O Benz(a)anthracene 1.05E-6149 beaver 0.00201549 st2 BEnz~apyen 1.87E-8 107.92 beaver 0.31446897 1s20 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.39E-0 228.6 beaver I0.003473231st2O Benzo(k)fluroanthene 1.53E-08266 beaver I0.006889421t220 Chiysene 3.53E-ol 149 beaver . 0.790168941st2O IFluoranthene 1.19E-06.7 beaver ., 0.007250691st2O IFluorene 1.04E-7693 beaver ~... 0.554867221st2O INaphthalene 3.12E-05 17.77 beaver 0.32930421st2O Phenanthrene 1.415E-05 23.33 beaver 0.30151031 jst2O IPyrene I 5.17E-06 58.33 bufflehead Ost2O0 Acenaphthene 0.005+00 75.61 bufflehead 0.13 7785631st2O lBenz(a)anthracene 7.07E-07) 194.94 bufflehead 0 st20 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.00E+001 -107.92 bufflehead 0.5754559451s20 Benzo(b)f luoranthene 2.54E-06 226.691 bufflehead 0 st2O Benzo(k)f luroanthene C.OE+00 226.69 * bufflehead I_0.079686021st20 Chrysene j 4.092-07 149 buff lehead I 0.21962455 1s20 Fluoranthene I 3.29E-061 86 bufflehead Olst2O Fluorene 0.002+001 69.9 bufflehead 1.38359736]s-t2O Naphthalene . 7.79E-05 77 bufflehead I0.637402061st2O Phenanthirene 2.73E-051 23.3 [bufflehead I0.1 90144171st20 Pyrene 3.26E-a~ 83 PNL F.2* May 26, 1995 Final Sitewride Biological R42MMk ~posures and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of PA~s Eielson Air Force Base Receptar et 1ke 0 Area ID Chemical ID) 54H LOEL (Li qaklk ERy93t~ j 3.7622-O5ist2o Acenaphthene . .8-075.61 gpyp....j 0.005178 st2O Dezaatrcn .6-8194.94 coyote Ef 0.002068 stO Benza(a)pyrene 1.2-9107.92 coot 0.00850404 st2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3.5-8226.69 ep 0001313 st2 Benzo(k)fluroanthene 9.40E-10 226.69 2!...... 0.00028653 a st2 Chee1.47E-09 194.94 coy a.020179st 0 ~ Fluoranthene 3.03E-07 66.67 ayq 4.8705-0 stO Fluorene 6.96E-10 69.93 o e ~0.1stO Naphthalene 5.63E-0 17.77 22Ye 0.008168 stO Phenanthrene 3.50E-07 23.33 o 0.0179 stO Prn 8.87E-08583 eale1145-05 st2 Acnpte1.51 E-10 75.61 ea le ~~0.02676875 st2 Beanza~anthr--e 1.37E-071 194.94 !~2Xrn...... 0.0001327 st2 Eennzolaprne 1.8-107.92 ea e J 0.00060933 st2 Benzo(b)fluoranthen 2.69E-091 226.89 eagle .j0.00 3231 Ist2Ou Benakfuroanthone 1.3-9226.69 ~~~~ 0.00053698 st2O Crsn 2.75E-09 194.94 ~~~ ~~0.08765654 st2O Fuoranten 10 -06 66.87 eagl 2i.6658E-05 st2O Fuorene 38E-10 I69.93 eale0.01595215 st2O Iahhjn 8. -07 17.77 eale0.002142291st2O Penanthee 9.8-08 23.33 eale0.003441 stO Prne 5.08-s 58.33 0 st2O Acenaphthene 0.0+00 75.61 grebe u0s2O Bnzaanhacn 0.00E+00 194.94 grebe~ ~ ~ 0StO Bnoapre000+00 107.92 grebe0127333st2 Benzo/b~fluoranthene 5.3-0 226.69 grebe S~~s2Bezkflratene ~ 0.0+00 226.69 grobe 0 st2O Chy e 0.0+00 194.94 grobe 0 st2O FloDtee0050 66 grebe 0 st2O IFluorene 0.0+00 99 grobe I0.477758971st2O Nphaiee2620 77 grebe 0.1i91 04501 jst2O Phnanthrene 8.9-6 23.3 grobe 01st2O Pyne00+0583 lrouse I0. 120730791st2O Acnahthene 1650 56 grouse 0.374897161st2'O Bnz aanthracene 1.92E-06149 grouse 0.374897161st2O En aatracene 1.92E-06149 rouse I0.035515621st2O S~enzo(a)pyrene 3.29E-071.9 grause ~~~0.588833341st2O Benzo(b)fiuorantheno~ 2.6602-6i266 grouse ~0.061203031st2O Benz kfluroanthene 27-07 266 grouse ~0. 12140089 st2O Ohsn 6.23E-07 194.9 grouse 1.0501 31Flouoranthene 2250 66 grouse J0.1776691st29 Florene 1850 99 rouse j 21Q05465451st2j Na htalene 5.4-517.77 PNL F.25 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological RI**SkStWtExposuIm and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of pAils Eielson Air Force Base Receptor dos~ Receptor i (u gkg AraI heia D 1EHOILEL 1 rouse J0~.805369 tO Phenanthrene -. -0?-2.3 4 har 0.1668017st2 Acena hthenae.1-6 56 hare ~~0.325323 tO Bezaanthracene1.7-e 944 har 0.0400stO Bnoarn4.5-7 1.9 hre 0.1001 tO Ben~zo b fluoranthene 2.8-6 226.69 hare 0.16773503 st2O Oh ~~~ene 8.0-07 194.94 hre 1.33598052 sitgo FLuoranthene 2.0-05 66.67 hare 0.1765307 st~2O Fluorene 2.2-0693 hare 0.934~~635 st2O Nahhaene 5.6-05 17.77 har 08329s2O henanthrane 3.9-05 23.33 owl 0.0157s2 cenahhn 80-0756 owl 0.2127s2 enz~nhaena 1.9-0 14.9 owl 0.1442s2 enzoaprene 16-6 10.2 o0.0544471st2O Benzobfluoranthene 2.42-0 22i6.69 owl 0.35486 tO hrsn1.21-0 194.94 ______.38467s2 Fluoranthene 2020 66 Ow ~~0.031073st2 Nahthaenae.6-0 77 owl00313 st2 Phenanthrene 3520 33 srew 013256stO chesap'hnee.9-7 149 shrew 03446 f0Surnhn .2-6 66 shrew 0.08392t2506en .1-0 99 shrew7.9025s2Nahhln399-41.7 shrew 3.U16961127 Is120 Phnnhrn .362-0233 shrew 0.196693f0n .9272-06 58.33 voles 01.26882 st2O FlAcena thn1.672E-0758 voles 0.090853s2O BNzanhrce 1.45-07 194.9 voles 0.372391668 stO Benoarn 3.427-06 179 voles 1.0796357stO Snz b loatene 4.-06 266 vales 0.641777 tO Benzo k fluroanthena 2.83E-061 226.891 voles 1.27291523 st2O Oh ane6.53E-06 voles 1l94.941 K ~~2.89831204 t2 Furatene 4.35E-05 86.8~7 voles ~~1.339664231s loee 1.2-05 69.93 PNL P.6May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Rj9Ya ks";ntExPostm and LOEL EHQs for Ingestion of PAils Eielson Air Force Base Receptor do Rec tar 1gqka Am Chemical ID EW) ILOEL4kj voles 2192834 st2 Nahhln1.3-4177 v ole s 1 4 0 5 0 t Or n . 0 - 5 8 3 PNL F.27 May 26-,1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base PNL F.WMy 26,1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Exelson Air Force Base - 9- k~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------9 - 9 99 M NN Cr41 aCM n 0 * C7t h rwj. ~ dn C ~ o A+ . - r . # 4 4 . 10 CO~~ e .. C S S -~~~~~~~ WWWWWW ,,Wcc N 11 r * M SBSS~~SrSMp1 * , , 0 9 * t W Cqw~a~wneLZ 'iZ U IA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t 11 I1-; j S - ~ ~ Z wu u Z z g~~wgwww au uJwZ ~~~~~~~~~~ Ia U* 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W z~wwwjlj~jMWL~ Wz 2 0 z< wO;.C zC ., flt - w0 W= -<<%52Z IF CN~N Cr I ~U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0= E S liii liii Ill ir~ - it M N~ 2NMN 4 z ~~~z z - 1M Z z .3 - Ia Ia~~~; Ia 5Mww z U z~~ ~inZ C 15~ Ia0 o 2 r...W.JZIMM -. MwZ 1 *c C~~~~~~~~ Ia~~~~J I p~~arp~~~ ~~C. 60 PNL F.29WjMIa 26 1990 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base PNL F0Ma26195 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base APPENDIX G - RESULTS OF PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT AT DP44, SS35, AND GARRISON SLOUGH - LOWER Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Goshawk.DDT.SS30.SYLK...... G.3 Goshawk.PCB.SS30.SYLK ...... G.9 Shrike.S530.DDT.SYLK ...... G. 15 Shrike.SS30.PCB.SYLK...... G. 19 Goshawk.SS35.DDT.SYLKI...... G.c23 Goshawk.S535.PCB.SYLK...... G.27 Goshawk.DP44.DDT.SYLK ...... G.31 Goshawk.DP44.PCB.SYLK ...... G.35 PNL GI2 May 26, 1995 Final Sitew~de Biological Risk Assessment Eieison Air Force Base Goshawk,.DDT,.SS30.SYLK Crystal Balh(D Simulation Started on Man, May 22. 1995 at 4:13:04 PM Stopped on Man, May 22. 1995 at 4:15:23 PM Forecast: goshawk Cell: 8 17 Summary: Certainty Level is 100.00% based an Entire Range Certainty Range is from - to - gg/kg bw Display Range is from 10.00 to 130.00 jig/kg bw Entire Range is from 6.01 to 224.85 jig/kg bw After 6,000 Trials, the Std. Error of the Mean is 0.32 Statistics: Disolay.Rance EntiraeRance Trials 5,933 6,000 Percent of Other 98.88 101.1 3 Mean 47.78 48.79 Median 43.27 (unavailable) mode 37.40 (unavailable) Standard Deviation 22.05 24.48 Variance 486.41 599.34 Skewness 1 .04 (unavailable~ Kurtosis 3.96 (unavailable) Coeff. of Variability 46.18 50.17 Range Width 120.00 218.83 Range Minimum 10.00 6.01 Range Maximum 130.00 224.85 Mean Std. Error 0.29 .0.32 Forecast: goshawk Cell 817 Frequency Distribution 5,933 Trials .03, 16.9 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .0of 42 .00 -... '0 1 0.00 40.00 70.00 100.00 130.00 K up/k~~~~~~~~~ggfbw PNL G.3 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessmentc Ejedson Air Force Base Forecast: goshawk (Cont'd)Cel 17 Percentiles for Entire Range (pg/kg bw): Percentile aoshawk 0% 6.01 10% 23.83 290% 29.38 30% 34.05 40% 38.51 50% 43.51 60% 48.82 70% 55.50 80% 65.08 90% 80.74 100% 224.85 End of Forecast PNL GAMa 195 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Hielson Air Force Base Forecast: Cell: E27 Summary: Certainty Level is 100.00% based on Entire Range Certainty Range is from --c to- Display Range 'is from 0.00 to 600.00 Entire Range is from 28.91 to 1,354.87 After 5,999 Trials, the Std. Error of the Mean is 1.65 Statistics: Display Range Enftire ange Trials 5,86 7 5,999 Percent ot Other 97.80 1 02.25 Mean 239.41 249.66 Median 218.00 (unavailable) Mode 175.00 (unavailable) Standard Deviation i 07.85 127.97 Variance 11,632.37 1 6,375.89 Skewness o.ae (unavailable) Kurtosis 3.41 (unavailable) Coeff. of Variability 45.05 51.26 Range Width 600.00 1,325.96 Range Minimum o.oo 28.91 Range Maximum 600.00 1,354.87 Mean Std. Error 1.41 1.65 Forecast: Cell E27 Frequency Distribution 5,867 Trials .03' 1 77 =,.02 '13 3 ~.0 2 88 .00 P 0.00 150.00 300.00 450.00 600.00 PNL G.5 May 26. 1995 Final Sitewvide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Forecast: (Cont'd) Cell: E27 Percentiles for Entire Range: Percentile 0% 28.91 10% 11 9.74 20% 147.39 30% 172.66 40% 1 95.54 50% 220.82 60% 250.75 70% 284.36 80% 333.97 90% 415.96 .100% 1,354.87 End of Forecast - PNL bMay 26. 1-995 Finial Sitewde Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base AawMQlnas Cell: 0 9 Assumption: BW Lognormal distribution with parameters: Mean 0.95 Standard Dev. 00 Selected range is from 0.00 to - Mean value in simulation was 0.95 Cell: F 9 Assumption: Birds Uniform distribution with parameters:Bid Minimum 50.00 Maximum I100.00 Selected range is from 50.00 to 100.00 Mean value in simulation was 74.85 50.00 IRSO0 75.00 17.50 10.00 Cell: Fli Assumption: Voles Uniform distribution with parameters:Voe Minimum 0.00 Maximum 15.00 a Selected range is from 0.00 to 15.00. Mean value in simulation was 7.46 0.09 3.iE 7.50 11.25 15.00 Cell: j 9 Assumption: Birds Lognormal distribution with parameters: Birds Mean . 1,1 58.00. Standard Dev. 1,158.00 Selected range is from 0.00 to - Mean value in simulation was 1,141.57 1 57.37 3.5386.*6 .0.* ,9 .5 9.952.1 May 26. 1995 PNL ~~~~~~~~~~G.7 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Eidlson Air Force Base Assumption: VolesCelJl Lognormal distribution with parameters: voles Mean 205.20 Standard Dev. 102.60 Selected range is from 0.00 too Mean value in simulation was 205.27 ~ 222.65 400.I2578.ga 7 tS Assumption: intake param. Cell: sI I Normal distribution with parameters: [ma.e psmm. Mean 0.72 Standard 0ev. 0.09 r Selected Aa range is from - to- Mean value in simulation was 0.72 0.45 o.5* 0.72 o.g4 Qp.9 Assumption: HR param. Cell: 8 12 Normal distribution with parameters: IHRpa,. Mean 1.39 Standard Dev. 0.14 Selected range is from - to- Mean value in simulation was 1.39 Assumption: Squirrels Cell: Ji O Lognormal distribution wit h parameters:SaIa Mean 3.49 Standard 0ev: 1.75 Selected range is from 0.00 to- Mean value in simulation was 3.450 t 0.7* 3.80 5.8 Ba 1u.2 End of Assumptions PNL G.8 May 26, 197 Finai Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Eietson Air Force Base. GO~fhGWk.PCB.S3-S~YLK Crystal Bail®( Simulation Started on Mon, May 22. 1995 at,4:17:34 PM Stcpped on Mon, May 22, 1995 at 4:19:28 PM Forecast: goshawk Cell: 5 17 Summary: Certainty Level is 100.00% based on Entire Range Certainty Range is from -a to - gg/kg pCS Display Range is from 0.00 to 4,000.00 igg/kg PCB Entire Range is from 25.20 to 34,144.36 gg/kg PCB After 5.000 Trials, the Std. Error of the Mean is 14.95 Statistics:ayRneEtrRnc Trials ~~~~4,92 8 Percent of 5,000 Other 98.56 101.46 Mean 845.49 921.67 Median 629.57 (unavailable) Mode 433.33 (unavailable) Standard Deviation 710.25 11057.1 Variance 5 504,462.13 1,1 17,5 68.9 4 Skewness 1.72 (unavailable) Kurtosis 6.1 5 (unavailable) Coeff. of Variability 84.01 11 4.70 Range Width 4,000.00 34,11 9.1 6 Range Minimum 0.00 Range 25.20 Maximum 4,000.00 34,144.36 Mean Std. Error 1 0.1 2 14.95 Forecast: goshawk Cell 817 Frequency Distribution 4,928 Trials .04 2 19 : 03~ 16 4 -n, CD 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a..0 ~51 Cc .00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 0.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 4,000.00 ggck PCB PNL GS.9 M~ay 26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Forecast: gcshawk (Cont'd) Cell: 8 17 Percentiles for Entire Range (gg/kg PCB): Percenil ooshawk 0% 25.20 10% 199.64 20% 302.24 30% 404.58 40% 513.02 50% 641.04 60% 794.31 70% 1,004.06 80% 1,308.22 90% 1,925.76 100% 34,144.36 End of Forecast PNL G.A0 May 2,1-995 Final Sitewcde Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Forecast: Cell: E27 Summary: Display Range is from 0.00 to 22.500.00 Entire Range is from 108.29 to 211,403.94 After 5.000 Trials, the Std. Error of the Mean is 82.72 Statistics: Display.Range Entire Rance Trials 4,937 5,000 Percent of Other 98.74 101.28 Mean 4,396.98 4,781.34 Median 3,225.00 (unavailable) Mode 1,01 2.50 (unavailable) Standard Deviation 3,824.1 8 5,849.07 Variance 14,624.318.72 34,211,603.10 Skewness 1 .83 (unavailable). Kurtosis 6.69 (unavailable) Coeff. of Variability 86.97 1 22.33 Range Width 22,500.00 211,295.65 Range Minimum 0.00 108.29 Range Maximum 22,500.00 211,403.94 Mean Std. Error 54.43 82.72 Forecast: Cell E27 Frequency Distribution 4,937 Trials .05 237 ,.04 1 78 . 02 '11 8 .0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CD .01' 5 9 .00-0 0.00 5,625.00 11,250.00 16,875.00 22,500.00 Percentiles for Entire Range: Percentle 0% 108.29 10% 11005.1 5 20% 1,503.96 30% 2,028.87 40% 2,612.95 50% 3,279.16 PNL Gil1 May 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Forecast: (Cont'd) Cell: 227 60% 4,084.57 70% 5,144.89 80% 6,744.71 90% 9,95S9.24 100% 21 1 403.94 End of Forecast PNL G.12 May 26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Asmsessmen Eielson Air Force Base Anfu~lgls Assumption: a w Cell: DS Lognormal distribution with Parameters: SW Mean 0.95 Standard Dev. 0.09 Selected range is from 0.00 to c Mean value in simulation was 0.95 Assumption: Birds Cell: F 9 Uniform distribution with parameters: Minimum500 Bird. Maximum 100.00'O Selected range is from 50.00 to 100.00a Mean value in simulation was 74.95 *0.00 62.50 75.00 *7.Sc 100.00 Assumption: BirdsCaf 9 Lognormal distribution with parameters:Bid Mean18020 Standard Dev 1,520 Selected range is from 0.00 to- Mean value in simulation was 17,972.17- *.080.24 S*.573.4j 78*05*" I 5*5.'.142.164t. Assumption: #4 Cell: C12 Normal distribution with parameters: # Mean 0.72 Standard Dev. 0.0 Selected range is from-~to Mean value in simulation was 0.72 PNL GJ.3 May 26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment EieLson Air Force Base Assumption: b Cell: Cli Normal distribution with parameters: Mean 1.39 Standard Dev. 0.1 4 Selected range is from -oc to Co Mean value in simulation was 1.39 End o1 Assumptions PNL G.14 ---- May 26, 1995 Final Sirewvide Biological Risk Assessmrenit Eielson Air Force Base Sh rike SS30ciT.SYLtK Crystal Bali®D Simulation Started on Man, May 22, 1995 at 4:20:17 PM Stopped an Man, May 22, 1995 at 4:21 :43 PM Forecast: shrike Cell: 817 Summary: Certainty Level is 100.00% based an Entire Range Certainty Range is from -~ to w gg DDT/kg bw Display Range is tram 0.00 to 1,000.00 jig DDT/kg bw Entire Range is tram 22.78 to 3,754.65 jig DDT/kg bw After 5,000 Trials, the Sid. Error ot the Mean is 3.73 Statistics: ailawZ~ Trials 4,892 Percent of 5,000 Other 97.84 1 02.21 Mean 261.1 3 287.50 Median 205.22 (unavailable) Made 1 65.00 (unavailable) Standard Deviation 180.32 263.71 Variance 32,517.04 69,545.49 Skewness 1 .55 (unavailable) Kurtosis 5.34 (unavailable) Coeff. of Variability 69.06 91.73 Range Minimum 0.00 22.78 Range Maximum 1,000.00 3,754.65 Mean Std. Error 2.58 3.73 Forecast: shrike Cel B17 Frequency Distribution 4,892 Trials .04, 197 t02 98 .01- 4 9 0.00 250.00 500.00 750.00 1,000.00 K~~IUp DOT/kg bw PNL G.15 May 26, I995 Final Sizewide Biological Risk Assessmentc Eielson Air Force Base Forecast: shrike (Cont'd) Cell: 8 17 Percentiles for Entire Range (gg DDT/kg bw): 0% 22.78 10% 93.99 20% 122.50 40% 149.24 40% ~~~~~~178.10 50% 209.31 60% 251.89 70% 306.01 80% 389.45 90% 560.59 100% 3,754.65 End of Forecast PNL G. 1 May 26, 1995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base A ssaLm a t lay, S Assumption: home range Cell: i15 Normal distribution with parameters: hm Mean 1.39 Standard Dev. 0.1 7 Selected range is from-.~~to Mean value in simulation was 1.39 Assumption: intake Cell: JO6 Normal distribution with parameters: in Mean 07 Standard Dev. 00 Selected range is from - to 8 Mean value in simulation was 0.72 0.45 0.58 0.7 0.85 0.89 Assumption: Birds Cell: F 9 Uniform distribution with parameters:Bid Minimum 251.0 0 Maximum 5.0 Selected range is from 25.00 to 55.00 a0 Mean value in simulation was 39.88 25.00 32.50 40.00 47.50 581.00 Assumption: S W Cell: 09 Lognormal distribution with parameters: O Mean 0.07 Standard Dev. 00 Selected range is from 0.00 to Mean value in simulation was 0.07 PNL GYMay 26, 1995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Basp Assumption: Birds Cell: j9 Lognormal distribution with parameters: Birds Mean I 1,58.~000 Standard Dev. 1,580 Selected range is tram 0.00 to Mean value in simulation was 1,145.63 6737 2.538.56 5,000.74 7'480.93 9,952.!I Assumption: invertebrates Cell: J io Lognormal distribution with parameters: nrbae Mean 9.38 Standard Dev.491 Selected range is from 0.00 to-0 Mean value in simulation was 99.11 21.33 106.75152.17 277.31 363.00 Assumption: Voles Cell: Jil Lognormal distribution with parameters:Vo. Mean 205.20 Standard Dev. 102.60 Selected range is from 0.00 to Mean V~i~ue in simulation was 207.19 '4.45 Z.4406 573.86 757.15 End of Assumptions PNL GSMay26, 1-995 Final Sirewde Biological Risk Assessment Ed=so Air Force Base s h rike. SS 30.PCS.S YL K Crystal Bail®&Simulation Started on Mon, May 22, 1995 at 4:22:20 FM Stopped on Mon, May 22, 1995 at 4:23:47 PM Forecast: shrike Cell: 8 17 Summary: Certainty Level is 100.00% based on Entire Range Certainty Range is from -O-to - lg PCB/kg bw Display Range is from 0.00 to 17,500.00 ug PCB/kg bw Entire Range is from 141.05 to 73.169.13 gug PCS/kg bw After 5,000 Trials, the Std. Error of the Mean is 61.96 Statistics: QW -W Trials ~~~~4,922 5,000 Percent of Other 98.44 Mean 101.58 3,429.67 3,797.21 Median 2,522.92 (unavailable) Mode 1,312.50 (unavailable) Standard Deviation 2,946.58 Variance 4,381.53 8,682,320.30 19,1 97,841.89 Skewness 1.82 (unavailable) Kurtosis 6.74 (unavailable) Cacff, of Variability 85.91 Range 115.39 Width 17,500.00 73,028.08 Range Minimum 0.00 141.05 Range Maximum 17,500.00 73,169.13 Mean Std. Error 42.00 61.96 Forecast: shrike Ceil 817 Frequency Distribution 4,922. Trials .05 231 ,.04 173 *~.02- CD 11 6 CD L.01 = 00 0 0.00 4,375.00 8,750.00 13,125.00 17,500.00 ugPCB/kc bw PNL G.19 May 26. 1995 Final Sitewvide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Forecast: shrike (Ccnt'd) Cell: 817 Percentiles for Entire Range (pg PCB/kg bw): 0% 141.05 10% 813~.38 20% 1,21 2.44 30% 1,6 1 S.3 3 .40% 2,058.96 50% 2,560.87 60% 3,1 78.36 70% 4,0 24. 11 80% 5,312.1 4 90% 7,822.53 100% 73,169.13 End of Forecast PNL GI0 May 26. 1995' Final Sitewde Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Alniunflhas Assumption: Birds Cell: J 9 Lognormal distribution with parameters: 2ird Mean 18,052.00 Standard Dev. 18,052.00 Selected range is tram 0.00 to0 - II.U715.4.2 Mean value in simulation was 18,234.97 Assumption: Invertebrates Cell: J 1O Lognarmal distribution with parameters: nttrw Mean 323.00 Standard Dev. 161.50 Selected range is from 0.00 to - Mean value in simulation was 323.67 70.03 350.47630.52 11 1.35 1.191.60 Assumptlon: home range Cell: K 6 Normal distribution with parameters:ton . Mean 13 Standard Dev. 0. 17 Selected range is from - to Mean value in simulation was 1.39 Assumption: intake Call: K 7 Normal distribution with parameters: intake______Mean 0.72 Standard Dev. 0.09 Selected range is from-~to- Mean value in simulation was 0.72 0.4 059 042 0.6 .9 PNL G11 May 26, 1995 Finial Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejels5on Air Force Base Assumption: Birds Cell: Fp9 Uniform distribution with parameters: Birds Minimum 25.00 Maximum 55.00 Selected range is from 25.00 to 55.00 - - Mean value in simulation was 40.16250 350 0.0 4Q 5.0 Assumption: B W Cell: DS9 Lognormal distribution with parameters: Mean 0.07 Standard Dev. 0.01 Selected range is from 0.00 to - Mean value in simulation was 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.05 End of Assumptions PNL G.22 May 26, 1;95 Final Sitewcde Biologi cal Risk Assesment Eielson Air Force Base gohwk.S835. DOT SYLK Crystal Bail® Simulation Stat-ted on Mon, May 22, 1995 at 4:24:55 PM Stopped on Man, May 22, 1995 at 4:26:18 PM recast: goshawk Cell: 81I7 Summary: Certainty Level is 100.00% based on Entire Range Certainty Range is from -- to = gg DOT/kg bw Display Range is from 0.00 to 800.00 jag DDT/kg bw Entire Range is from 7.32 to 2,751.23 jag DDT/kg bw After 5,000 Trials, the Std. Error of the Mean is 3.00 Statistics: ignfla haa Trials 4,903 5,000 Percent of Other 98.o6 101.98 Mean 176.33 1 96.41 Median 130.35 (unavailable) Mode 68.00 (unavailable) Standard Deviation i44 4 212.48 Variance 20,864.27 45,149.34 Skewness 1.53 (unavailable) Kurtosis 5.73 (unavailable) k Coeff. of Variability 81.92 108.18 Range Width 800.00 2,743,91 Range Minimum 0.00 7.32 Range Maximum 800.00 2,751.23 Mean Std. Error 2.06 3.00 Forecast: goshawk Cell 817 Frequency Distribution 4,903 Trials .04 218 .03 ~~~~~~~~~~~~164 n .0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CD .02 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~109 .00 I 0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 LQ DDT/kg bw L G.23 May 26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk AssessmenE Eielson Air Force Base Forecast: goshawk (Cont'd) Cell: 6 17 Percentiles for Entire Range (pg DOT/kg bw): 0% 7.32 10% 45.47 20% 66.18 30% 86.22 40% 1 07.93 50% 132.76 60% 163.78 70% 212.78 80% 280.40 90% 410.90 100% 2,751.23 End of Forecast PNL G-24 May 26.1q95 7nlSitewide Biological Risk Assessment ,eison Air Force Base AssumntLons ssumption: B W Cell: DS9 Lognormal distribution with parameters: BW Mean 0.95 Standard Dev. oc0s Selected range is from 0.00 to Mean value in simulation was 0.95 0.70 0.4 0.30 1.23 1.28 ;sumptlon: Birds Cell: FS9 Uniform distribution with parameters: Birds Minimum so.oo Maximum i 00.00 Selected range is from 50.00 to 100.00 0 Mean value in simulation was 74.97 g0.0 62.50 75.0 57.50 100.00 sumptlon: home range Cell: KS6 Normal distribution with parameters: hamI *ak Mean 1.39 Standard Dev. 0.17 Selected range is from - to -. Mean value in simulation was 1.39 sumptfon: intake Cell: K 7 Normal distribution with parameters: mIntke Mean .0.72 Standard Dev. 0.09 Selected range is from -~ to- Mean value in simulation was 0.72 0.45 0.56 0.72 .8 0.'* ,25 ~~~~~~~~~~~May26. 1995 Final Skewide Biological Risk AssessmenL Eielson Air Force Base Assumption: Birds Cell: j 9 Lognormal distribution with parameters: ro Mean 5,336.00 Standard Dev. 5,336.00. Selected range is from 0.00 to - Mean value in simulation was 5,363.79 310.44 I 3,971.5* 23.014.8i 344.71.69 4s.8s*7' Assumption: Squirrels Cell: .Jio Lognormal distribution with parameters: Scurrois Mean .28.33 Standard Dev. 14.16 Selected range is from 0.00 to - Mean value in simulation was 28.34 6.35 30.73 55.3* 79.01 104.40 End ot Assumptions PNL G.26 May 26. 1995 Final Sirewide Biological Risk Assessment Ejelson Air Force Base gashawik.SS35.PCB.SyLK Crystal Ball® Simulation Starned on Mon, May 22), 199-5 at 41:36:22 ?M Stopped on Mon. May 22, 1995 at 4:37:46 PM orecast: goshawkCel 17 Summary: Certainty Level is 100.00% based on Entire Range Certainty Range is tram --c to gg PCB/kg bw Display Range is from 0.00 to 2,250.00 gg PCB/kg bw Entire Range is from 15.23 to 13,534.37 gg P02/kg bw After 5,000 Trials, the Std. Error of the Mean is 8.25 Statistics: 21l Trials ~~~~4,91 5 Percent of Other 5,000 98.30 101.73 Mean 487.12 Median 534.84 353.70 (unavailable) Mods 176.25 Standard (unavailable) Deviation 413.11 ~§83.64 Variance 170,861.40 Skewness 340,637.15 1.69 (unavailable). Kurtosis 5.90 (unavailable) Coeff. of Variability 84.81 109.13 Range Width 2,250.00 13,519.14 Range Minimum 0.00 Range Maximum 15.23 2,250.00 13,534.37 Mean Std. Error 5.89 8.25 Forecast: goshawk Cel 617 Frequency Distribution - 4,915 .05 Trials 234 .0O4 176 .02 C 117 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CD. 13L.0I II I 1111 -. gesm ------CC~~~111114. .00 0 0.00 562.50 1,125.00 1,687.50 2,250.00 K. P08~~~~uaC/kgbw GC7 Ma2y 26, 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Forecast: goshawk (Cant'd) Cell: B 17 Percentiles for Entire Range (jag PCB/kg bw): Percentlel aoshawk 0% 15.23 10% 11 9.90 20% 175.20 30% 227.21 40% 286.34 50% 362.09 60% 451.26 70% 568.87 80% 769.22 90% 1,131.42 100% 13,534.37 :nd of Forecast 'NL G.8May26, 1995 Final Sirewide Biologicali Risk Assessment Eiel5on Air Force Base AaatIunas Assumption: a w Cell: D9 Lognormal distribution with parameters: B Mean 0.95 Standard Dev. 0.09 r Selected range is from 0.00 to c Mean value in simulation was 0.95 Assumption: Bird s . Cell: F 9 Uniform distribution with parameters:Bid Minimum 00 Maximum 100.00 Selected range is from 50.00 to 100.00 Mean value in simulation was 75.03 Assumption: Birds Cell: J 9 Lognormal distribution with parameters:Bid Mean 14,915.00 Standard Dev. 14,915.00 Selected range is from 0.00 to- Mean value in simulation was 14,775.16 ssumptlon: home range Cell: J 6 Normal distribution with parameters:ha Mean 1.39 Standard Dev. 0.17 Selected range is from -o to c Mean value in simulation was 1.39 L ~~~~~~~~~~~G.29 Ma~y26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Bielson Air Force Base Assumption: intake Cell: J 7 Normal distribution with parameters: ik Mean 0.72 Standard Dev. 0.09 Selected range is from *. to- Mean value in simulation was 0.72 nd of Assumptions 04 .0 07 .4 09 'NL GJO May ~26,1995 Final Sicewide Biological Risk Assessmrent Eielson Air Force Base Crystal Ball® Simulation Started on Mon, May 22, 1995 at 4:43:08 PM Stopped on Mon, May 22. 1995 at 4:44:27 PM orecast: goshawk Cell: 8 17 Summary: Certainty Level is 100.00% based on Entire Range Certainty Range is from - to w g DDTs/kg bw Display Range is trom 0.00 to 400.00 jig DDTS/kg bw Entire Range is from 1.63 to 1,627.67 gg DDTs/kg bw After 5,000 Trials, the Std. Error of the Mean is 1.49 Statistics: 2&B- Trials 4.889 5,000 Percent of Other 97.78 Mean 102.27 90.07 100.73 Median 66.89 Mode (unavailable) 36.67 (unavailable) Standard Deviation 73.08 Variance 105.44 5,338.28 11,117.47 Skewness 1.56 Kurtosis (unavailable) 5.38 (unavailable) Coeff. of Variability 81.12 Range Width 104.67 400.00' 1,626.05 Range Minimum 0.00 Range Maximum 1.63 400.00 1,627.67 Mean Std. Error 1.04 1.49 Forecast: goshawk Cell 817 Frequency Distribution 4,889 Trials :03 ~~~~~~~~~~~~145 .CD1 .02 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~96 L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CD CL.01 48 C .00 4' 0.00 1 00.00 200.00 300.00 . 400.00 G-Il May 26. jgg95 Final Sitewidle Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base Forecast: goshawk (Cont'd) Cell: 6 17 Percentiles for Entire Range (gg DDTs/kg bw): Percentil ggosnw 0% 1.63 10% 22.866 20% 33.08 30% 43.82 40% 55.59 50% 68.61 60% 86.53 70% 109.00 80% 142.27 90% 213.01 100% 1,627.67 End of Forecast 'J4 G22 M-Cay~26,1995 Final Sitewidle Biological Risk Assessent Exeison Air Force Base Assumption Assumption: home range Cell: J 6 Normal distribution with parameters: home ang Mean 1.39 Standard Dev. .7 z A Selected range is f rom - to Mean value in simulation was 1.39 0.63 tI13 2.39 1.64 '.90 ,Assumption: intake Cell: J 7 Normal distribution with parameters: Itk Mean 0.72 Standard Dev. 0.09 Selected range is from- to - Mean value in simulation was 0.72. (~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~04 .9 0 .6 00 \ssumption: Birds Cell: JS9 Lognormal distribution with parameters: merd. Mean 909.00 Standard Dev. 909.00 Selected range is from 0.00 to - aL Mean value in simulation was 913.45 52.13 1,332.70 3.932152 5.372.33 l.9t2lE kssumptlol: Squirrels Coil: JIG Lognormal distribution with parameters: Squirrels Mean 1.49 Standard Dev. 0.75 Selected range is from 0.00 toan& Mean value in simulation was 1.49 0.32 2.62 2.33 4.43 6.51 ,4L ~~~~~~~~~G.33 May 26. 1995 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eielson Air Force Base kssumption: B W Cell:D09 Lognormal distribution with parameters: S Mean 0.95 Standard Dev. 0.09 Selected range is from 0.00 to 2 Mean value in simulation was 0.95 ssumptlon: Birds Cell: FS Uniform distribution with parameters: BN Minimum 59.00 Maximum 100.00 1 Selected range is from so.oo to 100.000 Mean value in simulation was 75.12 id at Assumptions 'NL GM4 May 26-, 19-95 Fin7al Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment E:eLson Air Force Base Goshawk. DP44. PC B.SYLK Crystal Ball® Simulation Started on Mon, May 22, 1995 at 4:47:38 PM, Stopped on Man, May 22, 1995 at 4:48:56 PM )recast: goshawk Cell: 5 17 Summary: Certainty Level is 100.00% based on Entire Range Certainty Range is from - to -c jg PCB/kg bw Display Range is from 0.00 to 4,000.00 jig P08/kg bw Entire Range is from 16.44 to 17,914.39 jig PCB/kg bw After 5,000 Trials, the Std. Error of the Mean is 14.19 Statistics: Disolay..Range EntireRange Trials 4,922 5,000 Percent of Other 98.44 1 01.58 Mean 828.59 910.14 Median 603.81 ,(unavailable) Mode 380.00 (unavailable), Standard Deviation 698.47 1,003.08 Variance 487,863.61 1,006,177.1 9 Skewness 1.67 (unavailable)4 Kurtosis 5.93 (unavailable) Coeff. of Variability 84.30 110.21 Range Width 4,000.00 17,897.95 Range Minimum 0.00 16.44 Range Maximum 4,000.00 17,914.39 Mean Std. Error 9.96 14.1 9 Forecast: goshawk Cell B17 Frequency Distribution 4,922 Trials .05. 230 .04- -1 72 L~~~~~~~ 0.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 4,000.00 K up~~~~~~~vPCB/kp bw 'NL G.35 May 26. 1995 Final Sicewide Biolog~icl Risk Assessmeric Eidlson Air Force Base Forecast: gas hawk (Cant'd) Cell: 6 17 Percentiles for Entire Range (gg PCB/kg bw): Fercentele ohw 0% 186.44 10% 1 97.99 20% 293 .23 30% 385.51 40% 493.72 3 :~~~t ~50% 61 3.37 60% 778.1 2 '70% 997.89 80% 1,307.85 -90% 1,891.21 1100% 17,914.39 End of Forecast-,, PL N G .3 6 M ay 2 6 , 1 9 95~- Final Satewide Biological Risk Assessrnenr Eielson Air Force Base AA~ml~fs Assumption: Birds Cell: J 9 Lognormal distribution with parameters: Birds Mean 8,1 26.00 Standard Dev. 8,126.00 Selected range is from 0.00 to ao Mean value in simulation was 8,316.88- 472.76 17,113.73 35,lS471 52,4S6.e8 8I,,3S.*O Assumption: SWw. Cell: DS9 Lognormal distribution with parameters: Mean 0.95 Standard Dev. c:0.09 Selected range is from 0.00 to- a Mean value in simulation was 0.95 0.70 0.64 0.95 1.13 L.2 Acaumption: Birds Cell: F9 Uniform distribution with parameters: Birds Minimum 50.00 Maximum 100.00 Selected range Is from 50.00 to 100.00a Mean value in simulation was 75.04 50.0 62.50 75.00 517.504 100.00 kssumPtion: home range Cell: 6e Normal distribution with parameters: hr Mean 1.39 Standard Dev. 0.17 Selected range is from--.to~ t Mean value in simulation was 1.39 'NL G237 Final Sitewide Biological Risk Assessment Eieisori Air Force Base Assumption: intake Cell: J 7 Normal distribution with parameters: intake Mean 0.72 Standard Dev. 0.09 Selected range is from -- to 0.6-* 0.2 4f Mean value in simulation was 0.720. E-nd of Assumptions SL ~~~~~~~~~~~~G28 May 26. 1995