Human Health Risk Assessment

Onondaga Lake
Lake Bottom Subsite: Sediment Consolidation Area
Camillus, NY

June 2010

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II

Emergency and Remedial Response Division
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007

*348800*
348800
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................3

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................10
1.1 Background on Onondaga Lake HHRA..............................................................10
1.2 Overview of the Sediment Consolidation Area ...................................................11
1.3 Method Used to Calculate Risks for the SCA .....................................................13
2. Conceptual Site Model and Human Exposure Pathways ................................................13
2.1 Potential Human Exposure Pathways Related to Sediment Remediation ............14
2.2 Potential Human Exposure Pathways Related to Hypothetical Release of Sediment
at the SCA ............................................................................................................16
3. Hazard Identification .....................................................................................................16
3.1 Data Collection and Evaluation ..........................................................................17
3.2 Criteria for Selecting COPCs .............................................................................17
3.3 Calculation of the Exposure Point Concentration................................................19
4. Exposure Assessment ....................................................................................................20
4.1 Exposure Assumptions.......................................................................................20
4.2 Estimating Exposure ..........................................................................................21
5. Toxicity Assessment......................................................................................................22
5.1 Health Effects Criteria for Non-Carcinogens ......................................................22
5.2 Health Effects Criteria for Carcinogens ..............................................................23
6. Risk Characterization ....................................................................................................24
6.1 Risk Characterization for Carcinogens ...............................................................25
6.1.1 Methods.............................................................................................................25
6.1.2 Quantification of Carcinogenic Risk...................................................................25
6.2 Quantification of Hazard Indices for Effects other than Cancer ..........................26
6.2.1 Methods.............................................................................................................26
6.2.2 Quantification of Noncarcinogenic Risks ...........................................................27
6.3 Off-Site Workers................................................................................................27
6.4 Uncertainty Assessment .....................................................................................28
6.4.1 Hexavalent Chromium .......................................................................................28
6.2.2 Methyl mercury..................................................................................................28
6.2.3 Cobalt ................................................................................................................29
6.2.4 Toxicity Values..................................................................................................29
6.2.5 Potential for Overestimation within Exposure Scenarios ....................................30
6.2.6 Exposure Assumptions.......................................................................................30
6.2.7 Inhalation of Volatilized Chemicals ...................................................................30
6.2.8 Application of the Highest Receptor Location in Air Estimates ..........................30
6.2.9 TICs...................................................................................................................30
7. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................32
8. References.....................................................................................................................33
Appendix A: Figures
Appendix B: RAGS Part D Tables
Appendix C: Air Dispersion Model Documentation
Appendix D: Length Weighted Average Procedure and Sample Locations
Appendix E: Air Quality Bench Testing Summary
Appendix F: ProUCL Outputs

2
Executive Summary

Prior Onondaga Lake Assessment Indicated Need for Sediment Remediation to Protect
Ecological Receptors Present In and Near the Lake and Humans who Consume Fish
A Record of Decision (ROD) selecting a remedy for the Onondaga Lake Bottom subsite was
issued jointly by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
and USEPA in July 2005 (NYSDEC and EPA, 2005). The selected remedy includes
hydraulically dredging sediments from the lake, piping the water/sediment mixture up to a
sediment consolidation area (SCA) at Wastebed 13 and into geotextile tubes, collecting and
treating the water that drains from the geotextile tubes, and encapsulating the geotextile tubes
containing sediments in a lined cell on the wastebed. The SCA will then be capped, maintained,
and monitored to ensure that it is protective of human health and the environment.

The need to remediate lake sediments was based on a Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
(HHRA) (TAMS 2002a) and Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA) (TAMS 2002b) that
was performed for the sediments and other media within the lake. The reports identified risks
exceeding acceptable levels for people consuming fish from Onondaga Lake and for ecological
receptors present in and near the lake. The human health risk assessment also evaluated risks
associated with direct contact with sediments (inadvertently ingesting small amounts of sediment
or having sediment contact the skin) and this did not result in unacceptable risks.

In response to a recent request from the community and elected officials, EPA has prepared this
supplemental HHRA to identify any potential risks posed by sediment management and
dewatering activities which will take place at the SCA. This assessment incorporated numerous
conservative assumptions, and indicates all potential risks are within levels identified by EPA as
acceptable.

This Supplemental Assessment is Focused on the Sediment Consolidation Area (SCA)

Consistent with EPA risk assessment guidance, a four-step process was utilized for assessing
potential human health risks for the SCA:

1 Hazard Identification – Identifies the contaminants of potential concern associated with

site-related contaminants based on several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence
and concentration.
2 Exposure Assessment – Estimates the magnitude of actual and/or potential human
exposures, the frequency and duration of these exposures and the exposure pathways (e.g..,
ingesting contaminated sediment) under future exposure scenarios and under the reasonable
maximum exposure anticipated.
3 Toxicity Assessment – Determines the types of adverse health effects associated with
chemical exposures, and the relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity
of adverse effects (response).
4 Risk Characterization – Summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity
assessments to provide a quantitative assessment of site-related risks and hazards, and
presents a discussion of the uncertainties of the process.

Each of these steps is discussed below.

3
Hazard Identification
Concentrations of chemicals in sediments were compared with health protective screening values
to determine which chemicals should be considered in the risk assessment (termed contaminants
of potential concern [COPCs]). All COPCs were then further considered in the HHRA.

Exposure Assessment
The exposure assessment evaluates pathways by which people are or can be exposed to the
contaminants of concern in different media (e.g., sediment, soil, air). This exposure assessment
considers only hypothetical future exposure scenarios. The quantification of exposure is based
on factors including, but not limited to, the concentrations that people are or can be exposed to,
the potential frequency of exposure (number of days per year), and the duration of exposure
(number of years). The exposure assessment is based on the maximum site-specific parameters
that can reasonably be expected at the site, which is termed the reasonable maximum exposure or
RME.

All potential ways people could be exposed to chemicals in sediments (termed exposure
scenarios) were evaluated. Two hypothetical future exposure scenarios were evaluated here:

1. Offsite exposure to chemicals that might volatilize from sediments and water during
sediment management and dewatering in the SCA and migrate beyond the SCA. A five
year time frame is evaluated consistent with the anticipated duration of activities at the SCA.

2. Onsite exposure to chemicals in sediments in the SCA if somehow the sediment

containment system was to fail and people were to come into contact with the
sediments. Although this scenario is unlikely due to the design and engineering of the SCA,
this hypothetical exposure, which evaluates potential risks during the time between a
hypothetical failure and when the materials are again secured, was included at the request of
the community. This assessment was conducted using the assumptions typically used to
estimate residential exposures and is a very health-protective approach because in the
unlikely event of a failure of the SCA, any potential exposure that might occur to the
sediments would require people coming onto Wastebed 13 and contacting sediments on or
near the SCA. The exposure scenario requires that these individuals would need to contact
the sediments daily for the 45 day period after the release. During this period, engineering
controls such as additional fencing and/or cover material would be implemented to mitigate
exposures and corrective actions would be initiated.

Both scenarios are hypothetical and apply conservative health-protective assumptions to evaluate
people of all ages in residential settings.

For the sediment exposure scenario, a representative site concentration was calculated for all
COPCs as a conservative estimate of the mean (i.e, the 95% upper confidence limit on the mean
concentration). For the inhalation scenario, in order to conservatively estimate the air
concentrations of chemicals at receptors, health-based air concentrations at the work zone
perimeter were used as a starting point. Control measures will be implemented within the SCA
to ensure that these criteria are met. An air dispersion model was then used to estimate the
chemical concentrations in offsite air at community receptors assuming all chemicals were

4
present at the boundary at the full extent of the allowable concentration. This approach likely
overestimates risk because it assumes that site boundary concentrations are at the maximum level
for all chemicals, when in reality the worst case is that one or a select few chemicals may be
approaching this level while the majority of chemical concentrations would be significantly
below the criteria.

All exposure assumptions were selected based on EPA guidance on deriving estimates that
represent the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) and as such, these estimates are intended not
to underestimate risks, and they likely overestimate risks for most individuals.

Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity assessment conservatively estimates the types of adverse health effects potentially
associated with exposures to contaminants at the site and the relationship between the magnitude
of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects (response). EPA has identified toxicity values
for both carcinogenic effects (termed slope factors or unit risks) and non-carcinogenic effects
associated with the COPCs. The toxicity values for effects other than cancer include oral
reference dose (RfD), the absorbed RfD for dermal exposure, and the inhalation reference
concentrations (RfC). The non-cancer health endpoints (e.g., the target organ) are also
assembled and considered in the risk assessment. These toxicity values applied in the risk
assessment are selected to represent effects on the most sensitive endpoints and life stages and as
such provide a health protective means to evaluate risks.

Risk Characterization
In risk characterization, quantitative exposure estimates and toxicity factors are combined to
calculate numerical estimates of potential health risk. In this section, potential cancer and
noncancer health risks are estimated assuming long-term exposure to chemicals detected in site
media. A 1×10–6 cancer risk represents a one-in-one-million additional probability that an
individual may develop cancer over a 70-year lifetime as a result of exposure under the
conditions and scenarios evaluated. The findings presented here are compared with the range of
acceptable risk levels cited in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP), of 1×10–6 to 1×10–4. No cancer risk estimates were greater than the 1×10-4 risk level
that is the upper end of the EPA target risk range. The following cancer risk estimates were
derived:

• Inhalation – Adults and Children: The hypothetical future inhalation cancer risk estimates
for offsite adults and children were 4×10-6 with primary contributors to risk being
ethylbenzene and naphthalene.
• Contact with Sediments – Adults: The hypothetical future cancer risk estimates associated
with exposure to sediments (oral and dermal exposure routes) was 1×10-6 for all carcinogenic
chemicals combined.
• Contact with Sediments – Children: The hypothetical future cancer risk estimate
associated with exposure to sediments (oral and dermal routes) was 3×10-5 for children ages
zero to 2 and 1×10-5 for children ages 2-6, with the primary contributors to risk being
hexavalent chromium and the carcinogenic PAHs.
• Contact with Sediments – Adolescents: The hypothetical future cancer risk estimate
associated with exposure to sediments (oral and dermal routes) was 3×10-6 for adolescents

5
 ages 6 to 16 (Appendix B Table 8.1) also associated primarily with hexavalent chromium and
the carcinogenic PAHs.

The following noncancer risk estimates were derived:

All Scenarios: All noncancer risk estimates had hazard indices less than or equal to one
indicating low potential for adverse effects and that non-cancer risks were within acceptable
levels. Detailed risk estimates are provided in Appendix B Tables 7-1 through 7-3 and
Appendix B, Table 8-2 (inhalation exposure) and Table 8-3 (sediment exposure) show the hazard
indices (HI) for COPCs summed based on the primary target organs (or systems) that they effect.
Tables 8-2 and 8-3 also show the primary chemicals contributing to the total hazard index for
each pathway-endpoint combination. For adult exposure to sediments (see Table 7-2), none of
the scenarios had hazard quotients or combined hazard indices (0.2) greater than 1.0. Although
the total HI (approximately 2) for child exposure to sediments (ingestion and dermal contact)
slightly exceeds 1 (as shown in Table 7-1), the HI values for each endpoint do not exceed 1 (as
shown in Table 8-3). In addition, although the total HI (approximately 4) for the inhalation
exposure exceeds 1 (as shown in Table 7-3), the HI values for all receptors for each endpoint do
not exceed 1 (as shown in Table 8-2).

Hypothetical risk estimates were derived using conservative assumptions as a means to evaluate
plans for the SCA and to ensure the SCA activities are safe and protective of human health. The
findings from this assessment can be used by risk managers to ensure that the SCA is designed,
constructed, monitored, and managed within acceptable risk levels. Many of the assumptions
applied here tend to overestimate potential site risks. These include the following:

1. Hexavalent Chromium. Chromium can exist is several forms, and two forms are
most commonly considered in an HHRA, the trivalent form and the hexavalent form.
Results for samples collected from 4 locations near the Crucible Lake Pump Station
site that were analyzed for both total and hexavalent chromium did not identify any
hexavalent chromium; these results were therefore considered to be in the trivalent
form, which is significantly less harmful, and were ultimately screened out and not
considered further in this HHRA. All other chromium results were analyzed only for
total chromium, and were conservatively considered to be in the hexavalent form,
which is more toxic. Under this conservative assumption, hexavalent chromium risk
estimates were responsible for approximately 90% of the cancer risk estimates for
ingestion of sediments. This is likely an overestimate of the true risk, since
hexavalent chromium is reasonably assumed only to be a small percentage of the total
chromium in the sediments, and the limited data which are available indicate that the
chromium is not present as hexavalent chromium.

2. Methyl mercury. Mercury is another chemical that can exist in several forms.
However, these forms were not analyzed in most sediment samples, and mercury was
reported as total mercury. For the hypothetical sediment exposure pathway in this
HHRA, all mercury risk estimates were calculated assuming mercury was present as
methyl mercury in sediments, which is the most conservative approach when
assessing oral and dermal exposures. However, existing sediment data indicate the
maximum percentage of methyl mercury is 1.4%. Nevertheless, all hazard indices for

6
 mercury for both the sediment and the inhalation exposure pathways were within
acceptable levels.

3. Cobalt. One exposure scenario estimates potential risk from direct contact from
sediments in the hypothetical event of a failure of the SCA and individuals come into
contact with the sediments. Under this scenario, cobalt contributes approximately
19% to the overall hazard index to the child from exposure to sediments (the total
noncancer hazard index to the adult are less than 1, so no further evaluation is
necessary). The sediment data set for cobalt consists of 133 samples collected from
37 locations within the area to be dredged. A length weighted average (LWA) was
calculated for each location and these 37 LWAs were used to calculate the exposure
point concentration for cobalt that was used in the risk assessment. Of these 37
locations, two locations near the Crucible Lake Pump Station site have significantly
higher LWA cobalt concentrations than all other locations in the area to be dredged
and strongly influence the overall exposure point concentration. These two locations
represent less than 2% of the overall volume of sediment to be dredged and are not
representative of the cobalt concentrations in the material that will be dredged.
Therefore, the noncancer hazard index for cobalt is likely overestimated.

4. Toxicity Values. Significant uncertainty may be associated with the derivation of

RfDs, CSFs, and all toxicity values. Toxicity values based on human epidemiological
studies are not available for most chemicals, and those human studies that are
available generally lack exposure data and are confounded by exposure to multiple
chemicals, recall bias, and lifestyle issues. Laboratory animal studies are used to
derive most toxicity values and the practice of extrapolating from effects in animals
to predict human toxic response is a major source of uncertainty in risk assessment.

5. Potential for Overestimation within Exposure Scenarios. The SCA is planned to

be closely managed and maintained. Consequently, the assumed potential for
exposure to sediments is hypothetical and may overestimate risks, particularly for
young children who would be unlikely to come into contact with this material.

6. Exposure Assumptions. There is considerable uncertainty regarding the likelihood

of exposure to a given medium of concern. It is unknown whether all of the exposure
pathways modeled will ever be actually complete or whether the individuals
evaluated will actually be exposed to COPCs. Exposure estimates used to calculate
risks and hazards may also be relatively uncertain. Many of the exposure parameter
values applied are default values determined by USEPA rather than site-specific
values. As such, risk estimates based on these exposure parameters generally
represent conservative estimates.

7. Inhalation of Volatilized Chemicals. The air concentrations used as a starting point

in deriving offsite air estimates are all assumed to be the lower of either the
NYSDEC’s DAR-1 guidance value (“Guidelines for Control of Toxic Ambient Air
Contaminants’) (NYSDEC, 2007), and EPA’s Regional Screening levels (RSL) (US
EPA, 2010a) for industrial settings after adjustment for a 5-year exposure duration for
all chemicals identified in the sediments as volatile. Both bench scale testing of

7
 sediments and testing of volatilization from sediments suggest that instead
approximately half of the chemicals would actually be volatilized from sediments.
This assumption contributes to a cumulative air exposure risk estimate that is higher
than what would likely occur.

8. Application of the Highest Receptor Location in Air Estimates. Work zone

perimeter concentrations were used to estimate offsite air concentrations. The
resulting estimates were evaluated, and the highest yearly average concentration was
applied. The selection of this maximum value means that all other yearly average
concentrations would be lower and thus exposure estimates for most people would be
lower than this value.

9. Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs). Standard analytical protocols for

Superfund sites require that an extensive list of chemicals be analyzed and reported.
This list is known as the Target Compound List (TCL)/Target Analyte List (TAL) for
organic chemicals and metals, respectively. The list was developed with
consideration of the chemicals most commonly found at sites. Other chemicals that
are not routinely analyzed for or reported might be present at sites. These chemicals
are known as tentatively identified compounds (TICs), since neither the identity nor
the concentration can be reported with certainty. The TICs could present a
contribution to risk that has not been quantified, however, they typically do not
contribute significantly to the overall risk or hazard at a site. The extensive database
of more than 33,000 samples collected at the site provides a robust data set that
supports the basis for the risks identified in this assessment.

Conclusions
This supplemental risk assessment applied conservative exposure assumptions to evaluate
potential risks associated with the operation of the SCA and to address community concerns.
Estimates were designed to represent two hypothetical future scenarios: 1) exposure to
contaminants that could migrate from the site in air during the operation of the SCA and 2)
exposure to sediments within the SCA post-closure if the SCA were to fail, sediments were
released, and people would come onto Wastebed 13 and come into contact with the sediment on
or near the SCA. Both of these potential future scenarios were intended to represent the
reasonable maximum exposure potential and both assume individuals of all ages could be
exposed. As such, these risk estimates are likely higher than risks that would likely be
experienced by most receptors.

All resulting risk estimates and target organ-specific hazard indices were within levels identified
by EPA as acceptable. The finding of acceptable risk estimates through application of these
health protective assumptions, indicates that the SCA will not result in unacceptable risks for the
surrounding community. Nevertheless, the SCA will be closely monitored to ensure that
sediments are managed with care and secured appropriately and that offsite migration of
chemicals in air is limited or prevented.

This HHRA can also be used as a tool for risk managers during the implementation of the
remedy and management of the SCA. The exposure scenarios evaluated in this HHRA are future

8
hypothetical situations, so the outcome can be used to help assess the effectiveness of the
remedy. For example, the air concentrations modeled in the residential areas are based on work
zone perimeter concentrations that reflect the maximum annual average concentrations for all
chemicals. It is highly unlikely that every volatile chemical would be present at that
concentration for a one year period of time to result in that exposure scenario. During remedy
implementation, if monitored air concentrations indicate a trend towards chemicals reaching this
maximum annual average concentration for a sustained period of time, risk managers can modify
site operations to reduce these concentrations so that the actual risks are much lower than those
estimated here. Risk managers can also use this HHRA to assist in managing risks in the
unlikely event of a failure of the SCA. If sediments are released as a result of a failure of the
SCA, measures would be implemented to address the release in accordance with site
management plans (e.g.. Spill Contingency Plan) to be developed. The measures may include
additional sampling and characterization, for example, speciating potential risk-driving
chemicals such as mercury and chromium, to ensure that the actual exposures that would occur
once the interim controls are implemented are not greater than the exposures in the scenarios
defined in this HHRA.

9
1. Introduction

A Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) (TAMS 2002a) and Baseline Ecological
Risk Assessment (BERA) (TAMS 2002b) were performed for the Lake Bottom Subsite of the
Onondaga Lake Site in 2002. The HHRA estimated risks exceeding acceptable levels related to
consumption of fish that had accumulated contaminants from sediments and surface water. The
BERA estimated potential for chemical waste in the lake to produce adverse ecological effects to
ecological receptors present in and near the lake. A remedial action was proposed to address
these risks and, after public review and comment, a remedy was selected. The remediation
includes dredging sediments from the lake and placing them in a Sediment Consolidation Area
(SCA) located near the lake.

In response to a recent request from the community and elected officials, EPA has prepared this
supplemental HHRA to identify any risks posed by implementing the remedial action for the
lake. This remedy includes hydraulically dredging sediments from the lake, piping the
water/sediment mixture up to Wastebed 13 and into geotextile tubes, collecting and treating the
water that drains from the geotextile tubes, and encapsulating the geotextile tubes containing
sediments in a lined cell on the wastebed, which will then be capped, maintained, and monitored
to ensure that it is protective of human health and the environment. The risk assessment
provided here evaluates two possible means people could be exposed to chemicals from
sediments. The ways people could be exposed are called exposure scenarios and include:

1. Offsite exposure to chemicals that might volatilize from sediments and water during
sediment management and dewatering in the SCA and migrate beyond the SCA.

2. Onsite exposure to chemicals in sediments in the SCA if somehow the sediment containment
system was to fail and people were to come into contact with the sediments. Although this
scenario is unlikely due to the design and engineering of the SCA, this hypothetical exposure,
which evaluates potential risks during the time between a hypothetical failure and when the
materials are again secured, was included at the request of the community. This assessment
was conducted using the assumptions typically used to estimate residential exposures and is a
very health-protective approach because in the unlikely event of a failure of the SCA, any
potential exposure that might occur would require people coming onto Wastebed 13 and
contacting sediments on or near the SCA. The exposure scenario requires that these
individuals would need to contact the sediments daily for the 45 day period after the release.
During this period, engineering controls such as additional fencing and/or cover material
would be implemented to mitigate exposures and corrective actions would be initiated

This introduction provides a discussion of the HHRA for Onondaga Lake to provide the
background for the planned remediation, then briefly describes the basis used to conduct the risk
assessment for the SCA.

1.1. Background on Onondaga Lake HHRA

A Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
(BERA) were performed for the Lake Bottom Subsite of the Onondaga Lake Site in 2002. The
reports were developed as part of the remedial investigation, as required by the National Oil and

10
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (55 Fed. Reg. 8665-8865, March
1990) (US EPA, 1990), which states that the baseline risk assessment should “characterize the
current and potential threats to human health and the environment that may be posed by
contaminants migrating to ground water or surface water, releasing to air, leaching through soil,
remaining in the soil, and bioaccumulating in the food chain” (Section 300.430(d)(4)). The main
purpose for conducting the baseline risk assessments is to identify the potential baseline risks to
human health and the environment posed by the site and for the risk managers to evaluate
whether these potential baseline risks warrant a remedial action. In the baseline risk assessments
for the Lake Bottom Subsite, risks were identified above the acceptable levels defined in the
NCP to ecological receptors and to people who eat fish from the lake (TAMS, 2002a, and
TAMS, 2002b.). These risks were sufficient to warrant a remedial action.

The remedy that was proposed, presented to the public and then selected includes dredging
sediment from the lake and placing it in a sediment consolidation area located near the lake.
Wastebed 13 was identified as the preferred location following completion of the siting
evaluation in September 2006 as documented in the NYSDEC’s October 2006 Fact Sheet.
Following review of public comments, Wastebed 13 in the Town of Camillus was selected as the
location for the SCA (NYSDEC, NYSDOH, and US EPA, 2010).

In considering the supplemental risk assessment presented in this document, it is important to

clarify the purpose and outcome of the baseline risk assessments for Onondaga Lake. The
purpose was to determine the potential risks posed by the Lake site as it currently exists and to
evaluate whether these risks justify a remedial action. The reports identified that the only
unacceptable risks as defined by the NCP were to ecological receptors, and to people consuming
fish caught from Onondaga Lake. Although direct contact (inadvertently ingesting small
amounts of sediment or having sediment contact the skin) with lake sediments to humans was
evaluated in the HHRA, exposure to these lake sediments did not result in unacceptable cancer
risks1 or noncancer hazards2.

1.2. Overview of the Sediment Containment Area

The Onondaga Lake Bottom Subsite of the Onondaga Lake Site includes the contaminated
surface water and sediments in the 4.5-square mile lake. Industrial waste and municipal sewage
have been discharged to the lake for over 100 years. Mercury contamination is found throughout

1
In an HHRA, exposures are evaluated based on the potential risk of developing cancer and the potential for non-
cancer health hazards. The likelihood of an individual developing cancer is expressed as a probability. For example,
a 10-4 cancer risk means a “one-in-ten-thousand excess cancer risk,” or one additional cancer may be seen in a
population of 10,000 people as a result of exposure to site contaminants under the conditions explained in the
Exposure Assessment of the HHRA. Current federal Superfund guidelines for acceptable exposures are “generally
concentration levels that represent an excess upper bound cancer to an individual of between 10-4 to 10-6” (40 CFR §
300.430[e][2][A][2]) (corresponding to a one-in-ten-thousand to a one-in-a-million excess cancer risk). The 10-6 risk
is used as the point of departure for determining remediation goals and cancer risk estimates greater than 10-4
represent unacceptable risks.
2
For non-cancer health effects, a “hazard quotient” (HQ) is calculated for each contaminant. An HQ represents the
ratio of the estimated exposure to the corresponding reference doses (RfDs). The sum of the HQs is termed the
“hazard index” (HI). The key concept for a non-cancer HI is that a “threshold level” (measured as an HQ or HI of 1)
exists, at or below which non-cancer health effects are not expected to occur.

11
the lake. Other contaminants present in lake sediments include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
xylenes, chlorinated benzenes, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, and polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins/polychlorinated dibenzofurans.

A Record of Decision (ROD) selecting a remedy for the Lake Bottom subsite was issued in July
2005. The selected remedy includes dredging up to an estimated 2.65 million cubic yards of
contaminated sediments, isolation capping of an estimated 425 acres in the littoral zone (water
depths ranging from 0 to 30 feet), thin layer capping of an estimated 154 acres, an oxygenation
pilot study for the water in the deeper portion of the lake, and monitored natural recovery in the
profundal zone (water depths exceeding 30 feet). While the most highly contaminated materials
will be treated and/or disposed of off-site, the dredged sediment will be placed in a nearby SCA.
Wastewater generated by the dredging/sediment handling processes as a result of dewatering of
the sediments at the SCA will be treated prior to being discharged back to the lake (NYSDEC
and US EPA, 2005). A draft Explanation of Significant Differences which describes a change to
a portion of the remedy required by the ROD in the southwest portion of the lake was approved
in December 2006. The change was necessary to ensure the stability of the adjacent causeway
and the adjacent area which includes a portion of I-690, and is supported by extensive sampling
of the area which indicates that the pure phase chemical contamination is significantly less
extensive than estimated in the ROD.

In October 2006, NYSDEC made available for public review and comment an SCA Siting
Evaluation Report which assessed Solvay Wastebeds 1 – 15 and B as potential locations for the
SCA based on accessibility, estimated capacity, current and future site use, geotechnical
considerations, and distance from residences (Parsons, 2006). Based on the evaluation results,
Wastebed 13 in the Town of Camillus was selected as the location for the SCA (see Figure 1 in
Appendix A). This decision was documented in the Consent Decree between Honeywell and
NYSDEC for the Lake Bottom subsite (United States District Court, Northern District of New
York, 2007) (89-CV-815).

The dewatering method for the dredged material presumed during the development and issuance
of the ROD was a large open settling basin; however, the local community raised concerns
pertaining to potential odor generation using this dewatering method. In response to these
community concerns, an extensive evaluation comparing the geotextile tube and settling basin
dewatering methods based on 10 site-specific dewatering objectives was conducted (Parsons and
Geosyntec, 2009). Based on this evaluation, it was determined that there are many site-specific
benefits of using geotextile tubes as compared to settling basins. These benefits include:

• The potential for significantly reduced odors and emissions;

• Primary containment of the dredged sediments within the geotextile tubes;
• Reduction in required berm height and preloading requirements as compared to an open
settling basin, thereby reducing scale of construction activities and associated truck traffic
and noise levels;
• Reduction in required footprint as compared to an open settling basin because of lower
SCA perimeter dike height, thereby reducing the visibility of the SCA and related
construction activities;

12
 • Improved ability to maintain geotechnical stability and SCA liner integrity as a result of
the lower hydraulic head and flexibility related to tube placement as compared to an open
settling basin; and
• Reduction in time to closure.

As a result of this evaluation, use of geotextile tubes for dewatering has been incorporated into
the design documents. The design presently calls for the construction of a 72-acre SCA within
Wastebed 13 to store the approximately 2.2 million cubic yards of material to be dredged from
the lake. The layout, as shown on Figure 2 in Appendix A, was developed to maintain the buffer
zones requested from the community (i.e., a 500-ft buffer along the western boundary of
Wastebed 13) and an additional 200-ft buffer zone from the northern boundary of Wastebed 13.
For dewatering the Onondaga Lake sediment, it is anticipated that geotextile tubes 80 to 90 ft in
circumference and 200 to 300 ft in length would be used within the lined SCA. Slurry would be
pumped into the tubes via ports along the top of the tubes, and the filtrate (water) would drain
through the openings of the geotextile. Solids would be retained within the geotextile tubes
(Parsons, 2009).

1.3 Method Used to Calculate Risks for the SCA

Consistent with EPA risk assessment guidance, a four-step process was utilized for assessing
potential human health risks for the SCA:

1. Hazard Identification – identifies the contaminants of potential concern associated

with site-related contaminants based on several factors such as toxicity, frequency
of occurrence and concentration.
2. Exposure Assessment – estimates the magnitude of actual and/or potential human
exposures, the frequency and duration of these exposures and the exposure
pathways (i.e., ingesting contaminated sediment) under future exposure scenarios
and under the reasonable maximum exposure anticipated.
3. Toxicity Assessment – determines the types of adverse health effects associated
with chemical exposures, and the relationship between magnitude of exposure
(dose) and severity of adverse effects (response).
4. Risk Characterization – summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and
toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative assessment of site-related risks and
hazards, and presents a discussion of the uncertainties of the process.

As indicated above, for the SCA, two potential exposure scenarios were identified: exposures to
contaminants in offsite air; and exposure to contaminants in sediments in the hypothetical case of
a breach of the SCA. These two exposure scenarios are discussed in detail in Section 2.

2. Conceptual Site Model and Human Exposure Pathways

As stated above, this HHRA was developed in response to concerns raised by the community and
elected officials that exposures to site-related contaminants might occur during the process
during which the dredged sediments are pumped into the geotextile tubes and once the geotextile
tubes are encapsulated in place in the SCA located in Wastebed 13. This section describes the

13
possible sources, receptors, and exposure pathways included in the HHRA through development
of a conceptual site model and identification of possible human exposure pathways. The
conceptual site model and exposure pathways are also summarized in Table 1 of Appendix B.

A conceptual site model was developed to evaluate potential exposure pathways for chemicals of
concern within SCA sediments during remediation and in the unlikely event of a future failure of
the SCA. Exposure pathways are defined as the course a chemical takes from a source to an
exposed receptor. Exposure pathways consist of the following four elements: 1) a source; 2) a
mechanism of release, retention, or transport of a chemical to a given medium (e.g., air, water,
soil); 3) a point of human contact with the medium (i.e., exposure point); and 4) a route of
exposure at the point of contact (e.g., incidental ingestion, dermal contact). If any of these
elements is missing, the pathway is considered incomplete (i.e., it does not present a means of
exposure) (US EPA, 1989). A conceptual site model examines the range of potential exposure
pathways and identifies those that are present and that may be important for human receptors,
and it eliminates those pathways that are either incomplete or that constitute negligible exposures
(i.e., exposures consistent with background or below a risk-based threshold). Exposure pathways
are grouped into exposure scenarios as described above.

Two scenarios were identified to characterize the potential exposures associated with the
following: 1) placement and dewatering of sediment in the SCA and 2) exposures that could
occur in the event of hypothetical failure of the SCA. The first scenario evaluates potential
exposures that could occur during remediation. Specifically, chemicals may volatilize from
sediments and from the water seeping from the geotextile tubes. Volatilized chemicals then
could migrate from the SCA towards nearby residents. The second scenario assesses potential
onsite exposures to sediments that may be released from a hypothetical failure of the SCA.

2.1. Potential Human Exposure Pathways Related to Sediment Remediation

Inhalation of volatilized chemicals is the only exposure pathway considered potentially complete
during the disposal and dewatering of sediment in the SCA. The sediments, in the form of a
slurry (a mixture of approximately 90% water and 10% solids) will be transported to the SCA via
a double-walled pipe and pumped into the geotextile tubes in place in the SCA. Due to the
engineering of this process, there is no reasonably anticipated exposure of sediments to the
community or to people other than those workers trained and skilled in the handling of this type
of material. Remediation workers will be protected from physical and chemical hazards through
implementation and adherence to a site health and safety plan. Once the wet sediment material is
pumped into the geotextile tubes, filtrate (water) will drain from the slurry, leaving behind
dewatered sediments that will ultimately remain inside the geotextile tubes.

The water will be collected, treated appropriately within an enclosed on-site water treatment
plant to remove any site-related contaminants that are dissolved in the water, and discharged to
the Onondaga County Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant (METRO) plant for further
treatment and thus there are no complete exposure pathways related to the geotextile tube filtrate
water from this process. During the process by which the water is drained from the geotextile
tubes and collected, certain chemicals may volatilize into the air and be dispersed into
surrounding air, migrating from the SCA and resulting in lower concentrations in surrounding

14
areas. These potential air concentrations are evaluated within this risk assessment. The list of
chemicals that are being evaluated in this scenario is discussed in Section 3.2.

The populations near the SCA and who could potentially be exposed to these volatile chemicals
include people living in neighborhoods near the facility and workers at the Town of Camillus’
construction and demolition landfill at Wastebed 15, which is shown in Figure 2 of Appendix A.
However, because the workers are exposed less frequently (fewer days per year and fewer hours
per day), their potential exposures would be less than exposures evaluated in this HHRA (i.e, for
residents living in the neighborhoods near the SCA). Therefore, offsite workers are evaluated
qualitatively, meaning that their potential risks will be discussed in the risk characterization
section of this HHRA. The residents who live near the SCA will be evaluated quantitatively,
meaning that their potential risks will be conservatively estimated, based on an assumed
hypothetical exposure to the sediment chemicals that could volatilize into the air. For this
evaluation, all chemicals present in sediments that could volatilize and that had toxicity values
were included in the risk assessment. This list is further discussed in Section 3.2.

In order to conservatively estimate the maximum concentration of these chemicals that might
migrate into the community, concentrations at the work zone perimeter were used as a starting
point. These concentrations, which are health-based air concentrations developed by either EPA
or NYSDEC to be protective of commercial exposures over a 5 year duration, are discussed in
detail below and in Appendix C. Control measures will be implemented to ensure that these
criteria are met. An air dispersion model was then used to estimate the chemical concentrations
at community receptors assuming the maximum allowable concentrations were present at the site
boundary. A significant level of conservatism is built into this approach because it assumes that
site boundary concentrations are at the maximum level for all chemicals, when in reality the
worst case is that one or a select few chemicals may be approaching this level while the vast
majority of chemical concentrations would be significantly below the criteria. This dispersion
modeling is discussed more thoroughly in Appendix C.

The maximum allowable site perimeter concentrations used in this modeling are based on criteria
established by NYSDEC’s DAR-1 guidance (“Guidelines for the Control of Toxic Ambient Air
Contaminants”), and US EPA’s Regional Screening Levels (RSL) (NYSDEC, 2007) (US EPA,
2010a), which are typically developed for both industrial and residential settings. The use of the
DAR-1 and RSL levels establish risk-based concentrations designed to protect public health from
effects which may be associated with long-term (70 year) exposure to these contaminants. These
criteria have been modified to account for the duration of the project (5 years). For the purposes
of this evaluation, the lower (more conservative) of either the modified DAR-1 values or the
industrial RSLs have been selected as the maximum allowable site perimeter concentrations.
These concentrations will form the basis of air quality criteria that will be specified for this
project, and enforced at the workplace perimeter and for this reason they provide a good means
to evaluate the potential exposures that could occur during the course of the sediment
remediation.

The air exposure scenario considered that offsite residents of all ages could be exposed by
breathing contaminants in the air. Figure 3 of Appendix A shows the location where the
sediment consolidation area is located, and the two boundaries utilized for this modeling
analysis. This figure shows the work zone perimeter (green line), at which the above referenced

15
maximum allowable site perimeter concentrations will be enforced, as well as the nearest
residential receptor boundary (blue line). This line was developed using aerial photographs,
maps, and driving reconnaissance, and identifies the closest residential location in every
direction from the SCA. For this analysis, residential locations (houses) as well as publicly
accessible non-residential areas (e.g., parks, churches, etc.) were included. The modeling
analysis calculated the average concentration along every point of this receptor boundary,
assuming these maximum allowable concentrations were present at the site boundary. As an
additional level of conservatism, the HHRA used the highest modeled air concentrations along
this receptor boundary to estimate risks to people in this scenario. Table 3-2 in Appendix B
shows the modeled air concentrations used in the risk assessment.

2.2. Potential Human Exposure Pathways Related to Hypothetical Release of

Sediment at the SCA

Once the dredging is complete, the sediments have drained, and the SCA is properly closed, a
post-closure monitoring plan will be implemented to ensure ongoing maintenance of the facility
and to confirm that the facility remains intact and no material has been released.

The community has asked that a risk assessment be performed to determine what the potential
risks to the community would be in the event that the SCA containment somehow failed and
there was potential for people in the community to enter the site to come into contact with the
sediments. This HHRA evaluates the risks to the community in the hypothetical scenario in
which there is potential for people of all ages to be exposed to sediment at chemical
concentrations in the SCA for a 45 day period before sediments were again contained. The 45
day response time to repair any damage to the SCA is considered the maximum amount of time
it would take to make necessary repairs, recover any sediments released within the berm, and
perform sampling to ensure no material had migrated from the point of release. It should be
noted that interim measures such as fencing, cover material, or other engineering controls would
be implemented shortly after any release to limit the potential for any exposure, and it is not
likely that people would be in daily contact with sediments released from the SCA for the entire
45 day period; however, this is evaluated to provide a very conservative estimate of the
hypothetical exposure.

This exposure scenario considered that adult, adolescent (ages 6 – 16 years) and child (ages 6
years and under) residents could potentially be exposed by daily incidental ingestion of and
dermal contact with contaminated sediments at the SCA during the 45 day period for the
hypothetical release from the SCA. However, note that such a scenario is considered unlikely
for the following reasons: the SCA contains four layers of containment (geotextile tubes, a lined
cell, a newly constructed berm, and the final cover system) one or more of which would need to
fail, and some way for individuals to access the sediment at the SCA, where the nearest residence
is approximately 1500 feet from the SCA, which is shown on Figure 3 in Appendix A. Such
exposure potential is considered unlikely, but is evaluated here for hypothetical purposes.

3. Hazard Identification

This section outlines the data used in the risk assessment, how data were collected, the criteria

16
for selecting the chemicals of potential concern (COPCs), and the calculation of the exposure
point concentrations (EPCs).

3.1. Data Collection and Evaluation

This HHRA is focused on implementation of the remedy in the Consent Decree (United States
District Court, Northern District of New York, 2007) (89-CV-815) for the Lake Bottom
sediments: dredging the sediments and placing them in the SCA in Wastebed 13. Many samples
have been collected from the areas of the lake that will be dredged during the remedial
investigation and the pre-design investigation. Dredging will occur to varying depths of up to 4
meters, so only cores that represented these depths were included. In total, 329 locations from
the areas targeted for dredging are used in this HHRA, including samples collected at 290
locations over the past 5 years as part of the pre-design investigation. Although many other
samples have been collected, this subset of the data is considered the most representative because
they were collected from areas to dredged and are most representative of the entire depth of the
area to be dredged. Figure 4 in Appendix A illustrates the sample locations that are included in
this HHRA. Samples were taken from different lengths along the depth of the core sample and
sediments will be extensively mixed during remediation (e.g, they will be pumped as a slurry), so
a length weighted average (LWA) approach was used to estimate the concentration of each
contaminant for each sample location. In summary, the LWA concentration for each chemical
was calculated by averaging the concentration detected for each core segment for the length of
the core up to the anticipated depth of dredging for that location. These length weighted average
concentrations were then combined to derive exposure point concentrations for each contaminant
of potential concern.

A detailed explanation of the procedure for calculating the LWA and a list of all sample
locations are included in Appendix D. It should also be noted that not all chemicals were
analyzed in every sample. Some samples were only analyzed for a smaller suite of chemicals.
There are several reasons for this, such as certain areas were identified in the remedial
investigation as not containing specific types of chemicals, so there was no need to look for them
in those areas during the pre-design investigation. The LWA concentrations are representative
concentrations for each sediment core from areas that will be dredged. It should be noted that all
analytical methods used were approved by EPA and NYSDEC and followed proper quality
assurance/quality control procedures.

3.2. Criteria for Selecting COPCs

Table 2-1 in Appendix B summarizes the analytical data for concentrations for sediments to be
dredged that were used to determine the COPCs for the scenario that evaluates exposure to
sediments in this risk assessment. Table 2-1 includes sediment data from the areas to be
dredged. Table 2-2 identifies the chemicals that are included in the scenario to evaluate
inhalation of volatile chemicals migrating from the SCA. Essential nutrients calcium,
magnesium, potassium, and sodium were not evaluated due to low toxicity, which is consistent
with EPA Region 2 protocols. Consistent with EPA guidance for risk assessment, chemicals
identified as tentatively identified compounds (TICs) were not included in the analysis. TICs are
chemicals for which either the identity or the concentration cannot be accurately reported. EPA
guidance also recommends that chemicals that are detected infrequently (i.e., detections in less

17
than 5% of the samples) should not be included. This approach assures that the data used are of
sufficient quality to be appropriate for risk assessment (US EPA, 1989).

In Table 2-1, the maximum detected concentration for each chemical for all sample locations
was compared to the corresponding risk-based screening value for residential soils, from the
Regional Screening Level (RSL) table (US EPA, 2010a). The RSL values represent an excess
cancer risk of one in one million (1x10-6) or a hazard quotient of 1. The non-cancer hazard
quotients from the RSL table were adjusted to 0.1 prior to comparison to account for potential
exposures to multiple chemicals. If the maximum LWA concentration of the chemical exceeded
its respective RSL value, the chemical was retained for quantitative analysis. If the
concentration of a chemical was below its respective RSL value, that chemical was determined
unlikely to cause adverse effects and was not included for quantitative analysis in the HHRA.

The RSL for methyl mercury was used to screen mercury in order to be health-protective; this is
a health-protective approach since very little of the mercury in the sediments is present in the
form of methyl mercury. Based on data from the RI, the maximum percentage of methyl
mercury was 1.4% of the total mercury (TAMS, 2002c). However, all mercury was assumed to
be methyl mercury for this HHRA.

The RSL for hexavalent chromium was used to screen chromium in order to be health-protective;
this is a health-protective approach since most of the chromium in the sediments is likely present
in less toxic toxic forms. Based on data collected in 2008, 21 sediment samples from 7 locations
near the Crucible Pump Station were analyzed for hexavalent chromium and no hexavalent
chromium was detected (Environmental Data Services, Inc., 2008). Only four of the 7 locations
were in areas to be dredged. Since the data confirmed no hexavalent chromium was present in
these four locations, chromium results from these four location are evaluated as trivalent
chromium. It should be noted that the maximum detected trivalent chromium concentration from
these four locations of 4,830 mg/kg (from location OL-VC-20139) is less than the RSL value for
trivalent chromium of 12,000 mg/kg (adjusted by 0.1 as described above) and therefore trivalent
chromium is not included in this HHRA. All other chromium results were conservatively
assumed to be hexavalent chromium for this HHRA.

For lead, the screening values recommended by EPA of 400 mg/kg for residential was used
without adjustment and was compared with an average concentration in sediments; this is
consistent with EPA guidance, as the value of 400 mg/kg is not based on a hazard quotient and
so no adjustment is needed (US EPA, 2003b).

Table 2-2 identifies the chemicals that are identified as COPCs for the exposure scenario that
evaluates volatilization from sediments, including water draining from the geotextile tubes, and
inhalation of airborne site-related chemicals. The list of COPCs was generated differently than
the list for sediments. All chemicals identified in sediments were considered for this scenario.
Chemicals were included if they had each of the following: 1) chemicals that are considered
volatile (i.e., having a molecular weight less than 200 g/mole and a Henry’s Law Constant
greater than 1 x 10-5 atm-m3/mole [US EPA, 2010b]) were retained based on the categorization
provided within the EPA RSL tables; 2) chemicals identified as volatile were retained for
evaluation in the risk assessment if they had a toxicity value for use in risk assessment.

18
This method provides a health protective means to determine which chemicals to evaluate for the
volatilization pathway. The volatilization pathway was considered in evaluating the remedial
operations for Onondaga Lake sediments. Specifically, a series of three tests, including wind
tunnel testing, was run to identify the chemicals that are likely to have the potential to volatilize.
A detailed discussion of the testing can be found in Appendix E. Table 2-2 of Appendix B
shows the identification of COPCs for the volatilization pathway. As indicated there, only some
of the chemicals that were identified as COPCs were detected in the wind tunnel testing. The
more comprehensive set of chemicals were included here (i.e., all chemicals in sediments that
were identified as volatile and had toxicity values for use in risk assessment) in order to provide
a more conservative estimate of potential risks.

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were not included in the assessment of inhalation of volatile
chemicals migrating from the SCA since there were no detections of PCBs in the Phase I PDI
wind tunnel air samples and based on the concentrations of PCBs in the sediments that will be
dredged, PCBs are not expected to contribute significantly to the risks associated with inhalation
of volatile chemicals.

3.3. Calculation of the Exposure Point Concentration

Exposure point concentrations (EPCs) for sediments were calculated using chemical analyses of
sediment samples for materials that will be deposited in the SCA. The EPCs for the
volatilization of chemicals from sediments were estimated through dispersion modeling.

Sediment EPCs were calculated for chemicals with concentrations that exceeded their screening
values in Table 2-1 of Appendix B (i.e., sediment COPCs) using ProUCL, version 4.0 (US EPA,
2007). The EPC is the 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) on the arithmetic mean of a LWA
chemical concentration, and provides a 95% level of confidence that the true mean will not be
greater. It is based upon the distribution of the data. The ProUCL program tests the normal,
lognormal, and gamma distributions of each data set and recommends the appropriate statistic
using parametric and non-parametric statistical methods. If analytical data indicated a non-detect
result for a chemical, a value of ½ of the detection limit was used in calculating the UCL. For
chemicals with a data set that is too small to calculate this statistical upperbound average
concentration, the maximum detected concentration was used. The only chemicals for which
this happened were 1,2,3/4,5-tetrachlorobenzene and pentachlorobenzene. The EPCs for the
sediments are shown in Table 3-1 of Appendix B, and the ProUCL outputs showing all of the
statistics for each chemical, can be found in Appendix F.

For the exposure scenario that considered inhalation of airborne volatile chemicals, EPCs were
estimated through dispersion modeling. As explained in Section 2.1, maximum allowable air
concentrations at the work zone perimeter were identified, based on consideration of air quality
values set by USEPA and NYSDEC. These criteria (DAR-1 values) and regional screening
values are risk-based concentrations designed to protect against adverse human health effects
which may be associated with long-term exposure to these contaminants. It should be noted that
workers at the SCA facility are skilled and trained in the handling of this type of material and are
protected by OSHA and by adherence to a site health and safety plan. These maximum
allowable site-perimeter concentrations were fixed at the site perimeter, and an air dispersion
model was then used to estimate the chemical concentrations at community receptors. A detailed

19
explanation of the modeling can be found in Appendix C, while Table 3-2 in Appendix B
presents the EPCs for air.

4. Exposure Assessment

The exposure assessment evaluates pathways by which people are or can be exposed to the
contaminants of concern in different media (e.g., sediment, soil, air). This exposure assessment
considers only hypothetical future exposure scenarios. The quantification of exposure is based
on factors including, but not limited to, the concentrations that people are or can be exposed to,
the potential frequency (number of days per year), and the duration of exposure (number of
years). The exposure assessment is based on the maximum site-specific parameters that can
reasonably be expected at the site, which is termed the reasonable maximum exposure or RME.

The goal of this HHRA is to estimate the RME expected to occur during operation of the SCA
and if the SCA sediments somehow were released in the future and there would be potential for
area residents to enter onto Wastebed 13, come onto or near the SCA, and come into contact with
these materials. In other words, the RME is the greatest exposure that is reasonably expected to
occur. As a result, the risk assessment provides upper-bound estimates of the risks and hazards
for people living near the SCA facility using health-protective exposure assumptions so that
these risks and hazards are not underestimated. The exposure assumptions for each receptor can
be found in Tables 4-1 through 4-4 in Appendix B. Following is a description of the exposure
parameters used for each receptor in this assessment.

4.1. Exposure Assumptions

Child Resident
The child resident (up to 6 years old) could be exposed to contaminants in the air and in the
sediments. When evaluating the scenario that considers potential exposure to sediments that will
be placed in the SCA, the child resident is assumed to be coming onto Wastebed 13 and
contacted sediments at or near the SCA, with exposure through dermal contact and incidental
ingestion. The child is assumed to have an exposed skin surface area of 2,800 cm2, which
includes head, forearms, hands, lower legs, and feet. For the soil to skin adherence factor (the
factor that relates how much soil sticks to the skin and is available for absorption across the
skin), a value of 0.2 mg/cm2 is used. The child is assumed to weigh 15 kg (approximately 33
pounds). The clean up of any sediment released is assumed to be 45 days. These exposure
assumptions are shown in Table 4-2 of Appendix B (US EPA, 1989; US EPA, 1991a; US EPA,
1997a; US EPA, 2002a; US EPA, 2004a; US EPA, 2009).

Adolescent Resident: Appendix B, Table 4-3 provides a summary of the exposure terms used to
estimate exposures for adolescents ages 6-16. As indicated there, the surface area ranges from
2949 to 5386 cm2 which includes head, forearms, hands, and lower legs. A soil to skin
adherence factor of 0.2 mg/cm2 is used for ages 6-12 and a factor of 0.07 mg/cm2 is used for ages
13-16. The adolescent is assumed to weigh from 22 to 58 kg. Because the exposure time is 45
days within one year the exposure estimate is a single average estimate for all of the ages from
age 6 to age 16 years (Appendix B, Table 4.3) (US EPA, 1989; US EPA, 1991a; US EPA,
1997a; US EPA, 2002a; US EPA, 2004a; US EPA, 2009).

20
Adult Resident
The adult resident (greater than 16 years old) could be exposed to contaminants in the air and in
the sediments. When evaluating the scenario that looks at exposure to sediments after a release
at the SCA, the adult resident is assumed to be on Wastebed 13, be at or near the SCA, and be
exposed through dermal contact and incidental ingestion. The adult is assumed to have an
exposed skin surface area of 5,700 cm2, which includes head, forearms, hands, and lower legs.
For the soil to skin adherence factor value of 0.07 mg/cm2 is used. The adult is assumed to
weigh 70 kg (approximately 155 pounds). The cleanup of any sediment released is assumed to
be 45 days. These exposure assumptions are shown in Table 4-1 of Appendix B (US EPA, 1989;
US EPA, 1991a; US EPA, 1997a; US EPA, 2002a; US EPA, 2004a; US EPA, 2009).

Inhalation Exposure
Inhalation exposure is evaluated differently from exposure through dermal contact and ingestion.
While exposure through these two pathways requires each age-specific population to be assessed
independently, the evaluation of inhalation does not. When age-specific populations are exposed
through similar scenarios, such as residential scenarios, certain toxicological considerations need
to be addressed when quantifying this exposure. Therefore, adults and children residents are
evaluated together. As shown in Table 4-4 of Appendix B, inhalation exposure is assumed to
occur over 350 days per year for 5 years, the length of time estimated for the dredging to last (US
EPA, 2009).

Age-Dependent Adjustment Factors (ADAFs)

Certain carcinogenic chemicals are known to act through a mutagenic mode of action for
carcinogenicity. This means that some ages are particularly susceptible to the carcinogenic
potential of these chemicals, and this increased susceptibility must be accounted for when
quantifying the risks. In this assessment no chemicals included in the inhalation exposure are
known to act through this mode of action. For the sediment exposure scenario, only PAHs are
considered to have this mode of action. To account for the mode of action of PAHs, Table 4-3
was created showing the age-adjusted exposure parameters used for the age groupings requiring
adjustment to the cancer risk calculations. These age groups include children ages 0-2 and 2-6;
adolescents ages 6-16; and adults ages 16 and up. Because the exposure period is less than one
year, the exposure estimates used in this assessment are presented as an average exposure over
each of these age periods (Appendix B, Table 4-3) (US EPA, 2005a; US EPA, 2005b).

4.2. Estimating Exposure

Dermal Exposure to Soil
To calculate dermal exposure to soil, Exhibit 1-3 in RAGS, Part E, Supplemental Guidance for
Dermal Risk Assessment (EPA, 2004a) was followed. Cancer risks and non-cancer hazards for
arsenic, cadmium, dioxins (as TCDD Equivalents), PCBs, hexachlorobenzene, benzo(a)pyrene
and other PAHs were calculated using the dermal absorption factors in Exhibit 3-4 of RAGS,
Part E (EPA, 2004a).

Incidental Ingestion of Soil

The incidental ingestion pathway was assessed following the exposure model presented in
Exhibit 6-14 in RAGS, PART A, Volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual (EPA, 1989).
Cancer risks and non-cancer hazards were estimated for all chemicals for which toxicity
information was available.

21
Inhalation of Volatiles
For estimating the cancer risk and non-cancer hazard from inhalation of volatiles, Equations 10
and 11 presented in RAGS, Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment were
used when inhalation toxicity values were available (EPA, 2009).

Mutagenic Mode of Action

As stated in Section 4.1, when carcinogenic chemicals are identified as acting through a
mutagenic mode of action, quantification of risk from exposure to these chemicals must address
the susceptibility of certain populations of certain ages. This approach, using the Age Dependent
Adjustment Factors (ADAFs), follows the Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility
from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens (EPA, 2005b). In summary, a 10-fold adjustment to
the toxicity of a chemical is necessary when assessing risks to children in the first 2 years of life,
a 3-fold adjustment is used to account for the susceptibility of children aged 2 to less than 16,
while no adjustment is needed for exposures that occur to people over the age of 16. These
factors are shown in Tables 6-1 and 6-2 in Appendix B. This is discussed in more detail in
Section 5.2.

5. Toxicity Assessment

The toxicity assessment conservatively estimates the types of adverse health effects potentially
associated with exposures to contaminants at the site and the relationship between the magnitude
of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects (response). In December 2003, EPA’s Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) issued a directive outlining the hierarchy of
toxicity values to be used for risk assessment purposes. Values that come from the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS), which represents EPA’s consensus database for cancer and
non-cancer toxicity information, belong in Tier I of the hierarchy. Tier II is the Provisional Peer-
Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV). Tier III includes other sources of toxicity information such
as California EPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases (ATSDR), and the Health
Effects Assessment Summary Table (HEAST). For this assessment, IRIS values were used when
they were available. PPRTVs were used in the absence of IRIS values if they were available.
All toxicity values from Tier III have been approved by the EPA Office of Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Superfund Technical
Support Center. (US EPA, 2003a).

5.1. Health Effects Criteria for Non-Carcinogens

Tables 5-1 and 5-2 in Appendix B provide data on non-cancer health effects associated with the
COPCs. The toxicity values presented are the oral reference dose (RfD), the absorbed RfD for
dermal exposure, and the inhalation reference concentrations (RfC). The non-cancer health
endpoint (i.e., the target organ) associated with the chemical can also be found on these tables.

5.2. Health Effects Criteria for Carcinogens

Tables 6-1 and 6-2 in Appendix B provide dose-response information in the form of the cancer
slope factor for the ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation routes. The weight of evidence

22
(WOE) for each chemical, which is used to characterize the extent to which the available human
epidemiology and animal studies indicate that a chemical may cause cancer in humans, is also
shown (US EPA, 1989). The WOE is categorized into six groups:

(A) Known Human Carcinogen

(B-1) Probable Human Carcinogen – based on limited evidence of
carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in
animals;
(B-2) Probable Human Carcinogen – based on sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity in animals;
(C) Possible Human Carcinogen;
(D) Not classifiable as a human carcinogen; and
(E) Evidence chemical is not a carcinogen in humans.

The EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines, however, provide an update to the original 1986 Cancer
Guidelines and subsequent updates. In summary, the 2005 Cancer Guidelines emphasize the
value of understanding the biological changes that the chemical can cause and how these changes
might lead to the development of cancer (US EPA, 2005a). They also discuss methods to
evaluate and use such information, including information about an agent's postulated mode of
action, or the series of steps and processes that lead to cancer formation. Mode of action data,
when available and of sufficient quality, may be useful in drawing conclusions about the potency
of an agent, its potential effects at low doses, whether findings in animals are relevant to humans,
and which populations or life stages may be particularly susceptible. In the absence of mode-of-
action information, default options are available to allow the risk assessment to proceed.

The 2005 Guidelines recommend that an agent's human carcinogenic potential be described in a
weight-of-evidence narrative rather than the previously identified letter categories. The narrative
summarizes the full range of available evidence and describes any conditions associated with
conclusions about an agent's hazard potential. The following are the five recommended standard
hazard descriptors:

• carcinogenic to humans
• likely to be carcinogenic to humans
• suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential
• inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential
• not likely to be carcinogenic to humans

EPA is evaluating the carcinogenic weight of evidence of chemicals through the IRIS chemical
process. The requirements for in-depth analysis of mode-of-action data and the review process
does not allow the equating of a chemical evaluated under the old letter system classification
with the 2005 Classification narrative; rather, a full analysis of the data is required. (US EPA,
2005a)

The 2005 Cancer Guidelines also include Supplemental Guidance on the evaluation of early
lifetime exposures. For example, where data are available on mutagenic mode of action for
carcinogenesis, the Supplemental Guidance provides procedures for developing chemical-
specific potency factors that account for early life susceptibility. In most cases, these data do not

23
exist and standard age-dependent adjustment factors can be applied to account for early life
susceptibility.

Because chemical-specific toxicity data on early life susceptibility are not available for most
chemicals (vinyl chloride being the exception), cancer risks from the COPCs in this HHRA that
are known to be carcinogenic by mutagenic mode of action (benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene) were calculated using the general age-dependent adjustment factors
recommended in the Supplemental Guidance. They are: a 10-fold adjustment to the toxicity
value for ages 0 – <2 years; a 3-fold adjustment to the toxicity value for ages 2 – <16 years; and
no adjustment to the toxicity value for ages 16 years and older. See Section 6 for a discussion of
where these adjustments are presented in the HHRA (US EPA, 2005b).

6. Risk Characterization

In risk characterization, quantitative exposure estimates and toxicity factors are combined to
calculate numerical estimates of potential health risk. In this section, potential cancer and
noncancer health risks are estimated assuming exposure to chemicals detected in site media. As
described in Section 4, Exposure Assessment, potential risks are estimated for two hypothetical
scenarios related to chemicals in sediments that will be placed in the SCA:

1. Potential future exposures through air that could occur during remediation: This
scenario evaluated risks associated with inhalation of COPCs that could volatilize from
sediment and water during the period of sediment management and dewatering and be
transported in air to offsite residents.

2. Potential future exposures that could occur in the event of hypothetical failure of the
SCA. This scenario evaluated potential risks associated with unintentional (incidental)
ingestion and skin (dermal) contact with sediments in the event of a failure of the SCA
and people coming onto the SCA and into contact with sediments. Adults, adolescents,
and children are evaluated in this scenario.

There are no complete exposure scenarios under current conditions since the sediment dredging
activities have not started, and once these activities begin, measures will be in place to limit
future exposures to acceptable levels. Thus, the hypothetical future exposure scenarios evaluated
here provide a conservative means to evaluate potential risks posed by COPCs in sediment to be
placed in the SCA. The risk characterization methods described in RAGS (US EPA, 1989b)
were used to calculate RME excess lifetime cancer risks for carcinogens and hazard indices for
contaminants with noncancer health effects. These methods and the results of the risk
characterization are described below.

Tables in Appendix B show detailed results of the risk calculations for each exposure pathway,
including exposure point concentrations and intakes calculated for the reasonable maximum
exposure scenarios, toxicity values used in risk estimates, and potential risk estimates for each
COPC in each exposure pathway.

24
6.1. Risk Characterization for Carcinogens

6.1.1. Methods

Quantifying total excess lifetime cancer risk requires calculating risks associated with exposure
to individual carcinogens and aggregating risks associated with simultaneous exposure to
multiple carcinogenic chemicals. A cancer risk estimate for a single carcinogen is calculated by
multiplying the intake by its carcinogenic slope factor (CSF) for oral or dermal risk estimates or
by the inhalation unit risk (IUR) for inhalation risks (US EPA, 1989; US EPA, 2009):

Cancer Risk = Intake x (CSF or IUR)

A 1×10–6 cancer risk represents a one in one million additional probability that an individual may
develop cancer over a 70-year lifetime as a result of exposure under the conditions and scenarios
evaluated. Because cancer risks are assumed to be additive, risks associated with simultaneous
exposure to more than one carcinogen in a given medium are aggregated to determine a total
cancer risk for each exposure pathway. Total cancer risks for each pathway are then summed for
reasonable combinations of exposure pathways to determine the total cancer risk for the
population of concern.

The likelihood that actual risks are greater than estimated risks is very low because of the
conservative assumptions used to develop cancer risk estimates.

The findings presented here are compared with the range of acceptable risk levels cited in the
NCP (U.S. EPA 1990b). The NCP states that risk levels in the range of 10–4 to 10–6 and lower
are considered to be within the range of acceptable risks for Superfund sites.

6.1.2. Quantification of Carcinogenic Risks

Carcinogenic risk estimates were calculated for children, adolescents, and adults in the RME
scenarios as the probability of additional cancers associated with the exposure pathways
evaluated. Based on the exposure assumptions and toxicity values described above, Appendix B
Table 8-1 provides a summary of risk estimates for all complete exposure pathways in the RME
scenarios. This table also provides a summary of COPCs accounting for the majority of the risk
estimates in each pathway. As described in Sections 4 and 5, carcinogenic PAHs are evaluated
using four age groups (0-2 years, 2-6 years, 6-16 years, and over 16 years) so that modifying
factors can be applied to account for assumed additional potency related to time of exposure.
Detailed risk estimates are provided in Appendix B Tables 7-1 through 7-4 for all chemicals
except PAHs and in Appendix B Supplement A Tables 7-1 through 7-4 for PAHs.

In Table 8-1, risk estimates for carcinogenic chemicals other than PAHs are also shown so that a
total cumulative risk can be presented for each of the four age groups considered for
carcinogenic PAHs. Cancer risk estimates for an adult or child exposure to carcinogenic
chemicals other than PAHs (Appendix B Tables 7-1 and 7-2) were adjusted to reflect the
exposure estimates within the four age groups estimated for PAHs. This adjustment was made
by taking the ratio of the exposure estimate (chronic daily intake or [CDI]) for children ages 0-2
or 2-6 over the CDI for children ages 0-6 and multiplying that product times the total cancer risk

25
estimate for chemicals other than PAHs. Cancer risk estimates for adolescents’ exposure to
chemicals other than PAHs were calculated as the ratio of the adolescent CDI over that for
adults. The cumulative risk estimates for all carcinogens in each of the four age groups is shown
in Table 8-1 in Appendix B.

As indicated in Table 8-1, no exposure pathways result in risk estimates greater than the 10-4 risk
level that is the upper end of the EPA target risk range.

• Inhalation – Adults and Children: The hypothetical future inhalation cancer risk
estimates for offsite adults and children were 4×10-6 with primary contributors to risk
being ethylbenzene and naphthalene based on application of the California EPA unit risks
for these chemicals. The risk estimates associated with the remaining carcinogenic
chemicals combined were 2 ×10-6 (Appendix B Table 7-3).

• Contact with Sediments – Adults: The hypothetical future cancer risk estimates
associated with exposure to sediments (oral and dermal exposure routes) was 1 ×10-6 for
all carcinogenic chemicals combined (Appendix B Table 8-1).

• Contact with Sediments – Children: The hypothetical future cancer risk estimate
associated with exposure to sediments (oral and dermal routes) was 3×10-5 for children
ages zero to 2 and 1 ×10-5 for children ages 2-6 (Appendix B Table 8-1), with the primary
contributors to risk being hexavalent chromium and the carcinogenic PAHs .

• Contact with Sediments – Adolescents: The hypothetical future cancer risk estimate
associated with exposure to sediments (oral and dermal routes) was 3×10-6 for
adolescents ages 6 to 16 (Appendix B Table 8-1) also associated primarily with
hexavalent chromium and the carcinogenic PAHs.

6.2. Quantification of Hazard Indices for Effects other than Cancer

6.2.1. Methods

Unlike carcinogenic effects, other potential adverse health effects are not expressed as a
probability. Instead, these effects are expressed as the ratio of the estimated exposure over a
specified time period to the RfD or RfC derived for a similar exposure period (e.g., Chronic
Daily Intake:chronic RfD or RfC). This ratio is termed a hazard quotient (US EPA, 1989; US
EPA, 2009):

HQ = Intake ÷ (RfD or RfC)

If the Chronic Daily Intake, or CDI, exceeds the RfD or RfC (i.e., the hazard quotient is greater
than 1), there may be concern for noncancer adverse health effects, and as this quotient increase,
the potential for noncancer health effects increases. Exposures resulting in a hazard quotient less
than or equal to 1 are very unlikely to result in noncancer adverse health effects.

26
In initial risk calculations, hazard quotients for individual COPCs are summed for each exposure
pathway to derive a hazard index. Hazard indices for each exposure pathway are then summed
to determine the total hazard index for each population of concern.

In the event a total hazard index exceeds 1, the hazard index is segregated by primary target
organs because adding hazard quotients of compounds that do not affect the same target organ
could overestimate the potential for adverse effects. Consistent with the latest RAGS guidance
(U.S. EPA 1998b), hazard quotients for individual chemicals that share the same critical effect or
primary target organ as reported in IRIS (U.S. EPA 2010c) or other resources used to derive
toxicity values are summed across exposure pathways to determine a total hazard index for that
target organ. If the hazard index for a particular target organ exceeds 1, the hazard index for
each target organ can be further evaluated by identifying the mode of action on the target organ.
In this step, separate hazard indices for each mode of action for each target organ are calculated.

6.2.2. Quantification of Noncarcinogenic Risks

Detailed risk estimates are provided in Appendix B Tables 7-1 through 7-3 and Appendix B,
Table 8-2 (inhalation exposure) and Table 8-3 (sediment exposure) show the hazard indices (HI)
for COPCs summed based on the primary target organs (or systems) that they affect. Tables 8-2
and 8-3 also show the primary chemicals contributing to the total hazard index for each pathway-
endpoint combination. For adult exposure to sediments (see Table 7-2), none of the scenarios
had hazard quotients or combined hazard indices greater than 1.0. Although the total HI
(approximately 2) for child exposure to sediments (ingestion and dermal contact) slightly
exceeds 1 (as shown in Table 7-1), the HI values for each endpoint do not exceed 1 (as shown in
Table 8-3). In addition, although the total HI (approximately 4) for the inhalation exposure
exceeds 1 (as shown in Table 7-3), the HI values for all receptors for each target organ do not
exceed 1 (as shown in Table 8-2).

6.3. Off-Site Workers

As stated previously, off-site workers are not quantitatively evaluated in this HHRA. Exposure
from inhalation of volatile chemicals that may migrate from the SCA are quantitatively evaluated
for the nearby residents, assuming a standard residential exposure typically used in risk
assessments. This exposure scenario assumes that residents are exposed for 350 days per year
for the duration of the project, 5 years. Off-site workers who might be working at Wastebed 15
or in other nearby areas would be exposed less frequently, up to 250 days per year, which
assumes 5 days per week for 50 weeks during the year. Under this scenario, the off-site worker
would have a lower exposure and therefore the cancer risks and noncancer hazards would be
proportionally less. Since the risks estimated for the residents fall within the acceptable risk
range, the risks and hazards to the off-site worker are also in this range.

6.4. Uncertainty Assessment

Key uncertainties in the risk assessment should be considered in order to better place the risk
estimates within context. Estimates provided here are hypothetical and were derived as a means
to evaluate plans for the SCA and better limit potential future risks. However, many of the

27
assumptions applied here tend to overestimate potential future site risks. These include the
following:

6.4.1. Hexavalent Chromium. Chromium can exist is several forms, and two forms
are most commonly considered in an HHRA, the trivalent form and the hexavalent form.
Results for samples collected from 4 locations near the Crucible Lake Pump Station site
that were analyzed for both total and hexavalent chromium did not identify any
hexavalent chromium; these results were therefore considered to be in the trivalent form,
which is significantly less harmful, and were ultimately screened out and not considered
further in this HHRA. All other chromium results were analyzed only for total
chromium, and were conservatively considered to be in the hexavalent form, which is
more toxic. Under this conservative assumption, hexavalent chromium risk estimates
were responsible for approximately 90% of the cancer risk estimates for ingestion of
sediments. This is likely an overestimate of the true risk, since hexavalent chromium is
reasonably assumed only to be a small percentage of the total chromium in the sediments,
and the limited data which are available indicate that the chromium is not present as
hexavalent chromium. In the unlikely event of a failure of the SCA containment and a
release of the sediments, measures would be implemented to address the release in
accordance with site management plans (e.g., Spill Contingency Plan) to be developed.
The measures may include additional sampling and characterization, including speciating
potential risk-driving chemicals such as chromium.

6.4.2. Methyl mercury. Mercury is another chemical that can exist in several forms.
However, these forms were not analyzed in most sediment samples, and mercury was
reported as total mercury. For the hypothetical sediment exposure pathway in this
HHRA, all mercury risk estimates were calculated assuming mercury was present as
methyl mercury in sediments, which is the most conservative approach when assessing
oral and dermal exposures. As stated previously, existing data indicate that the maximum
percentage of methyl mercury is 1.4%. Nevertheless, all hazard indices for mercury for
both the sediment and the inhalation exposure pathways were within acceptable levels.
As stated in Section 3.2, this HHRA assumed conservatively that all mercury is present in
the more toxic form. In the unlikely event of a release of sediments, measures would be
implemented to address the release in accordance with site management plans (e.g., Spill
Contingency Plan) to be developed. The measures may include additional sampling and
characterization, including speciating potential risk-driving chemicals such as mercury.

6.4.3. Cobalt. One exposure scenario estimates potential risk from direct contact from
sediments in the hypothetical event of a failure of the SCA and individuals come into
contact with the sediments. Under this scenario, cobalt contributes approximately 19% to
the overall hazard index to the child from exposure to sediments (the total noncancer
hazard index to the adult are less than 1, so no further evaluation is necessary). The
sediment data set for cobalt consists of 133 samples collected from 37 locations within
the area to be dredged. A length weighted average (LWA) was calculated for each
location and these 37 LWAs were used to calculate the exposure point concentration for
cobalt that was used in the risk assessment. Of these 37 locations, two locations near the
Crucible Lake Pump Station site have significantly higher LWA cobalt concentrations
than all other locations in the area to be dredged and strongly influence the overall

28
exposure point concentration. These two locations represent less than 2% of the overall
volume of sediment to be dredged and are not representative of the cobalt concentrations
in the material that will be dredged. Therefore, the noncancer hazard index for cobalt is
likely overestimated.

6.4.4. Toxicity Values. Significant uncertainty may be associated with the derivation of
RfDs and CSFs. Toxicity values based on human epidemiological studies are not
available for most chemicals, and those human studies that are available generally lack
exposure data and are confounded by exposure to multiple chemicals, recall bias, and
lifestyle issues. Laboratory animal studies are used to derive most toxicity values and the
practice of extrapolating from effects in animals to predict human toxic response is a
major source of uncertainty in risk assessment.

RfD development is a health-protective and conservative process, which uses a No

Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) or a Lowest Observable Adverse Effect
Level (LOAEL) from an animal study, divided by a series of 3- or 10-fold Uncertainty
Factors (UFs). The UFs are intended to account for differences between humans and
laboratory animals, variation in sensitivity within the human population, differences
between subchronic and chronic exposures, use of a LOAEL versus a NOAEL, and the
strength of the toxicology database for a particular chemical. The combination of several
UFs results in RfDs that are several orders of magnitude lower than the doses that
produce minimal or no effects in animals.

CSFs may also highly conservative and contain multiple sources of uncertainty, including
the methods of extrapolation from high doses to low doses and from animals to humans.
In addition, genetic constitution, diet, occupational and home environments, activity
patterns, and other cultural factors influence human susceptibility to cancer. To
compensate for this uncertainty, CSFs generally represent the 95% UCL on the
probability of a carcinogenic response at a certain dose rate over a lifetime.

Many chemicals do not have peer-reviewed toxicity values available. For example, many
of the PAHs do not have RfDs available to assess non-cancer health hazards. Many Class
C carcinogens do not have SFs derived. This lack of toxicity information underestimates
the actual risk.

6.4.5. Potential for Overestimation within Exposure Scenarios. The SCA is planned
to be closely managed and maintained. Consequently, the assumed potential for exposure
to sediments is hypothetical and may overestimate risks, particularly for young children
(due to their increased susceptibility from exposure to chemicals acting through a
mutagenic mode of action) who would be unlikely to come into contact with this
material. All risk estimates for sediments for adults are within 1×10-6.

6.4.6. Exposure Assumptions. There is considerable uncertainty regarding the

likelihood of exposure to a given medium of concern. It is unknown whether all of the
exposure pathways modeled will ever be actually complete or whether the individuals
evaluated will actually be exposed to COPCs. For example, for the sediment exposure
scenario to be complete, children, adolescents, and adults must enter the site and gain

29
access to sediments released from the SCA. Although this is theoretically possible, there
is no evidence that such activities would actually take place.

Exposure estimates used to calculate risks and hazards may also be relatively uncertain.
Many of the exposure parameter values applied are default values determined by USEPA
(1989, 1991, 1997a), or rely on professional judgment rather than site-specific values. As
such, risk estimates based on these exposure parameters generally represent conservative
estimates. In particular, the RME scenario relies heavily on guidance documents that may
not have the most current and accurate information on exposures. For example, exposure
to sediments released from the SCA is assumed to occur every day for the 45 day period
it would take for the sediments to be remediated, and assuming any exposure at the SCA
is consistent with the types of exposures typical in residential scenarios. Due to the
distance from the SCA to the residences (the nearest residence is approximately 1500 feet
from the SCA) and the likelihood of interim measures such as additional fencing, cover
material, or other engineering controls to be implemented, this type of exposure is not
anticipated. As a result, risks and hazards predicted under the RME scenario may
potentially overestimate risks and hazards at the site. In the unlikely event of a failure of
the SCA and a release of sediments, it is recommended that the actual exposures that
would occur, once the interim controls are implemented, be evaluated to ensure that they
are not greater than the exposures in the scenarios defined in this HHRA.

6.4.7. Inhalation of Volatilized Chemicals. The air concentrations used as a starting

point in deriving offsite air estimates are all assumed to be the lower of either the DAR-1
number or the industrial RSLs after adjustment for a 5-year exposure duration for all
chemicals identified in the sediments as volatile. Both bench scale testing of sediments
and testing of volatilization from sediments suggest that instead approximately half of the
chemicals would actually be volatilized from sediments. This assumption results in a
cumulative air exposure risk estimate that is higher than what would likely occur.

6.4.8. Application of the Highest Receptor Location in Air Estimates. Workplace

perimeter concentrations were used to estimate offsite air concentrations. The resulting
estimates were evaluated, and the highest yearly average concentration was applied. The
selection of this maximum value means that all other yearly average concentrations
would be lower and thus exposure estimates for most people would be lower than this
value.

6.4.9. Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs). Standard analytical protocols for

Superfund sites require that an extensive list of chemicals be analyzed and reported. This
list is known as the Target Compound List (TCL)/Target Analyte List (TAL) for organic
chemicals and metals, respectively. The list was developed with consideration of the
chemicals most commonly found at sites. Other chemicals that are not routinely analyzed
for or reported might be present at sites. These chemicals are known as tentatively
identified compounds (TICs), since neither the identity nor the concentration can be
reported with certainty. The TICs could present a contribution to risk that has not
been quantified, however, they typically do not contribute significantly to the overall risk
or hazard at a site. The extensive database of more than 33,000 samples collected at the

30
 site provides a robust data set that supports the basis for the risks identified in this
assessment.

7. Conclusions

This supplemental risk assessment applied conservative exposure assumptions to evaluate

potential risks associated with the establishment of the SCA and to address community concerns.
Estimates were designed to represent two hypothetical future scenarios: 1) exposure to
contaminants that could migrate from the site in air during operation of the SCA and 2) exposure
to sediments within the SCA post-closure if the SCA were to fail, sediments were released and
people would come onto Wastebed 13 and contact the sediments on or near the SCA. Both of
these potential future scenarios were intended to represent the reasonable maximum exposure
potential and both assume individuals of all ages could be exposed. As such, these risk estimates
are likely higher than risks that would likely be experienced by most receptors.

All resulting risk estimates and hazard indices were within levels identified by EPA as
acceptable. The finding of acceptable risk estimates through application of these health
protective assumptions, indicates that the plans for the SCA will not result in unacceptable risks
for the surrounding community. Nevertheless, the SCA will be closely monitored to ensure that
sediments are managed with care and secured appropriately and that offsite migration of
chemicals in air is limited or prevented.

This HHRA can also be used as a tool for risk managers during the implementation of the
remedy and management of the SCA. The exposure scenarios evaluated in this HHRA are future
hypothetical situations, so the outcome can be used to help assess the effectiveness of the
remedy. For example, the air concentrations modeled in the residential areas are based on work
zone perimeter concentrations that reflect the maximum annual average concentrations for all
chemicals. It is highly unlikely that every volatile chemical would be present at that
concentration for a one year period of time to result in that exposure scenario. During remedy
implementation, if monitored air concentrations indicate a trend towards chemicals reaching this
maximum annual average concentration for a sustained period of time, risk managers can modify
site operations to reduce these concentrations so that the actual risks are much lower than those
estimated here. Risk managers can also use this HHRA to assist in managing risks in the
unlikely event of a failure of the SCA. If sediments are released as a result of a failure of the
SCA, measures would be implemented to address the release in accordance with site
management plans (e.g.. Spill Contingency Plan) to be developed. The measures may include
additional sampling and characterization, for example, speciating potential risk-driving
chemicals such as mercury and chromium, to ensure that the actual exposures that would occur
once the interim controls are implemented are not greater than the exposures in the scenarios
defined in this HHRA.

31
32
8. References

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2000. Toxicological Profile for
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public
Health Service.

Dourson, M.L., and J.F. Stara. 1983. Regulatory history and experimental support of uncertainty
(safety) factors. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 3:224-238.

Environmental Data Services, Inc. 2008. Data Usability Summary Report, Onondaga Lake,
Syracuse, NY, for Chemtech Sample Delivery Group Z3768, Hexavalent Chromium. Prepared
for Earth Tech under contract to NYSDEC. August 28, 2008.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2007. DAR-1 AGC/SGC Tables.
September 10, 2007.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Department of
Health, and United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 2. 2010, Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQs), Onondaga Lake Dredging Project
Sediment Consolidation Area (SCA) at Wastebed 13. April.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Environmental
Protection Agency Region 2. 2005. Record of Decision. Onondaga Lake Bottom Subsite of the
Onondaga Lake Superfund Site. July.

New York State, State Environmental Board. 2006. 6 NYCRR Subparts 375-1 through 375-4 and
Subpart 375-6. Available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/34189.html. Accessed on November
21, 2007.

Parsons. 2006. Onondaga Lake Sediment Consolidation Area (SCA) Siting Evaluation. Prepared
for Honeywell, Syracuse, New York. September.

Parsons. 2009. SCA Dewatering Evaluation Report. Prepared for Honeywell, Morristown, NJ,
February.

Parsons and Geosyntec. 2009. Draft Onondaga Lake Sediment Consolidation Area Civil and
Geotechnical Initial Design Submittal. August.

TAMS. 2002a. Onondaga Lake Human Health Risk Assessment. Original document prepared
by Exponent, Bellevue, Washington, for Honeywell, East Syracuse, New York. Revision
prepared by TAMS, New York, New York and YEC, Valley Cottage, New York, for New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York. December.

TAMS. 2002b. Onondaga Lake Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment. Original document
prepared by Exponent, Bellevue, Washington, for Honeywell, East Syracuse, New York.
Revision prepared by TAMS, New York, New York and YEC, Valley Cottage, New York, for
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York. December.

33
TAMS. 2002c. Onondaga Lake Remedial Investigation. Original document prepared by
Exponent, Bellevue, Washington, for Honeywell, East Syracuse, New York. Revision prepared
by TAMS, New York, New York and YEC, Valley Cottage, New York, for New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York. December.

United States District Court, Northern District of New York. 2007. State of New York and
Denise M. Sheehan against Honeywell International, Inc. Consent Decree Between the State of
New York and Honeywell International, Inc. Senior Judge Scullin. Dated
October 11, 2006. File January 4, 2007.

US EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume 1, Human Health
Evaluation Manual, Part A. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/1-89/002.

US EPA. 1990. National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. 55 Federal
Register Vol 55, No. 50. March 1990.

US EPA. 1991a. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: “Standard Default
Exposure Factors.” OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.

US EPA. 1991b. RAGS Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B, Development of
Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals. US EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC. 9285.7-01B.

US EPA. 1991c. Role of Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions.
OSWER Directive 9355.0-30.

USEPA. 1992a. Final Guidelines for Exposure Assessment: Notice. 57 Federal Register
104:22888-22938. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. May 29.
USEPA. 1992b. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term.
OSWER 9285.7-081. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May.

USEPA. 1993. Provisional Guidelines for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons. USEPA/600/R-93/089. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC. July.

USEPA. 1995a. Policy for Risk Characterization at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC. March.

US EPA. 1995b. Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process. OSWER Directive
9355.7-04.

US EPA. 1997a. Exposure Factors Handbook: Volume I (General Factors) & III (Activity
Factors). EPA/600/P-95/002Fa and c.

34
USEPA. 1997b. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). FY 1997 Update. USEPA-
540-R-97-036. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. July.

US EPA. 1998. Clarification to the 1994 Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA sites
and RCR Corrective Action Facilities. OSWER Directive 9200.4-27P.

US EPA. 2001. RAGS Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part D, Standardized
Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments. US EPA, OSWER,
Washington, DC. OSWER 9285.7-47.

US EPA 2002a. Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (Interim Report) 2002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC, EPA-600-P-00-002B, 2002

US EPA. 2002b. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund
Sites. OSWER 9355.4-24.

US EPA. 2002c. Calculating the Upper Confidences Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations
at Hazardous Waste Sites. OSWER 9285.6-10.

US EPA. 2003a. Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments. OSWER
Directive 9285.7-53.

US EPA. 2003b. Recommendations of the Technical Review Workgroup for Lead for and
Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposure to Lead in Soil. EPA 540-R-03-
001.

US EPA. 2004a. RAGS Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part E, Supplemental
Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment. US EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC. OSWER 9285.7-
02EP.

US EPA. 2004b. Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals.

http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/index.htm

US EPA. 2004c. Integrated Risk Information System. www.epa.gov/iris.

US EPA. March 2005a. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001F.

US EPA. March 2005b. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life
Exposure to Carcinogens.

US EPA. April 2007. ProUCL User’s Guide Version 4.0. Prepared for US EPA by Lockheed
Martin. EPA/600/R-07/038.

35
US EPA. January 2009. RAGS Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part F,
Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment. US EPA, OSWER, Washington, DC.
OSWER 9285.7-82.

US EPA. May 2010a. Regional Screening Levels. Generic tables.

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/Generic_Tables/index.htm

US EPA. May 2010b. Regional Screening Levels. Users Guide.

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/usersguide.

US EPA. May 2010c. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). http://www.epa.gov/iris/.

Last updated May 21, 2010. Accessed May 25, 2010.

36
Appendix A

Figures
 Wastebed 13

Wastebed
11 Wastebeds
9-10

Wastebed
12

Wastebed Wastebed 15
14

FIGURE 1
LATITUDE: N 43° 5’ 57” N
LONGITUDE: W 76° 10’ 41”
Sediment Consolidation Area
Syracuse
Onondaga Lake Bottom Subsite
R
Remedial
di l D
Design
i
SOURCE: U.S.G.S.
SYRACUSE WEST
QUADRANGLE
New York
Quadrangle SITE LOCATION MAP
 Dredge Area A

Dredge Area B

Dredge Area C
Dredge Area E

Legend Dredge Area D

Sample Locations

Dredge Area (RA-A)

Dredge Area (RA-B)

Dredge Area (RA-C)

Dredge Area (RA-D)

Dredge Area (RA-E)

Note: Not all parameters were analyzed at each location.

0 0.5 1
Miles Figure 4. Sample Locations
Dredge Area Length-Weighted Averages
 SCA Perimeter

Work zone Perimeter

Site Perimeter fence

Site Perimeter fence

Golden 
Meadows

~200 ft Buffer
Airport Road

~500 ft Buffer
Treatment
Plant And
Process Active Town of 
Areas Camillus C&D
Landfill
Thomas/ 
Greenfield  James Ave
Village
g

Not to Scale

FIGURE 2

West Colony
West Colony  SCA BUFFER ZONES AND 
Starlight  Point SURROUNDING 
Estates COMMUNITIES
 FIGURE 3

GOLDEN MEADOWS
¥
LEGEND
NEAREST RESIDENTIAL RECEPTOR BOUNDARY
Nine Mile Creek WORK ZONE PERIMETER
Interbed
RECEPTOR COMMUNITY
DREDGE TRANSPORT PIPELINE
Wastebeds 1-8
SCA AREA
Wastebed 11
WATER TREATMENT PROCESS AREAS

Wastebeds 9 & 10

Retention Ponds

Geddes
Brook

SCA
AREA
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
AND PROCESS AREAS

Wastebeds 12-15

DISPERSION MODELING
THOMAS/
ANALYSIS BOUNDARIES
GREENFIELD VILLAGE JAMES AVE

t
u
695

0 750 1,500 3,000

Feet
WEST COLONY POINT
STARLIGHT ESTATES

t
u5

This document was developed in color. Reproduction in B/W may not represent the data as intended. Aerial Image: April 2009, NYS GIS Clearinghouse
 Appendix B

RAGS Part D Tables

 Table 1. Selection of exposure pathways
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA)

Scenario Medium Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
Timeframe Medium Point Population Age Route Analysis of Exposure Pathway

In the event of a release, residents may be

Future SCA Sediments Surface "Soil" Surface "Soil" Resident Adult Ingestion Quantitative
exposed to contaminants.
In the event of a release, residents may be
Dermal Quantitative
exposed to contaminants.
Inahalation exposure is expected to be
Inhalation None
minimal relative to ingestion and dermal.
In the event of a release, residents may be
Future SCA Sediments Surface "Soil" Surface "Soil" Resident Adolescent Ingestion Quantitative
exposed to contaminants.
In the event of a release, residents may be
Age 6- 16 Dermal Quantitative
exposed to contaminants.
Inahalation exposure is expected to be
Inhalation None
minimal relative to ingestion and dermal.
In the event of a release, residents may be
Future SCA Sediments Surface "Soil" Surface "Soil" Resident Child Ingestion Quantitative
exposed to contaminants.
In the event of a release, residents may be
Age 0 - 6 Dermal Quantitative
exposed to contaminants.
Inahalation exposure is expected to be
Inhalation None
minimal relative to ingestion and dermal.
Residents may be exposed to volatiles
Future Outdoor Air Outdoor air Offsite areas Resident Adult Inhalation Quantitative
relaased from the SCA.
Workers may be exposed to volatiles
Future Outdoor Air Outdoor air Offsite areas Worker Adult Inhalation Qualitative
relaased from the SCA.
Adolescent Residents may be exposed to volatiles
Future Outdoor Air Outdoor air Offsite areas Resident Inhalation Quantitative
Age 6 - 16 relaased from the SCA.
Child Residents may be exposed to volatiles
Future Outdoor Air Outdoor air Offsite areas Resident Inhalation Quantitative
Age 0 - 6 relaased from the SCA.

Page 1 of 32
 Table 2-1. Occurrence, distribution, and selection of contaminants of potential concern
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA)

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Sediments
Exposure Medium: Sediments
Exposure Point: Sediments in SCA

Frequency Rationale\
Part Minimum Maximum Concen- Location of Frequency of Tentatively Concentration Screening Substance
375 Detected Detected tration Maximum Detection of detection Identified Range of Used for Toxicity CoPC Deletion or
List Parameter Value Value Units Concentration Frequency detection >5% Compound Volatile? Detection Limits Screening Values b Flag Selection
INORGANIC ANALYTES
Aluminum 551 17200 mg/kg S322 133/133 100% Yes No No - 17000 7700 N Yes ASL
Antimony 0.25 15.4 mg/kg P53 89/133 67% Yes No No 0.24 - 2.5 15.0 3.1 N Yes ASL
Yes Arsenic 0.23 33.6 mg/kg S337 128/133 96% Yes 0.193 - 0.42 34.0 0.39 C Yes ASL
Yes Barium 20.1 22600 mg/kg S341 133/133 100% Yes - 23000 1500 N Yes ASL
Yes Beryllium 0.037 0.93 mg/kg S322 116/133 87% Yes 0.031 - 0.54 0.93 16 N No BSL
Yes Cadmium 0.077 36 mg/kg P23 122/150 81% Yes 0.036 - 1.1 36.0 7.0 N Yes ASL
c d
Yes Chromium 2.1 6310 mg/kg S337 144/144 100% Yes - 6300 0.29 C Yes ASL
Cobalt 0.29 179 mg/kg OL-VC-20139 129/133 97% Yes No No 0.18 - 0.63 180 2.3 N Yes ASL
Yes Copper 1.6 753 mg/kg S337 150/150 100% Yes - 750 310 N Yes ASL
Yes Cyanide 0.94 28 mg/kg S309 46/109 42% Yes 0.63 - 1.6 28.0 160 N No BSL
e
Yes Lead 0.54 4390 mg/kg S337 150/150 100% Yes - 4400 400 N Yes ASL
Magnesium 2530 39800 mg/kg S345 150/150 100% Yes No No - 40000 N/A No NUT
f
Yes Manganese 83.8 1790 mg/kg OL-VC-20139 133/133 100% Yes - 1800 180 N Yes ASL
g
Yes Mercury 0.0086 163 mg/kg OL-VC-70134 808/966 84% Yes 0.0048 - 0.5 160 0.78 N Yes ASL
h
Yes Nickel 1.75 2090 mg/kg OL-VC-20139 149/150 99% Yes 2.2 - 2.2 2100 150 N Yes ASL
Yes Selenium 0.53 5.9 mg/kg S337 81/133 61% Yes 0.16 - 1.2 5.9 39 N No BSL
Yes Silver 0.11 6.5 mg/kg S337 81/133 61% Yes 0.098 - 1.1 6.5 39 N No BSL
Thallium 0.313533 2.9 mg/kg S342 22/133 17% Yes No No 0.16 - 1.8 2.9 N/A No NTX
V di
Vanadium 0 858
0.858 279 /k
mg/kg OL VC 20139
OL-VC-20139 129/133 97% Y
Yes N
No N
No 0 76 - 1.3
0.76 13 280 0 55
0.55 N Y
Yes ASL
Yes Zinc 5.2 710 mg/kg S337 150/150 100% Yes - 710 2300 N No BSL
PESTICIDES/PCDDFS/PCBS
Yes 2-Butanone 0.002 0.73 mg/kg OL-STA-20008-VC 44/116 38% Yes 0.011 - 41 0.73 2780 N No BSL
Yes Aldrin 0.00438 0.00506 mg/kg S342 2/89 2% No 0.001 - 0.0496 0.0051 0.029 C No IFD
Yes Alpha-BHC 0.00138 0.013 mg/kg S313 22/97 23% Yes 0.001 - 0.0061 0.013 0.08 C No BSL
i
Yes Alpha-Chlordane 0.00112 0.0148 mg/kg S352 17/105 16% Yes 0.001 - 0.0061 0.015 1.6 C No BSL
Yes Beta-BHC 0.00105 0.11 mg/kg P1 16/89 18% Yes 0.001 - 0.0049 0.11 0.27 C No BSL
Constituents of Chlordane (alp 0.00108 0.0504 mg/kg S314 31/108 29% Yes No No 0.001 - 0.0061 0.050 N/A No NTX
Yes DDD 0.0013 0.016 mg/kg S312 8/94 9% Yes 0.001 - 0.012 0.016 2.0 C No BSL
Yes DDE 0.00108 0.034 mg/kg S314 35/92 38% Yes 0.001 - 0.012 0.034 1.4 C No BSL
Yes DDT 0.0013 0.0883 mg/kg S313 38/82 46% Yes 0.001 - 0.012 0.088 1.7 C No BSL
j
Yes Delta-BHC 0.00119 0.00484 mg/kg S309 15/51 29% Yes 0.001 - 0.0061 0.0048 0.08 C No BSL
Yes Dibenzofuran 0.068 81 mg/kg S313 54/127 43% Yes 0.033 - 6.1 81 7.8 N Yes ASL
Yes Dieldrin 0.00105 0.0412 mg/kg S325 34/102 33% Yes 0.001 - 0.012 0.041 0.030 C Yes ASL
k
Yes Endosulfan I 0.00113 0.00905 mg/kg S309 16/104 15% Yes 0.001 - 0.0061 0.0091 37 N No BSL
k
Yes Endosulfan II 0.00157 0.00223 mg/kg S312 2/96 2% No 0.001 - 0.012 0.0022 37 N No IFD
k
Yes Endosulfan Sulfate 0.00111 0.0314 mg/kg S313 14/75 19% Yes 0.001 - 0.012 0.031 37 N No BSL
Yes Endrin 0.00112 0.0084 mg/kg S313 11/96 11% Yes 0.001 - 0.012 0.0084 1.8 N No BSL
Endrin aldehyde 0.00177 0.00177 mg/kg S318 1/97 1% No No No 0.001 - 0.012 0.0018 N/A No IFD
Endrin ketone 0.00115 0.049 mg/kg S313 6/98 6% Yes No No 0.001 - 0.012 0.049 1.8 N No BSL

Page 2 of 32
 Table 2-1. Occurrence, distribution, and selection of contaminants of potential concern
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA)

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Sediments
Exposure Medium: Sediments
Exposure Point: Sediments in SCA

Frequency Rationale\
Part Minimum Maximum Concen- Location of Frequency of Tentatively Concentration Screening Substance
375 Detected Detected tration Maximum Detection of detection Identified Range of Used for Toxicity CoPC Deletion or
List Parameter Value Value Units Concentration Frequency detection >5% Compound Volatile? Detection Limits Screening Values b Flag Selection
Yes Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.00699 0.0186 mg/kg S344 2/96 2% No 0.001 - 0.0061 0.019 0.52 C No IFD
Yes Heptachlor 0.00251 0.0183 mg/kg S309 6/108 6% Yes 0.001 - 0.0061 0.018 0.11 C No BSL
Heptachlor epoxide 0.00126 0.0519 mg/kg S314 24/97 25% Yes No No 0.001 - 0.0061 0.052 0.053 C* No BSL
Methoxychlor 0.0011 0.0131 mg/kg S309 15/92 16% Yes No No 0.001 - 0.061 0.013 31 N No BSL
Toxaphene – – mg/kg – 0/105 0% No No No 0.001 - 0.61 ND 0.44 C* No IFD
ata Dioxins (as TCDD equivalents 6.0E-07 0.00023 mg/kg S346 8/8 100% Yes No No - 0.00023 4.5E-06 C Yes ASL
l
Yes PCBs 0.0052 23 mg/kg OL-VC-20135 315/792 40% Yes 0.0041 - 0.51 23 0.11 N Yes ASL
ORGANIC ANALYTES
Yes 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.0027 0.017 mg/kg S313 2/148 1% No 0.003 - 42 0.017 874 N No IFD
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane – – mg/kg – 0/148 0% No No Yes 0.003 - 42 ND 0.56 C* No IFD
1,1,2-Trichloroethane – – mg/kg – 0/148 0% No No Yes 0.003 - 42 ND 1.1 C* No IFD
Yes 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.0027 0.0027 mg/kg S313 1/148 1% No 0.003 - 42 0.0027 3.3 C No IFD
Yes 1,1-Dichloroethene – – mg/kg – 0/148 0% No 0.003 - 42 ND 24 N No IFD
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene 0.0028 30 mg/kg P3 17/17 100% Yes No -- - 30 N/A No NTX
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 0.0037 240 mg/kg P15 35/851 4% No No Yes 0.00068 - 1400 240 4.9 N No IFD
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.0016 440 mg/kg OL-VC-10050 182/979 19% Yes No Yes 0.00068 - 1400 440 6.2 N Yes ASL
Yes 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.017 58 mg/kg S309 10/10 100% Yes - 58 6.2 N Yes ASL
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane – – mg/kg – 0/22 0% No No Yes 0.11 - 21 ND 0.0054 C* No IFD
1,2-Dibromoethane – – mg/kg – 0/22 0% No No Yes 0.054 - 10 ND 0.034 C* No IFD
Y
Yes 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 2 Di hl b 0.00018
0 00018 4200 mg/kg
/k OL-VC-10097
OL VC 10097 496/979 51% Yes
Y 0.0059
0 0059 - 59 4200 191 N Yes
Y ASL
Yes 1,2-Dichloroethane – – mg/kg – 0/148 0% No 0.003 - 42 ND 0.43 C No IFD
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) – – mg/kg – 0/18 0% No No Yes 0.011 - 5.3 ND 70 N No IFD
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.012 0.012 mg/kg S313 1/147 1% No No Yes 0.003 - 42 0.012 0.89 C* No IFD
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene 0.00045 1100 mg/kg P15 73/848 9% Yes No -- 0.00068 - 1500 1100 N/A No NTX
Yes 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.016 29 mg/kg S309 6/6 100% Yes - 29 78 N No BSL
m
Yes 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.00021 130 mg/kg OL-VC-10102 161/978 16% Yes 0.0059 - 1500 130 191 N No BSL
Yes 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.00062 12000 mg/kg OL-VC-10097 554/979 57% Yes 0.0059 - 59 12000 2.4 C Yes ASL
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol – – mg/kg – 0/124 0% No No No 0.17 - 59 ND 610 N No IFD
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol – – mg/kg – 0/124 0% No No No 0.077 - 59 ND 6.1 N No IFD
2,4-Dichlorophenol – – mg/kg – 0/124 0% No No No 0.077 - 59 ND 18 N No IFD
2,4-Dimethylphenol 0.077 1.6 mg/kg S349 4/126 3% No No No 0.077 - 59 1.6 120 N No IFD
2,4-Dinitrophenol – – mg/kg – 0/124 0% No No No 0.19 - 300 ND 12 N No IFD
2,4-Dinitrotoluene – – mg/kg – 0/127 0% No No No 0.077 - 59 ND 1.6 C* No IFD
2,6-Dinitrotoluene – – mg/kg – 0/127 0% No No No 0.077 - 59 ND 6.1 N No IFD
2-Chloronaphthalene – – mg/kg – 0/127 0% No No Yes 0.033 - 18 ND 630 N No IFD
2-Chlorophenol 0.23 0.23 mg/kg S337 1/124 1% No No Yes 0.033 - 18 0.23 39 N No IFD
2-Hexanone 0.0045 0.0045 mg/kg S311 1/148 1% No No Yes 0.007 - 83 0.0045 21 N No IFD
Yes 2-Methylphenol 0.03 2.3 mg/kg S349 6/127 5% No 0.033 - 18 2.3 306 N No IFD
2-Nitroaniline – – mg/kg – 0/127 0% No No No 0.067 - 45 ND 61 N No IFD
2-Nitrophenol – – mg/kg – 0/124 0% No No -- 0.077 - 59 ND N/A No IFD

Page 3 of 32
 Table 2-1. Occurrence, distribution, and selection of contaminants of potential concern
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA)

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Sediments
Exposure Medium: Sediments
Exposure Point: Sediments in SCA

Frequency Rationale\
Part Minimum Maximum Concen- Location of Frequency of Tentatively Concentration Screening Substance
375 Detected Detected tration Maximum Detection of detection Identified Range of Used for Toxicity CoPC Deletion or
List Parameter Value Value Units Concentration Frequency detection >5% Compound Volatile? Detection Limits Screening Values b Flag Selection
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine – – – 0/127 0% No No No 0.033 - 18 ND 1.1 C No IFD
3-Nitroaniline – – mg/kg – 0/127 0% No No -- 0.19 - 300 ND N/A No IFD
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol – – mg/kg – 0/124 0% No No No 0.19 - 300 ND 0.49 N No IFD
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether – – mg/kg – 0/127 0% No No -- 0.033 - 18 ND N/A No IFD
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol – – mg/kg – 0/124 0% No No No 0.077 - 59 ND 610 N No IFD
4-Chloroaniline 0.08 0.44 mg/kg S337 5/127 4% No No No 0.033 - 18 0.44 2.4 C* No IFD
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether – – mg/kg – 0/127 0% No No -- 0.033 - 18 ND N/A No IFD
4-Ethyltoluene 7.9 43 mg/kg P1 2/2 100% Yes No -- - 43 N/A No NTX
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 0.0045 0.0045 mg/kg S311 1/148 1% No No Yes 0.007 - 83 0.0045 530 N No IFD
Yes 4-Methylphenol 0.1 4.7 mg/kg S349 20/127 16% Yes 0.033 - 18 4.7 31 N No BSL
4-Nitroaniline – – mg/kg – 0/127 0% No No No 0.19 - 300 ND 24 C* No IFD
4-Nitrophenol – – mg/kg – 0/123 0% No No -- 0.19 - 300 ND N/A No IFD
Yes Acetone 0.012 3 mg/kg S344 44/107 41% Yes 0.013 - 57 3.0 6130 N No BSL
Yes Benzene 0.00028 160 mg/kg OL-VC-10054 704/978 72% Yes 0.0012 - 110 160 1.1 C Yes ASL
Benzyl alcohol – – mg/kg – 0/109 0% No No No 0.17 - 59 ND 610 N No IFD
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane – – mg/kg – 0/127 0% No No No 0.033 - 18 ND 18 N No IFD
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether – – mg/kg – 0/126 0% No No Yes 0.033 - 18 ND 0.21 C* No IFD
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether – – mg/kg – 0/109 0% No No -- 0.033 - 11 ND N/A No IFD
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.03 5.5 mg/kg S322 42/127 33% Yes No No 0.036 - 18 5.5 35 C* No BSL
B
Bromodichloromethane
di hl th – – mg/kg
/k – 0/148 0% No
N No
N Yes
Y 0.003
0 003 - 42 ND 0.27
0 27 C* No
N IFD
Bromoform – – mg/kg – 0/148 0% No No No 0.003 - 42 ND 61 C* No IFD
Bromomethane – – mg/kg – 0/148 0% No No Yes 0.0062 - 83 ND 0.73 N No IFD
Butylbenzyl phthalate 0.13 0.13 mg/kg S337 1/126 1% No No No 0.033 - 18 0.13 260 C* No IFD
Carbazole 0.048 19 mg/kg S313 33/127 26% Yes No -- 0.033 - 18 19 N/A No NTX
Carbon disulfide 0.001 2.37 mg/kg S345 41/148 28% Yes No Yes 0.004 - 42 2.4 82 N No BSL
Yes Carbon tetrachloride – – mg/kg – 0/141 0% No 0.003 - 42 ND 0.25 C No IFD
Yes Chlorobenzene 0.00043 6000 mg/kg OL-VC-10097 587/978 60% Yes 0.005 - 59 6000 29 N Yes ASL
Chlorodibromomethane 3.75 3.75 mg/kg S337 1/146 1% No No Yes 0.003 - 42 3.8 0.68 C* No IFD
Chloroethane – – mg/kg – 0/148 0% No No Yes 0.0062 - 83 ND 1500 N No IFD
Yes Chloroform – – mg/kg – 0/148 0% No 0.003 - 42 ND 0.30 C No IFD
Chloromethane – – mg/kg – 0/148 0% No No Yes 0.0062 - 83 ND 12 N No IFD
Yes cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.001 0.057 mg/kg S314 7/129 5% Yes 0.003 - 42 0.057 78 N No BSL
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene – – mg/kg – 0/148 0% No No Yes 0.003 - 42 ND 1.7 C* No IFD
Cyclohexane 0.036 1.4 mg/kg S342 2/23 9% Yes No Yes 0.11 - 21 1.4 700 N No BSL
Dichlorodifluoromethane – – mg/kg – 0/22 0% No No Yes 0.11 - 21 ND 180 N No IFD
Diethyl phthalate 1.8 1.8 mg/kg S337 1/127 1% No No No 0.033 - 18 1.8 4900 N No IFD
Dimethyl phthalate – – mg/kg – 0/126 0% No No -- 0.033 - 18 ND N/A No IFD
Di-n-butyl phthalate 0.032 0.21 mg/kg S337 6/127 5% No No No 0.033 - 18 0.21 610 N No IFD
Di-n-octyl phthalate – – mg/kg – 0/127 0% No No -- 0.033 - 18 ND N/A No IFD
Yes Ethylbenzene 0.00061 72 mg/kg OL-VC-10044 532/978 54% Yes 0.00014 - 1500 72 5.4 C Yes ASL

Page 4 of 32
 Table 2-1. Occurrence, distribution, and selection of contaminants of potential concern
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA)

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Sediments
Exposure Medium: Sediments
Exposure Point: Sediments in SCA

Frequency Rationale\
Part Minimum Maximum Concen- Location of Frequency of Tentatively Concentration Screening Substance
375 Detected Detected tration Maximum Detection of detection Identified Range of Used for Toxicity CoPC Deletion or
List Parameter Value Value Units Concentration Frequency detection >5% Compound Volatile? Detection Limits Screening Values b Flag Selection
Yes Hexachlorobenzene 0.0062 20 mg/kg P3 97/144 67% Yes 0.001 - 18 20 0.30 C Yes ASL
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.066 0.066 mg/kg S304 1/127 1% No No No 0.033 - 18 0.066 6.1 N No IFD
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene – – mg/kg – 0/120 0% No No No 0.077 - 59 ND 37 N No IFD
Hexachloroethane – – mg/kg – 0/127 0% No No No 0.033 - 18 ND 6.1 N No IFD
Isophorone 0.34 0.34 mg/kg S337 1/127 1% No No No 0.033 - 18 0.34 510 C* No IFD
Isopropylbenzene 0.063 5.2 mg/kg S309 17/23 74% Yes No Yes 0.57 - 0.89 5.2 210 N No BSL
Methyl acetate – – mg/kg – 0/1 0% No No Yes 1.2 - 1.2 ND 7800 N No IFD
Yes Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether – – mg/kg – 0/22 0% No 0.054 - 10 ND 43 C No IFD
Methylcyclohexane 0.088 6 mg/kg S342 10/24 42% Yes No -- 1.1 - 21 6.0 N/A No NTX
Yes Methylene chloride 0.00525 7.2 mg/kg S347 18/148 12% Yes 0.004 - 83 7.2 11 C No BSL
n-Heptane 3.7 3.7 mg/kg S342 1/1 100% Yes No -- - 3.7 N/A No NTX
n-Hexadacane 0.077 1.4 mg/kg S337 4/4 100% Yes No -- - 1.4 N/A No NTX
n-Hexane 1.4 1.4 mg/kg S342 1/1 100% Yes No Yes - 1.4 57 N No BSL
Nitrobenzene – – mg/kg – 0/126 0% No No Yes 0.033 - 18 ND 4.8 C* No IFD
n-Nitrosodimethylamine – – mg/kg – 0/109 0% No No No 0.17 - 59 ND 0.0023 C* No IFD
n-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine – – mg/kg – 0/127 0% No No No 0.033 - 18 ND 0.069 C* No IFD
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine – – mg/kg – 0/127 0% No No No 0.033 - 18 ND 99 C* No IFD
n-Nonadecane 0.18 0.18 mg/kg S304 1/1 100% Yes No -- - 0.18 N/A No NTX
Pentachlorobenzene 0.0045 7.1 mg/kg P3 16/17 94% Yes No No 0.0054 - 0.0054 7.1 4.9 N Yes ASL
Y
Yes P
Pentachlorophenol
t hl h l – – mg/kg
/k – 0/124 0% No
N 0.19
0 19 - 300 ND 3.0
30 C No
N IFD
Yes Phenol 0.0046 14 mg/kg OL-VC-10083A 538/835 64% Yes 0.005 - 18 14.0 1830 N No BSL
Yes sec-Butylbenzene 0.024 89 mg/kg P1 14/14 100% Yes - 89 N/A No NTX
Styrene 0.052 10 mg/kg S344 43/148 29% Yes No Yes 0.003 - 42 10 630 N No BSL
Yes Tetrachloroethene 0.002 0.12 mg/kg S344 6/148 4% No 0.003 - 42 0.12 0.55 C No IFD
Yes Toluene 0.000083 230 mg/kg S341 645/978 66% Yes 0.0012 - 540 230 497 N No BSL
Yes trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.0027 0.0029 mg/kg S314 2/129 2% No 0.003 - 42 0.0029 15 N No IFD
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene – – mg/kg – 0/144 0% No No Yes 0.003 - 42 ND 1.7 C* No IFD
Yes Trichloroethene 0.0017 0.004 mg/kg S351 2/148 1% No 0.003 - 42 0.0040 2.8 C No IFD
Trichlorofluoromethane – – mg/kg – 0/22 0% No No Yes 0.054 - 10 ND 790 N No IFD
Unres. comb. of 1,2,3/4,5 0.013 22 mg/kg P3 16/17 94% Yes No -- 0.0057 - 0.0057 22 1.8 N Yes ASL
Yes Vinyl chloride 0.0041 0.013 mg/kg S313 2/148 1% No 0.0062 - 83 0.013 0.06 C No IFD
Yes Xylenes, total 0.00025 822 mg/kg OL-VC-20170 700/978 72% Yes 0.0024 - 22 820 63 N Yes ASL
PAHs
2-Methylnaphthalene 0.034 100.5 mg/kg S346 93/127 73% Yes No Yes 0.033 - 0.54 100 31 N Yes ASL
Yes Acenaphthene 0.0019 85 mg/kg S313 596/928 64% Yes 0.0026 - 18 85 344 N No BSL
n
Yes Acenaphthylene 0.002 25 mg/kg OL-VC-10038 624/928 67% Yes 0.0026 - 18 25 172 N No BSL
Yes Anthracene 0.0006 95 mg/kg S313 684/927 74% Yes 0.0043 - 18 95 1720 N No BSL
Yes Benz[a]anthracene 0.0017 100 mg/kg S313 703/928 76% Yes 0.0026 - 18 100 0.15 C Yes ASL
Yes Benzo[a]pyrene 0.002 65 mg/kg S313 680/928 73% Yes 0.0026 - 18 65 0.015 C Yes ASL
Yes Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.0011 57 mg/kg S313 683/928 74% Yes 0.0043 - 18 57 0.15 C Yes ASL

Page 5 of 32
 Table 2-1. Occurrence, distribution, and selection of contaminants of potential concern
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA)

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Sediments
Exposure Medium: Sediments
Exposure Point: Sediments in SCA

Frequency Rationale\
Part Minimum Maximum Concen- Location of Frequency of Tentatively Concentration Screening Substance
375 Detected Detected tration Maximum Detection of detection Identified Range of Used for Toxicity CoPC Deletion or
List Parameter Value Value Units Concentration Frequency detection >5% Compound Volatile? Detection Limits Screening Values b Flag Selection
n
Yes Benzo[ghi]perylene 0.0018 35 mg/kg S313 658/928 71% Yes 0.0026 - 18 35 172 N No BSL
Yes Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.0022 60 mg/kg S313 609/928 66% Yes 0.0026 - 18 60 1.5 C Yes ASL
Yes Chrysene 0.003 100 mg/kg S313 705/928 76% Yes 0.0026 - 18 100 15 C Yes ASL
Yes Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.0013 17 mg/kg S313 522/928 56% Yes 0.0026 - 18 17.0 0.015 C Yes ASL
Yes Fluoranthene 0.0025 250 mg/kg S313 740/928 80% Yes 0.0044 - 6.1 250 229 N Yes ASL
Yes Fluorene 0.0018 460 mg/kg OL-VC-70112 367/928 40% Yes 0.0026 - 6.1 460 229 N Yes ASL
Yes Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.0013 38 mg/kg S313 652/928 70% Yes 0.0043 - 18 38 0.15 C Yes ASL
Yes Naphthalene 0.0013 2900 mg/kg OL-VC-10065 683/962 71% Yes 0.00068 - 1.5 2900 3.6 C Yes ASL
Yes Phenanthrene 0.0025 380 mg/kg S313 758/928 82% Yes 0.0043 - 6.1 380 N/A No NTX
Yes Pyrene 0.0012 150 mg/kg S313 741/928 80% Yes 0.0044 - 6.1 150 172 N No BSL

Page 6 of 32
 Table 2-1. Occurrence, distribution, and selection of contaminants of potential concern
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA)

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Sediments
Exposure Medium: Sediments
Exposure Point: Sediments in SCA

Notes: All results reported as dry weight data from Onondaga Lake sediments Rationale Codes:

to be dredged and provided by Parsons Corporation and Anchor QEA. Selection Reason:
For the purposes of screening, field replicates have been averaged. ASL - above screening levels
– - either no detected or undetected values HIST - infrequent detection but associated historically
ARAR - applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement Deletion Reason:
–6
C - carcinogenic based on a cancer risk of 1´10 BKG - below or consistent with background levels

CoPC - chemical of potential concern BSL - below screening level

N - noncarcinogenic based on hazard quotient of 0.1 IFD - infrequent detection
N/A - not available NTX - no toxicity information

ND - not detected NUT - essential nutrient

PAH - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
RSL - Regional Screening Level
TBC - to be considered

a
These Eastern USA background values are from New York State TAGM 4046, Table 4 - Heavy Metals - Recommended soil cleanup objectives.
b
Screening toxicity values for soil are the RSLs taken from U.S. EPA Region IX (2010). RSLs correspond to 1´10–6 or a hazard quotient of 0.1, whichever is lower.
c
The chromium results in the table do not include the 4 locations for which hexavalent chromium data are available. See Section 3.2.
d
This default carcinogenic screening value for chromium is that for chromium (VI).
e
This default non-carcinogenic screening value for lead has not been adjusted. Lead screened based on mean
concentration consistent with use of mean in lead model.
f
This default non-carcinogenic screening value for manganese is that for ingestion of water.

g
This default non-carcinogenic screening value for mercury is that for methylmercury.
h
This default non-carcinogenic screening value for nickel is that for soluble salts.
i
This default carcinogenic screening value for alpha-chlordane is that for chlordane.
j
This default carcinogenic screening value for delta-BHC is that for alpha-BHC.
k
This default non-carcinogenic screening value for the endosulfan I, endosulfan II, and endosulfan sulfate is that for endosulfan.
l
This default non-carcinogenic screening value for PCBs is that for Aroclor-1254.
m
This default non-carcinogenic screening value for 1,3-dichlorobenzene is that for 1,2-dichlorobenzene.
n
This default non-carcinogenic screening value for value for acenaphthalene and benzo[ghi]perylene is that for pyrene.

Page 7 of 32
 Table 2-2. Occurence, distribution, and selection of contaminants of potential concern
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA)

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Sediments to be placed in SCA
Exposure Medium: Air
Exposure Point: Air

Detected in Potential Potential Rationale\

Minimum Maximum Concen- Location of Concentration Has Wind ARAR/ ARAR/ Substance
Detected Detected tration Maximum Detection Range of Used for Tox Tunnel TBC TBC CoPC Deletion or
Parameter Value Value Units Concentration Frequency Detection Limits Screening Volatile? Value? Testing? Value Source Flag Selection
INORGANIC ANALYTES
Arsenic No No No No NV
Barium No No No No NV
Beryllium No No No No NV
Cadmium No No No No NV
Chromium No No No No NV
Copper No No No No NV
Cyanide Yes Yes No Yes CN
d
Lead No No No No NV
Manganese No No No No NV
Mercury Yes Yes No Yes Elem Hg
Nickel No No No No NV
Selenium No No No No NV
Silver No No No No NV
Zinc No No No No NV
PESTICIDES/PCBS/PCDDFS
2-Butanone Yes Yes Yes Yes V
Aldrin No No No No NV
Alpha-BHC No No No No NV
Alpha-Chlordane No No No No NV
Beta-BHC No No No No NV
DDD No No No No NV
DDE No No No No NV
DDT No No No No NV
Delta-BHC No No No No NV
Dibenzofuran Yes No No No NV
Dieldrin No No No No NV
Endosulfan I No No No No NV
Endosulfan II No No No No NV
Endosulfan Sulfate No No No No NV
Endrin No No No No NV
Gamma-BHC (Lindane) No No No No NV
Heptachlor No No No No NV
PCBs No No No No NV
Dioxins (as TCDD equivalents) No Yes No No NV
ORGANIC ANALYTES
1,1,1-Trichloroethane Yes Yes Yes Yes V
1,1-Dichloroethane Yes Yes No Yes V
1,1-Dichloroethene Yes Yes No Yes V
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene Yes No Yes No NV
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Yes Yes Yes Yes V
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Yes Yes Yes Yes V
1,2-Dichlorobenzene Yes Yes Yes Yes V
1,2-Dichloroethane Yes Yes No Yes V

Page 8 of 32
 Table 2-2. Occurence, distribution, and selection of contaminants of potential concern
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA)

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Sediments to be placed in SCA
Exposure Medium: Air
Exposure Point: Air

Detected in Potential Potential Rationale\

Minimum Maximum Concen- Location of Concentration Has Wind ARAR/ ARAR/ Substance
Detected Detected tration Maximum Detection Range of Used for Tox Tunnel TBC TBC CoPC Deletion or
Parameter Value Value Units Concentration Frequency Detection Limits Screening Volatile? Value? Testing? Value Source Flag Selection
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene -- No Yes No NTX
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene Yes No Yes No NTX
1,3-Dichlorobenzene Yes No No No NTX
1,4-Dichlorobenzene Yes Yes Yes Yes V
2-Methylphenol No No No No NV
4-Methylphenol No No No No NV
Acetone Yes Yes No Yes V
Benzene Yes Yes Yes Yes V
Carbon tetrachloride Yes Yes No Yes V
Chlorobenzene Yes Yes Yes Yes V
Chloroform Yes Yes Yes Yes V
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene Yes No No No NTX
Ethylbenzene Yes Yes Yes Yes ASL
Hexachlorobenzene No Yes Yes No NV
Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether Yes Yes No Yes V
Methylene chloride Yes Yes Yes Yes V
Pentachlorophenol No No No No NV
Phenol No No Yes No NV
sec-Butylbenzene Yes No No No NTX
Tetrachloroethene Yes Yes Yes Yes V
Toluene Yes Yes Yes Yes V
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Yes Yes No Yes V
Trichloroethene Yes Yes Yes Yes V
Vinyl chloride Yes Yes No Yes V
Xylenes, total Yes Yes Yes Yes V
PAHs
Acenaphthene Yes No No No NTX
Acenaphthylene No No No No NTX
Anthracene Yes No No No NTX
Benz[a]anthracene No No No No NTX
Benzo[a]pyrene No No No No NTX
Benzo[b]fluoranthene No No No No NTX
Benzo[ghi]perylene No No No No NTX
Benzo[k]fluoranthene No No No No NTX
Chrysene No No No No NTX
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene No No No No NTX
Fluoranthene No No No No NTX
Fluorene Yes No Yes No NTX
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene No No No No NTX
Naphthalene Yes Yes Yes Yes V
Phenanthrene No No No No NTX
Pyrene Yes No No No NTX

Page 9 of 32
 Table 2-2. Occurence, distribution, and selection of contaminants of potential concern
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA)

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Sediments
Exposure Medium: Sediments
Exposure Point: Sediments in SCA

Notes: CoPC - chemical of potential concern Rationale Codes:

PAH - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon Selection Reason:
V - chemical is volatile or was identified in Wind Tunnel Testing
Elem Hg - elemental mercury can volatilize
CN - specific forms of cyanide can volatilize
Deletion Reason:
NV - chemical is not volatile
NTX - no toxicity information

Page 10 of 32
 Table 3-1. Medium specific exposure point concentration summary
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA)

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Sediment to be placed in SCA mg/kg 0.000001
Exposure Medium: Sediment ng/kg
Exposure Point: Sediment

Sediment data length-weighted averages Reasonable Maximum Exposure

Maximum
Arithmetic Detected Maximum EPC Medium Medium EPC
Chemical of Potential Concern Units Mean 95% UCL Value Qualifier Units EPC Value Medium EPC Statistic Rationale
Aluminum mg/kg 4,000 4,700 13,000 mg/kg 4,700 95% KM (BCA) UCL A
Antimony mg/kg 2.0 4.7 12 mg/kg 4.7 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
1 Arsenic mg/kg 6.3 10 27 mg/kg 10 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
2 Barium mg/kg 600 1,200 2,800 mg/kg 1,200 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
3 Cadmium mg/kg 3.6 7.2 21 mg/kg 7.2 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
4 Chromium mg/kg 170 790 3,700 mg/kg 790 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
Cobalt mg/kg 13 48 180 mg/kg 48 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
5 Copper mg/kg 84 150 560 mg/kg 150 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
6 Manganese mg/kg 350 580 1,800 mg/kg 580 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
7 Mercury mg/kg 9.0 15 160 mg/kg 15 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
8 Nickel mg/kg 110 350 2,100 mg/kg 350 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
9 Vanadium mg/kg 24 78 280 mg/kg 78 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
9 Dibenzofuran mg/kg 2.0 4.8 16 mg/kg 4.8 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
10 Dieldrin mg/kg 0.0045 0.005 0.024 mg/kg 0.005 95% KM (t) UCL
Dioxins (as TCDD equivalents) mg/kg 0.000075 0.00013 0.00023 mg/kg 0.00013 95% Student's-t UCL A
10 PCBs mg/kg 0.59 1.3 23 mg/kg 1.3 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
1,2,3/4,5 Tetrachlorobenzene mg/kg 6.9 21 21 mg/kg 21 Maximum detected B
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg 6.8 17 380 mg/kg 17 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
11 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene mg/kg 9 19 28 mg/kg 19 95% KM (t) UCL A
12 1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg 15 38 1100 mg/kg 38 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
13 1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg 25 84 3000 mg/kg 84 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
14 Benzene mg/kg 2.8 4.7 46 mg/kg 4.7 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
15 Chlorobenzene mg/kg 19 52 1500 mg/kg 52 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
16 Ethylbenzene mg/kg 4.3 12 380 mg/kg 12 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
17 Hexachlorobenzene mg/kg 1.2 6.4 19 mg/kg 6.4 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
Pentachlorobenzene mg/kg 1.9 6.7 6.7 mg/kg 6.7 Maximum detected B
22 Xylenes, total mg/kg 28 45 310 mg/kg 45 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
2-Methylnaphthalene mg/kg 6.4 13 37 mg/kg 13 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
23 Benz[a]anthracene mg/kg 2.3 4 31 mg/kg 4.0 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
24 Benzo[a]pyrene mg/kg 1.8 3.2 32 mg/kg 3.2 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
25 Benzo[b]fluoranthene mg/kg 1.9 3.2 28 mg/kg 3.2 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
26 Benzo[k]fluoranthene mg/kg 0.88 1.5 17 mg/kg 1.5 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
27 Chrysene mg/kg 2.3 3.9 30 mg/kg 3.9 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
28 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene mg/kg 0.40 0.58 5.6 mg/kg 0.58 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
Fluoranthene mg/kg 5 8.2 53 mg/kg 8.2 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
29 Fluorene mg/kg 3.2 10 340 mg/kg 10 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
30 Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene mg/kg 0.92 1.5 14 mg/kg 1.5 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
31 Naphthalene mg/kg 83 130 820 mg/kg 130 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL A
Notes:
NotEPC - exposure point concentration
UCL - 95 percent upper confidence limit on the mean concentration

A - Medium EPC value per ProUCL 4.0 recommendation .

B - Maximum detected concentration used for EPC concentration.
Duplicate sample results were averaged in calculations.
Arithmetic mean was calculated using the full detection limit for undetected results and UCL calculations took into account most likely distribution as well as various detection limits.
Because of this some UCLs are lower than arithmetic averages.
Statistical assessment of data was conducted using ProUCL 4.0 on length-weighted data for Onondaga Lake Sediments provided by Parsons Corporation and Anchor QEA.

Page 11 of 32
 Table 3-2. Medium specific exposure point concentration summary
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA)

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: Sediment to be placed in SCA
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point: Air

Reasonable Maximum Exposure

Maximum Medium
Chemical of Potential Arithmetic 95% Detected Maximum Medium EPC Medium EPC
Concern Units Mean UCL Value Qualifier EPC Units EPC Valuea Statistic Rationale

Mercury elementalb mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.000067

Cyanide (hydrogen cyanide) mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.00067
2-Butanone mg/m 3 mg/m 3 1.1
1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.22
1,1-Dichloroethane mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.0020
1,1-Dichloroethene mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.016
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.0019
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.0068
1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ortho) mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.080
1,2-Dichloroethane mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.00012
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.064
1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.00029
Acetone mg/m 3 mg/m 3 6.2
Benzene mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.00042
Carbon tetrachloride mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.00022
Chlorobenzene mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.024
Chloroform mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.00014
Ethylbenzene mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.0054
Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.012
Methylene chloride mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.0069
Naphthalene mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.00040
Tetrachloroethene mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.00055
Toluene mg/m 3 mg/m 3 1.1
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.014
Trichloroethene mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.0016
Vinyl chloride mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.00074
Xylenes mg/m 3 mg/m 3 0.022
Notes:
EPC - exposure point concentration
a
Estimated offsite residential concentrations derived by dispersion modeling and selecting the maximum yearly average concentration converted to mg/m 3.
b
Elemental mercury was not detected in sediments, which instead had inorganic mercury forms. Hypothetical estimates here based on elemental mercury.

Page 12 of 32
 Table 4-1. Values used for daily intake calculations
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA)

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: SCA Sediments
Exposure Medium: Surface 'Soil'
Exposure Point: Surface 'soil'
Receptor Population: Residential
Receptor Age: Adult

Exposure Parameter Parameter Definition Units RME RME Intake Equation/

Route Code Value Rationale/ Model Name
Reference
Ingestion CS Chemical concentration in Sediment/soil mg/kg see Tables 2-1, 3-1 see Tables 2-1, 3-1 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
CF Conversion factor kg/mg 0.000001 -- CS x CF x IR x FI x EF x ED / (BW x AT)
IR Ingestion rate mg soil/day 100 USEPA 1997 RME CDI:
FI Fraction ingested -- 1 a For carcinogens (CS)*:
EF Exposure frequency days/yr 45 a 2.5E-09
ED Exposure duration yrs 1 a For non carcinogens (CS)*:
BW Body weight kg 70 USEPA 1997 1.8E-07
AT Averaging time - carcinogens days 25,550 USEPA 1989
AT Averaging time - noncarcinogens days 365 USEPA 1989
Dermal CS Chemical concentration in Sediment/soil mg/kg see Tables 2-1, 3-1 see Tables 2-1, 3-1 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
CF Conversion factor kg/mg 0.000001 -- CS x CF x SA x AF x EF x ED x ABS
SA Skin surface area available for contact cm2/event 5,700 USEPA 2004 / (BW x AT)
AF Sediment/soil-to-skin adherence factor mg/cm2 0.07 USEPA 2004 RME CDI:
EF Exposure frequency days/yr 45 a For carcinogens (CS* ABS)*:
ED Exposure duration yrs 1 a 1.0E-08
BW Body weight kg 70 USEPA 1997 Non carcinogens (CS*ABS)*:
AT Averaging time - carc days 25,550 USEPA 1989 7.0E-07
AT Averaging time - nonc days 365 USEPA 1989
ABS Dermal absorption factor unitless chemical specific USEPA 1997
Notes:
-- - not applicable
CT - central tendency
RME - reasonable maximum exposure
a
Based on best professional judgment regarding the number of days that sediment might remain exposed.

Page 13 of 32
 Table 4-2. Values used for daily intake calculations
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA)

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Medium: SCA Sediments
Exposure Medium: Surface 'Soil'
Exposure Point: Surface soil
Receptor Population: Residential
Receptor Age: Child

Exposure Parameter Parameter Definition Units RME RME Intake Equation/

Route Code Value Rationale/ Model Name
Reference
Ingestion CS Chemical concentration in Sediment/soil mg/kg see Tables 2-1, 3-1 see Tables 2-1, 3-1 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
CF Conversion factor kg/mg 0.000001 -- CS x CF x IR x FI x EF x ED / (BW x AT)
IR Ingestion rate mg soil/day 200 USEPA 1997 RME CDI:
FI Fraction ingested -- 1 a For carcinogens (CS)*:
EF Exposure frequency days/yr 45 a 2.3E-08
ED Exposure duration yrs 1 a For non carcinogens (CS)*:
BW Body weight kg 15 USEPA 1997 1.6E-06
AT Averaging time - carcinogens days 25,550 USEPA 1989
AT Averaging time - noncarcinogens days 365 USEPA 1989
Dermal CS Chemical concentration in Sediment/soil mg/kg see Tables 2-1, 3-1 see Tables 2-1, 3-1 Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
CF Conversion factor kg/mg 0.000001 -- CS x CF x SA x AF x EF x ED x ABS
SA Skin surface area available for contact cm2/event 2,800 USEPA 2004 / (BW x AT)
AF Sedimen/soil-to-skin adherence factor mg/cm2 0.2 USEPA 2004 RME CDI:
EF Exposure frequency days/yr 45 a For carcinogens (CS* ABS)*:
ED Exposure duration yrs 1 a 6.6E-08
BW Body weight kg 15 USEPA 1997 Non carcinogens (CS*ABS)*:
AT Averaging time - carc days 25,550 USEPA 1989 4.6E-06
AT Averaging time - nonc days 365 USEPA 1989
ABS Dermal absorption factor unitless chemical specific USEPA 1997
Notes:
-- - not applicable
CT - central tendency
RME - reasonable maximum exposure
a
Based on best professional judgment regarding the number of days that sediment might remain exposed.

Page 14 of 32
 Table 4-3. Values used for daily intake calculations for carcinogenic PAHs
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA)
Mutagenic mode of action calculations for PAHs
Age-adjusted exposure factors (RME)
Age-Adjusted CDIs for Cancer
Soil
Exposure Exposure Soil Adherence Exposed Ingestion
Duration Frequency Body Intake Rate2 Factor3 (AF) Surface Area4 Total Soil Ingestion Chronic Daily Dermal Chronic
Age (ED) (EF) Weight1 (IR) (mg/cm2- (SA) Surface Age CDI Dermal CDI Intake Daily Intake
(year) (years) (Days) (BW) (kg) (mg/day) event) (cm2) Area (cm2) Group (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
5
0 1 45 9.1 200 0.2 2,625 5,910 0-<2 yrs Sum 7.0E-08 1.8E-07 3.9E-08 1.0E-07
6
1 1 45 11.3 200 0.2 2,571 5,910 0-<2 yrs Average 3.5E-08 9.09E-08 3.1E-08 8.0E-08
5
2 1 45 13.3 200 0.2 2,434 5,910 2-<6 yrs Sum 8.8E-08 2.5E-07 2.6E-08 6.4E-08
6
3 1 45 15.3 200 0.2 2,893 6,565 2-<6 yrs Average 2.2E-08 6.3E-08 2.3E-08 6.7E-08
4 1 45 17.4 200 0.2 3,175 7,185 2.0E-08 6.4E-08
5 1 45 19.7 200 0.2 3,255 7,860 1.8E-08 5.8E-08
6 1 45 22.6 100 0.2 2,949 8,545 7.8E-09 4.6E-08
7 1 45 24.9 100 0.2 3,182 9,265 7.1E-09 4.5E-08
5
8 1 45 28.1 100 0.2 3,434 10,000 6-<16 yrs Sum 4.9E-08 3.2E-07 6.3E-09 4.3E-08
6
9 1 45 31.5 100 0.2 3,657 10,650 6-<16 yrs Average 4.9E-09 3.2E-08 5.6E-09 4.1E-08
10 1 45 36.3 100 0.2 3,819 11,750 4.9E-09 3.7E-08
11 1 45 41.1 100 0.2 4,111 12,650 4.3E-09 3.5E-08
12 1 45 45.3 100 0.2 4,453 13,700 3.9E-09 3.5E-08
13 1 45 50.4 100 0.07 4,916 14,750 3.5E-09 1.2E-08
14 1 45 56 100 0.07 5,205 15,800 3.1E-09 1.1E-08
15 1 45 58.1 100 0.07 5,386 16,350 3.0E-09 1.1E-08

5
16 1 45 62.6 100 0.07 5,534 16,800 16-<30 yrs Sum 3.6E-08 1.4E-07 2.8E-09 1.1E-08
6
17 1 45 63.2 100 0.07 5,641 17,150 16-<30 yrs Average 2.60E-09 1.03E-08 2.8E-09 1.1E-08
18 1 45 65.1 100 0.07 5,700 18,000 2.7E-09 1.1E-08
19 1 45 66 100 0.07 5,700 18,000 2.7E-09 1.1E-08
20 1 45 67.2 100 0.07 5,700 18,000 2.6E-09 1.0E-08
21 1 45 67 2
67.2 100 0 07
0.07 5 700
5,700 18 000
18,000 2 6E-09
2.6E-09 1 0E-08
1.0E-08
22 1 45 67.2 100 0.07 5,700 18,000 2.6E-09 1.0E-08
23 1 45 67.2 100 0.07 5,700 18,000 2.6E-09 1.0E-08
24 1 45 67.2 100 0.07 5,700 18,000 2.6E-09 1.0E-08
25 1 45 71.5 100 0.07 5,700 18,000 2.5E-09 9.8E-09
26 1 45 71.5 100 0.07 5,700 18,000 2.5E-09 9.8E-09
27 1 45 71.5 100 0.07 5,700 18,000 2.5E-09 9.8E-09
28 1 45 71.5 100 0.07 5,700 18,000 2.5E-09 9.8E-09
29 1 45 71.5 100 0.07 5,700 18,000 2.5E-09 9.8E-09
Equations: Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) =
Ingestion algorithm: Dermal algorithm: CF = Conversion Factor mg to kg 0.000001
CS x CF x IR x FI x EF x ED / (BW x AT) CS x CF x SA x AF x EF x ED / BW x AT AT = Averaging time - Cancer 25550
References:
1
EPA 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook. Tables 7-2 (adults) and 7-3 (children), mean. Values are mean of male and female. Source: National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS) 1987.
2
EPA 1991. Standard Default Exposure Factors. Default for resident child and adult.
3
EPA 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment).
Recommended default adherence factor for a child resident (0.2) and adult resident (0.07). For older children, the geometric mean weighted adherence factor for
children playing in wet soil was used for children 6 - 12, as an estimate of a high-end soil contact activity (see Exhibit 3-3).
4
EPA 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment)
Calculated from Exhibit C-1 - Body Part-Specific Surface Area Calculations (Children). Data from Exposure Factors Handbook, Tables 6-6, 6-7 and 6-8.
Surface area of head, forearms, hands, lower legs and feet (for child <6 years); feet excluded from surface area calculation for >6 years.
Surface area for >18 is recommended default for adult resident (EPA 2004).
5
Summed CDI for each age group is used in calculating average CDI.
6
Average CDI for each age group is used in calculating risk estimates.

Page 15 of 32
 Table 4-4. Values used for daily intake calculations
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA) air emissions

Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future

Medium: Outdoor air
Exposure Medium: Outdoor air
Exposure Point: Offsite areas
Receptor Population: Offsite resident
Receptor Age: Adult and Child

Exposure Parameter Parameter Definition Units RME RME Intake Equation/

Route Code Value Rationale/ Model Name
Reference
Ingestion Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/m3) =
a 3
CA Chemical concentration in air mg/m see Tables 2-2, 3-2 see Tables 2-2, 3-2 CA x EF x ED / AT
FI Fraction from source -- 1 U.S. EPA 1997 RME CDI:
EF Exposure frequency days/year 350 U.S. EPA 1997 For carcinogens (CA)*:
ED Exposure duration years 5 U.S. EPA 1997 6.8E-02
ATc Averaging time - carcinogens days 25,550 U.S. EPA 1989 For non carcinogens (CA)*:
ATn Averaging time - noncarcinogens days 1,825 U.S. EPA 1989 9.6E-01
Notes:
-- - not applicable
CT - central tendency
RME - reasonable maximum exposure
a
Inhalation rate is assumed in toxicity values.

Page 16 of 32
 Table 5-1. Non-cancer toxicity data - oral/dermal
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA) sediments

Chemical Oral RfD Oral Absorption Absorbed RfD for Dermal Primary Combined RfD:Target Organs
of Potential Chronic/ Efficiency for Target Uncertainty/Modifying
Concern Subchronic Value Units Dermal (1) Value Units Organ Factors Source Date

Aluminum chronic 1.0E+00 mg/kg-d >50% 1.0E+00 mg/kg-d CNS 100 PPRTV 10/23/2006
Arsenic chronic 3.0E-04 mg/kg-d 95% 2.9E-04 mg/kg-d Skin 3/1 IRIS 2/1/2003
Antimony chronic 4.0E-04 mg/kg-d 15% 6.0E-05 mg/kg-d Blood 1000/1 IRIS 12/3/2002
Barium chronic 2.0E-01 mg/kg-d 7% 1.4E-02 mg/kg-d Kidney 300/1 IRIS 7/11/2005
Cadmium (food) chronic 1.0E-03 mg/kg-d 2.50% 2.5E-05 mg/kg-d Kidney 10/1 IRIS 1/2/1998
Chromium (as hexavalent) chronic 3.0E-03 mg/kg-d 1.3% - 2.5% 7.5E-05 mg/kg-d NOAEL 300/3 IRIS 10/28/2003
Cobalt chronic 3.0E-04 mg/kg-d >50% 3.0E-04 mg/kg-d Thyroid 3000 PPRTV 8/25/2008
Copper chronic 4.0E-02 mg/kg-d >50% 4.0E-02 mg/kg-d GI NA HEAST 1997
Manganese chronic 1.4E-01 mg/kg-d 4% 5.6E-03 mg/kg-d CNS 1/1 IRIS 12/3/2002
Mercury (as mercuric chloride) chronic 3.0E-04 mg/kg-d 7% 2.1E-05 mg/kg-d Immune 1000/1 IRIS 12/3/2002
Nickel (as soluble salts) chronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg-d 4% 8.0E-04 mg/kg-d Whole Body 300/1 IRIS 12/10/1998
Vanadium chronic 9.0E-03 mg/kg-d 3% 2.3E-04 mg/kg-d Hair cystine 100/1 IRIS 12/3/2002
Dibenzofuran chronic ND mg/kg-d >50% 1.0E-03 mg/kg-d NA NA IRIS 12/3/2002
Dioxin (as TCDD equivalents) chronic 1.0E-09 mg/kg-d 50% - 83% 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d CNS 100 ATSDR 9/1/2008
PCBs (as Aroclor 1254) chronic 2.0E-05 mg/kg-d 80% - 96% 2.0E-05 mg/kg-d Immune 300/1 IRIS 4/1/1997
Dieldrin chronic 5.0E-05 mg/kg-d 5.0E-05 mg/kg-d Liver 100/1 IRIS 3/7/2005
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene chronic 1.0E-02 mg/kg-d >50% 1.0E-02 mg/kg-d Kidney 1000/1 IRIS 12/3/2002
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene chronic ND mg/kg-d >50% ND mg/kg-d NA NA IRIS 3/30/2010
1,2-Dichlorobenzene chronic 9.0E-02 mg/kg-d >50% 9.0E-02 mg/kg-d NOAEL 1000/1 IRIS 1/12/2000
1,4-Dichlorobenzene chronic 7.0E-02 mg/kg-d >50% 7.0E-02 mg/kg-d Liver 100 ATSDR 7/1/2006
1,2,3,4/5 Tetrachlorobenzene chronic 3.0E-04 mg/kg-d >50% 3.0E-04 mg/kg-d Kidney 1000/1 IRIS 12/3/2002
Pentachlorobenzene chronic 8.0E-04 mg/kg-d >50% 8.0E-04 mg/kg-d Liver, Kidney 10000/1 IRIS 10/28/2003
Benzene chronic 4.0E-03 mg/kg-d >50% 4.0E-03 mg/kg-d Blood 300/1 IRIS 10/1/2008
Chlorobenzene chronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg-d >50% 2.0E-02 mg/kg-d Liver 1000/1 IRIS 10/28/2003
Ethylbenzene chronic 1.0E-01 mg/kg-d >50% 1.0E-01 mg/kg-d Liver, Kidney 1000/1 IRIS 12/10/1998
Hexachlorobenzene chronic 8.0E-04 mg/kg-d >50% 8.0E-04 mg/kg-d Liver 100/1 IRIS 10/28/2003
Methylene chloride chronic 6.0E-02 mg/kg-d >50% 6.0E-02 mg/kg-d Liver 100/1 IRIS 7/30/2003
Pentachlorophenol chronic 3.0E-02 mg/kg-d 76% - 100% 3.0E-02 mg/kg-d Liver, Kidney 100/1 IRIS 1/2/1998
Tetrachloroethene chronic 1.0E-02 mg/kg-d >50% 1.0E-02 mg/kg-d Liver 1000/1 IRIS 1/2/1998
Vinyl chloride chronic 3.0E-03 mg/kg-d >50% 3.0E-03 mg/kg-d Liver 30/1 IRIS 10/28/2003
Xylenes (total) chronic 2.0E-01 mg/kg-d >50% 2.0E-01 mg/kg-d Whole Body 1000/1 IRIS 2/21/2003
2-Methyl napthalene chronic 4.0E-03 mg/kg-d >50% 4.0E-03 mg/kg-d Lung 1000/1 IRIS 3/5/2007
Benz[a]anthracene chronic ND mg/kg-d 58% - 89% ND mg/kg-d NA NA IRIS 11/1/1994
Benzo[a]pyrene chronic ND mg/kg-d 58% - 89% ND mg/kg-d NA NA IRIS 12/10/1998
Benzo[b]fluoranthene chronic ND mg/kg-d 58% - 89% ND mg/kg-d NA NA IRIS 11/1/1994
Benzo[k]fluoranthene chronic ND mg/kg-d 58% - 89% ND mg/kg-d NA NA IRIS 11/1/1994
Chrysene chronic ND mg/kg-d 58% - 89% ND mg/kg-d NA NA IRIS 11/1/1994
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene chronic ND mg/kg-d 58% - 89% ND mg/kg-d NA NA IRIS 11/1/1994
Fluorene chronic 4.0E-02 mg/kg-d 58% - 89% 4.0E-02 mg/kg-d Blood 3000/1 IRIS 4/1/1997
Fluoranthene chronic 4.0E-02 mg/kg-d 58% - 89% 4.0E-02 mg/kg-d Liver, Kidney, Blood 3000/1 IRIS 4/1/1997
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene chronic ND mg/kg-d 58% - 89% ND mg/kg-d NA NA IRIS 11/1/1994
Naphthalene chronic 2.0E-02 mg/kg-d 58% - 89% 2.0E-02 mg/kg-d Whole Body 3000/1 IRIS 9/1/2002
Notes:
(1) USEPA 2001b
NA - not available
N/A - not applicable
IRIS - Integrated Risk Information System
HEAST - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
ATSDR - Agency for Toxic Substatnces and Disease Registry
mg/kg-d - milligrams per kilogram per day

*Conversion Factors: 5 mg/L (5 ppm) given as 0.350 mg/kg/day in the discussion section of the critical study

Page 17 of 32
 Table 5-2. Non-cancer toxicity data - inhalation
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA) sediments

Chemical Chronic/ Inhalation RfC Extrapolated RfD Primary Combined RfC:Target Organs
of Potential Subchronic Target Uncertainty/Modifying
Concern Value Units Value Units Organ Factors Source Date
Aluminum chronic 5.00E-03 mg/m3 NA CNS 300 PPRTV 10/23/2006
Arsenic chronic 1.5E-05 mg/m3 NA Developmental NA Cal EPA 3/1/2009
3
Antimony chronic 2.00E-04 mg/m NA Respiratory 300 IRIS 12/3/2002
Barium chronic 5.0E-04 mg/m3 NA Developmental 1000/1 HEAST 7/31/1997
3
Cadmium (food) chronic 1.0E-05 mg/m NA Kidney 3/3 ATSDR 9/1/2008
Chromium (hexavalent particulate) chronic 1.0E-04 mg/m3 NA Respiratory 300/1 IRIS 10/28/2003
3
Cobalt chronic 6.00E-06 mg/m NA Respiratory 300 PPRTV 8/25/2008
Copper chronic ND mg/m3 NA NA NA IRIS 2/10/1998
3
Manganese chronic 5.0E-05 mg/m NA CNS 1000/1 IRIS 12/3/2002
3
Mercury (elemental) chronic 3.0E-04 mg/m NA CNS NA Cal EPA 3/1/2009
Nickel (as soluble salts) chronic 9.0E-05 mg/m3 NA Respiratory 1/30/1900 ATSDR 8/1/2005
Vanadium chronic ND NA NA NA PPRTV 9/30/2009
Dibenzofuran chronic ND NA NA NA PPRTV 6/11/2007
PCBs (as Aroclor 1254) chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 4/1/1997
Dieldrin chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 3/7/2005
3
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene chronic 0.007 mg/m NA Blood 3000/1 PPRTV 6/11/2007
1,2-Dichlorobenzene chronic 0.2 mg/m3 NA Whole Body 1000 HEAST 6/19/1905
3
1,4-Dichlorobenzene chronic 0.8 mg/m NA Liver 100/1 IRIS 1/12/2000
1,1-Dichloroethane chronic ND NA NA NA PPRTV 9/27/2006
3
1,1-Dichloroethene chronic 0.2 mg/m NA Liver 30/1 IRIS 6/22/2005
1,2,3,4/5 Tetrachlorobenzene chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 12/3/2002
Pentachlorobenzene chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 10/28/2003
3
1,2-Dichloroethane chronic 2.4 mg/m NA Liver 90 ATSDR 5/11/2001
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene chronic 0.06 mg/m3 NA Respiratory 3000 provisional 3/1/2006
Acetone chronic 31 mg/m3 NA CNS 100 ATSDR 5/1994
3
Benzene chronic 0.03 mg/m NA Blood 300/1 IRIS 10/1/2008
3
2-Butanone chronic 5 mg/m NA Developmental (skeletal) 300/1 IRIS 9/26/2003
Carbon tetrachloride chronic 0.19 mg/m3 NA Liver 30 ATSDR 9/2005
3
Chlorobenzene chronic 0.05 mg/m NA Liver 1000 PPRTV 12/1/2003
3
Chloroform chronic 0.098 mg/m NA Liver 100 ATSDR 3/19/1997
3
Cyanide (hydrogen cyanide) chronic 0.003 mg/m NA CNS/thyroid 1000/1 IRIS 1/9/2002
2-Methyl napthalene chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 3/5/2007
Ethylbenzene chronic 1 mg/m3 NA Developmental 300/1 IRIS 12/10/1998
3
Toluene chronic 5 mg/m NA CNS 10/1 IRIS 4/3/2007
Hexachlorobenzene chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 10/28/2003
Methylene chloride chronic 1 mg/m3 NA Liver 30 ATSDR 9/1/2000
Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether chronic 3 mg/m3 NA Liver 100 IRIS 12/10/1998
Pentachlorophenol chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 1/2/1998
Tetrachloroethene chronic 0.27 mg/m3 NA CNS 100 ATSDR 9/1/1997
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4- chronic 0.002 mg/m3 NA Urinary 3000 PPRTV 6/19/2009
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- chronic 5 mg/m3 NA Blood 100/1 IRIS 9/28/2007
Trichloroethene chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 6/7/2004
Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5- chronic ND NA NA NA PPRTV 4/22/2009
3
Vinyl chloride chronic 0.1 mg/m NA Liver 30/1 IRIS 10/28/2003
3
Xylenes (total) chronic 0.1 mg/m NA CNS 300/1 IRIS 2/21/2003
Benz[a]anthracene chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 11/1/1994
Benzo[a]pyrene chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 12/10/1998
Benzo[b]fluoranthene chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 11/1/1994
Benzo[k]fluoranthene chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 11/1/1994
Chrysene chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 11/1/1994
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 11/1/1994
Fluorene chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 4/1/1997
Fluoranthene chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 4/1/1997
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene chronic ND NA NA NA IRIS 11/1/1994
3
Naphthalene chronic 3.0E-03 mg/m NA Respiratory 3000/1 IRIS 9/1/2002
Notes:
(1) RfD calculated from RfC based on an adult inhalation rate of 20 m3/d and a body weight of 70 kg (RfD = RfC * 20 m3/d * (1/70 kg))
(2) Elemental Mercury was used as a surrogate.

ATSDR - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ND - Not Developed
HEAST - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables PPRTV - Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values
IRIS - Integrated Risk Information System RfD - Reference dose
NA - Not Applicable

Page 18 of 32
 Table 6-1. Cancer toxicity data - oral/dermal
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA) sediments

Chemical Oral Cancer Slope Factor Oral Absorption Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor Weight of Evidence/ Oral Cancer Slope Factor
of Potential Efficiency for Dermal for Dermal Cancer Guideline
Concern Value Units Value Units Description Source Date

Aluminum NA NA Not Evaluated PPRTV 10/23/2006

Arsenic 1.5E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 95% 1.5E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 A IRIS 2/1/2003
Antimony NA Not Evaluated PPRTV 7/29/2008
-1
Barium NA NA NA (mg/kg-day) D IRIS 7/11/2005
Cadmium (food) NA NA NA Not Evaluated IRIS 1/2/1998
Chromium (as hexavalent) 5.0E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1 NA NA (mg/kg-day)-1 Likely NJDEP 7/1/1905
Cobalt NA Not Evaluated PPRTV 8/25/2008
Copper NA NA NA D IRIS 12/10/1998
Manganese NA NA NA D IRIS 12/3/2002
Mercury (as mercuric chloride) NA NA NA C IRIS 12/3/2002
Nickel (as soluble salts) NA NA NA Not Evaluated IRIS 12/10/1998
Vanadium NA NA NA Not Evaluated IRIS 12/3/2002
Dibenzofuran NA NA NA D IRIS 12/3/2002
-1 -1
Dioxins (as TCDD Equivalents) 1.3E+05 (mg/kg-day) 50% - 83% 1.3E+05 (mg/kg-day) B2 CalEPA 5/1/2009
PCBs 2.0E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 80 - 96% 2.0E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 B2 IRIS 9/4/2007
Dieldrin 16 (mg/kg-day)-1 16 (mg/kg-day)-1 B2 IRIS 3/7/2005
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene NA NA NA Not Evaluated IRIS 4/30/2010
1,2-Dichlorobenzene NA NA NA D IRIS 1/12/2000
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 5.4E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 NA 5.4E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 2B (IARC) CalEPA 5/1/2009
Benzene 5.5E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 >50% 5.5E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 A IRIS 1/9/2000
Chlorobenzene NA NA NA D IRIS 10/28/2003
Ethylbenzene 1.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 NA 1.1E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 Not Classified CalEPA May-09
Hexachlorobenzene 1.6E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 >50% 1.6E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 B2 IRIS 10/28/2003
1,2,3,4/5 Tetrachlorobenzene NA Not Evaluated IRIS 12/3/2002
Pentachlorobenzene NA D IRIS 10/28/2003
Methylene chloride 7.5E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 >50% 7.5E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 B2 IRIS 7/30/2003
Pentachlorophenol 1.2E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1 76% - 100% (mg/kg-day)-1 B2 IRIS 1/2/1998
-1 -1
Tetrachloroethene 5.4E-01 (mg/kg-day) >50% 5.4E-01 (mg/kg-day) 2A (IARC) CalEPA 5/1/2009
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene NA D IRIS 12/3/2002
Vinyl chloride 1.4E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 >50% 1.4E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 A IRIS 10/28/2003
Xylenes (total) NA Data are inadequate IRIS 2/21/2003
2-Methyl napthalene NA Data are inadequate IRIS 3/5/2007
-1 -1 1
Benz[a]anthracene 7.3E-01 (mg/kg-day) 1 7.3E-01 (mg/kg-day) B2 NCEA 11/1/1994
Benzo[a]pyrene 7.3E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 1 7.3E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 B2 IRIS 1 12/10/1998
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 7.3E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1 1 7.3E-01 (mg/kg-day)-1 B2 NCEA 1 11/1/1994
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 7.3E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 1 7.3E-02 (mg/kg-day)-1 B2 NCEA 1 11/1/1994
Chrysene 7.3E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 1 7.3E-03 (mg/kg-day)-1 B2 NCEA 1 11/1/1994
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 7.3E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 1 7.3E+00 (mg/kg-day)-1 B2 NCEA 1 11/1/1994
Fluorene NA NA NA D IRIS 4/1/0997
Fluoranthene NA NA D IRIS 4/1/0997
-1 -1 1
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 7.3E-01 (mg/kg-day) 1 7.3E-01 (mg/kg-day) B2 NCEA 11/1/1994
Naphthalene NA NA NA C IRIS 9/1/2002
Notes: U.S. EPA weight of evidence group:
CalEPA - California Environmental Protection Agency A - Human carcinogen C - Possible human carcinogen
HEAST - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables B1 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates that limited human D - Not classifiable as a human carcinogen
IRIS - Integrated Risk Information System data are available E - Evidence of noncarcinogenicity
NA - not available B2 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates sufficient evidence
NCEA - National Center for Environmental Assessment in animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans
1
This chemical operates with a mutagenic mode of action (USEPA 2005).
Chemical-specific data are not available, thus, USEPA (2005) default age-dependant adjustment factors (ADAF) will be applied to the slope factor as follows Age Age ADAF
0-<2 10
2-<16 3
16-<30 1

Page 19 of 32
 Table 6-2. Cancer toxicity data - inhalation
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA) sediments

Chemical Unit Risk Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor Weight of Evidence/ Unit Risk: Inhalation CSF
of Potential Cancer Guideline
Concern Value Units Value Units Description Source Date

Aluminum ND NA Not Evaluated PPRTV 10/23/2006

Arsenic 4.3E+00 per mg/m 3 NA A IRIS 2/1/2003
Antimony ND NA Not Evaluated IRIS 12/3/2002
Barium ND NA D IRIS 7/11/2005
Cadmium 1.8E+00 per mg/m 3 NA B1 IRIS 1/2/1998
Chromium (as hexavalent) 8.4E-05 per mg/m 3 NA A IRIS 10/28/2003
Cobalt ND NA Likely to be carcinogenic to humans PPRTV 8/25/2008
Copper NA NA D IRIS 2/10/1998
Manganese ND NA D IRIS 12/3/2002
Mercury (as mercuric chloride) ND NA C IRIS 12/3/2002
Nickel (as soluble salts) ND NA Not Evaluated IRIS 12/10/1998
Vanadium ND NA Not Evaluated IRIS 12/3/2002
Dibenzofuran ND NA D IRIS 12/3/2002
PCBs 1.0E-01 per mg/m 3 NA B2 IRIS 9/4/2007
Dieldrin 4.6E+00 per mg/m 3 NA B2 IRIS 3/7/2005
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND NA Not Evaluated IRIS 4/30/2010
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND NA D IRIS 1/12/2000
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1.1E-02 per mg/m 3 NA 2B (IARC) CalEPA 2009
1,1-Dichloroethane 1.6E-03 per mg/m 3 NA C CalEPA 1992
1,1-Dichloroethene ND NA C IRIS 8/13/2002
1,2,3,4/5 Tetrachlorobenzene ND NA Not evaluated IRIS 12/3/2002
Pentachlorobenzene NA D IRIS 10/28/2003
1,2-Dichloroethane 2.6E-02 per mg/m 3 NA B2 IRIS 1/1/1991
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND NA Not Evaluated IRIS 2/9/2004
Acetone ND NA Data are inadequate IRIS 7/31/2003
Benzene 7.8E-03 per mg/m 3 NA A IRIS 1/9/2000
2-Butanone ND NA Data are inadequate IRIS 9/26/2003
Carbon tetrachloride 6.0E-03 per mg/m 3 NA Likely to be carcinogenic to humans IRIS 3/31/2010
Chlorobenzene NA NA D IRIS 10/28/2003
Chloroform 2.3E-02 per mg/m 3 NA B2 IRIS 10/19/2001
Cyanide (hydrogen cyanide, 74-90- ND NA Not Evaluated IRIS 1/9/2002
2-Methyl napthalene NA Data are inadequate IRIS 3/5/2007
Ethylbenzene 2.5E-03 per mg/m 3 NA Not Classified CalEPA 11/14/07
Toluene ND NA Data are inadequate IRIS 9/23/2005
Hexachlorobenzene 4.6E-01 per mg/m 3 NA B2 IRIS 10/28/2003
Methylene chloride 4.7E-04 per mg/m 3 NA B2 IRIS 7/30/2003
Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether 2.6E-04 per mg/m 3 NA 3 (IARC) CalEPA 3/1/1999
Pentachlorophenol 5.1E-03 per mg/m 3 NA B2 CalEPA 7/1/1905
Tetrachloroethene 5.9E-03 per mg/m 3 NA 2A (IARC) CalEPA 7/1/1905
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4- ND NA D IRIS 3/1/1991
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- ND NA Data are inadequate IRIS 9/28/2007
Trichloroethene 2.0E-03 per mg/m 3 NA 2A (IARC) CalEPA 7/1/1905
Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5- ND NA Data are inadequate PPRTV 4/22/2009
Vinyl chloride 8.8E-03 per mg/m 3 NA A IRIS 10/28/2003
Xylenes (total) NA NA Data are inadequate IRIS 2/21/2003
Benz[a]anthracene 1.1E-01 per mg/m 3 NA B2 CalEPA (1) 11/1/1994
Benzo[a]pyrene 1.1E+00 per mg/m 3 NA B2 CalEPA (1) 12/10/1998
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 1.1E-01 per mg/m 3 NA B2 CalEPA (1) 11/1/1994
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.1E-01 per mg/m 3 NA B2 CalEPA (1) 11/1/1994
Chrysene 1.1E-02 per mg/m 3 NA B2 CalEPA (1) 11/1/1994
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 1.2E+00 per mg/m 3 NA B2 CalEPA (1) 11/1/1994
Fluoranthene NA D IRIS 4/1/1997
Fluorene NA NA Data are inadequate IRIS 4/1/1997
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.1E-01 per mg/m 3 NA B2 CalEPA (1) 11/1/1994
Naphthalene 3.4E-02 per mg/m 3 NA A CalEPA 8/3/2004
Dioxins (as TCDD Equivalents) 38000 per mg/m 3 NA B2 CalEPA (1) 2003
Notes:
CalEPA - California Environmental Agency NA U.S. EPA weight of evidence group:
HEAST - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables A - Human carcinogen C - Possible human carcinogen
IRIS - Integrated Risk Information System B1 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates that limited D - Not classifiable as a human carcinoge
NA - Not Available human data are available E - Evidence of noncarcinogenicity
NCEA - National Center for Environmental Assessment B2 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates sufficient
ND - Not Developed evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans

(1) This chemical operates with a mutagenic mode of action (USEPA 2005).
Chemical-specific data are not available, thus, USEPA (2005) default age-dependant adjustment factors (ADAF)
will be applied to the slope factor as follows:
Age Age ADAF
0-<2 10
2-<16 3
16-<30 1

Page 20 of 32
 Table 7-1. Calculation of chemical cancer risks and non-cancer hazards
Reasonable maximum exposure
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA) sediments
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Residential
Receptor Age: Child Ages 0-6

Medium Exposure Exposure Exposure Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Medium Point Route Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC
Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient
Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units
Aluminum 4,700 mg/kg 1.1E-4 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 7.7E-3 mg/kg 1.0 mg/kg-day 0.008
Sediment Surface soils Surface soils Ingestion Antimony 4.7 mg/kg 1.1E-7 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 7.7E-6 mg/kg 0.0004 mg/kg-day 0.02
Containment Area Arsenic 10 mg/kg 2.3E-7 mg/kg-day 1.5 (mg/kg-day)-1 4E-7 1.6E-5 mg/kg 0.0003 mg/kg-day 0.05
Sediments Barium 1,200 mg/kg 2.8E-5 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 2.0E-3 mg/kg 0.20 mg/kg-day 0.01
Cadmium 7.2 mg/kg 1.7E-7 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 1.2E-5 mg/kg 0.001 mg/kg-day 0.01
Chromium (as Cr VI) 790 mg/kg 1.9E-5 mg/kg-day 0.5 (mg/kg-day)-1 9E-6 1.3E-3 mg/kg 0.003 mg/kg-day 0.4
Cobalt 48 mg/kg 1.1E-6 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 7.9E-5 mg/kg 0.0003 mg/kg-day 0.3
Copper 150 mg/kg 3.5E-6 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 2.5E-4 mg/kg 0.04 mg/kg-day 0.006
Manganese 580 mg/kg 1.4E-5 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 9.5E-4 mg/kg 0.14 mg/kg-day 0.007
Mercury (as mercuric chloride) 15 mg/kg 3.5E-7 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 2.5E-5 mg/kg 0.000 mg/kg-day 0.08
Nickel (as soluble salts) 350 mg/kg 8.2E-6 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 5.8E-4 mg/kg 0.02 mg/kg-day 0.03
Vanadium 78 mg/kg 1.8E-6 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 1.3E-4 mg/kg 0.01 mg/kg-day 0.01
Dibenzofuran 4.8 mg/kg 1.1E-7 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 7.9E-6 mg/kg ND mg/kg-day --
Dieldrin 0.005 mg/kg 1.2E-10 mg/kg-day 16 (mg/kg-day)-1 2E-9 8.2E-9 mg/kg 0.00005 mg/kg-day 0.0002
Dioxins (as TCDD Equivalents) 1.3E-04 mg/kg 3.0E-12 mg/kg-day 130000 (mg/kg-day)-1 4E-7 2.1E-10 mg/kg 0.000000001 mg/kg-day 0.2
PCBs (Aroclor 1254 noncancer) 1.3 mg/kg 3.1E-8 mg/kg-day 2.0 (mg/kg-day)-1 6E-8 2.1E-6 mg/kg 0.00002 mg/kg-day 0.1
1,2,3/4,5 Tetrachlorobenzene 21 mg/kg 4.9E-7 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 3.5E-5 mg/kg 0.0003 mg/kg-day 0.1
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 17 mg/kg 3.9E-7 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 2.8E-5 mg/kg 0.010 mg/kg-day 0.003
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 19 mg/kg 4.5E-7 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 3.1E-5 mg/kg ND -- --
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 38 mg/kg 8.9E-7 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 6.2E-5 mg/kg 0.09 mg/kg-day 0.0007
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 84 mg/kg 2.0E-6 mg/kg-day 0.01 (mg/kg-day)-1 1E-8 1.4E-4 mg/kg 0.07 mg/kg-day 0.002
Benzene 4.7 mg/kg 1.1E-7 mg/kg-day 0.055 (mg/kg-day)-1 6E-9 7.7E-6 mg/kg 0.004 mg/kg-day 0.002
Chlorobenzene 52 mg/kg 1.2E-6 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 8.5E-5 mg/kg 0.02 mg/kg-day 0.004
Ethylbenzene 12 mg/kg 2.8E-7 mg/kg-day 0.011 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-9 2.0E-5 mg/kg 0.1 mg/kg-day 0.0002
Hexachlorobenzene 6.4 mg/kg 1.5E-7 mg/kg-day 1.6 (mg/kg-day)-1 2E-7 1.1E-5 mg/kg 0.001 mg/kg-day 0.01
Pentachlorobenzene 6.7 mg/kg 1.6E-7 mg/kg-day 0.011 (mg/kg-day)-1 2E-9 1.1E-5 mg/kg 0.0008 mg/kg-day 0.01
Xylenes, total 45 mg/kg 1.1E-6 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 7.4E-5 mg/kg 0.2 mg/kg-day 0.0004
2-Methylnaphthalene 13 mg/kg 3.1E-7 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 2.1E-5 mg/kg 0.004 mg/kg-day 0.01
Benz[a]anthracene 4.0 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a (mg/kg-day)-1 -- 6.6E-6 mg/kg ND -- --
Benzo[a]pyrene 3.2 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a (mg/kg-day)-1 -- 5.3E-6 mg/kg ND -- --
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 3.2 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a (mg/kg-day)-1 -- 5.3E-6 mg/kg ND -- --
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.5 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a (mg/kg-day)-1 -- 2.5E-6 mg/kg ND -- --
Chrysene 3.9 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a (mg/kg-day)-1 -- 6.4E-6 mg/kg ND -- --
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.58 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a (mg/kg-day)-1 -- 9.5E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Fluoranthene 8.2 mg/kg 1.9E-7 mg/kg-day -- -- 1.3E-5 mg/kg 0.04 mg/kg-day 0.0003
Fluorene 10 mg/kg 2.3E-7 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 1.6E-5 mg/kg 0.04 mg/kg-day 0.0004
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.5 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a (mg/kg-day)-1 -- 2.5E-6 mg/kg ND -- --
Naphthalene 130 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- 2.1E-4 mg/kg 0.02 mg/kg-day 0.01
Exp. Route Total 1E-5 1.4
Dermal Arsenic 10 mg/kg 2.0E-8 mg/kg-day 1.5 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-8 1.4E-6 mg/kg 0.0003 mg/kg-day 0.005
Cadmium 7.2 mg/kg 4.7E-10 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 3.3E-8 mg/kg 0.00003 mg/kg-day 0.001
Dieldrin 0.005 mg/kg 3.3E-11 mg/kg-day 16 (mg/kg-day)-1 5E-10 2.3E-9 mg/kg 0.00002 mg/kg-day 0.0001
Dioxins (as TCDD Equivalents) 1.3E-04 mg/kg 1.2E-12 mg/kg-day 130000 (mg/kg-day)-1 2E-7 8.3E-11 mg/kg 0.000000001 mg/kg-day 0.08
PCBs (Aroclor 1254 noncancer) 1.3 mg/kg 8.5E-9 mg/kg-day 2.0 (mg/kg-day)-1 2E-8 8.4E-7 mg/kg 0.00002 mg/kg-day 0.04
Hexachlorobenzene 6.4 mg/kg 4.2E-8 mg/kg-day 1.6 (mg/kg-day)-1 7E-8 2.9E-6 mg/kg 0.0008 mg/kg-day 0.004
Benz[a]anthracene 4.0 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a (mg/kg-day)-1 -- 2.4E-6 mg/kg ND -- --
Benzo[a]pyrene 3.2 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a (mg/kg-day)-1 -- 1.9E-6 mg/kg ND -- --
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 3.2 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a (mg/kg-day)-1 -- 1.9E-6 mg/kg ND -- --
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.5 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a (mg/kg-day)-1 -- 9.0E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Chrysene 3.9 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a (mg/kg-day)-1 -- 2.3E-6 mg/kg ND -- --
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.58 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a (mg/kg-day)-1 -- 3.5E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Fluoranthene 8.2 mg/kg 7.0E-8 mg/kg-day NA 4.9E-6 mg/kg 0.04 mg/kg-day 0.0001
Fluorene 10 mg/kg 8.5E-8 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 6.0E-6 mg/kg 0.04 mg/kg-day 0.0001
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.5 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a (mg/kg-day)-1 -- 9.0E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Naphthalene 130 mg/kg 1.1E-6 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 7.8E-5 mg/kg 0.02 mg/kg-day 0.004
Exp. Route Total 3E-7 0.1
Exposure Point Total 1E-5 2
Exposure Medium Total 1E-5 2
Medium Total 1E-5 2
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 1E-5 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 2
a See Supplement A for mutagenic mode of action cancer risk calculations for PAHs.

Page 21 of 32
 Table 7-2. Calculation of chemical cancer risks and non-cancer hazards
Reasonable maximum exposure
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA) sediments
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Residential
Receptor Age: Adult

Medium Exposure Exposure Exposure Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Medium Point Route Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC
Cancer Risk Hazard Quotient
Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units
Aluminum 4,700 mg/kg 1.2E-5 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 8.3E-4 mg/kg 1.0 mg/kg-day 0.001
Sediment Surface soils Surface soils Ingestion Antimony 4.7 mg/kg 1.2E-8 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 8.3E-7 mg/kg 0.0004 mg/kg-day 0.002
Containment Area Arsenic 10 mg/kg 2.5E-8 mg/kg-day 1.5 (mg/kg-day)-1 4E-8 1.8E-6 mg/kg 0.0003 mg/kg-day 0.006
Sediments Barium 1,200 mg/kg 3.0E-6 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 2.1E-4 mg/kg 0.20 mg/kg-day 0.001
Cadmium 7.2 mg/kg 1.8E-8 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 1.3E-6 mg/kg 0.001 mg/kg-day 0.001
Chromium (as Cr VI) 790 mg/kg 2.0E-6 mg/kg-day 0.5 (mg/kg-day)-1 1E-6 1.4E-4 mg/kg 0.003 mg/kg-day 0.05
Cobalt 48 mg/kg 1.2E-7 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 8.5E-6 mg/kg 0.0003 mg/kg-day 0.03
Copper 150 mg/kg 3.8E-7 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 2.6E-5 mg/kg 0.04 mg/kg-day 0.0007
Manganese 580 mg/kg 1.5E-6 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 1.0E-4 mg/kg 0.14 mg/kg-day 0.0007
Mercury (as mercuric chloride) 15 mg/kg 3.8E-8 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 2.6E-6 mg/kg 0.000 mg/kg-day 0.009
Nickel (as soluble salts) 350 mg/kg 8.8E-7 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 6.2E-5 mg/kg 0.02 mg/kg-day 0.003
Vanadium 78 mg/kg 2.0E-7 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 1.4E-5 mg/kg 0.01 mg/kg-day 0.002
Dibenzofuran 4.8 mg/kg 1.2E-8 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 8.5E-7 mg/kg ND mg/kg-day --
Dieldrin 0.005 mg/kg 1.3E-11 mg/kg-day 16 (mg/kg-day)-1 2E-10 8.8E-10 mg/kg 0.00005 mg/kg-day 0.00002
Dioxins (as TCDD Equivalents) 1.3E-04 mg/kg 3.2E-13 mg/kg-day 130000 (mg/kg-day)-1 4E-8 2.3E-11 mg/kg 0.000000001 mg/kg-day 0.02
PCBs (Aroclor 1254 noncancer) 1.3 mg/kg 3.3E-9 mg/kg-day 2.0 (mg/kg-day)-1 7E-9 2.3E-7 mg/kg 0.00002 mg/kg-day 0.01
1,2,3/4,5 Tetrachlorobenzene 21 mg/kg 5.3E-8 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 3.7E-6 mg/kg 0.0003 mg/kg-day 0.01
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 17 mg/kg 4.2E-8 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 3.0E-6 mg/kg 0.010 mg/kg-day 0.0003
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 19 mg/kg 4.8E-8 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 3.3E-6 mg/kg ND -- --
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 38 mg/kg 9.6E-8 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 6.7E-6 mg/kg 0.09 mg/kg-day 0.00007
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 84 mg/kg 2.1E-7 mg/kg-day 0.01 (mg/kg-day)-1 1E-9 1.5E-5 mg/kg 0.07 mg/kg-day 0.0002
Benzene 4.7 mg/kg 1.2E-8 mg/kg-day 0.055 (mg/kg-day)-1 7E-10 8.3E-7 mg/kg 0.004 mg/kg-day 0.0002
Chlorobenzene 52 mg/kg 1.3E-7 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 9.2E-6 mg/kg 0.02 mg/kg-day 0.0005
Ethylbenzene 12 mg/kg 3.0E-8 mg/kg-day 0.011 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-10 2.1E-6 mg/kg 0.1 mg/kg-day 0.00002
Hexachlorobenzene 6.4 mg/kg 1.6E-8 mg/kg-day 1.6 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-8 1.1E-6 mg/kg 0.001 mg/kg-day 0.001
Pentachlorobenzene 6.7 mg/kg 1.7E-8 mg/kg-day 0.011 (mg/kg-day)-1 2E-10 1.2E-6 mg/kg 0.0008 mg/kg-day 0.001
Xylenes, total 45 mg/kg 1.1E-7 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 7.9E-6 mg/kg 0.2 mg/kg-day 0.00004
2-Methylnaphthalene 13 mg/kg 3.3E-8 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 2.3E-6 mg/kg 0.004 mg/kg-day 0.001
Benz[a]anthracene 4.0 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- -- 7.0E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Benzo[a]pyrene 3.2 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- -- 5.6E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 3.2 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- -- 5.6E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.5 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- -- 2.6E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Chrysene 3.9 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- -- 6.9E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.58 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- -- 1.0E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Fluoranthene 8.2 mg/kg 2.1E-8 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 1.4E-6 mg/kg 0.04 mg/kg-day 0.00004
Fluorene 10 mg/kg 2.5E-8 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 1.8E-6 mg/kg 0.04 mg/kg-day 0.00004
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.5 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- -- 2.6E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Naphthalene 130 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- 2.3E-5 mg/kg 0.02 mg/kg-day 0.001
Exp. Route Total 1E-6 0.2
Dermal Arsenic 10 mg/kg 3.0E-9 mg/kg-day 1.5 (mg/kg-day)-1 5E-9 2.1E-7 mg/kg 0.0003 mg/kg-day 0.0007
Cadmium 7.2 mg/kg 7.2E-11 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 5.1E-9 mg/kg 0.00003 mg/kg-day 0.0002
Dieldrin 0.005 mg/kg 5.0E-12 mg/kg-day 16 (mg/kg-day)-1 8E-11 3.5E-10 mg/kg 0.00002 mg/kg-day 0.00002
Dioxins (as TCDD Equivalents) 1.3E-04 mg/kg 1.8E-13 mg/kg-day 130000 (mg/kg-day)-1 2E-8 1.3E-11 mg/kg 0.000000001 mg/kg-day 0.01
PCBs (Aroclor 1254 noncancer) 1.3 mg/kg 1.8E-9 mg/kg-day 2.0 (mg/kg-day)-1 4E-9 1.3E-7 mg/kg 0.00002 mg/kg-day 0.006
Hexachlorobenzene 6.4 mg/kg 6.4E-9 mg/kg-day 1.6 (mg/kg-day)-1 1E-8 4.5E-7 mg/kg 0.0008 mg/kg-day 0.0006
Benz[a]anthracene 4.0 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- -- 3.7E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Benzo[a]pyrene 3.2 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- -- 2.9E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 3.2 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- -- 2.9E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.5 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- -- 1.4E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Chrysene 3.9 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- -- 3.6E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.58 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- -- 5.3E-8 mg/kg ND -- --
Fluoranthene 8.2 mg/kg 1.1E-8 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 7.5E-7 mg/kg 0.04 mg/kg-day 0.00002
Fluorene 10 mg/kg 1.0E-8 mg/kg-day NA -- -- 9.1E-7 mg/kg 0.04 mg/kg-day 0.00002
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.5 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- -- 1.4E-7 mg/kg ND -- --
Naphthalene 130 mg/kg a mg/kg-day a -- -- 1.2E-5 mg/kg 0.02 mg/kg-day 0.0006
Exp. Route Total 4E-8 0.02
Exposure Point Total 1E-6 0.2
Exposure Medium Total 1E-6 0.2
Medium Total 1E-6 0.2
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 1E-6 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 0.2

Page 22 of 32
 Table 7-3. Calculation of chemical cancer risks and non-cancer hazards
Reasonable maximum exposure
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA) sediments

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Receptor Population: Offsite resident
Receptor Age: Adult and Child

Medium Exposure Exposure Exposure Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations
Medium Point Route Potential Concern
Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC Hazard
Risk Quotient
Inhalation Value Units Value Units Value Units Value Units
Sediment Air Air Chemicals detected in wind tunnel tests
3 -1
Containment 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.00029 mg/m3 2.0E-5 mg/m3 1.1E-02 (mg/m ) 2E-7 2.8E-4 mg/m3 0.8 mg/m3 0.0004
Area Sediments 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ortho) 0.080 mg/m3 5.5E-3 mg/m3 ND -- -- 7.7E-2 mg/m3 0.2 mg/m3 0.4
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.0019 mg/m3 1.3E-4 mg/m3 ND -- -- 1.9E-3 mg/m3 0.002 mg/m3 0.9
3 -1
Benzene 0.00042 mg/m3 2.8E-5 mg/m3 7.8E-03 (mg/m ) 2E-7 4.0E-4 mg/m3 0.03 mg/m3 0.01
Chlorobenzene 0.024 mg/m3 1.7E-3 mg/m3 NA -- -- 2.3E-2 mg/m3 0.05 mg/m3 0.5
Ethylbenzene based on CalEPA IUR 0.0054 mg/m3 3.7E-4 mg/m3 2.5E-03 (mg/m3) -1 9E-7 5.2E-3 mg/m3 1.0 mg/m3 0.005
Naphthalene (based on CalEPA IUR) 0.00040 mg/m3 2.7E-5 mg/m3 3.4E-02 (mg/m3) -1 9E-7 3.8E-4 mg/m3 0.003 mg/m3 0.1
Toluene 1.1 mg/m3 7.6E-2 mg/m3 ND -- -- 1.1E+0 mg/m3 5.0 mg/m3 0.2
Xylenes 0.022 mg/m3 1.5E-3 mg/m3 NA -- -- 2.1E-2 mg/m3 0.10 mg/m3 0.2
Additional volatile chemicals detected in sediments that have inhalation toxicity values -- --
Cyanide (hydrogen cyanide, 74-90-8) 0.00067 mg/m3 4.6E-5 mg/m3 ND -- -- 6.4E-4 mg/m3 0.003 mg/m3 0.2
Mercury (elemental) 0.000067 mg/m3 4.6E-6 mg/m3 ND -- -- 6.4E-5 mg/m3 0.0003 mg/m3 0.2
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.22 mg/m3 1.5E-2 mg/m3 ND -- -- 2.1E-1 mg/m3 5.0 mg/m3 0.04
1,1-Dichloroethane 0.0020 mg/m3 1.4E-4 mg/m3 1.6E-03 (mg/m3) -1 2E-7 1.9E-3 mg/m3 ND -- --
1,1-Dichloroethene 0.016 mg/m3 1.1E-3 mg/m3 ND -- -- 1.5E-2 mg/m3 0.20 mg/m3 0.07
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.00012 mg/m3 8.5E-6 mg/m3 2.6E-02 (mg/m3) -1 2E-7 1.2E-4 mg/m3 2.4 mg/m3 0.00005
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.0068 mg/m3 4.7E-4 mg/m3 ND -- -- 6.5E-3 mg/m3 0.007 mg/m3 0.9
2-Butanone 1.1 mg/m3 7.6E-2 mg/m3 ND -- -- 1.1E+0 mg/m3 5.0 mg/m3 0.2
Acetone 6.2 mg/m3 4.3E-1 mg/m3 ND -- -- 6.0E+0 mg/m3 31 mg/m3 0.2
Carbon tetrachloride 0.00022 mg/m3 1.5E-5 mg/m3 6.0E-03 (mg/m3) -1 9E-8 2.1E-4 mg/m3 0.19 mg/m3 0.001
3 -1
Chloroform 0.00014 mg/m3 9.6E-6 mg/m3 2.3E-02 (mg/m ) 2E-7 1.4E-4 mg/m3 0.098 mg/m3 0.001
Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether 0.012 mg/m3 8.5E-4 mg/m3 2.6E-04 (mg/m3) -1 2E-7 1.2E-2 mg/m3 3.0 mg/m3 0.004
Methylene chloride 0.0069 mg/m3 4.7E-4 mg/m3 4.7E-04 (mg/m3) -1 2E-7 6.6E-3 mg/m3 1.0 mg/m3 0.007
3 -1
Tetrachloroethene 0.00055 mg/m3 3.8E-5 mg/m3 5.9E-03 (mg/m ) 2E-7 5.3E-4 mg/m3 0.27 mg/m3 0.002
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.014 mg/m3 9.6E-4 mg/m3 ND -- -- 1.3E-2 mg/m3 0.06 mg/m3 0.2
3 -1
Trichloroethene 0.0016 mg/m3 1.1E-4 mg/m3 2.0E-03 (mg/m ) 2E-7 1.6E-3 mg/m3 ND -- --
Vinyl chloride 0.00074 mg/m3 5.0E-5 mg/m3 8.8E-03 (mg/m3) -1 4E-7 7.1E-4 mg/m3 0.10 mg/m3 0.007
Exp. Route Total 4E-6 4
Exposure Point Total 4E-6 4
Exposure Medium Total 4E-6 4
Medium Total 4E-6 4
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 4E-6 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 4

Page 23 of 32
 Table 8-1. Summary of total excess lifetime cancer risks for reasonable maximum exposure scenarios
Percent
Cancer Contribution Chemicals with Primary Contribution to Risk
Scenario / Exposure Pathway Risk by Pathway for each Pathway
Inhalation of Volatiles from Sediment Containment Area (SCA) Adult, Adolescent, Child
Offsite Migration to Air
Offsite residents
Outdoor Air 4E-6 100% Ethylbenzene, naphthalene
Direct Contact with Surface Soil (SCA sediments)
Hypothetical 45 day residence on SCA
Chemicals other than PAHs Child Ages 0-2
Ingestion of Surface Soil 2E-5 49% Chromium VI
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 4E-7 1% Dioxins, hexachlorobenzene, arsenic
2E-5
Carcinogenic PAHs
Ingestion of Surface Soil 1E-5 38% PAH
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 4E-6 13% PAH
Risk sum for children ages 0-2 3E-5 100%
Chemicals other than PAHs Child Ages 2-6
Ingestion of Surface Soil 1E-5 74% Chromium VI
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 3E-7 2% Dioxins, hexachlorobenzene, arsenic
1E-5
Carcinogenic PAHs
Ingestion of Surface Soil 2E-6 17% PAH
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 8E-7 6% PAH
Risk sum for children ages 2-6 1E-5 100%
Chemicals other than PAHs Child Ages 6-16
Ingestion of Surface Soil 2E-6 67% Chromium VI
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 1E-7 4% Dioxins, hexachlorobenzene, arsenic
2E-6
Carcinogenic PAHs (adolescent- ages 6-16)
Ingestion of Surface Soil 5E-7 16% PAH
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 4E-7 13% PAH
Risk sum for children ages 6-16 3E-6 100%
Chemicals other than PAHs Adult
Ingestion of Surface Soil 1E-6 86% Chromium VI
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 4E-8 3% Dioxins, hexachlorobenzene, arsenic
1E-6
Carcinogenic PAHs (adult)
Ingestion of Surface Soil 9E-8 7% PAH
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 5E-8 4% PAH
Risk sum for adults 1E-6 100%
Notes: Risk estimates for carcinogens other than PAHs were calculated for the age groups by taking the ratio of the CDI for that age group over the CDI
for children (for age groups 0-2 and 2-6) or over the CDI for adults (for adolescents). (See below)

PAH - Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

Ratios used to adjust CDIs for chemicals other than PAHs
Ingestion Dermal Contact
Ratio of chronic daily intake for 0-2 child / 0-6 child 1.5 1.4
Ratio of chronic daily intake for 2-6 child / 0-6 child 0.9 1.0
Ratio of chronic daily intake for 6-16 adolescent / adult 2.0 3.2

Page 24 of 32
 Table 8-2. Summary of total hazard indices for reasonable maximum exposure scenarios air exposure to volatiles
Hazard
Receptor/Exposure Pathway Index

Inhalation of Volatiles: Sediment Containment Area (SCA) Soils

Adult,
Adolescent,
Offsite residents and Child Chemicals with Primary Contribution to Hazard Index
Outdoor Air Hazard Indices by Endpoint
Hazard Index for Blood Endpoint 1 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Hazard Index for CNS Endpoint 1 Mercury, toluene, acetone, xylenes, cyanide
Hazard Index for Developmental Endpoint: 0.2 2-Butanone
Hazard Index for Liver 0.6 Chlorobenzene
Hazard Index for Respiratory 0.4 trans 1,2-Dichloroethene, naphthalene
Hazard Index for Whole Body 0.4 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Hazard Index for All Other Endpoints 0.9 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

Table 8-3. Summary of total hazard indices for reasonable maximum exposure scenarios sediment direct contact
Hazard
Receptor/Exposure Pathway Index
Direct contact: Sediment Containment Area (SCA) Soils Percent
Contribution Chemicals with Primary Contribution
Residents - Future Child Ages 1-6 by Pathway to Hazard Index
Surface Soil Hazard Indices by Endpoint
Ingestion of Surface Soil
Hazard Index for Blood Endpoint 0.02 Antimony
Hazard Index for CNS Endpoint 0.2 Dioxins
Hazard Index for GI Endpoint 0.006 Copper
Hazard Index for Hair Cystine Endpoint 0.01 Vanadium
Hazard Index for Immune System Endpoint: 0.2 PCBs (Aroclor 1254, noncancer), mercury
Hazard Index for Liver 0.03 Pentachlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene
Hazard Index for Kidney 0.2 1,2,3/4,5 Tetrachlorobenzene
Hazard Index for Whole Body 0.04 Nickel (as soluble salts)
Hazard Index for Skin 0.05 Arsenic
Hazard Index for Thyroid 0.3 Cobalt
Hazard Index for NOAEL 0.4 Chromium (as Cr VI)
Hazard Index for Lung 0.005 2-Methylnaphthalene
Total Percent Contribution: Ingestion of Surface Soil 91% Chromium VI, cobalt, dioxins

Dermal Contact with Surface Soil

Hazard Index for Blood Endpoint 0.0003 Fluorene
Hazard Index for CNS Endpoint 0.08 Dioxins
Hazard Index for Immune System Endpoint: 0.04 PCBs (Aroclor 1254 noncancer)
Hazard Index for Liver 0.004 Hexachlorobenzene
Hazard Index for Kidney 0.001 Cadmium
Hazard Index for Whole Body 0.004 Naphthalene
Hazard Index for Skin 0.005 Arsenic
Total Percent Contribution: Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 9% Dioxin, PCBs

Total for Future Residents - Surface Soil: 100%

Note:
PCB - Polychlorinated biphenyls

Page 25 of 32
 Supplement A

Table 7-1. Calculation of chemical cancer risks

Reasonable maximum exposure
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA) sediments

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Receptor Population: Residential
Receptor Age: Child Ages 0-2

Medium Exposure Exposure Exposure Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations

Medium Point Route Potential Concern
Sediment Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Risk
Containment Area
Sediments Surface soils Surface soilsIngestion Value Units Value Units
Benz[a]anthracene 4.0 mg/kg 1.4E-7 mg/kg-day 7.3 (mg/kg-day)-1 1E-6
Benzo[a]pyrene 3.2 mg/kg 1.1E-7 mg/kg-day 73 (mg/kg-day)-1 8E-6
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 3.2 mg/kg 1.1E-7 mg/kg-day 7.3 (mg/kg-day)-1 8E-7
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.5 mg/kg 5.2E-8 mg/kg-day 0.73 (mg/kg-day)-1 4E-8
Chrysene 3.9 mg/kg 1.4E-7 mg/kg-day 0.073 (mg/kg-day)-1 1E-8
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.58 mg/kg 2.0E-8 mg/kg-day 73 (mg/kg-day)-1 1E-6
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.5 mg/kg 5.2E-8 mg/kg-day 7.3 (mg/kg-day)-1 4E-7
Exp. Route Total 1E-5
Dermal Benz[a]anthracene 4.0 mg/kg 4.7E-8 mg/kg-day 7.3 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-7
Benzo[a]pyrene 3.2 mg/kg 3.8E-8 mg/kg-day 73 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-6
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 3.2 mg/kg 3.8E-8 mg/kg-day 7.3 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-7
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.5 mg/kg 1.8E-8 mg/kg-day 0.73 (mg/kg-day)-1 1E-8
Chrysene 3.9 mg/kg 4.6E-8 mg/kg-day 0.073 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-9
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.58 mg/kg 6.9E-9 mg/kg-day 73 (mg/kg-day)-1 5E-7
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.5 mg/kg 1.8E-8 mg/kg-day 7.3 (mg/kg-day)-1 1E-7
Exp. Route Total 4E-6
Exposure Point Total 2E-5
Exposure Medium Total 2E-5
Medium Total 2E-5
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 2E-5

Page 26 of 32
 Supplement A

Table 7-2. Calculation of chemical cancer risks

Reasonable maximum exposure
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA) sediments

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Receptor Population: Residential
Receptor Age: Child Ages 2-6

Medium Exposure Exposure Exposure Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations

Sediment Medium Point Route Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Risk
Containment Area
Sediments Surface soils Surface soilsIngestion Value Units Value Units
Benz[a]anthracene 4.0 mg/kg 8.8E-8 mg/kg-day 2.2 (mg/kg-day)-1 2E-7
Benzo[a]pyrene 3.2 mg/kg 7.0E-8 mg/kg-day 22 (mg/kg-day)-1 2E-6
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 3.2 mg/kg 7.0E-8 mg/kg-day 2.2 (mg/kg-day)-1 2E-7
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.5 mg/kg 3.3E-8 mg/kg-day 0.22 (mg/kg-day)-1 7E-9
Chrysene 3.9 mg/kg 8.5E-8 mg/kg-day 0.022 (mg/kg-day)-1 2E-9
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.58 mg/kg 1.3E-8 mg/kg-day 22 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-7
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.5 mg/kg 3.3E-8 mg/kg-day 2.2 (mg/kg-day)-1 7E-8
Exp. Route Total 2E-6
Dermal Benz[a]anthracene 4.0 mg/kg 3.3E-8 mg/kg-day 2.2 (mg/kg-day)-1 7E-8
Benzo[a]pyrene 3.2 mg/kg 2.6E-8 mg/kg-day 22 (mg/kg-day)-1 6E-7
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 3.2 mg/kg 2.6E-8 mg/kg-day 2.2 (mg/kg-day)-1 6E-8
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.5 mg/kg 1.2E-8 mg/kg-day 0.22 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-9
Chrysene 3.9 mg/kg 3.2E-8 mg/kg-day 0.022 (mg/kg-day)-1 7E-10
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.58 mg/kg 4.8E-9 mg/kg-day 22 (mg/kg-day)-1 1E-7
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.5 mg/kg 1.2E-8 mg/kg-day 2.2 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-8
Exp. Route Total 8E-7
Exposure Point Total 3E-6
Exposure Medium Total 3E-6
Medium Total 3E-6
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 3E-6

Page 27 of 32
 Supplement A

Table 7-3. Calculation of chemical cancer risks

Reasonable maximum exposure
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA) sediments

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Receptor Population: Residential
Receptor Age: 6-16

Medium Exposure Exposure Exposure Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations

Sediment Medium Point Route Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Risk
Containment Area
Surface soils Surface soilsIngestion Value Units Value Units
Sediments
Benz[a]anthracene 4.0 mg/kg 2.0E-8 mg/kg-day 2.19 (mg/kg-day)-1 4E-8
Benzo[a]pyrene 3.2 mg/kg 1.6E-8 mg/kg-day 21.9 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-7
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 3.2 mg/kg 1.6E-8 mg/kg-day 2.19 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-8
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.5 mg/kg 7.4E-9 mg/kg-day 0.219 (mg/kg-day)-1 2E-9
Chrysene 3.9 mg/kg 1.9E-8 mg/kg-day 0.0219 (mg/kg-day)-1 4E-10
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.58 mg/kg 2.9E-9 mg/kg-day 21.9 (mg/kg-day)-1 6E-8
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.5 mg/kg 7.4E-9 mg/kg-day 2.19 (mg/kg-day)-1 2E-8
Exp. Route Total 5E-7
Dermal Benz[a]anthracene 4.0 mg/kg 1.6E-8 mg/kg-day 2.2 (mg/kg-day)-1 4E-8
Benzo[a]pyrene 3.2 mg/kg 1.3E-8 mg/kg-day 22 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-7
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 3.2 mg/kg 1.3E-8 mg/kg-day 2.2 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-8
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.5 mg/kg 6.2E-9 mg/kg-day 0.22 (mg/kg-day)-1 1E-9
Chrysene 3.9 mg/kg 1.6E-8 mg/kg-day 0.022 (mg/kg-day)-1 4E-10
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.58 mg/kg 2.4E-9 mg/kg-day 22 (mg/kg-day)-1 5E-8
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.5 mg/kg 6.2E-9 mg/kg-day 2.2 (mg/kg-day)-1 1E-8
Exp. Route Total 4E-7
Exposure Point Total 9E-7
Exposure Medium Total 9E-7
Medium Total 9E-7
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 9E-7

Page 28 of 32
 Supplement A

Table 7-4. Calculation of chemical cancer risks

Reasonable maximum exposure
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA) sediments

Scenario Timeframe: Future

Receptor Population: Residential
Receptor Age: Adult

Medium Exposure Exposure Exposure Chemical of EPC Cancer Risk Calculations

Sediment Medium Point Route Potential Concern Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Risk
Containment Area
Sediments Surface soils Surface soilsIngestion Value Units Value Units
Benz[a]anthracene 4.0 mg/kg 1.0E-8 mg/kg-day 0.73 (mg/kg-day)-1 8E-9
Benzo[a]pyrene 3.2 mg/kg 8.3E-9 mg/kg-day 7.3 (mg/kg-day)-1 6E-8
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 3.2 mg/kg 8.3E-9 mg/kg-day 0.73 (mg/kg-day)-1 6E-9
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.5 mg/kg 3.9E-9 mg/kg-day 0.073 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-10
Chrysene 3.9 mg/kg 1.0E-8 mg/kg-day 0.0073 (mg/kg-day)-1 7E-11
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.58 mg/kg 1.5E-9 mg/kg-day 7.3 (mg/kg-day)-1 1E-8
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.5 mg/kg 3.9E-9 mg/kg-day 0.73 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-9
Exp. Route Total 9E-8
Dermal Benz[a]anthracene 4.0 mg/kg 5.4E-9 mg/kg-day 0.73 (mg/kg-day)-1 4E-9
Benzo[a]pyrene 3.2 mg/kg 4.3E-9 mg/kg-day 7.3 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-8
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 3.2 mg/kg 4.3E-9 mg/kg-day 0.73 (mg/kg-day)-1 3E-9
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.5 mg/kg 2.0E-9 mg/kg-day 0.073 (mg/kg-day)-1 1E-10
Chrysene 3.9 mg/kg 5.2E-9 mg/kg-day 0.007 (mg/kg-day)-1 4E-11
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.58 mg/kg 7.8E-10 mg/kg-day 7.3 (mg/kg-day)-1 6E-9
Indeno [1,2,3-cd]pyrene 1.5 mg/kg 2.0E-9 mg/kg-day 0.73 (mg/kg-day)-1 1E-9
Exp. Route Total 5E-8
Exposure Point Total 1E-7
Exposure Medium Total 1E-7
Medium Total 1E-7
Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media 1E-7

Page 29 of 32
 Supplement B

Table B-1. Dermal absorption factors for soil and sediment

Dermal
Absorption
Factor
Compound (DA) Volatile?b
Inorganics
a
Arsenic 0.03 No
a
Barium 0.01 No
Cadmium (soil food) 0.001 No
Chromium -- No
Copper -- No
Manganese -- No
Mercury (total) -- No
Nickel -- No
Pesticides/PCBs
Dibenzofuran -- Yes
a
Dioxins (as TCDD equivalents) 0.03 No
a
PCBs 0.14 No
a
Dieldrin 0.10 No
a
Aroclor 1254 0.14 No
Organics
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene -- Yes
1,2-Dichlorobenzene -- Yes
1,4-Dichlorobenzene -- Yes
Benzene -- Yes
Chlorobenzene -- Yes
Ethylbenzene -- Yes
a
Hexachlorobenzene 0.10 No
Xylenes, total -- Yes
a
PAHs -all 0.13
a
Benz[a]anthracene 0.13 No
a
Benzo[a]pyrene 0.13 No
a
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.13 No
a
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.13 No
a
Chrysene 0.13 No
a
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.13 No
a
Fluoranthene 0.13 No
a
Fluorene 0.13 No
a
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 0.13 No
a
Naphthalene 0.13 No
Notes:
-- - not available
a
Absorption factors from EPA 2007 dermal guidance: Exhibit 3-4.
b
Volatile chemicals are not evaluated for dermal pathway (EPA 2007).

Page 30 of 32
 Supplement B

Table B-2. Detailed hazard indices by endpoint for air exposure pathway
Reasonable maximum exposure
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA) sediments

Hazard Quotients
Endpoint Chemical and Indices
Blood
Benzene 0.01
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.04
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.9
Sum of blood: 1.0
CNS
Mercury (elemental) 0.2
Toluene 0.2
Acetone 0.2
Tetrachloroethene 0.002
Xylenes 0.2
Cyanide (hydrogen cyanide, 74-90-8) 0.2
Sum of CNS: 1.0
Developmental
Ethylbenzene 0.01
2-Butanone 0.2
Sum of developmental: 0.2
Liver
Chlorobenzene 0.5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.0004
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.00005
1,1-Dichloroethene 0.07
Carbon tetrachloride 0.001
Chloroform 0.001
Methylene chloride 0.007
Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether 0.004
Vinyl chloride 0.007
Sum of liver: 0.6
Respiratory
Naphthalene 0.1
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.2
Sum of respiratory: 0.4
Whole body
1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ortho) 0.4
Sum of whole body: 0.4
Other
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.9
Sum of all others: 0.9

Page 31 of 32
 Supplement B

Table B-3. Detailed hazard indices by endpoint for child's hypothetical sediment exposure pathway
Reasonable maximum exposure
Onondaga Lake sediment containment area (SCA) sediments

Hazard Quotients Hazard

and Indices Quotients and
Endpoint Chemical Ingestion Indices Dermal
Blood Antimony 0.02 --
Benzene 0.002 --
Fluoranthene 0.0003 0.0001
Fluorene 0.0004 0.0001
0.02 0.0003
Sum of blood: 0.02
CNS Aluminum 0.008 --
Manganese 0.007 --
Dioxins (as TCDD Equivalents) 0.2 0.08
0.2 0.08
Sum of CNS: 0.3
Gastrointestinal Copper 0.006 --
Sum gastrointestinal: 0.006
Hair cystine Vanadium 0.01 --
Sum of hair cystine: 0.01
Immune Mercury (as mercuric chloride) 0.08 --
PCBs (Aroclor 1254 noncancer) 0.1 0.04
0.2 0.04
Sum of immune: 0.2
Liver 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.002 --
Chlorobenzene 0.004 --
Hexachlorobenzene 0.01 0.004
Dieldrin 0.0002 0.0001
Fluoranthene 0.0003 0.0001
Pentachlorobenzene 0.01 --
Ethylbenzene 0.0002 --
0.03 0.004
Sum of liver: 0.04
Kidney Barium 0.010 --
Cadmium 0.01 0.001
1,2,3/4,5 Tetrachlorobenzene 0.1 --
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.003 --
Fluoranthene 0.0003 0.0001
Pentachlorobenzene 0.01 --
Ethylbenzene 0.0002 --
0.2 0.001
Sum of kidney: 0.2
Whole body Nickel (as soluble salts) 0.03 --
Xylenes, total 0.0004 --
Naphthalene 0.01 0.004
0.04 0.004
Sum of whole body: 0.04
Skin Arsenic 0.05 0.005
0.05 0.005
Sum of skin: 0.06
Thyroid Cobalt 0.3 --
Sum of thyroid: 0.3
NOAEL Chromium (as Cr VI) 0.4 --
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.0007 --
Sum of NOAEL: 0.4

Lung 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.005 --

Sum of lung: 0.005

Page 32 of 32
 Appendix C

Air Dispersion Model Documentation

 DISPERSION MODELING ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

This report summarizes the methodology that was utilized to assess the dispersion of contaminants
from the sediment consolidation area (SCA) located on Wastebed 13 into the surrounding areas. For this
assessment, USEPA’s AERMOD dispersion model was utilized, using site specific weather data that has
been collected from a meteorological station that was installed on Wastebed 13 in 2005. A modeling
protocol document, which describes the basic approach and methodology for air dispersion analyses to
assess potential ambient impacts of air emissions, was prepared by Honeywell in 2008, and submitted to
NYSDEC and USEPA for review. This document was reviewed and approved in June, 2008. Modeling
completed in support of this risk assessment was conducted in compliance with the approved protocol,
with the following exceptions:

• More recent versions of the model and model software were utilized, which were unavailable
at the time the protocol was prepared.
• The model receptor grid contained within the protocol was updated to reflect a refined
analysis grid, and to add a model analysis line delineating the nearest receptors.
• For the purposes of this modeling, a unit emission rate modeling scenario was been utilized, to
calculate the dispersion factor between the maximum work zone perimeter concentration, and
the maximum nearest receptor concentration. This dispersion factor was then applied to the
maximum allowable site-perimeter concentrations to calculate a maximum receptor
concentration. This methodology is not described in the protocol.
• The footprint of the SCA has been updated from its delineation within the protocol, to more
accurately reflect the current design.

As described in the 3rd bullet above, the model was utilized to calculate a dispersion factor.
The dispersion factor calculated as part of this modeling analysis represents the minimum
amount of dilution to the air leaving the work zone perimeter as it travels to the nearest
residential areas. In the worst-case scenario, the concentration of site-related contaminants in the
air at the nearest residential neighborhood will be a minimum of 4.5 times lower (the dispersion
factor) than the concentration at the site perimeter.

The table below presents the assumed maximum allowable site perimeter annual average
concentrations (Column F) that are not anticipated to be exceeded at the work zone perimeter
during the 5-year operational period. The values in Column F were derived from the more
conservative (lower) of the USEPA (Column D) and NYSDEC (Column E) air quality criteria
considered applicable to the project. The NYSDEC criteria are guidelines (not established
ambient air quality standards) intended to protect the general public from adverse health effects
that may be induced by exposure to ambient air contaminants (NYSDEC DAR-1,
http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/30681.html).

The corresponding predicted maximum annual average residential receptor concentrations

(i.e., the highest annual average concentrations that would be found over the course of a year in
the residential neighborhoods) are in Column G. The values in Column G are calculated by
dividing the values in Column F by the “dispersion factor” of 4.51.
 Column H presents EPA’s Regional Screening Levels for a residential setting, which are
USEPA’s risk-based maximum allowable concentrations for the public to be exposed to in a
residential setting on a daily basis. The EPA screening levels (SLs) are developed using risk
assessment guidance from the EPA Superfund program and can be used for Superfund sites. SLs
are considered by the Agency to be protective for humans (including sensitive groups) over a
lifetime. They are used for site “screening” and as initial cleanup goals, if applicable. Generally,
at sites where contaminant concentrations fall below SLs, no further action or study is warranted
(to address the air pathway) under the Superfund program. Chemical concentrations above the
SL would not automatically designate a site as “dirty” or trigger a response action; however,
exceeding a SL suggests that further evaluation of the potential risks by site contaminants is
appropriate (USEPA, http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-
concentration_table/faq.htm#FAQ1).

For all volatile chemicals, the values in Column G (worst-case concentrations in the
residential neighborhoods) are lower than the residential RSLs in Column H, indicating that the
worst-case concentrations in the air that would potentially exist at the nearest residential receptor
would not cause adverse health impacts.
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

Prepared For:

5000 Brittonfield Parkway

East Syracuse, NY 13057

Prepared By:

Parsons
290 Elwood Davis Road, Suite 312
Liverpool, New York 13088
Phone: (315) 451-9560
Fax: (315) 451-9570

MAY 2008

PARSONS
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ ES-1

SECTION 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND SITE DESCRIPTION........................ 1-1

1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY..................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................. 1-2

1.3 ONSITE METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM........................ 1-2

SECTION 2 MODEL AND MODEL OPTIONS....................................................... 2-1

2.1 AERMOD MODEL........................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 METEOROLOGICAL DATA PRE-PROCESSOR.......................................... 2-2

2.2.1 AERMET................................................................................................. 2-2
2.2.2 AERSURFACE ....................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 AERMAP TERRAIN PRE-PROCESSOR........................................................ 2-3

SECTION 3 MODEL INPUT DATA.......................................................................... 3-1

3.1 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION AND EMISSION RATES....................... 3-1

3.1.1 Source Identification ............................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Source Characterization........................................................................... 3-1
3.1.3 Source Emission Rates ............................................................................ 3-2

3.2 METEOROLOGICAL DATA INPUTS ........................................................... 3-3

3.2.1 Meteorological Data Sources .................................................................. 3-3
3.2.2 AERMET Pre-Processing........................................................................ 3-4
3.2.3 Surface Characteristics ............................................................................ 3-6
3.2.4 Transport Wind Speed and Direction ...................................................... 3-8
3.2.5 Temperature............................................................................................. 3-9
3.2.6 Atmospheric Stability.............................................................................. 3-9
3.2.7 Mixing Heights...................................................................................... 3-10
3.2.8 Sounding Data ....................................................................................... 3-11
3.2.9 AERMOD Meteorological Input Files .................................................. 3-11

3.3 MODEL RECEPTOR GRID........................................................................... 3-11

SECTION 4 DISPERSION MODELING RESULTS REPORTING ...................... 4-1

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

I
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Met Tower Location Map

Figure 1-2 SB-13 Tower 2006 Wind Rose

Figure 1-3 SB-13 Tower 2007 Wind Rose

Figure 1-4 Lakeshore/Willis Ave 2007 Wind Rose

Figure 3-1 Receptor Grid for Modeling

Figure 3-2 Receptor Grid for Modeling on Basemap

Figure 3-3 SCA Base Model Receptor Grid

Figure 3-4 SMU Base Model Receptor Grid

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Meteorological Monitoring Program - Parameters Measured

Table 3-1 Site Specific and NWS Data Station

Table 3-2 Site-Specific Seasons for Use in AERSURFACE

Table 3-3 Seasonal Values of Micrometeorological Parameters

Table 3-4A Seasonal Average Micrometeorological Parameters Around WB-13 Tower in 2006
By Wind Sector

Table 3-4B Seasonal Average Micrometeorological Parameters Around WB-13 Tower in 2007
By Wind Sector

Table 3-4C Seasonal Average Micrometeorological Parameters Around Lakeshore Tower in

2007 By Wind Sector

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

II
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This modeling protocol document describes the basic approach and methodology for air
dispersion modeling analyses to assess potential ambient impacts of air emissions from activities
associated with the remediation of Onondaga Lake.

Specifically, the modeling approach for the Onondaga Lake project is intended to provide a
comprehensive analysis of potential air impacts associated with emissions that may be generated
by the various remediation activities. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to,
sediment dredging, active management of the materials at the sediment consolidation area
(SCA), and dewatering of the sediments at the SCA. Additional activities which may generate
emissions, such as slurry piping and SCA effluent treatment, will also be assessed. These
activities may require control measures, however, it may not be necessary to incorporate these
activities into the model.

Additional emission sources and/or activities may be identified beyond those specifically
anticipated for the remediation of Onondaga Lake. To ensure that the potential impacts from
these additional sources are differentiated from potential impacts caused by Lake remedial
activities, it may be necessary to quantify their impacts using dispersion modeling or other
evaluation methods such as monitoring. This would ensure that any mitigative strategies for the
Lake activities are appropriately designed, and potential impacts from other sources can be
considered when developing air quality criteria and monitoring plans for the Lake remediation.
Should additional sources associated with other Honeywell remediation projects be identified for
which dispersion modeling is determined to be appropriate, modeling analyses for these
activities would be conducted consistent with the protocol established in this document or other
protocols approved by DEC.

The potential emission sources to be analyzed, and the actual compounds and quantities
thereof that may be emitted, are being established and documented in detail as separate study
components of the overall design program. Specific contaminants and their estimated flux rates
are not discussed in this protocol. Once the sources, compounds, and estimated emission rates
are finalized, this information will be separately documented and used to develop the source and
emissions data files input to the modeling analysis. Additionally, air quality goals are also being
developed as a separate component of the overall investigation. Specific goals recommendations
are not included in this report.

The results of the modeling analyses will be used to address four key objectives:
1. Estimate the magnitudes, extent, and spatial and temporal variability of predicted
ambient air concentrations (dispersion estimates) of project-related air emissions for
the identified Chemicals of Interest (COIs).
2. Identify those sources and emissions having the greatest potential impacts.

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

ES-1
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

3. Design of best management practices, control systems and operations strategies to

reduce air emissions resulting from remedial activities to levels less than applicable
short-term and long-term ambient air standards, and established threshold levels.
4. Document and communicate the potential impacts of air emissions of COIs and odors
from the remedial activities to the community through a series of public outreach and
educational programs.
These objectives will be met by conducting a comprehensive series of dispersion modeling
analyses to estimate the potential ambient impacts of remediation activity emissions. The
analyses will be based on the potential sources identified and on the emission rates and
remediation activity schedules as developed via separate remediation design and study
components. The analyses will incorporate site-specific meteorological data, and will ultimately
account for background air quality levels to be measured as part of an anticipated future data
collection activity.

Key components of the actual modeling approach include:

• Use of USEPA’s AERMOD model; run in a sequential mode, to assess potential
impacts for various averaging periods and in all terrain regimes.
• Use of an onsite meteorological database as the basis for assembling hourly data
records suitable for input to AERMOD. The onsite databases will be supplemented by
other surface weather observation data from Syracuse (Hancock) International Airport
and upper air sounding data from Buffalo, New York.
• Use of AERMOD-related processing programs, including AERSURFACE, AERMET
and AERMAP, respectively, to determine land use characteristics and associated
boundary layer meteorological parameters, to process the meteorological input data,
and to develop the model receptor grid and terrain heights for input to the model.
• Assessment of potential emissions from various remediation activities and scenarios,
primarily dredging operations in the lake and management of dredged sediment in the
SCA. Other potential emitting activities or sources, such as sediment transfer points
or water runoff collection and treatment facilities, will be identified once the final
design is completed and included in the analysis.
Dispersion model estimates will be determined for an extensive modeling receptor grid that
encompasses the lake, the SCA, and the surrounding environs. Following development of an
appropriate set of air quality goals and odor thresholds, the model estimates will be compared to
the goals to ensure the final design results in acceptable impacts for all appropriate general and
identified sensitive receptor locations. The evaluation of impacts will be conducted as a separate
portion of the overall design, and is not addressed in this protocol.

A key component of the analysis is accounting for the variability in potential source
locations and emission rates over time. Potential emission sources, including dredging locations,
dredge area sizes, containment area size and shape, as well as corresponding emission rates, will
likely vary from one activity location to another. Emission rates of various compounds may also
vary as a function of wind speed and of air and water temperature variations throughout the year.

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

ES-2
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

Shorter term variations in emissions may be a function of work activity levels from day to
night and from weekdays to weekends. In the SCA, emission rates may vary with time as
individual containment cells are filled and the volume of dredged material deposited increases.

The modeling approach has been set up such that all of these factors can be accounted for in
the set up and execution of the modeling analyses via a “source management” approach to
characterizing the source inputs, executing discrete model runs for different sources and source
groups, and in integrating and analyzing model results. Although the maximum short-term
estimated concentrations of emitted compounds are likely to result from a specific source at a
specific time, the long-term average impacts will be represented by the combined results for all
sources, emission rates, and variations therein that occur through out a full year of activity.

The following sections describe in more detail the modeling approach and how the specific
model inputs will be developed.

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

ES-3
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

SECTION 1

PROJECT OVERVIEW AND SITE DESCRIPTION

1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY

Onondaga Lake is a 4.6-square-mile lake located just northwest of the city of Syracuse in
central New York State. Over 200 years of heavy industrial activity and population growth on
shores of the lake and its nearby tributaries have impacted the quality of the lake ecosystem. As
a result of the presence of hazardous substances or hazardous wastes, the lake has been identified
as a federal Superfund site on the USEPA National Priority List.

In 1992, AlliedSignal (now known as Honeywell) entered into a consent decree with the
State of New York to initiate a remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS) for
Onondaga Lake. The Final FS was submitted to New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) in November 2004 (Parsons, 2004). On July 1, 2005, NYSDEC issued
the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Lake, and the Final Consent Decree was issued on
January 4, 2007.

The remedy specified in the ROD and CD includes the dredging of 2,653,000 cubic yards
(cy) of sediment from the littoral zone (nearshore areas) of the lake and placement of a sediment
cap over portions of the lake bottom. These activities will take place in each of several identified
Sediment Management Units (SMUs) in the lake, though most of the dredging will occur in the
in-lake waste deposit (ILWD), which largely exists in SMU 1 and 2. Sediment dredged from
these areas will be deposited in an SCA located to the west of the lake in an area known as
Wastebed 13.

As discussed in more detail in Section 2.0, several activities and areas have been identified
as potential sources of air emissions that will be the focus of the modeling analyses. These
include:
• the removal and onshore management of lake bottom debris;
• the area in and around the sediment dredging operations within the SMUs;
• conveyance of the dredged material to the SCA;
• management of dredged sediment in the SCA; and
• treatment of water generated by the dredging/sediment handling processes as a result
of dewatering of the sediments in the SCA.
Separate sampling, analysis, and emission modeling studies are being conducted to identify
the specific COIs and the quantities of each that may volatilize to the air from these activities.

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

1-1
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

1.2 STUDY AREA

Figure 1-1 is an aerial photograph of Onondaga Lake and surrounding areas that has been
marked to show the key activity areas of interest for the assessment of potential air impacts from
project-related emissions.

Most of the dredging activities will be conducted in the southeastern portion of the lake, in
SMUs 1, 2, 6, and 7. Material dredged from the lake will be transferred via enclosed pipeline to
the SCA at Wastebed 13, which is located about 3.5 miles inland from the southern lakeshore.

Wastebed 13 is part of a large system that was originally utilized as settling basins for the
disposal of Solvay waste, and it received the waste material from 1981 to 1986. Wastebed 13
occupies approximately 163 acres and is located in the Town of Camillus, Onondaga County,
New York. It is bordered to the north by Ninemile Creek and CSX Railroad tracks; to the west
by an Onondaga County Garage property, a formal gravel excavation owned by Honeywell, and
a few residential properties; and to the east and south by Wastebeds 12 and 14, respectively. The
basin complex of 12-15, of which 13 is a part of, is on property owned by Honeywell, with
access restricted by a fence and gated entrance.

The lake surface is at a base elevation of 362.82 ft above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Terrain
heights within the first mile of the lakeshore range up to 450 ft MSL. Base elevation in the
Wastebed 13 area is about 400 ft MSL with some hills rising to 600 ft MSL within 1 kilometer
(km) to the southeast. With the buildup of material deposited over the years, the average
elevation of the top of Wastebed 13 is approximately 65 ft above the immediate surrounding
offsite grade. It has been covered with soil and planted with various forms of vegetation,
including shrubs and stands of trees. The wastebed area is located away from the built-up areas
of Syracuse and surrounding towns, but is situated within short distances of nearby residential
areas and school properties in Camillus. The wastebed is located about 2.5 miles west of the
State Fairgrounds.

1.3 ONSITE METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM

As part of the Phase I and Phase II Pre-Design Investigations, an onsite meteorological
monitoring program was initiated to support the dispersion modeling analyses and other
analytical activities related to the overall Onondaga Lake remediation project. The monitoring
program consists of two 10-meter towers instrumented to provide the requisite data for use in the
AERMOD model.

The primary goals of the meteorological monitoring program are to (1) collect onsite data
directly representative of the potential emission sources and surrounding areas, (2) to obtain
measurements of all of the key parameters that are suitable for input to the AERMOD model,
and (3) collect measurements using monitoring instrumentation having operating and
performance specifications consistent with all US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
monitoring requirements and guidelines.

The locations of the two meteorological monitoring sites are shown in Figure 1-1. The first,
or primary, Tower Site #1 – designated as the Wastebed 13 site – is situated directly atop the
Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

1-2
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

wastebed complex and along the southeastern edge of Wastebed 13. The tower is sited in an
openly exposed area such that measurements are considered representative of the conditions
prevailing across the entire wastebed. This site was installed and became operational on
December 1, 2005. Thus, the first two full calendar years of data for the Wastebed 13 site are
available for the years January through December 2006 and January through December 2007.

The secondary Tower Site #2 – designated as the Lakeshore/Willis Avenue Site – is located
near the southern lakeshore. The tower is sited in an openly exposed area just off the western
side of Route 690 where it intersects with Willis Avenue. Measurements at this site are
considered as representative of the southern lake area where most of the dredging activities will
take place. This site was installed and became operational on December 1, 2006. The first full
calendar year of data at this site is available for the period January through December 2007.

The towers are variously instrumented at surface, 2-meter, and 10-meter heights to obtain
measurements of wind speed, wind direction, temperature and delta-temperature, relative
humidity, vertical wind speed, stability parameters, solar and net radiation, barometric pressure,
and precipitation. Table 1-1 provides a listing of the various parameters and measurement
heights for the instrumentation installed on each tower.

The two towers are basically instrumented the same, with two exceptions. First, Net
Radiation (which is the preferred radiation parameter in the hierarchy of inputs to AERMET) is
measured at Wastebed 13 while Solar Radiation is measured at Lakeshore/Willis Ave. When
designing Tower #2 (Lakeshore/Willis Ave), it was believed that Net Radiation values would not
vary significantly over the relatively short distance and comparable surface settings of the two
sites. Solar radiation is also not expected to vary between the two sites; therefore, it was
determined that collection of both Net and Solar Radiation measurements (one parameter at each
site) would enhance the overall project database provided by the combined monitoring systems.

Secondly, precipitation measurements are collected at Site #1, but not collected at Site #2.
As with the radiation parameters, precipitation measurements are not expected to vary between
the two sites; thus, one set of measurements was deemed sufficient for the study area.

The sites are powered via a solar power-charged battery system and are each equipped with
a digital data acquisition system and cell-phone based modems for remote data communications
via the internet. All sensor outputs are scanned at 1-second intervals, with readings used to
calculate 5-minute, hourly, and daily averaged values for each parameter.

Complete details of the meteorological monitoring program, including detailed site

descriptions, monitoring equipment specifications, and the routine operating and quality
assurance procedures employed to ensure collection of a valid, accurate, and complete database,
are contained in the Honeywell – Onondaga Lake Meteorological Monitoring Program SOP/QA
Manual (Parsons, 2008).

Data from the two sites are downloaded and subject to preliminary verification 2 to 3 times
per week. The databases are subjected to more rigorous quality assurance validation checks and

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

1-3
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

final processing in monthly blocks, which then yield the annual databases used to process the
model input files.

Data reports for each site, which include hourly data values for each parameter, plus daily
and monthly data summaries, are submitted to NYSDEC on a calendar quarter basis, along with
updated tables listing the Data Recovery Rates for each measured and calculated parameter.

For reference purposes, Figures 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 present wind roses depicting the annual
combined frequency distributions of wind speed and direction measurements recorded during
2006 and 2007 at Wastebed 13 and during 2007 at Site #2. The 2006 and 2007 onsite data for
Site #1 show that winds from the southwest through northwest were prevalent throughout most
of each year, while winds from the north through east to south were recorded much less
frequently. At Site #2, there is a much more prevalent peak of winds from the due west, offset
by reduced frequencies of both southwesterly and northwesterly winds. There is also a slightly
higher frequency of winds from the southeast, albeit at relatively low speeds, at Site #2 than seen
for Site #1.

Data collected during each calendar year at the onsite meteorological towers will be
combined with concurrent offsite surface weather observation data from Syracuse International
Airport and upper air sounding data from Buffalo and input to the AERMOD pre-processor
program AERMET to develop complete onsite databases for use in the dispersion modeling
analyses of remediation activity air emissions. The details of the data bases generated using the
onsite data are presented in Section 3.2.

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

1-4
 Tower #1

Tower #2

FIGURE 1-1
ONONDAGA LAKE
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK

MET TOWER LOCATION MAP

PARSONS
P:\HON-SYR\443584 - Operations\09 Reports\9.01 - Dispersion Modeling Protocol\Figures 290 ELWOOD DAVIS RD, SUITE 312, LIVERPOOL, NY 13088 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
 FIGURE 1-2
ONONDAGA LAKE
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK

SB-13 TOWER 2006 WIND ROSE

PARSONS
P:\HON-SYR\443584 - Operations\09 Reports\9.01 - Dispersion Modeling Protocol\Figures 290 ELWOOD DAVIS RD, SUITE 312, LIVERPOOL, NY 13088 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
 FIGURE 1-3
ONONDAGA LAKE
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK

SB-13 TOWER 2007 WIND ROSE

PARSONS
P:\HON-SYR\443584 - Operations\09 Reports\9.01 - Dispersion Modeling Protocol\Figures 290 ELWOOD DAVIS RD, SUITE 312, LIVERPOOL, NY 13088 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
 FIGURE 1-4
ONONDAGA LAKE
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK

WILLIS TOWER 2007 WIND ROSE

PARSONS
P:\HON-SYR\443584 - Operations\09 Reports\9.01 - Dispersion Modeling Protocol\Figures 290 ELWOOD DAVIS RD, SUITE 312, LIVERPOOL, NY 13088 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
 ONONDAGA LAKE REMEDIATION PROJECT
HONEYWELL AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL

TABLE 1-1
Air Dispersion Modeling Protocol for Onondaga Lake
Meteorological Monitoring Program - Parameters Measured

TOWER NO. 1 - Wastebed 13 Site - Primary Tower - Start-Up December 1, 2005

Ground-Based Measurements

Precipitation

2-Meter Level Measurements

Temperature
Relative Humidity
Dew Point Temperature (computed)
Net Radiation
Barometeric Pressure

10-Meter Level Measurements

Horizontal Wind Speed

Horizontal Wind Direction
Standard Deviation of Horizontal WD or Sigma-Theta (computed)
Vertical Wind Speed
Standard Deviation of Vertical Wind Speed (Sigma w) -computed
Temperature
Delta Temperature (10m - 2m)

TOWER NO. 2 - Lakeshore/Willis Avenus Site - Secondary Tower - Start-Up December 1, 2006

2-Meter Level Measurements

Temperature
Relative Humidity
Dew Point Temperature (computed)
Solar Radiation
Barometric Pressure

10-Meter Level Measurements

Horizontal Wind Speed

Horizontal Wind Direction
Standard Deviation of Horizontal WD or Sigma-Theta (computed)
Vertical Wind Speed
Standard Deviation of Vertical Wind Speed (Sigma w) -computed
Temperature
Delta Temperature (10m - 2m)

P:\Honeywell -SYR\443584 - Operations\09 Reports\9.01 - Dispersion Modeling Protocol\Modeling Protocol\Tables 1-1, 3-3.xls
5/12/2008 1 of 1 PARSONS
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

SECTION 2

MODEL AND MODEL OPTIONS

2.1 AERMOD MODEL

The dispersion modeling analysis will be conducted using the USEPA’s AERMOD
dispersion model. This model has recently been developed and formally approved by USEPA as
the replacement for the previous ISCST3 model for regulatory and other impact analysis
purposes.

AERMOD is a current state-of-the-art dispersion model for assessment of pollutant

concentrations from a variety of source types, including point, area, and volume sources, and
from both surface-based and elevated source release heights. AERMOD is appropriate for
modeling in all terrain regimes by implementing USEPA guidance for assessing impacts in
simple, complex, and intermediate terrain.

AERMOD is a steady-state plume model, using Gaussian distributions in the vertical and
horizontal for stable conditions, and in the horizontal for convective conditions. The vertical
concentration distribution for convective conditions results from an assumed bi-Gaussian
probability density function of the vertical velocity.

AERMOD’s advantages include the ability to model impacts in simple, complex, and
“intermediate" terrain. Intermediate terrain in this context refers to receptors that are above the
source release height, but below the plume height predicted by AERMOD model algorithms.
AERMOD also uses an arbitrarily large number of meteorological data levels to create profiles
of wind, temperature, and turbulence that can vary with height.

Surface parameters such as roughness length, albedo, and Bowen Ratio, which have a large
influence on atmospheric boundary layer dispersion conditions, can be selected by direction
sector and by month to provide a more accurate characterization of the modeling domain than
predecessor models such as ISC3.

AERMOD is considered to be the model that will provide the most representative and
realistic estimates of impacts of emissions from Onondaga Lake remediation activity sources.

The most up-to-date Windows-based BEE-LINE Software version of AERMOD will be

used for the modeling. (Current versions are BEEST version 9.72 with USEPA AERMOD
version 07026). The current version of AERMOD also includes the most recent generation of
building downwash algorithms known as “PRIME” (Plume Rise Model Enhancement). In
general, “AERMOD-PRIME” will not be invoked for this analysis due to the area and/or volume
source characterization of the remediation activities and locations and the lack of major building
structures in the activity area. However, if the project ultimately includes any operational or
control system structures with release vents or stacks below Good Engineering Practice (GEP)

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

2-1
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

stack height, then the locations and dimensions of these and any nearby structures will be input
to the model and the PRIME algorithms will be invoked.

Model options corresponding to the regulatory default settings within the model that will be
used in this analysis include the use of:
• the parameter DFAULT in the MODELOPT record on the Control Pathway;
• elevated terrain algorithms requiring input of terrain height data;
• buoyancy induced dispersion;
• an iterative approach to estimate stable boundary layer plume rise;
• rural dispersion coefficients based on examination of land use patterns and
characteristics in the vicinity of the source and meteorological measurement location;
• calm hour processing routines;
• missing-data processing routines; and
• sequential date checking.

2.2 METEOROLOGICAL DATA PRE-PROCESSOR

2.2.1 AERMET
The AERMOD Meteorological Pre-processor (AERMET) is the companion program of
AERMOD that is used to pre-process the meteorological data required to run the model.
AERMET pre-processing utilizes surface meteorological data from site-specific (onsite) data
collection programs and offsite stations such as those run by the National Weather Service
(NWS), along with NWS sounding data from upper air measurement locations, to calculate the
planetary boundary layer parameters required by AERMOD to perform dispersion and transport
computations.

For this modeling analysis, the most recent version of AERMET will be used to pre-process
the meteorological data used as input to the model. (Current AERMET version is 06341 and is
compatible with the current version of AERMOD - 07026).

Additional details describing the meteorological databases and the AERMET pre-processing
procedures used for this analysis are provided in Section 3.2 (Meteorological Data Inputs).

2.2.2 AERSURFACE
USEPA’s recently issued updated version of the AERSURFACE pre-processor is a program
that utilizes digital maps of land use and cover to help define the land use characteristics of the
study area and to assign land-use specific values of associated key micrometeorological
parameters that are then incorporated into the meteorological data processing via AERMET.
Values for the key micrometeorological variables can be defined on a seasonal basis. In
addition, the surface roughness values can be defined for different directional sectors from the
meteorological measurement source to account for varying land use and cover patterns
throughout the study area.
Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

2-2
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

AERSURFACE assigns albedo and Bowen ratio values based on a simple unweighted
average land cover type over a representative domain, which by default is a 10 by 10 km region
centered on the measurement location. For surface roughness, AERSURFACE assigns values
based on an inverse-distance weighted average land cover type defined by wind direction sector
out to 1 km from the measurement site. The radius can be varied between 0.1 and 5.0 km,
however, 1 km is the recommended default value. Wind direction sectors as small as 30 degrees
(0-30, 30-60, 60-90, 330-360) can be employed for determining surface roughness values.
Additional details describing the use of the AERSURFACE pre-processing procedures used for
this analysis are provided in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 (AERMET pre-processing and Surface
Characteristics).

2.3 AERMAP TERRAIN PRE-PROCESSOR

The AERMOD Terrain Pre-processor (AERMAP) is the companion program of AERMOD
that is used to pre-process the model receptor grid. AERMAP pre-processing routines utilize
electronic digital elevation model (DEM) files corresponding to 7.5-minute US Geological
Survey (USGS) topographic map quadrangles, along with a project-specific model receptor grid,
to calculate the parameters required by AERMOD to handle air flow through complex terrain.
The primary parameter calculated by AERMAP is the height scale (hc), or hill height. The
height scale is used to calculate the critical dividing streamline height (Hcrit) for each receptor
point based on the controlling terrain feature for the receptor. In addition, AERMAP optionally
computes receptor elevations from the DEM file data.

For this modeling analysis, the most current version of AERMAP (version 06341_or
greater) will be used to pre-process the receptor model grid. The latest versions of AERMAP
contain the USGS approved NADCON 2.1 program that converts North American Datum
(NAD) of 1927 to NAD of 1983.

AERMAP will be run with the “TERRHGTS/EXTRACTED” keywords selected, which

allows interpolation of model receptor point elevations directly from the DEM data.

Additional details on the AERMAP pre-processing procedures used for this analysis are
provided in Section 3.3 (Model Receptor Grid).

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

2-3
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

SECTION 3

MODEL INPUT DATA

3.1 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION AND EMISSION RATES

3.1.1 Source Identification
As discussed in Section 1, several remedial activities have been identified as potential
sources of emissions. These activities include removal and management of debris, dredging of
the lake sediments, conveyance of the dredged material, management of the dredged material in
the SCA, and treatment of the SCA effluent water. Potential compounds emitted and their
associated flux rates are being evaluated as a separate part of the overall investigation, and will
be documented in a separate report.

Additional emission sources and/or activities may be identified beyond those specifically
anticipated for the remediation of Onondaga Lake. To ensure that the potential impacts from
these additional sources are differentiated from potential impacts caused by lake remedial
activities, it may be necessary to quantify their impacts using dispersion modeling or other
evaluation methods such as monitoring. This would ensure that any mitigative strategies for the
lake activities are appropriately designed, and potential impacts from other sources can be
considered when developing air quality criteria and monitoring plans for the lake remediation.
Should additional sources associated with other Honeywell remediation projects be identified for
which dispersion modeling is determined to be appropriate, modeling analyses for these
activities would be conducted consistent with the protocol established in this document or other
protocols approved by DEC.

3.1.2 Source Characterization

Depending on the nature of the activity, emission sources will be represented as either area
sources, or point sources. Area sources will likely consist of activities such as the dredging and
SCA operations, while activities such as the water treatment facility, that include a vent or stack
through which emissions are exhausted, will be input to the model as a point source.

Area sources are specified in terms of dimensions and/or coordinates defining the locations
and sizes of square, rectangular, circular, or irregularly shaped polygonal areas. Emissions may
be presumed to be evenly emitted over the entire area of each defined source, or varying rates
may be determined for multiple sub units of the source. The locations, sizes, and shapes of area
sources are specified and input to the AERMOD model in one of three ways:
1. The horizontal dimensions (length and width) defining a square or rectangular
emitting area, along with the coordinates (UTM coordinates derived from USGS
maps) defining the location of the SW corner of the rectangular or square area, or
2. The diameter of a circular shaped area source, along with the UTM coordinates of the
centerpoint of the area, or

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

3-1
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

3. The UTM coordinates of a series of points defining the outline of an irregular, or

polygon shaped emitting area.
For point sources, each source will be input with a single set of coordinates denoting the
actual location of each stack or vent.

For area sources, the AERMOD model uses the dimensions of rectangular and circular area
sources to directly calculate the actual total size of the area (e.g., square meters) of the source.
For irregularly shaped polygon sources, designated as Area-Poly sources, the AERMOD model
has a subroutine to integrate the sizes of subcells in the area based on the input coordinates in
order to determine the overall size of the area source.

Unlike industrial exhaust stacks, emissions from area sources typically have no vertical
momentum or relatively warm/hot temperatures that would otherwise impart a vertical velocity
or buoyancy to an emitted air stream. Emissions will be presumed to be released at ambient
temperature.

3.1.3 Source Emission Rates

The actual emission rates to be input to the model for each source are being evaluated as a
separate component of the overall investigation. In general, emission rates for the specified
COIs will be provided for model input in terms of mass per unit time per unit area, such as grams
per second per square meter (g/sec/m2) for area sources, and mass per unit time (g/sec) for point
sources.

The emission rate data, including variations, will be used to help populate a Source
Identification matrix that will account for all of the sources and all of the time, location, and
activity level variations in emissions from all identified sources.

In order to appropriately estimate both short-term peak and long-term average ambient
concentrations and levels of air contaminants accounting for the various factors that will affect
actual emission rates, two sets of model runs will be made for each source or set of sources.
Maximum short-term (e.g.; 1-hour) impacts will be determined based on modeling the maximum
anticipated hourly emission rate(s) for each source for all hours in the meteorological data
record. This will ensure capturing the maximum predicted impact since it cannot otherwise be
specified at what time or under what meteorological dispersions the maximum impact(s) may
occur.

For assessment of long-term (i.e., annual average) impacts, the source data and emission
rates inputs to the model will be set up to explicitly account for the scheduling of the various
dredging and SCA operational activities. This includes specifying time of year and the duration
that certain areas of each SMU will undergo dredging, the anticipated dredging rates and SCA
deposition volumes, the sizes of each area to be dredged, and the number and size of the SCA
cells to be filled, along with anticipated daily and weekly work schedules (e.g., if there are no
activities on weekends). This will be accomplished by preparing an external hourly emission
rate file based on these variables that will be used as the emission rate input file to AERMOD.

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

3-2
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

To ensure the schedule assumed for the model matches current schedule and design
assumptions made by other groups, the Emission and Odor Technical Work Group will continue
to coordinate with other work groups to ensure updated schedule assumptions are continuingly
used for modeling.

3.2 METEOROLOGICAL DATA INPUTS

Sequential (i.e., hour-by-hour) air quality dispersion modeling with AERMOD requires the
input of suitable meteorological data. These data include hourly values of variables including
wind speed, wind direction, ambient surface temperature, stability parameters, and mixing height
that are directly measured from both onsite (i.e., local) and offsite (i.e., regional) representative
sources or derived from the directly measured variables. These data are assembled and then
“pre-processed” into a single database suitable for direct input to the model. This component of
the model input preparation will be accomplished via use of the USEPA meteorological
preprocessing program AERMET, which is the companion “meteorological pre-processor” to
AERMOD. This section addresses the various elements of the meteorological database to be
assembled, the basis for the selection or derivation of a particular data value or set of values, and
the pre-processing routine.

3.2.1 Meteorological Data Sources

The meteorological database will be assembled from the following three types of data
sources:
• Onsite Surface Data: Two Site-Specific Meteorological Towers
• Offsite Surface Data: NWS Syracuse, NY Surface Station
• Upper Air Data: NWS Buffalo, NY Upper Air Station
Table 3-1 presents summary information on the monitoring stations that will be used in the
meteorological pre-processing.
Table 3-1

Site-Specific and NWS Data Stations

Data Station Identifier/WBAN Latitude Longitude Elevation Format
Camillus, New York Wastebed 13
43.071 N 76.255 W 476 ft User Defined
(Site-Specific) Station
Geddes, New York Lakeshore/Willis
43.068 N 76.201 W 387 ft User Defined
(Site-Specific) Ave
Syracuse, New York
SYR/14771 43.117 N 76.100 W 410 ft ISHD/SCRAM
(Surface)
Buffalo, New York
BUF/14733 42.933 N 78.733 W 705 ft FSL
(Upper Air)

Data from the two onsite Onondaga Lake meteorological monitoring stations are being
collected specifically in support of the ambient air quality modeling and data analysis activities
comprising the overall air quality impact assessment. These two stations, the first (Wastebed 13)
installed near Wastebed 13 in December 2005; and the other (Lakeshore/Willis Ave) installed at
Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

3-3
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

the southern lakeshore near SMU’s 1, 6, and 7 in December 2006, are intended to provide model
input data directly representative of the key identified emission sources in these two areas.

As described in Section 1.3, the towers are equipped with instrumentation at the surface and
10-meter levels for measuring the specific parameters to be used as input to AERMOD,
including wind speed, wind direction, temperature and temperature profiles, wind turbulence,
solar/net radiation, and barometric pressure. Data collection at both of these stations is expected
to continue through the end of the remediation program. Modeling analyses conducted during
the course of the program will utilize data for as many calendar years as are available for
processing at the time the modeling is conducted.

When modeling emissions from the remedial activities within the lake, data from the
Lakeshore/Willis Ave Site (Site #2) at the south end of the lake will be used as input. When
modeling emissions from the SCA, databases comprised of surface data from the Wastebed 13
station (Site #1) will be used. When multiple sources are modeled in both areas, a decision may
be made as to which data source best represents the overall dispersion conditions for the area.
This decision will further consider the extent to which emissions from one source area or another
are dominating the overall magnitude of predicted impacts, and/or which portions of the receptor
grid are of greatest interest.

The onsite meteorological data will be supplemented with National Weather Service (NWS)
aviation surface weather observations recorded at the Hancock International Airport in Syracuse.
Data from this NWS station will be included in the meteorological pre-processing for two
purposes: (1) to provide supplemental data for AERMOD that is not collected via the onsite
monitoring program; and (2) to fill in any missing data gaps that might occur in the onsite data
records. The primary parameters utilized from Syracuse Airport (i.e., those that will not be
available from the onsite program) are hourly observations of cloud ceiling height and sky cover.
These parameters are mandatory for inclusion as input to the AERMET pre-processor.

Upper air sounding data from the NWS Buffalo, NY upper air measurement station will also
be included in the AERMET pre-processing. Parameters used as input include the morning
soundings of atmospheric pressure, dry bulb temperature, dew-point temperature, wind speed,
and wind direction. These parameters are also mandatory for inclusion as input to the AERMET
pre-processor.

The following sections describe the AERMET pre-processing in more detail, the specific
sources for each meteorological parameter required for the air quality modeling analysis, the data
substitution methodology used in the event of missing data, and the frequency with which
various data sources were used to develop the meteorological database for modeling.

3.2.2 AERMET Pre-Processing

The meteorological data from the three meteorological data sources noted above will be pre-
processed via the AERMOD Meteorological Pre-Processor (AERMET). AERMET pre-
processing utilizes surface meteorological data from site-specific (onsite) data collection
programs and offsite stations such as those run by the NWS, along with NWS sounding data

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

3-4
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

from upper air measurement locations, to calculate the planetary boundary layer parameters
required by AERMOD to perform dispersion and transport computations.

AERMET version 06341 or greater will be used to pre-process the meteorological data used
as input to the model. The AERMET preprocessing of the data from the three sources selected
for this analysis is performed in three stages that are further described as follows:

Stage 1
• In the first step of pre-processing, the onsite meteorological data will be processed.
Electronic files of onsite meteorological database will be converted into a format
suitable for input to AERMET and converting the data measurement units into those
required by AERMET processed the data. One file will be created for each year for
each of the two measurement stations. Each file will contain only the data collected
from the individual station except for solar and net radiation data. Net radiation data
from Wastebed-13 and solar radiation data from Lakeshore/Willis Ave will be
included in all input files as these data are considered to be representative of the entire
local study area and will be used by AERMET if provided.
• The second step of pre-processing involves the surface data from Syracuse Airport.
This data is generally available from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in the
Integrated Surface Hourly Data (TD3505 - ISHD) format with fixed length records.
This format is suitable for input to AERMET.
• The third step of pre-processing consists of processing the upper air morning sounding
data from the NWS Buffalo, NY Station. The sounding data will be obtained from
NCDC in the FSL format, which allows it to be directly input to AERMET.
• In each of the first three steps of AERMET pre-processing, all data will be checked
against quality assurance criteria contained within the AERMET program. Automatic
corrections and substitutions are employed as appropriate and as recommended in the
AERMET User’s Guide.
Stage 2
• The files generated from the three steps described above are then merged into a single
file for the final step of the meteorological pre-processing.
Stage 3
• Utilizing USEPA’s AERSURFACE tool, land use characteristics are defined and
micrometeorological parameters objectively selected within a representative domain
centered on the meteorological measurement location within the overall study area.
This is performed individually for each measurement site for each full year of data
collection in order to account for the year to year variability in snow cover and annual
precipitation amounts that would affect surface moisture conditions. A discussion of
the process followed and surface values determined is presented in Section 3.2.3
below.

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

3-5
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

• The final step of the meteorological pre-processing utilizes the merged data file to
create two files suitable for direct use in AERMOD. The two files are the surface data
file (“.SFC”), which contains the planetary boundary layer parameters used to
compute dispersion conditions, and the atmospheric profile data file (“.PFL”), which
contains the multi-level wind and temperature data used to compute plume rise and
transport conditions.
• If the data being pre-processed does not represent a full calendar year, it will be
necessary to develop a “single calendar year” model input database. To do this, the
last X months of the first year in which data is collected (e.g., August – December)
will be placed at the end of the January through July portion of the record and the
dates in the file will be changed to reflect the current year.
3.2.3 Surface Characteristics
AERMOD modeling analyses require the input of certain surface conditions that influence
boundary layer parameter estimates at the primary meteorological measurement location. These
surface conditions are quantified by three characteristics, namely: surface roughness length,
Bowen ratio and surface albedo, which relate to the height of obstacles to the wind flow, the
amount of moisture at the surface, and the reflectivity of the surface, respectively.

The surface roughness length is related to the height of obstacles to the wind flow and is, in
theory, the height at which the mean horizontal wind speed is zero. For this modeling analysis,
the surface roughness will be objectively determined via the AERSURFACE tool and will reflect
terrain and land use characteristics in a subset of the study area out to 1 km from the onsite
meteorological measurement locations, as well as any seasonal variations, in accordance with
guidance contained in the AERSURFACE User’s Guide (EPA-454/B-08-001, January 2008).

The daytime Bowen ratio is an indicator of moisture present in the surface surrounding the
meteorological measurement location. It is the ratio of the sensible heat flux to the latent heat
flux and is used for determining planetary boundary layer parameters for convective conditions.
Information in the AERSURFACE User’s Guide suggests that the Bowen ratio be determined as
a function of the time of year, the average land-use type over a 10 by 10 km domain centered on
the measurement locations, and whether dry, wet or average moisture conditions are prevalent in
the area under consideration. For this analysis, average moisture conditions will be used, but
only after confirming against a current 30-year climatological record for the Syracuse area on a
year-by-year basis. If a particular data collection year or season is determined to be abnormally
wet or dry, then the Bowen ratios for wet or dry moisture conditions will be used as appropriate.

The albedo is the fraction of total incident solar radiation reflected by the ground surface
back into space without absorption. Typical values range from 0.1 for thick deciduous forests to
0.90 for fresh snow. Appropriate seasonal values for the albedo for processing the
meteorological database will determined as described herein. Information in the AERSURFACE
User’s Guide suggests that the albedo value be determined as a function of the time of year and
the average land-use type over a 10 by 10 km domain centered on the measurement locations.

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

3-6
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

Because surface characteristics vary as a function of time (i.e., seasonality) and land-use,
AERMOD requires the input of surface characteristic data based on user–defined time periods
(annual, seasonal or monthly) and directional sectors from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 12
30-degree sectors (for surface roughness only). For the purpose of determining appropriate
surface characteristic values for the two meteorological towers in the Onondaga Lake study area,
AERMET pre-processing will employ the use of 12 monthly time periods and 12 30-degree
directional sectors within a 1 km radius of the tower locations for surface roughness and within a
10 by 10 km domain centered on the tower locations for albedo and Bowen ratio. Specifying the
use of AERSURFACE in this fashion will accurately account for major differences in seasonal
conditions and differential land use patterns throughout the study area.

Monthly time periods are used so that site-specific seasons can be defined for every year
being processed. Consistent with AERSURFACE guidance, the site-specific seasons will
correspond to annual vegetative growth cycles as well as whether continuous snow over exists
for one or more months. This approach allows use of the surface characteristic values contained
in the AERSURFACE User’s Guide – Appendix A, Tables A-1 through A-3. The site-specific
seasons for 2006 and 2007 are defined in Table 3-2 as follows:

Table 3-2
Site-Specific Seasons for Use in AERSURFACE

Seasons Months in 2006 # of Months Months in 2007 # of Months

Late Fall or Winter w/ Dec, Jan 2 Not Used --

No Snow

Winter w/ Snow Feb, Mar 2 Dec to Mar 4

Spring Apr, May 2 Apr, May 2

Summer Jun to Sep 4 Jun to Sep 4

Autumn Oct, Nov 2 Oct, Nov 2

The basis for using the Late Fall/Winter with no snow category in 2006 is confirmation via
historical weather observations that little to no continuous snow cover existed in the Syracuse
area in January and December of 2006. In contrast, all the winter months in 2007 had significant
continuous snow cover.

The basis for using a four-month summer season that includes September, is the fact that we
have observed no drop-off in vegetative cover at the meteorological tower locations through the
end of September.

The maximum number of directional sectors (12) will be employed because land-use type
varies appreciably within the environs of the study area
Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

3-7
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

To objectively define the land use characteristics and micrometeorological parameters of the
Onondaga Lake study area, USEPA’s AERSURFACE tool (January 2008 release) will be
applied to a digital mapping version of land use and cover based on U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) National Land Cover Data 1992 archives (NLCD92) for the Syracuse, NY area. The
NLCD92 archive provides land cover data at a spatial resolution of 30 meters and mapped using
an Albers Conic Equal Area projection. The land cover data is based on a 21-category
classification scheme.

The objective analysis resolves fractional land use/cover data into predominant land
use/cover data utilizing a grid cell process for a domain extending 5 km in all directions from the
center of the study area (10 by 10 km grid centered on measurement locations). AERSURFACE
computes the inverse-distance weighted geometric mean land cover type for an upwind distance
of 1 km to determine the associated surface roughness within twelve 30-degree wind direction
sectors (0-30, 30-60, 60-90, 330-360). Albedo and Bowen ratio determinations are based on
simple unweighted arithmetic and geometric means, respectively, within the entire 10 by 10 km
domain.

For reference purposes, Table 3-3 summarizes the seasonal input values for different land
use categories and seasons used in the AERSURFACE tool.

For modeling the SCA emissions, AERSURFACE has been run with these seasonal input
values and with a centroid corresponding to the coordinates of the Wastebed 13 meteorological
station. The results are presented in Table 3-4, which summarizes the seasonal average output
values for albedo, Bowen Ratio, and surface roughness within each of the 12 30 degree wind
sectors extending 3 km out from the study area (Wastebed 13 station location). These are the
values input to AERMET to process with the rest of the meteorological data.

3.2.4 Transport Wind Speed and Direction

The primary source of reference wind speed will be the 10-meter level data measured at the
onsite towers. If any 10-meter wind speed data values are missing, data from the other onsite
tower will be substituted. If data from both towers are missing, then data from Syracuse Airport
will be substituted. However, if onsite wind data were missing for only one or two hours, data
for the missing hour(s) will be interpolated from onsite data for the hour before and the hour
after the missing hour(s). Wind speed is a scalar quantity, and for short periods (one or two
hours), it is considered appropriate to fill in the missing onsite wind speed data by linear
interpolation. If three or more consecutive hours of wind data were missing from the onsite
records, then wind data from either the other onsite tower or from Syracuse Airport will be
substituted.

The primary source of transport wind direction will be the 10-meter level data measured at
the onsite meteorological towers. If onsite wind data are missing for one or two hours, data for
the missing hour(s) will be substituted with data from the other tower or will be interpolated
from onsite data for the hour before and the hour after the missing hour(s).

Since wind direction is a vector quantity, direct linear interpolation to fill in missing hourly
values is not strictly appropriate. Rather, a multi-step interpolation scheme is applied for wind
Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

3-8
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

direction data. Short periods of missing onsite wind direction data are filled in the following
manner.

First, the onsite wind data for the hour preceding and the hour following the missing hour(s)
are resolved into orthogonal easterly and northerly (u and v) components. Values of easterly and
northerly wind components for the missing hour(s) are then calculated through linear
interpolation based on the hours preceding and following the missing period. Finally, the
interpolated orthogonal components for each of the missing hours are recombined into a vector
wind, and the direction of the resultant vector wind is used for the missing hour.

If three or more consecutive hours of wind direction data are missing from both of the onsite
data records, then wind data from Syracuse Airport will be used. Standard USEPA
meteorological preprocessing procedures are used to randomize any offsite wind direction data
that are not reported to the nearest degree.

3.2.5 Temperature
Ambient temperature values will be based on 2-meter level measurements from the onsite
meteorological towers. If onsite temperature data are missing from both towers for periods
between one and four hours, the gaps were filled by linear interpolation based on the hour
preceding and following the period of missing data. Longer gaps will be filled in with data from
Syracuse Airport.

3.2.6 Atmospheric Stability

Atmospheric stability parameters such as the surface friction velocity (u∗), sensible heat flux
(H); Monin-Obukhov length (L, a stability parameter relating u∗ to H) and mixing heights are
computed each hour based on the best available data as determined by a series of hierarchal
algorithms contained in AERMET.

Unlike the meteorological input requirements for the ISC model, AERMOD does not require
that Pasquill-Gifford stability classes be determined. Rather, as defined in AERMET, the
atmosphere is considered unstable if the flux of sensible heat is upward at the surface and the
time of day is approximately between sunrise and sunset. Specifically, atmospheric conditions
are defined as being unstable when L < 0. Otherwise, the atmosphere is considered stable (L>0).

The sections directly below briefly describe the calculations used to compute the stability
parameters based on the onsite and offsite data available for this modeling analysis.

Unstable Atmosphere

When atmospheric conditions are determined to be unstable (i.e., when L < 0), both the
convective and mechanical mixing heights are calculated. To get to this point, AERMET first
estimates the sensible heat flux (H) hour-by-hour by estimating it from the Net Radiation
measurements and Bowen ratio. The computations are performed by AERMET following the
equations presented in the AERMET User’s Guide (Section 5.4.3).

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

3-9
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

Once the heat flux is known, the u∗ and Monin-Obukhov length (L) for the convective
boundary layer (CBL) are computed via an iterative algorithm in AERMET whereby u∗ and L
change with each iteration, but the heat flux remains constant. The iteration continues until
consecutive values of L differ by 1% or less.

Lastly, the mixing heights are calculated. The convective mixing height (Zic) is estimated
by a formulation that is based on a one-dimensional (height) energy balance approach. In this
approach, the heat flux in the CBL at the surface, and entrained from the stable air aloft, leads to
vertical mixing, a rise in the base of the elevated temperature inversion, and an increase of the
energy of the boundary layer air. The convective mixing height created by this dynamic is
computed from the potential temperature distribution (θ(z)) from the morning sounding and the
estimated heat flux (H). AERMET restricts the growth of the convective mixing height to 4,000
meters.

The mechanical mixing height (Zim) is determined from the diagnostic expression:
Zim = 2,300 (u∗3/2).

Stable Atmosphere

When atmospheric conditions are determined to be stable (i.e., when L > 0), only the
mechanical mixing height is calculated. To get to this point, AERMET estimates the sensible
heat flux (H) for the stable atmosphere hour-by-hour by using estimates of the surface friction
velocity (u∗) and a temperature scale (θ∗). The surface friction velocity and temperature scale
are computed directly from NWS cloud cover data and onsite wind speed and surface
temperature. The computations are performed by AERMET following the equations presented
in the AERMET User’s Guide (Section 5.4.4). Because the heat flux may become unrealistically
large in the case of strong winds, a limit of –64 W/m2 is placed on the heat flux value for any
hour.

Once the heat flux is known, the Monin-Obukhov length (L) for the stable boundary layer
(SBL) is directly computed using the surface friction velocity, ambient temperature and heat
flux. No iterations are performed.

Lastly, the mixing height is calculated. The mechanical mixing height (Zim) is determined
from the diagnostic expression Zim = 2,300 (u∗3/2).

3.2.7 Mixing Heights

The calculations above produce a continuous record of mechanical mixing heights, along
with a record of convective mixing heights that is restricted to daytime hours of upward heat
flux. Once these mixing heights are computed, the mechanical mixing heights are subjected to
an algorithm in AERMET that smoothes all hours - both those determined to be stable and
unstable - so that the effect of any large hour-to-hour fluctuations of the surface friction velocity
on the mixing height is minimized.

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

3-10
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

3.2.8 Sounding Data

Calculation of the convective mixing height is based on the twice-daily (morning and
afternoon) upper-air sounding data from Buffalo, NY. When pre-processing the meteorological
database, AERMET retrieves data up to and including the first measurement level above 5,000
meters.

For the occasional cases where the sounding is lost at a level well below 5,000 meters, there
may not be adequate upper air data to allow AERMET to compute the convective mixing height
for late afternoon hours. When this situation exists, AERMET extends the sounding to 5,000
meters by computing the potential temperature gradient for the upper 500 meters of the existing
sounding data and extending this to the 5,000-meter level.

If a sounding is missing, a value equal to the monthly average morning or afternoon mixing
height, as appropriate, is substituted.

3.2.9 AERMOD Meteorological Input Files

The meteorological database, including all of the parameters developed as described above
for each hour in each yearly record via the AERSURFACE and AERMET processing routines,
are created as one boundary layer file (*.sfc) and one atmospheric profile file (*.pfl) for
subsequent input to AERMOD.

3.3 MODEL RECEPTOR GRID

With the exception of any stacks or vents associated with a wastewater treatment facility or
other emissions control devices, virtually all of the sources currently anticipated to be modeled
are surfaced-based and will not have any significant upward exhaust momentum or buoyancy (as
an industrial stack would have). Therefore, it is expected that maximum concentrations of
source emissions will occur very near to the sources themselves and then decrease with distance.
The potential for maximum impacts to occur somewhat farther away from the sources will exist
for cases where additive impacts from multiple sources at different locations may occur at more
distance model receptor points. This condition is most likely to occur in the estimation of long-
term (i.e., annual) average impacts at a given model receptor, which will represent the combined
impacts of several sources that may be emitting anytime during the year.

As a result, the model receptor grid for the modeling analyses is focused on establishing a
fairly dense grid of model receptor points around the SCA and in and around the dredging areas
at the lake. Since the potential magnitude of estimated concentrations is not yet known, it is not
yet possible to definitively determine how far the final grid should extend.

However, an initial grid extending out to a distance of 3-4 km to the north, east, and south
from the lake shoreline, and 5 km to the west of Wastebed 13, has been developed to ensure that
the magnitude and variability of estimated concentrations of modeled air contaminants are
adequately described, and to demonstrate that estimated concentrations at the outer edges of the
grid are well below any applicable ambient air quality standard and/or threshold values.

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

3-11
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

Based on the above, Figure 3-1 depicts a plot of the initial Cartesian Coordinate model
receptor grid system developed for this analysis. The overall grid encompasses an area that is 16
km (east-west) x 12 km (north-south) roughly centered on a mid-point between the southwestern
lakeshore and the SCA. The grid is comprised of discrete receptors and is defined by a series of
nested sub-grids of varying density and also by strings of property line model receptors
surrounding the source areas.

There are a total of 12,625 receptor points in the overall grid. Figure 3-2 is a similar plot of
the model receptor grid superimposed over a topographic map section of the area that shows the
grid’s geographical coverage

Nested Grids

The innermost grid consists of model receptors placed at 50-meter intervals out to distances
of at least 1 km in each direction from the N-E-S-most edges of the lake dredging area and from
the S-W-N-most boundaries of Wastebed 13, as well as covering the entire area in between these
two potential emission source locations. This grid includes analysis points placed on the lake
surface that are outside of the dredging work areas.

The next sub-grids have receptors placed at 250-meter intervals out to distances roughly 3-4
km from each of the source areas, followed by model receptor points at 500-meter spacing
intervals out to the outer edges of the grid.

Property Line Model Receptors

A series of property line model receptor points are placed at 25-meter intervals around the
entire wastebed boundary and around the initial SMU (i.e., SMU1) scheduled for dredging
operations. These are seen in the close-up views of the model receptor grid in Figures 3-3 and 3-
4. For this analysis, the property lines define the areas representing Honeywell property in the
wastebed area with restricted (fenced and gated) access, and work areas in the dredge zone that
will be cordoned off during dredging operations.

As seen in Figure 3-2, the Wastebed area consists of four separate Wastebeds, designated as
Wastebeds 12, 13 (the SCA), 14, and 15, plus a Lagoon and Open Area. This entire wastebed
area is fenced in with access controlled via a locked gate. Honeywell has, however, granted
limited access to a local municipality for depositing waste in a portion of Wastebed 15. Thus,
this portion of the wastebed has been excluded from the site property and receptor points have
been placed in this area.

Additional receptors representing specifically identified locations may be added to the grid.
First, any sensitive receptors, such as schools, hospitals, outdoor recreation areas, or other major
public facilities may be represented by discrete receptor points if not deemed to be adequately
represented by one or more of the primary receptor points. The locations of any such receptors
will be jointly determined by members of the Emissions and Odors Work Group (i.e., determined
Honeywell and NYSDEC technical staff representatives).

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

3-12
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

Second, during the course of model execution, additional receptors may be added with a
denser spacing interval in areas of maximum predicted concentrations if needed to better define
the point(s) of maximum impact and/or concentration gradients in critical impact areas. Given
the density and coverage of the initial grid, the need for such additional receptors is unlikely.

Once some initial modeling results are available and examined in detail, the overall size and
spacing of the receptor grid may be modified to eliminate unnecessary receptors if it is
determined that no resolution of results is lost. (Given the large total number of receptors on the
initial grid, reducing the overall numbers of receptors would substantially reduce computer run
times.)

Workplace Model Receptors

A series of onsite worker exposure model receptors are also included in the base grid to
directly assess levels of air emissions potential experienced by personnel working directly onsite
at the SCA and in-lake areas. Modeled impacts at these analysis points will be used to analyze
short-term impacts to onsite workers. Analysis point spacing is assumed to be approximately 50
meters for these areas.

Note: For various modeling objectives, model runs may be executed using portions of the
overall grid. For example, modeling of worker exposure levels will be limited to the portion of
the grids covering the direct work activity areas. In contrast, offsite impact analyses will exclude
the work area receptors.

AERMAP Pre-Processing

In addition to the X-Y coordinates of each designated model receptor point on the grid, the
model input includes the terrain height for each point. The terrain elevations have been defined
using the AERMAP Terrain Pre-processor of AERMOD. AERMAP pre-processing utilizes
digital elevation model (DEM) files corresponding to 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles, along
with a project-specific receptor grid, to calculate the following parameters:
• A height scale (hc) for each receptor point. The height scale, or hill height, is required
as input to the AERMOD model. The height scale is used to calculate the critical
dividing streamline height (Hcrit) for each receptor based on the controlling terrain for
the receptor. These are also calculated based on the data contained in the nine DEM
files.
• The terrain elevation of each receptor extracted from the DEM files corresponding to
the 7.5-minute series USGS topographic quadrangles defining the modeling analysis
domain.
For this analysis, AERMAP is used to calculate both the required height scale data, as well
as the model receptor elevations. The AERMAP preprocessing of the model receptor grid for
this analysis can be further described as follows:
• AERMAP version 06341 or greater will be used to preprocess the model receptor grid
described above.
Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

3-13
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

• Receptor elevation data will be extracted by AERMAP. Receptor elevations via

AERMAP are actual terrain heights.
• 7.5-minute DEM files corresponding to the nine topographic quadrangles containing
and surrounding the Onondaga Lake study area will be used as input. These nine
quads also define the modeling domain. The nine quads (DEM files) to be used for
the analysis are:
Syracuse West
Syracuse East
Jamesville
South Onondaga
Marcellus
Camillus
Baldwinsville
Brewerton
Cicero

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

3-14
 FIGURE 3-1
ONONDAGA LAKE
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK

BASE MODEL RECEPTOR GRID

PARSONS
P:\HON-SYR\443584 - Operations\09 Reports\9.01 - Dispersion Modeling Protocol\Figures 290 ELWOOD DAVIS RD, SUITE 312, LIVERPOOL, NY 13088 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
 FIGURE 3-2
ONONDAGA LAKE
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK

BASE RECEPTOR GRID

PARSONS
P:\HON-SYR\443584 - Operations\09 Reports\9.01 - Dispersion Modeling Protocol\Figures 290 ELWOOD DAVIS RD, SUITE 312, LIVERPOOL, NY 13088 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
 NE Cell
NW Cell

Wastebed 13
SE Cell
SW Cell Wastebed12 Lagoon

Met Tower Open Area

Location

Wastebed 14

Wastebed 15

N
Grid in meters (1 in. = 400 m) FIGURE 3-3
ONONDAGA LAKE
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK

SCA BASE MODEL RECEPTOR GRID

PARSONS
P:\HON-SYR\443584 - Operations\09 Reports\9.01 - Dispersion Modeling Protocol\Figures 290 ELWOOD DAVIS RD, SUITE 312, LIVERPOOL, NY 13088 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
 Lakeshore

SMU1

Met Tower “Fenceline”

Location

FIGURE 3-4
Grid in meters (1 in. = 300 m)
ONONDAGA LAKE
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
SMU 1 BASE MODEL RECEPTOR
GRID
PARSONS
P:\HON-SYR\443584 - Operations\09 Reports\9.01 - Dispersion Modeling Protocol\Figures 290 ELWOOD DAVIS RD, SUITE 312, LIVERPOOL, NY 13088 PHONE: (315) 451-9560
 ONONDAGA LAKE REMEDIATION PROJECT
HONEYWELL AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL

TABLE 3-3
Air Dispersion Modeling Protocol for Onondaga Lake
Seasonal Values of Micrometeorological Parameters
Season Land Use Classification (EPA MRLC) Albedo Bowen Ratio Surface Roughnes

Water 0.1 0.1 0.001

Low Intensity Residential 0.45 0.5 0.5
High Intensity Residential 0.35 0.5 1
High Intensity Commercial/Industrial 0.35 0.5 0.8
Pasture/Hay 0.6 0.5 0.01
Row Crops 0.6 0.5 0.01
Parks, Lawns, Golf Courses 0.6 0.5 0.005
Winter Evergreen Forest 0.35 0.5 1.3
Mixed Forest 0.42 0.5 0.9
Deciduous Forest 0.5 0.5 0.5
Woody Wetlands 0.3 0.5 0.5
Emergent Wetlands 0.3 0.5 0.1
Barren; Quarries, Strip Mines, Gravel Pits 0.6 0.5 0.3
Barren; Bare Rock and Sand 0.6 0.5 0.05
Barren; Transitional 0.45 0.5 0.2

Water 0.1 0.1 0.001

Low Intensity Residential 0.16 0.8 0.52
High Intensity Residential 0.18 1.5 1
High Intensity Commercial/Industrial 0.18 1.5 0.8
Pasture/Hay 0.14 0.3 0.03
Row Crops 0.14 0.3 0.03
Parks, Lawns, Golf Courses 0.15 0.3 0.015
Spring Evergreen Forest 0.12 0.7 1.3
Mixed Forest 0.14 0.7 1.15
Deciduous Forest 0.16 0.7 1
Woody Wetlands 0.14 0.2 0.7
Emergent Wetlands 0.14 0.1 0.2
Barren; Quarries, Strip Mines, Gravel Pits 0.2 1.5 0.3
Barren; Bare Rock and Sand 0.2 1.5 0.05
Barren; Transitional 0.18 1 0.2

Water 0.1 0.1 0.001

Low Intensity Residential 0.16 0.8 0.54
High Intensity Residential 0.18 1.5 1
High Intensity Commercial/Industrial 0.18 1.5 0.8
Pasture/Hay 0.2 0.5 0.15
Row Crops 0.2 0.5 0.2
Parks, Lawns, Golf Courses 0.15 0.5 0.02
Summer Evergreen Forest 0.12 0.3 1.3
Mixed Forest 0.14 0.3 1.3
Deciduous Forest 0.16 0.3 1.3
Woody Wetlands 0.14 0.2 0.7
Emergent Wetlands 0.14 0.1 0.2
Barren; Quarries, Strip Mines, Gravel Pits 0.2 1.5 0.3
Barren; Bare Rock and Sand 0.2 1.5 0.05
Barren; Transitional 0.18 1 0.2

Water 0.1 0.1 0.001

Low Intensity Residential 0.16 1 0.54
High Intensity Residential 0.18 1.5 1
High Intensity Commercial/Industrial 0.18 1.5 0.8
Pasture/Hay 0.2 0.7 0.15
Row Crops 0.2 0.7 0.2
Parks, Lawns, Golf Courses 0.15 0.7 0.015
Autumn Evergreen Forest 0.12 0.8 1.3
Mixed Forest 0.14 0.9 1.3
Deciduous Forest 0.16 1 1.3
Woody Wetlands 0.14 0.2 0.7
Emergent Wetlands 0.14 0.1 0.2
Barren; Quarries, Strip Mines, Gravel Pits 0.2 1.5 0.3
Barren; Bare Rock and Sand 0.2 1.5 0.05
Barren; Transitional 0.18 1 0.2

P:\Honeywell -SYR\443584 - Operations\09 Reports\9.01 - Dispersion Modeling Protocol\Modeling Protocol\Tables 1-1, 3-3.xls
5/12/2008 1 of 1 PARSONS
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE
DRAFT FINAL

Table 3-4A
Seasonal Average Micrometeorological Parameters
Around WB-13 Tower in 2006 by Wind Sector

Season Land Cover Albedo Bowen Ratio* Surface Roughness

Late Autumn 0.17 0.75 0.338

Winter 0.45 0.43 0.268
Sector 1
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.490
000 to 030
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.765
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.761

Late Autumn 0.17 0.75 0.254

Winter 0.45 0.43 0.195
Sector 2
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.346
030 to 060
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.630
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.630

Late Autumn 0.17 0.75 0.184

Winter 0.45 0.43 0.132
Sector 3
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.269
060 to 090
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.564
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.561

Late Autumn 0.17 0.75 0.284

Winter 0.45 0.43 0.216
Sector 4
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.427
090 to 120
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.736
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.734

Late Autumn 0.17 0.75 0.190

Winter 0.45 0.43 0.137
Sector 5
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.274
120 to 150
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.565
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.564

Late Autumn 0.17 0.75 0.182

Winter 0.45 0.43 0.132
Sector 6
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.248
150 to 180
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.541
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.541

Late Autumn 0.17 0.75 0.262

Winter 0.45 0.43 0.199
Sector 7
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.382
180 to 210
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.692
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.692

p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\table 3-4.doc Page 1 of 6
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE
DRAFT FINAL

Table 3-4A (cont)

Seasonal Average Micrometeorological Parameters
Around WB-13 Tower in 2006 by Wind Sector

Season Land Cover Albedo Bowen Ratio* Surface Roughness

Late Autumn 0.17 0.75 0.368
Winter 0.45 0.43 0.310
Sector 8
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.481
210 to 240
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.678
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.677

Late Autumn 0.17 0.75 0.255

Winter 0.45 0.43 0.199
Sector 9
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.339
240 to 270
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.547
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.537

Late Autumn 0.17 0.75 0.132

Winter 0.45 0.43 0.090
Sector 10
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.196
270 to 300
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.437
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.430

Late Autumn 0.17 0.75 0.250

Winter 0.45 0.43 0.184
Sector 11
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.402
300 to 330
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.744
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.739

Late Autumn 0.17 0.75 0.273

Winter 0.45 0.43 0.205
Sector 12
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.433
330 to 360
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.743
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.736

For WB-13 2006 input to AERMET, the seasons were defined as follows:

Late Fall: Dec, Jan 2 months

Winter: Feb-Mar 2 months
Spring: Apr-May 2 months
Summer: Jun-Sep 4 months
Fall: Oct-Nov 2 months

p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\table 3-4.doc Page 2 of 6
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE
DRAFT FINAL

Table 3-4B
Seasonal Average Micrometeorological Parameters
Around WB-13 Tower in 2006 by Wind Sector

Season Land Cover Albedo Bowen Ratio* Surface Roughness

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.45 0.43 0.268
Sector 1
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.490
000 to 030
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.765
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.761

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.45 0.43 0.195
Sector 2
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.346
030 to 060
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.630
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.630

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.45 0.43 0.132
Sector 3
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.269
060 to 090
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.564
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.561

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.45 0.43 0.216
Sector 4
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.427
090 to 120
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.736
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.734

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.45 0.43 0.137
Sector 5
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.274
120 to 150
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.565
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.564

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.45 0.43 0.132
Sector 6
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.248
150 to 180
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.541
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.541

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.45 0.43 0.199
Sector 7
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.382
180 to 210
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.692
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.692

p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\table 3-4.doc Page 3 of 6
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE
DRAFT FINAL

Table 3-4B (cont)

Seasonal Average Micrometeorological Parameters
Around WB-13 Tower in 2006 by Wind Sector

Season Land Cover Albedo Bowen Ratio* Surface Roughness

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.45 0.43 0.310
Sector 8
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.481
210 to 240
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.678
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.677

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.45 0.43 0.199
Sector 9
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.339
240 to 270
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.547
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.537

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.45 0.43 0.090
Sector 10
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.196
270 to 300
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.437
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.430

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.45 0.43 0.184
Sector 11
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.402
300 to 330
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.744
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.739

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.45 0.43 0.205
Sector 12
Spring 0.15 0.51 0.433
330 to 360
Summer 0.16 0.44 0.743
Autumn 0.16 0.74 0.736

For WB-13 2007 input to AERMET, the seasons were defined as follows:

Late Fall: Not Used 0 months

Winter: Dec-Mar 4 months
Spring: Apr-May 2 months
Summer: Jun-Sep 4 months
Fall: Oct-Nov 2 months

p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\table 3-4.doc Page 4 of 6
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE
DRAFT FINAL

Table 3-4C
Seasonal Average Micrometeorological Parameters
Around Lakeshore Tower in 2007 by Wind Sector

Season Land Cover Albedo Bowen Ratio* Surface Roughness

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.40 0.41 0.002
Sector 1
Spring 0.16 0.65 0.003
000 to 030
Summer 0.16 0.60 0.003
Autumn 0.16 0.81 0.003

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.40 0.41 0.002
Sector 2
Spring 0.16 0.65 0.002
030 to 060
Summer 0.16 0.60 0.002
Autumn 0.16 0.81 0.002

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.40 0.41 0.002
Sector 3
Spring 0.16 0.65 0.002
060 to 090
Summer 0.16 0.60 0.002
Autumn 0.16 0.81 0.002

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.40 0.41 0.073
Sector 4
Spring 0.16 0.65 0.099
090 to 120
Summer 0.16 0.60 0.110
Autumn 0.16 0.81 0.108

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.40 0.41 0.292
Sector 5
Spring 0.16 0.65 0.428
120 to 150
Summer 0.16 0.60 0.484
Autumn 0.16 0.81 0.461

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.40 0.41 0.564
Sector 6
Spring 0.16 0.65 0.638
150 to 180
Summer 0.16 0.60 0.664
Autumn 0.16 0.81 0.652

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.40 0.41 0.697
Sector 7
Spring 0.16 0.65 0.733
180 to 210
Summer 0.16 0.60 0.746
Autumn 0.16 0.81 0.739

p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\table 3-4.doc Page 5 of 6
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE
DRAFT FINAL

Table 3-4C (cont)

Seasonal Average Micrometeorological Parameters
Around Lakeshore Tower in 2007 by Wind Sector

Season Land Cover Albedo Bowen Ratio* Surface Roughness

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.40 0.41 0.547
Sector 8
Spring 0.16 0.65 0.625
210 to 240
Summer 0.16 0.60 0.651
Autumn 0.16 0.81 0.639

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.40 0.41 0.339
Sector 9
Spring 0.16 0.65 0.462
240 to 270
Summer 0.16 0.60 0.510
Autumn 0.16 0.81 0.488

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.40 0.41 0.431
Sector 10
Spring 0.16 0.65 0.613
270 to 300
Summer 0.16 0.60 0.693
Autumn 0.16 0.81 0.676

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.40 0.41 0.343
Sector 11
Spring 0.16 0.65 0.495
300 to 330
Summer 0.16 0.60 0.560
Autumn 0.16 0.81 0.541

Late Autumn -- -- --
Winter 0.40 0.41 0.010
Sector 12
Spring 0.16 0.65 0.011
330 to 360
Summer 0.16 0.60 0.012
Autumn 0.16 0.81 0.012

For Lake/Willis Ave 2007 input to AERMET, the seasons were defined as follows:

Late Fall: Not Used 0 months

Winter: Dec-Mar 4 months
Spring: Apr-May 2 months
Summer: Jun-Sep 4 months
Fall: Oct-Nov 2 months

p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\table 3-4.doc Page 6 of 6
 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PROTOCOL
FOR ONONDAGA LAKE

SECTION 4

DISPERSION MODELING RESULTS REPORTING

Dispersion model runs will be set up and executed as discrete runs for each appropriate
combination of sources and/or source groups, operating scenario(s) defining dredging and SCA
activities, air contaminant, model receptor grid, and meteorological data record. As appropriate,
source groups will be designated within each run in order to segregate the impacts of the
different sources or groups of sources modeled, and for the variations in emission rates for each
source as a function of time and/or activity level (this includes sources being turned “off” if no
emissions are anticipated for a particular time period.).

The dispersion estimates from the modeling analyses will be summarized in a

comprehensive series of tables and graphs that present dispersion estimates for the above runs as
follows:
• for each individual source and source group;
• for all sources combined;
• for each year in the meteorological data input file (if more than 1 year of onsite data is
available and used in the analysis);
• for each contaminant and averaging period (short-term and long-term) for which an
ambient air standard or threshold has been established; and
• for model receptor grid.
These modeling results will then be used to:
• identify those sources and emissions having the greatest potential impacts;
• design of best management practices, control systems and operation strategies to
reduce air emissions resulting from remedial activities to levels less than applicable
short-term and long-term ambient air standards, and established threshold levels; and
• document and communicate the potential impacts of air emissions of COIs and odors
from the remedial activities to the community through a series of public outreach and
educational programs.
To evaluate the impact from the remedial activities, a set of site-specific air goals will be
developed for the project. The goals will address risks associated with exposures to both onsite
(workers) and offsite receptors (general public). Development of these goals and comparison of
the estimated ambient air impacts to the goals will be conducted as a separate portion of the
overall design process.

Parsons
p:\honeywell -syr\443584 - operations\09 reports\9.01 - dispersion modeling protocol\modeling protocol\revised to nysdec\ambient dispersion modeling protocol final.doc
March 12, 2008

4-1
 Appendix D

Length Weighted Average Procedure and Sample Locations

Procedure for Calculation of Length-Weighted Average Concentrations

A length-weighted average approach was used to calculate concentrations considered representative of the
dredge material from Onondaga Lake. The process for calculating the average involved the following
steps: 1) data processing and 2) calculation of length-weighted average concentrations at each core
location. These steps are described briefly below.

The project database was queried for samples within the dredge prism (i.e., the area where sediment will
be removed from the lake bottom) from both the remedial investigation (RI) and pre-design investigation
(PDI). The table below summarizes the number of locations from each year of sampling. A complete list
of locations is provided in Table D-1.

PHASE  # LOCATIONS 
PDI Phase 1 (2005)  65 
PDI Phase 2 (2006)  127 
PDI Phase 3 (2007)  9 
PDI Phase 4 (2008)  21 
PDI Phase 5 (2009)  69 
RI (1992)  10 
RI (2000)  29 
Total Number of Locations =  330 
Note: Not all locations were sampled for each analyte. 

Data ignored in this analysis included cores having a length less than 50 percent of the dredge cut
thickness (which were considered non-representative of the dredge material), samples fully beneath the
dredge cut, data that failed to meet data quality criteria during validation, and data without coordinates.
Total xylene was not reported during the RI, and was therefore calculated as the sum of m- & p-xylene
and o-xylene, using one-half the method detection limit (MDL) for non-detect (ND) sample results.
Replicates collected during the PDI were processed using the maximum of the two samples. Replicates
collected during the RI were processed, using the following rules:

• if both samples detect, use average

• if one detect & one non-detect, use average with ND at one-half MDL
• If both samples non-detect, use lowest MDL

For dioxin/furans, one-half MDL was used for non-detect sample results and toxic equivalents (TEQs)
were calculated using the 2005 World Health Organization humans/mammalian toxic equivalency factors
for dioxin/furans relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Because dioxin data are limited, the locations were not
restricted to core length greater than 50 percent of the dredge cut. Dioxin data were only available for a
total of eight locations in three remediation areas within the dredge prism (i.e., two from RA-A, four from
RA-D (Center), and two from RA-E).

Using the processed data, length-weighted average concentrations (LWAs) were then calculated at each
core location. Section lengths used in the LWA calculation were based on the section end-depth minus 
the section start-depth, except for samples from core intervals that “straddled” the dredge cut, for which
the section end-depth was set equal to the dredge cut depth. Using these lengths for all sections within a
core, the LWA concentration over the dredge prism thickness at that location was calculated as follows:

 
∑

where i is the individual sample section within a core location.

The length-weighted average concentrations for each core location were then used to calculate the mean
concentration and 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) on the mean concentration for each
contaminant within the dredge prism using ProUCL 4.0 software.

 
Table D‐1.  Locations included in the length‐weighted average (LWA) calculation.
Location Group Name Location ID Easting Northing Year Sampled Total Core Length (ft) Dredge Depth (ft)
PDI Phase 1 OL‐SB‐60004‐VC 928702.86 1120572.51 2005 13.2 4.28
PDI Phase 1 OL‐SB‐60005‐VC 928807.22 1119933.09 2005 13.2 3.34
PDI Phase 1 OL‐SB‐60006‐VC 928676.36 1119541.02 2005 13.2 9.91
PDI Phase 1 OL‐SB‐60007‐VC 928698.34 1119195.42 2005 13.2 5.68
PDI Phase 1 OL‐SB‐60008‐VC 928646.8 1118910.34 2005 13.2 5.21
PDI Phase 1 OL‐SB‐60010‐VC 928579.48 1118356.42 2005 13.2 5.05
PDI Phase 1 OL‐SB‐60011‐VC 928296.95 1117842.33 2005 13.2 5.03
PDI Phase 1 OL‐SB‐60012‐VC 928157.47 1117573.85 2005 13.2 5.08
PDI Phase 1 OL‐SB‐60013‐VC 928031.29 1117304.78 2005 13.2 3.39
PDI Phase 1 OL‐SB‐60014‐VC 927755.82 1117202.15 2005 13.2 5.18
PDI Phase 1 OL‐SB‐60015‐VC 927606 1117016.9 2005 13.2 5.25
PDI Phase 1 OL‐SB‐70001‐VC 927065.4 1116285.51 2005 19.6 3.28
PDI Phase 1 OL‐SB‐70002‐VC 927021.33 1116473.36 2005 19.8 3.55
PDI Phase 1 OL‐SB‐70003‐VC 927305.1 1116492.03 2005 19.7 3.30
PDI Phase 1 OL‐SB‐70004‐VC 927225.11 1116590.38 2005 19.3 4.25
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10002‐VC 924291.63 1118311.97 2005 13.2 1.30
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10003‐VC 924907.56 1118153.61 2005 13.2 10.18
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10004‐VC 924950.9 1118356.41 2005 13.2 7.44
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10005‐VC 925576.04 1117898.15 2005 13.2 10.00
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10006‐VC 925796.04 1118267.11 2005 13.2 3.11
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10007‐VC 926138.49 1117646.82 2005 13.2 10.20
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10008‐VC 923319.57 1118082.96 2005 19.4 3.45
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10009‐VC 924174.44 1117950.72 2005 18.7 5.53
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10010‐VC 924773.69 1117686.08 2005 19.5 8.80
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10011‐VC 925301.95 1117369.9 2005 19.3 5.62
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10012‐VC 925924.34 1116800.55 2005 19.7 9.87
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10013‐VC 923909.42 1118383.6 2005 13.2 3.42
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10015‐VC 925443.6 1118225.72 2005 13.2 6.82
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10016‐VC 925898.56 1117871.97 2005 13.2 12.67
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10017‐VC 926104 1118245.6 2005 12.6 3.28
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10018‐VC 923779.99 1117842.07 2005 19.2 5.72
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10019‐VC 923856.72 1118120.13 2005 19.1 5.50
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10020‐VC 924394.2 1117726.18 2005 19.8 8.75
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10021‐VC 924467.87 1117945.12 2005 19.3 5.38
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10022‐VC 924536.07 1118152.34 2005 19.7 1.28
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10023‐VC 925019.68 1117452.38 2005 19.7 5.50
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10024‐VC 925237.66 1117861.9 2005 19.6 9.90
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10025‐VC 925488.14 1117211.28 2005 18.5 9.90
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐10026‐VC 925702.21 1117571.58 2005 19.7 9.90
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐20002‐VC 922578.09 1118665.45 2005 36.8 10.62
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐20003‐VC 922643.33 1118494.74 2005 40.2 2.97
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐20005‐VC 922826.08 1118448.78 2005 36.6 8.91
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐20006‐VC 922874.8 1118261.1 2005 40.2 6.30
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐20008‐VC 923030.84 1118223.48 2005 36.5 6.59
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐20009‐VC 922522.9 1118611.1 2005 40.1 1.98
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐20011‐VC 922701.28 1118547.15 2005 36.8 9.90
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐20012‐VC 922766 1118395 2005 36.6 6.56
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐20014‐VC 922919.31 1118321.86 2005 36.7 6.59
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐20015‐VC 922985.55 1118145.43 2005 33.5 6.54
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐30010‐VC 918258.98 1124185.79 2005 13.2 4.14
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐30012‐VC 919124.6 1123593.04 2005 13.2 4.90
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐30013‐VC 919404.09 1123299.06 2005 13.2 4.23
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐30017‐VC 920559.97 1121166.67 2005 13.0 2.06
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐30018‐VC 920912.28 1120707.1 2005 13.0 3.74
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐30019‐VC 921110.3 1120319.7 2005 13.2 4.86
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐40001‐VC 915404.7 1125692.7 2005 13.2 2.53
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐40002‐VC 916064.26 1125857.26 2005 13.2 2.50
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐60016‐VC 928828.31 1120195.85 2005 13.2 5.48
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐60017‐VC 928659.52 1120228.61 2005 13.2 3.85
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐60018‐VC 928435.12 1118118.19 2005 13.2 13.69
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐60019‐VC 928293.14 1118199.33 2005 13.2 13.54
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐70005‐VC 926798.39 1116226.07 2005 19.6 4.67
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐70006‐VC 926798.06 1116417 2005 19.8 3.69
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐70007‐VC 927512.3 1116660.37 2005 19.8 3.27
PDI Phase 1 OL‐STA‐70008‐VC 927417.02 1116761.59 2005 19.8 3.72
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10038 923415.06 1117947.64 2006 18.9 5.97
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10039 923575.4 1118088.4 2006 18.0 9.90
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10040 923587.3 1118351.9 2006 13.2 12.53
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10041 923642.1 1117900.7 2006 19.7 5.93
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10041A 923643.9 1117900 2006 19.8 6.11
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10042 923697.1 1118505 2006 19.8 8.11
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10042A 923698.1 1118507.2 2006 19.8 8.11
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10044 923964.8 1118365.5 2006 19.0 3.49
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10046 924008.6 1118047.3 2006 19.2 5.51
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10046A 924010.7 1118045 2006 18.1 5.51
 Location Group Name Location ID Easting Northing Year Sampled Total Core Length (ft) Dredge Depth (ft)
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10048 924158.4 1118168.8 2006 19.7 8.90
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10048A 924160.5 1118168.3 2006 17.9 8.80
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10049 924167.4 1117989.7 2006 19.6 5.50
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10049A 924167.8 1117991 2006 19.8 5.50
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10050 925985.1 1117816.4 2006 19.4 13.35
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10051 926006.9 1117854.7 2006 19.8 13.28
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10052 925963.8 1117852.6 2006 19.8 13.14
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10053 924313 1117722 2006 19.2 8.70
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10053A 924313.3 1117723.8 2006 19.8 8.80
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10054 924273.2 1117823.8 2006 18.8 8.77
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10055 924347.9 1118435.4 2006 18.9 3.76
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10056 924315.8 1118096.5 2006 19.2 5.50
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10057 924432.4 1118236.3 2006 19.5 5.31
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10057A 924433.9 1118237.8 2006 19.7 5.31
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10058 924442.8 1117838 2006 19.8 5.51
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10058A 924444.6 1117839.5 2006 17.4 5.50
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10059 924590.4 1117726.6 2006 19.3 8.80
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10060 924676.3 1117861.4 2006 18.0 5.64
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10062 924727.1 1117993.7 2006 19.2 5.62
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10062A 924727.2 1117996.1 2006 19.0 5.62
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10064 924771.7 1117684.3 2006 19.8 8.80
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10064A 924774.2 1117684.7 2006 19.8 8.80
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10065 924792.2 1117697.1 2006 19.8 8.80
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10066 924773.4 1117659 2006 19.8 8.80
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10067 924750.2 1117697.5 2006 19.1 8.80
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10068 924860.7 1117921.7 2006 19.6 5.50
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10069 924950.9 1117812.2 2006 19.8 5.22
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10070 924919.9 1117455.2 2006 19.1 5.45
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10070A 924918.5 1117457 2006 19.2 5.59
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10071 925183.7 1118398.9 2006 19.8 2.73
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10072 925154.1 1118217.6 2006 19.8 9.88
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10073 925124.4 1118025.1 2006 19.8 9.98
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10073A 925112.8 1118024.8 2006 19.8 10.00
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10074 925137.1 1117740.6 2006 19.8 5.29
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10075 925124.1 1117274 2006 18.9 5.51
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10076 925240.3 1117526.4 2006 19.8 5.50
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10077 925345.5 1118080 2006 17.9 10.06
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10078 925415.9 1117846 2006 19.8 10.00
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10078A 925416.6 1117845.2 2006 19.8 10.00
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10079 925420.7 1117654.2 2006 18.9 9.92
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10080 925396.3 1116980.6 2006 19.3 7.90
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10080A 925394.2 1116982.2 2006 19.3 7.90
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10081 925496 1117441 2006 19.8 9.90
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10081A 925496.8 1117443.5 2006 19.6 9.98
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10082 925614.9 1118354.3 2006 19.8 0.84
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10083 925633.8 1118077.4 2006 19.8 9.89
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10083A 925631.9 1118076.4 2006 19.8 9.89
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10084 925660.7 1117489.5 2006 19.8 9.85
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10085 925641.9 1117135 2006 19.8 9.94
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10086 925660.6 1116945.8 2006 18.0 9.51
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10086A 925659.4 1116944.4 2006 18.8 9.51
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10087 925592.6 1116769.1 2006 19.0 5.02
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10088 925722.1 1117764.5 2006 19.8 9.87
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10089 925742.9 1117288.4 2006 19.7 9.87
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10090 925905.2 1118132.3 2006 19.8 9.30
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10091 925945.2 1117683.1 2006 19.6 13.20
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10092 925874.7 1117470.8 2006 19.0 9.90
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10093 925873.5 1116983.5 2006 19.8 9.85
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10094 925868.4 1116632.3 2006 19.8 6.07
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10095 925972.7 1118333.9 2006 19.6 1.02
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10095A 925974.7 1118335.5 2006 19.1 1.02
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10096 925984.7 1117842.4 2006 19.8 13.40
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10096A 925983.8 1117840.7 2006 17.4 12.62
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10097 926020.4 1117273.4 2006 18.4 13.20
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10097A 926019.5 1117275.1 2006 18.5 13.20
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10098 926041.7 1117287 2006 19.8 13.20
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10099 926020.2 1117250.5 2006 19.8 13.11
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10100 925996.8 1117287.3 2006 19.1 13.28
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10101 926082.6 1117979 2006 19.8 8.71
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10102 926067.6 1117485 2006 17.2 13.20
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10103 926131.8 1117084.3 2006 18.0 13.19
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10103A 926133.5 1117084.4 2006 18.0 13.19
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10104 926107.6 1116687.1 2006 19.8 9.97
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10104A 926107.1 1116685.6 2006 18.2 9.97
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10105 926187.2 1116859.4 2006 19.8 9.87
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10106 926169.9 1116498.4 2006 17.5 7.34
 Location Group Name Location ID Easting Northing Year Sampled Total Core Length (ft) Dredge Depth (ft)
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐10107 926342.7 1116313.7 2006 17.5 3.98
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐20069 921376.75 1119611.81 2006 13.2 1.55
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐20070 921495.5 1119473.16 2006 13.2 4.12
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐20071 921703.69 1119428.66 2006 13.2 4.00
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐20072 922398.5 1118947.4 2006 19.8 2.95
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐20075 922723.1 1118763.6 2006 17.2 9.87
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐20078 923175.9 1118583.7 2006 19.8 2.61
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐20079 923077.2 1118450.4 2006 19.8 9.49
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐20079A 923079.3 1118448.3 2006 19.8 9.95
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐20080 921606.78 1119415.12 2006 13.2 4.08
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐20081 921665.04 1119359.43 2006 13.2 3.04
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐20082 921635.02 1119386.98 2006 13.2 4.10
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐30043 918489.4 1124086.72 2006 19.4 3.29
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐40035 914699 1125978.2 2006 19.8 8.05
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐40036 914971.57 1126012.57 2006 17.3 4.18
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐40037 915058.26 1126276.44 2006 19.8 2.44
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐40038 915146.1 1125835.82 2006 19.8 3.41
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐40039 915408.88 1126343.52 2006 19.8 4.75
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐40040 915413.8 1125964.16 2006 19.8 2.28
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐40041 915733.76 1125806.35 2006 19.3 2.50
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐60059 927880.63 1121126.21 2006 9.9 0.40
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐60068 928330.16 1119471.31 2006 18.7 3.98
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐60069 928237.73 1118853.37 2006 19.6 4.66
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐60070 927621.13 1117647.53 2006 20.0 3.48
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70016 926210 1118264.3 2006 19.2 3.30
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70017 926250.8 1117925.9 2006 19.8 6.75
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70018 926309.2 1117598.1 2006 19.6 9.72
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70021 926381.7 1117330.6 2006 19.8 9.66
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70021A 926379.5 1117330 2006 19.8 9.92
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70023 926348.6 1116853.6 2006 19.5 9.91
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70024 926641.2 1116857.8 2006 18.5 1.12
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70024A 926638.4 1116858 2006 19.0 1.12
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70025 926720.1 1116331.36 2006 13.2 4.24
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70026 926928.11 1116387.43 2006 13.2 3.75
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70027 926946.39 1116245.77 2006 13.2 3.39
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70028 927228.87 1116367.79 2006 13.2 3.38
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70029 927423.17 1116559.92 2006 13.2 3.30
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70030 927657.89 1116809.31 2006 13.2 3.27
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70032 926402.5 1117342.1 2006 19.8 9.70
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70033 926380.3 1117304.8 2006 19.8 9.84
PDI Phase 2 OL‐VC‐70034 926358.6 1117342.6 2006 19.2 9.85
PDI Phase 3 OL‐VC‐40132 915292.22 1125765.45 2007 8.0 2.52
PDI Phase 3 OL‐VC‐40133 915583.27 1125637.41 2007 8.6 2.54
PDI Phase 3 OL‐VC‐40134 915758.14 1126025.8 2007 8.6 1.50
PDI Phase 3 OL‐VC‐40135 915930.27 1125732.85 2007 8.0 2.54
PDI Phase 3 OL‐VC‐40136 916146.6 1126059.4 2007 7.1 2.75
PDI Phase 3 OL‐VC‐60114 928122.31 1121075.08 2007 9.1 0.32
PDI Phase 3 OL‐VC‐60115 928200.96 1120799.33 2007 9.9 1.47
PDI Phase 3 OL‐VC‐60116 928270.17 1120406.27 2007 9.0 0.49
PDI Phase 3 OL‐VC‐60117 928609 1120059.82 2007 7.8 3.96
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐20135 921241.52 1120105.9 2008 9.6 0.40
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐20139 921417.45 1119752.59 2008 8.9 1.38
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐20140 921481.46 1119699.63 2008 7.5 3.51
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐20141 921539.47 1119588.96 2008 10.0 3.82
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐20144 922288.2 1119193.88 2008 4.0 2.19
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐20147 922310.4 1118811.83 2008 9.0 3.90
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐40205 914556.22 1126119.97 2008 9.2 2.37
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐40206 914751.87 1126235.46 2008 7.4 0.43
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐40207 915230.25 1126093.81 2008 7.0 3.00
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐40209 915229.79 1125666.7 2008 7.8 2.54
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐40210 915769.42 1125685.08 2008 8.8 2.53
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐40211 915778.62 1125592.12 2008 7.2 2.42
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐60195 928400.17 1120427.14 2008 3.8 2.23
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐60196 928530.29 1120261.38 2008 3.9 2.86
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐60200 928540.23 1118702.07 2008 6.0 5.13
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐60201 928280.99 1118495.22 2008 7.0 4.30
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐60202 928418.04 1118347.49 2008 7.1 5.25
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐70112 926681.28 1116565.21 2008 9.4 2.06
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐70113 926914.79 1116657.99 2008 7.9 1.91
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐70114 927140.77 1116812.85 2008 5.0 3.04
PDI Phase 4 OL‐VC‐70115 927417.08 1116954.21 2008 8.1 4.08
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐20161 921067.05 1120169.36 2009 12.0 2.52
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐20162 921113.26 1120164.11 2009 12.0 4.48
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐20163 921189.92 1120057.72 2009 11.5 1.18
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐20166 921457.21 1119815.17 2009 6.0 0.30
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐20167 921386.81 1119689.38 2009 6.0 1.53
 Location Group Name Location ID Easting Northing Year Sampled Total Core Length (ft) Dredge Depth (ft)
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐20168 921443.7 1119536 2009 6.0 3.90
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐20169 921532.46 1119460.67 2009 6.0 3.69
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐20170 921648.82 1119362.11 2009 6.0 3.94
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐20176 921646.81 1119613.46 2009 6.0 3.40
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐20179 922484.74 1118822.37 2009 6.0 0.35
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐20180 922391.41 1118731.78 2009 6.0 4.09
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐30109 918305.28 1124293.61 2009 8.0 2.02
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐30110 918363.35 1124163.33 2009 8.2 4.08
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐30111 918139.01 1124189.81 2009 7.1 4.07
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐30112 918232.5 1124163.05 2009 7.0 4.72
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐30113 918308.65 1124109.15 2009 8.0 4.81
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐30122 919295.33 1123499.67 2009 8.0 2.62
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐30123 919197.96 1123519.25 2009 8.0 4.39
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐30124 919240.39 1123446.94 2009 8.0 4.90
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐30125 919312.46 1123360.76 2009 8.0 4.30
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40215 914634.81 1126082.85 2009 10.0 2.51
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40216 914583.23 1125992.9 2009 8.8 1.78
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40217 914684.74 1125907.94 2009 9.2 3.41
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40218 914795.06 1125972.42 2009 10.0 8.08
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40219 914782.46 1126045.13 2009 10.0 5.77
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40220 914821.03 1125803.68 2009 10.0 6.84
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40221 914855.67 1125921.86 2009 10.0 6.60
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40222 914895.4 1125922.95 2009 10.0 6.51
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40223 914936.43 1125934.31 2009 10.0 0.37
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40224 915151.24 1125747.75 2009 4.0 2.56
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40225 915111.69 1125644.76 2009 3.8 2.54
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40227 915288.36 1125582.95 2009 4.0 2.54
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40228 915312.85 1125645.9 2009 4.0 2.54
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40229 915639.62 1125599.59 2009 4.0 2.54
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40230 915656.73 1125541.7 2009 4.0 2.54
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40231 915774.58 1125547.97 2009 4.0 2.53
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40232 915897.62 1125597.62 2009 4.0 2.60
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40233 915907.37 1125654.62 2009 4.0 2.52
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40234 915912.89 1125950.78 2009 4.0 1.75
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40236 916320.52 1126308.68 2009 4.0 2.11
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40251 915236.01 1125853.2 2009 8.0 4.15
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40252 915621.48 1125848.58 2009 7.1 2.50
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐40253 915859.32 1125858.07 2009 8.0 2.64
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐50072 927388.27 1121707.69 2009 4.0 0.56
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60229 928889.24 1120046.72 2009 6.0 3.35
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60230 928852.32 1119831.48 2009 4.8 3.27
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60231 928752.09 1119595.96 2009 7.5 5.12
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60231A 928752.09 1119596.00 2009 10.8 5.12
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60232 928785.48 1119304.95 2009 7.6 3.18
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60233 928775.12 1119047.99 2009 5.3 0.25
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60234 928533.2 1118197.81 2009 6.0 3.58
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60235 928270.26 1117711.46 2009 6.0 4.76
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60236 928105.35 1117362.06 2009 5.8 1.51
 Location Group Name Location ID Easting Northing Year Sampled Total Core Length (ft) Dredge Depth (ft)
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60237 927833.03 1116937.47 2009 6.0 3.41
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60242 927832.36 1117484.03 2009 6.0 5.25
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60243 927699.41 1117611.67 2009 6.0 4.44
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60244 927503.98 1117753.74 2009 6.0 1.91
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60246 928068.98 1118668.02 2009 6.0 3.90
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60247 928540.08 1119301.6 2009 6.0 5.10
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60248 928318.39 1119294.65 2009 6.0 4.29
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60249 928017.8 1119270.65 2009 6.0 0.60
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60250 928530.42 1119805.43 2009 6.1 4.24
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60251 928290.67 1119816.91 2009 6.0 1.44
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐60253 928499.87 1120424.41 2009 8.0 3.25
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐70126 927626.56 1116655.21 2009 6.0 1.14
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐70134 927024.11 1116551.99 2009 6.0 3.36
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐70135 927449.17 1116829.05 2009 10.0 3.45
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐70136 926894.19 1116835.03 2009 6.0 2.25
PDI Phase 5 OL‐VC‐70137 927211.47 1117156.44 2009 6.0 2.77
RI P Stations P1 926536.1547 1116418.769 1992 3.0 3.25
RI P Stations P15 925987.4391 1117839.707 1992 6.9 13.43
RI P Stations P16 928588.1579 1120322.542 1992 3.0 3.38
RI P Stations P22 924677.7631 1118376.243 1992 4.9 3.54
RI P Stations P23 925399.8959 1118314.382 1992 4.9 3.90
RI P Stations P3 926635.9285 1116857.442 1992 4.9 1.12
RI P Stations P36 921622.9492 1119518.004 1992 3.0 4.02
RI P Stations P53 919166.8172 1123677.959 1992 3.0 2.35
RI P Stations P6 927545.225 1117217.357 1992 3.0 5.16
RI P Stations P81 915209.683 1126366.728 1992 3.0 4.55
RI Sediment S304 915420.7452 1126195.545 2000 23.9 2.14
RI Sediment S307 921647.6066 1119488.162 2000 19.7 4.06
RI Sediment S309 923490.9926 1118177.918 2000 25.9 10.30
RI Sediment S311 925289.5712 1117120.209 2000 19.7 5.48
RI Sediment S312 926023.4914 1117275.523 2000 23.0 13.20
RI Sediment S313 926500.8476 1116312.347 2000 26.2 3.57
RI Sediment S314 926449.13 1116583.136 2000 26.2 3.06
RI Sediment S316 927404.8505 1117542.506 2000 26.2 2.20
RI Sediment S318 928074.2206 1118022.524 2000 26.2 3.87
RI Sediment S321 928456.9945 1118749.207 2000 26.2 5.25
RI Sediment S322 928435.6388 1120176.231 2000 26.2 2.17
RI Sediment S325 921147.9913 1120082.98 2000 6.6 3.38
RI Sediment S337 922798.8208 1118488.805 2000 6.6 9.87
RI Sediment S341 923910.8037 1117794.277 2000 6.6 9.14
RI Sediment S342 923950.711 1118375.321 2000 6.6 3.50
RI Sediment S343 924526.7252 1117697.59 2000 6.6 5.54
RI Sediment S344 925066.3757 1118146.603 2000 6.6 10.29
RI Sediment S345 924923.8845 1117453.342 2000 6.6 5.45
RI Sediment S346 924923.347 1117238.349 2000 6.6 5.82
RI Sediment S347 925223.6023 1117467.861 2000 6.6 5.47
RI Sediment S348 925641.2545 1116868.21 2000 6.6 7.27
RI Sediment S349 925683.0979 1116633.667 2000 6.6 4.96
RI Sediment S350 926012.0921 1116488.238 2000 6.6 4.55
RI Sediment S351 926467.9819 1116245.098 2000 6.6 3.98
RI Sediment S352 926824.6478 1116216.053 2000 6.6 3.39
RI Sediment S353 927268.0303 1116583.493 2000 6.6 4.25
RI Sediment S358 914359.7908 1126256.253 2000 1.0 0.41
RI Sediment S359 914825.9 1125844.7 2000 1.0 7.68
RI Sediment S360 915765.8506 1125666.085 2000 1.0 2.53

Note: Not all parameters were analyzed at each location.
 Appendix E

Air Quality Bench Testing Summary

 ONONDAGA LAKE AIR QUALITY BENCH TESTING

This report summarizes the pre-design investigation (PDI) activities conducted by Honeywell related
to potential air quality impacts during the execution of the remedy described in the ROD issued for the
Onondaga Lake project by NYSDEC and USEPA. Multiple studies have been performed in several
phases of PDI work to evaluate what potential compounds in the sediment need to be considered for air
quality analysis. All PDI activities were conducted under NYSDEC oversight, and in accordance with
NYSDEC approved workplans. These workplans are available in document repositories. This memo
focuses on the selection and identification process of these compounds, and reports on the detection
frequency of each compound during the various phases.

In Phase I of the PDI, initial wind tunnel testing assessed potential emissions from an open basin,
which was the initial sediment dewatering concept. Nineteen compounds (or groups of compounds) plus
odor parameters were identified for analysis in the wind tunnel study, as presented in Table 1. This list of
compounds was developed by selecting compounds known to exist in the lake sediment, and that also
appear on USEPA’s Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) list. Based on the results of the testing, it was
recommended, and agreed to by NYSDEC that eleven compounds be targeted for evaluation in any future
testing. Table 2 summarizes the compounds targeted for future testing, and the detection frequency
during Phase 1 testing.

The Phase II/III PDI Odorant Characterization Study identified which compounds had the greatest
impact on odor, and developed correlations between chemical concentrations and various odor
parameters. This testing evaluated headspace air samples and targeted several compound groups known
to be odorous. The compounds tested during this phase of testing are presented in Table 3. Table 4
presents the detection frequency during the Phase II/III Odor Characterization Study for those compounds
that were targeted for future testing (Table 2) in Phase I.

The Phase III PDI wind tunnel evaluation evaluated different odor and air emission mitigation
techniques. Compounds targeted for this phase of investigation were based on results from Phase I (Table
2), and additional odorant compounds identified in Phase II/III. Table 5 presents the compounds which
were evaluated, and their detection frequency during Phase III PDI wind tunnel testing. Statistics
presented in this memo do not include samples collected during analyses in which mitigation techniques
were utilized, as these tests may not be representative of the full emissions potential of the sediment.

The laboratories utilized in the various phases of investigation analyzed and reported additional
compounds of interest. These additional compounds, and their detection frequency in the various phases
of investigation, are summarized in Table 6.
PDI Activity Work Plan Summary Report
Phase 1 Wind Appendix D – Onondaga Lake PDI: Air Wind Tunnel Testing Report (Service
Tunnel Emission and Odor Work Plan (Parsons, 2005) Engineering, 2008)
Phase II/III Odor Onondaga Lake PDI: Phase II Work Plan Onondaga Lake PDI: Phase II & III
Characterization Addendum 5 (Parsons, 2006) Odorant Characterization and Analysis
Study Summary Report (Parsons et. al,. 2008)
Phase III Wind Onondaga Lake PDI: Phase III Addendum 7 Onondaga Lake PDI: Phase III Addendum
Tunnel Testing Work Plan, Air Emissions and Odors (O’Brien 7 Summary Report, Air Emissions and
& Gere, 2008) Odors (O’Brien & Gere, 2009)
 Table 1 Table 2
Phase 1 PDI Wind Tunnel Study: Targeted Phase 1 PDI Wind Tunnel Study: Compounds
Compounds Targeted for Any Future Evalautions
VOCs PAHs VOCs
Benzene Flourene Benzene 15 detects in 15 tests
Chlorobenzene Naphthalene Chlorobenzene 4 detects in 15 tests
Ethylbenzene Phenanthrene Ethylbenzene 15 detects in 15 tests
Dichlorobenzenes Pyrene Dichlorobenzenes 4 detects in 15 tests
1,2,3 Trichlorobenzenes Other Compounds 1,2,3 Trichlorobenzenes 2 detects in 15 tests
1,2,4 Trichlorobenzenes PCBs 1,2,4 Trichlorobenzenes 3 detects in 15 tests
1,3,5 Trichlorobenzenes Phenol 1,3,5 Trichlorobenzenes 1 detects in 15 tests
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Mercury Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) 1 detects in 15 tests
Toluene Hydrogen Sulfide Toluene 12 detects in 15 tests
Xylenes (o-,m-,p-) Mercaptans Xylenes (o-,m-,p-) 15 detects in 15 tests
Odor Parameters PAHs
Detection Thresholds (OUs) Naphthalene 10 detects in 15 tests
Recognition Thresholds (OUs)

Table 3
Phase II/III PDI Odor Characterization Study: Targeted Compounds
VOCs Aldehydes Sulfur Gases
Ethanol Propionaldehyde Dimethyl Sulfide
2-Butanone Buthyraldehyde Carbon Disulfide
Benzene Benzaldehyde n-Propyl Mercaptan
Chlorobenzene Isovaleraldehyde Ethyl Methyl Sulfide
Ethylbenzene Valeraldehyde Thiophene
Dichlorobenzenes n-Hexaldehyde Diemethyl Disulfide
Trichlorobenzenes 2,5-Dimethybenzaldehyde 3-Methylthiophene
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Amines 2-Ethylthiophene
Toluene Dimethylamine Diethyl Disulfide
Xylenes (o-,m-,p-) Trimethylamine
Styrene Diethylamine
Nonane Buthylamine
Cumene
Ethyltoluene
Trimethylbenzene
Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
 Table 4 Table 5
Phase II/III PDI Odor Characterization Study: Phase III PDI Wind Tunnel Testing:
Targeted Compounds Detected Targeted Compounds from Untreated Tests
Benzene 12 detects in 14 samples Benzene 14 detects in 14 samples
Chlorobenzene 13 detects in 14 samples Chlorobenzene 13 detects in 14 samples
1,2 Dichlorobenzene 12 detects in 14 samples 1,2 Dichlorobenzenes 11 detects in 14 samples
1,4 Dichlorobenzene 12 detects in 14 samples 1,3 Dichlorobenzenes 0 detects in 14 samples
Ethylbenzene 12 detects in 14 samples 1,4 Dichlorobenzenes 12 detects in 14 samples
Hexachlorobenzene 0 detects in 14 samples Ethylbenzene 11 detects in 14 samples
Naphthalene 10 detects in 14 samples Hexachlorobenzene Not Analyzed
1,2,3 Trichlorobenzenes 0 detects in 14 samples Naphthalene 11 detects in 14 samples
1,2,4 Trichlorobenzenes 3 detects in 14 samples Toluene 14 detects in 14 samples
1,3,5 Trichlorobenzenes 0 detects in 14 samples 1,2,3 Trichlorobenzenes 0 detects in 14 samples
1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene 13 detects in 14 samples 1,2,4 Trichlorobenzenes 3 detects in 14 samples
Toluene 14 detects in 14 samples 1,3,5 Trichlorobenzenes 0 detects in 14 samples
Xylenes 14 detects in 14 samples 1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene 11 detects in 14 samples
Note: shaded compounds identified as primary odorants 1,3,5 Trimethylbenzene 10 detects in 14 samples
Xylenes (o-,m-,p-) 6 detects in 14 samples
Note: shaded compounds were detected during Phase III
mitigation technique tests, but not in untreated tests

Other COIs of Interest
PAHs
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Other
PCBs
Phenol
Mercury
Dimethyl Sulfide
Diemethyl Disulfide
Hydrogen Sulfide
Isobutyl Mercaptan
n-Propyl Mercaptan
Methyl Mercaptan
Ammonia
VOCs
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Acetone
2-Butanone
Table 6
Phases 1 – III PDI: Additional Compounds Analyzed
Phase 1 Wind Tunnel Phase II/III Odorant Study Phase III Wind Tunnel
1 detect in 15 tests Not Analyzed Not Analyzed
0 detects in 15 tests Not Analyzed Not Analyzed
0 detects in 15 tests Not Analyzed Not Analyzed
0 detects in 2 tests Not Analyzed Not Analyzed
8 detects in 15 tests Not Analyzed Not Analyzed
0 detects in 15 tests Not Analyzed Not Analyzed
Not Analyzed 10 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
Not Analyzed 6 detects in 14 samples 0 detects in 14 samples
0 detects in 6 tests 0 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
0 detects in 6 tests 2 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
0 detects in 6 tests 1 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
0 detects in 6 tests 1 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
0 detects in 6 tests Not Analyzed Not Analyzed
Not Analyzed 12 detects in 14 samples 1 detects in 2 samples
Not Analyzed 12 detects in 14 samples 1 detects in 2 samples
10 detects in 15 tests 0 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
Not Analyzed 0 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
Not Analyzed 0 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
Not Analyzed 0 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
12 detects in 15 tests 4 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
15 detects in 15 tests 8 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
 Table 6
Phases 1 – III PDI: Additional Compounds Analyzed (cont’d)
Carbon Tetrachloride Not Analyzed 0 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
Chloroform 15 detects in 15 tests 0 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
Cyanide Not Analyzed Not Analyzed Not Analyzed
Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether Not Analyzed 0 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
Methylene chloride 13 detects in 15 tests 1 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
Tetrachloroethene 12 detects in 15 tests 0 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Not Analyzed 0 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
Trichloroethene 15 detects in 15 tests 0 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Not Analyzed 13 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
Vinyl chloride Not Analyzed 0 detects in 14 samples Not Analyzed
 Appendix F

ProUCL Outputs
 Number Percent Maximum Distributional Assessments Exposure Point Concentration
Parameter of Results Nondetect Detecta Meanb Normal Gamma Lognormal  Conclusion Conc. Method
c

Aluminum 37 0 13,000 4,000 No Yes Yes Gamma 4,700 95% KM (BCA)

Antimony 37 0.0811 12 2 No No No No Distribution 4.7 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Arsenic 37 0.027 27 6.3 No Yes No Gamma 10 95% KM (Chebyshev)
Barium 37 0 2,800 600 No Yes Yes Gamma 1,200 95% KM (Chebyshev)
Cadmium 41 0.0976 21 3.6 No Yes Yes Gamma 7.2 95% KM (Chebyshev)
Chromium 37 0 3,700 170 No No Yes Lognormal 790 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Cobalt 37 0 180 13 No No No No Distribution 48 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Copper 41 0 560 84 No Yes Yes Gamma 150 95% KM (Chebyshev)
Manganese 37 0 1,800 350 No No No No Distribution 580 95% KM (Chebyshev)
Mercury 318 0.0283 160 9 No No No No Distribution 15 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Nickel 41 0 2,100 110 No No No No Distribution 350 95% KM (Chebyshev)
Vanadium 37 0 280 24 No No No No Distribution 78 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Dibenzofuran 33 0.2121 16 2 No Yes Yes Gamma 4.8 95% KM (Chebyshev)
Dieldrin 32 0.5313 0.024 0.0045 No Yes Yes Gamma 0.005 95% KM (t)
Dioxins (as TCDD equivalents) 8 0 230 75 Yes Yes No Normal 130 95% Student's‐t
PCBs 272 0.4007 23 0.59 No No No No Distribution 1.3 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene 326 0.6411 380 6.8 No No No No Distribution 17 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene 6 0 28 9 Yes Yes Yes Normal 19 95% KM (t)
1,2‐Dichlorobenzene 326 0.3865 1,100 15 No No No No Distribution 38 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
1,4‐Dichlorobenzene 326 0.3129 3,000 25 No No No No Distribution 84 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Benzene 325 0.1415 46 2.8 No No No No Distribution 4.7 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Chlorobenzene 325 0.2769 1,500 19 No No No No Distribution 52 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Ethylbenzene 325 0.2862 380 4.3 No No No No Distribution 12 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Hexachlorobenzene 37 0.2162 19 1.2 No No Yes Lognormal 6.4 99% KM (Chebyshev)
Pentachlorobenzene 4 0 6.7 1.9 na na na na 6.7 Maximum detected
Unres. comb. of 1,2,3/4,5 Tetrachlorobenzene 4 0 21 6.9 na na na na 21 Maximum detected
Xylenes, total 325 0.1938 310 28 No No No No Distribution 45 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
2‐Methylnaphthalene 33 0.1515 37 6.4 No Yes No Gamma 13 95% KM (Chebyshev)
Benz[a]anthracene 305 0.0492 31 2.3 No No No No Distribution 4 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Benzo[a]pyrene 305 0.0721 32 1.8 No No Yes Lognormal 3.2 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 305 0.0721 28 1.9 No No Yes Lognormal 3.2 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 305 0.1541 17 0.88 No No Yes Lognormal 1.5 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Chrysene 305 0.0426 30 2.3 No No No No Distribution 3.9 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 305 0.1574 5.6 0.4 No No Yes Lognormal 0.58 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Fluoranthene 305 0.0328 53 5 No No No No Distribution 8.2 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Fluorene 305 0.3213 340 3.2 No No Yes Lognormal 10 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Indeno[1,2,3‐cd]pyrene 305 0.0951 14 0.92 No No Yes Lognormal 1.5 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Naphthalene 322 0.1739 820 83 No No No No Distribution 130 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)
Phenanthrene 305 0.0328 100 7.1 No No No No Distribution 12 97.5% KM (Chebyshev)

Notes:  All concentrations except dioxins are reported in mg/kg and rounded to two significant figures.  Dioxins (as TCDD equivalents) is reported in ng/kg.
a
 ‐  Maximum detected length‐weighted average concentration.
b
 ‐  Arithmetic average concentration with non‐detected results included at the full detection limit.
c
 ‐  ProUCL 4.0 was used for the unweighted assessment based on core length‐weighted average concentrations.  The UCL reported represents the
c
 ‐  method recommended by ProUCL.  For most parameters, this was a Kaplan‐Meier non‐parametric method that accounts for multiple detection limits.
na ‐  not applicable
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
ALUMINUM (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 37 Number of Detected Data 37
Number of Distinct Detected Data 37 Number of Non‐Detect Data 0
Number of Missing Values 291 Percent Non‐Detects 0.00%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 673.3 Minimum Detected 6.512
Maximum Detected 12538 Maximum Detected 9.436
Mean of Detected 3951 Mean of Detected 8.086
SD of Detected 2404 SD of Detected 0.677
Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A     Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A    
Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A     Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A    

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.906 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.948
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.936 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.936
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 3951 Mean 8.086
SD 2404 SD 0.677
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 4618   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 5156

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE method failed to converge properly Mean in Log Scale     N/A    
SD in Log Scale     N/A    
Mean in Original Scale     N/A    
SD in Original Scale     N/A    
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL     N/A    
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL     N/A    

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 2.51 Data Follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 1574
nu star 185.8

A‐D Test Statistic 0.495 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.756 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.756 Mean 3951
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.146 SD 2371
Data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 395.2
  95% KM (t) UCL 4618
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 4601
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 4618
Minimum 673.3   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 4717
Maximum 12538   95% KM (BCA) UCL 4650
Mean 3951   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 4629
Median 4262 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 5674
SD 2404 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 6419
k star 2.51 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 7883
Theta star 1574
Nu star 185.8 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 155.2   95% KM (BCA) UCL 4650
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 4728
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 4765
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
ANTIMONY (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 37 Number of Detected Data 34
Number of Distinct Detected Data 34 Number of Non‐Detect Data 3
Number of Missing Values 291 Percent Non‐Detects 8.11%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.252 Minimum Detected ‐1.378
Maximum Detected 11.65 Maximum Detected 2.455
Mean of Detected 2.132 Mean of Detected 0.152
SD of Detected 2.662 SD of Detected 1.074
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.3 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐1.204
Maximum Non‐Detect 0.471 Maximum Non‐Detect ‐0.754

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 10
For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 27
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 27.03%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.704 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.916
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.933 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.933
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 1.974 Mean 5.65E‐04
SD 2.606 SD 1.153
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 2.698   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 2.614

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method Log ROS Method
Mean 1.422 Mean in Log Scale 0.0172
SD 3.18 SD in Log Scale 1.128
   95% MLE (t) UCL 2.305 Mean in Original Scale 1.978
   95% MLE (Tiku) UCL 2.327 SD in Original Scale 2.603
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 2.716
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 2.848

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.894 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 2.386
nu star 60.76

A‐D Test Statistic 1.97 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.778 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.778 Mean 1.983
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.156 SD 2.564
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.428
  95% KM (t) UCL 2.705
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 2.687
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 2.704
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 2.971
Maximum 11.65   95% KM (BCA) UCL 2.742
Mean 1.959   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 2.715
Median 0.824 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 3.848
SD 2.617 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 4.655
k star 0.303 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 6.241
Theta star 6.471
Nu star 22.41 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 12.64 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 4.655
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 3.472
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 3.562
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
ARSENIC (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 37 Number of Detected Data 36
Number of Distinct Detected Data 36 Number of Non‐Detect Data 1
Number of Missing Values 291 Percent Non‐Detects 2.70%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.865 Minimum Detected ‐0.145
Maximum Detected 26.99 Maximum Detected 3.296
Mean of Detected 6.486 Mean of Detected 1.545
SD of Detected 5.221 SD of Detected 0.89
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.35 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐1.05
Maximum Non‐Detect 0.35 Maximum Non‐Detect ‐1.05

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.8 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.897
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.935 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.935
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 6.316 Mean 1.456
SD 5.252 SD 1.031
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 7.774   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 9.688

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method Log ROS Method
Mean 6.249 Mean in Log Scale 1.486
SD 5.288 SD in Log Scale 0.948
   95% MLE (t) UCL 7.717 Mean in Original Scale 6.326
   95% MLE (Tiku) UCL 7.656 SD in Original Scale 5.241
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 7.8
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 8.083

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 1.565 Data Follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 4.145
nu star 112.7

A‐D Test Statistic 1.077 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.764 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.764 Mean 6.335
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.149 SD 5.159
Data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.86
  95% KM (t) UCL 7.787
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 7.75
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 7.786
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 8.271
Maximum 26.99   95% KM (BCA) UCL 7.786
Mean 6.311   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 7.833
Median 6.028 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 10.08
SD 5.258 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 11.71
k star 0.639 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 14.89
Theta star 9.881
Nu star 47.27 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 32.49   95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 10.08
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 9.182
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 9.335
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
BARIUM (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 37 Number of Detected Data 37
Number of Distinct Detected Data 37 Number of Non‐Detect Data 0
Number of Missing Values 291 Percent Non‐Detects 0.00%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 31.34 Minimum Detected 3.445
Maximum Detected 2817 Maximum Detected 7.943
Mean of Detected 599.1 Mean of Detected 5.665
SD of Detected 773.5 SD of Detected 1.252
Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A     Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A    
Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A     Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A    

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.7 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.961
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.936 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.936
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 599.1 Mean 5.665
SD 773.5 SD 1.252
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 813.8   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 1109

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE method failed to converge properly Mean in Log Scale     N/A    
SD in Log Scale     N/A    
Mean in Original Scale     N/A    
SD in Original Scale     N/A    
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL     N/A    
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL     N/A    

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.763 Data Follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 784.9
nu star 56.49

A‐D Test Statistic 1.01 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.785 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.785 Mean 599.1
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.15 SD 763
Data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 127.2
  95% KM (t) UCL 813.8
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 808.3
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 813.8
Minimum 31.34   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 883.6
Maximum 2817   95% KM (BCA) UCL 821.5
Mean 599.1   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 816.9
Median 285.2 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1153
SD 773.5 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1393
k star 0.763 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1864
Theta star 784.9
Nu star 56.49 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 40.21   95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1153
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 841.6
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 854.2
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
CADMIUM (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 41 Number of Detected Data 37
Number of Distinct Detected Data 37 Number of Non‐Detect Data 4
Number of Missing Values 287 Percent Non‐Detects 9.76%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.0468 Minimum Detected ‐3.061
Maximum Detected 20.84 Maximum Detected 3.037
Mean of Detected 3.95 Mean of Detected 0.399
SD of Detected 5.519 SD of Detected 1.551
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.044 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐3.124
Maximum Non‐Detect 0.987 Maximum Non‐Detect ‐0.0131

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 19
For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 22
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 46.34%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.696 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.972
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.936 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.936
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 3.59 Mean 0.184
SD 5.352 SD 1.656
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 4.997   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 9.377

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method Log ROS Method
Mean 0.857 Mean in Log Scale 0.169
SD 8.065 SD in Log Scale 1.661
   95% MLE (t) UCL 2.978 Mean in Original Scale 3.584
   95% MLE (Tiku) UCL 3.38 SD in Original Scale 5.356
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 5.008
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 5.322

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.596 Data Follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 6.623
nu star 44.13

A‐D Test Statistic 0.727 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.8 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.8 Mean 3.588
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.152 SD 5.288
Data follow Appr. Gamma Distribution at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.837
  95% KM (t) UCL 4.997
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 4.965
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 4.994
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 5.561
Maximum 20.84   95% KM (BCA) UCL 5.113
Mean 3.564   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 4.99
Median 1.071 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 7.237
SD 5.368 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 8.816
k star 0.242 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 11.92
Theta star 14.75
Nu star 19.82 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 10.72   95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 7.237
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 6.591
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 6.745
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
CHROMIUM (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 37 Number of Detected Data 37
Number of Distinct Detected Data 37 Number of Non‐Detect Data 0
Number of Missing Values 291 Percent Non‐Detects 0.00%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 3.2 Minimum Detected 1.163
Maximum Detected 3711 Maximum Detected 8.219
Mean of Detected 166 Mean of Detected 3.65
SD of Detected 604.5 SD of Detected 1.455
Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A     Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A    
Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A     Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A    

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.256 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.959
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.936 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.936
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 166 Mean 3.65
SD 604.5 SD 1.455
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 333.8   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 226.9

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE method failed to converge properly Mean in Log Scale     N/A    
SD in Log Scale     N/A    
Mean in Original Scale     N/A    
SD in Original Scale     N/A    
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL     N/A    
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL     N/A    

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.425 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 390.8
nu star 31.44

A‐D Test Statistic 3.087 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.825 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.825 Mean 166
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.154 SD 596.3
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 99.38
  95% KM (t) UCL 333.8
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 329.5
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 333.8
Minimum 3.2   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 1272
Maximum 3711   95% KM (BCA) UCL 370.2
Mean 166   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 360.8
Median 31.72 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 599.2
SD 604.5 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 786.6
k star 0.425 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1155
Theta star 390.8
Nu star 31.44 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 19.63 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 786.6
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 265.9
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 271.6
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
COBALT (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 37 Number of Detected Data 37
Number of Distinct Detected Data 37 Number of Non‐Detect Data 0
Number of Missing Values 291 Percent Non‐Detects 0.00%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.29 Minimum Detected ‐1.238
Maximum Detected 179 Maximum Detected 5.187
Mean of Detected 12.72 Mean of Detected 1.322
SD of Detected 34.07 SD of Detected 1.227
Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A     Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A    
Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A     Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A    

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.372 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.819
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.936 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.936
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 12.72 Mean 1.322
SD 34.07 SD 1.227
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 22.17   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 13.73

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE method failed to converge properly Mean in Log Scale     N/A    
SD in Log Scale     N/A    
Mean in Original Scale     N/A    
SD in Original Scale     N/A    
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL     N/A    
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL     N/A    

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.494 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 25.76
nu star 36.53

A‐D Test Statistic 6.056 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.811 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.811 Mean 12.72
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.153 SD 33.6
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 5.6
  95% KM (t) UCL 22.17
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 21.93
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 22.17
Minimum 0.29   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 49.98
Maximum 179   95% KM (BCA) UCL 23.19
Mean 12.72   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 22.66
Median 3.22 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 37.13
SD 34.07 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 47.69
k star 0.494 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 68.44
Theta star 25.76
Nu star 36.53 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 23.69 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 47.69
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 19.6
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 19.98
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
COPPER (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 41 Number of Detected Data 41
Number of Distinct Detected Data 41 Number of Non‐Detect Data 0
Number of Missing Values 287 Percent Non‐Detects 0.00%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 1.8 Minimum Detected 0.588
Maximum Detected 561 Maximum Detected 6.33
Mean of Detected 83.68 Mean of Detected 3.874
SD of Detected 101.8 SD of Detected 1.165
Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A     Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A    
Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A     Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A    

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.661 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.954
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.941 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.941
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 83.68 Mean 3.874
SD 101.8 SD 1.165
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 110.5   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 151.3

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE method failed to converge properly Mean in Log Scale     N/A    
SD in Log Scale     N/A    
Mean in Original Scale     N/A    
SD in Original Scale     N/A    
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL     N/A    
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL     N/A    

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.979 Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 85.48
nu star 80.27

A‐D Test Statistic 0.679 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.777 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.777 Mean 83.68
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.142 SD 100.6
Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 15.9
  95% KM (t) UCL 110.5
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 109.8
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 110.5
Minimum 1.8   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 130.1
Maximum 561   95% KM (BCA) UCL 112.5
Mean 83.68   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 111.4
Median 56.32 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 153
SD 101.8 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 183
k star 0.979 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 241.9
Theta star 85.48
Nu star 80.27 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 60.63   95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 153
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 110.8
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 111.9
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
MANGANESE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 37 Number of Detected Data 37
Number of Distinct Detected Data 37 Number of Non‐Detect Data 0
Number of Missing Values 291 Percent Non‐Detects 0.00%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 123.6 Minimum Detected 4.817
Maximum Detected 1790 Maximum Detected 7.49
Mean of Detected 349.3 Mean of Detected 5.636
SD of Detected 322.3 SD of Detected 0.591
Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A     Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A    
Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A     Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A    

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.604 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.878
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.936 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.936
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 349.3 Mean 5.636
SD 322.3 SD 0.591
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 438.8   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 405.9

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE method failed to converge properly Mean in Log Scale     N/A    
SD in Log Scale     N/A    
Mean in Original Scale     N/A    
SD in Original Scale     N/A    
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL     N/A    
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL     N/A    

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 2.25 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 155.2
nu star 166.5

A‐D Test Statistic 2.556 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.757 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.757 Mean 349.3
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.146 SD 317.9
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 52.99
  95% KM (t) UCL 438.8
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 436.5
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 438.8
Minimum 123.6   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 512.8
Maximum 1790   95% KM (BCA) UCL 452.9
Mean 349.3   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 441.6
Median 235.1 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 580.3
SD 322.3 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 680.2
k star 2.25 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 876.5
Theta star 155.2
Nu star 166.5 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 137.7   95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 580.3
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 422.5
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 426
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
MERCURY (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 318 Number of Detected Data 309
Number of Distinct Detected Data 305 Number of Non‐Detect Data 9
Number of Missing Values 10 Percent Non‐Detects 2.83%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.008 Minimum Detected ‐4.828
Maximum Detected 156 Maximum Detected 5.05
Mean of Detected 9.291 Mean of Detected 0.507
SD of Detected 16.38 SD of Detected 2.244
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.0067 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.006
Maximum Non‐Detect 0.361 Maximum Non‐Detect ‐1.018

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 81
For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 237
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 25.47%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.294 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0662
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0504 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0504
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 9.029 Mean 0.371
SD 16.22 SD 2.362
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 10.53   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 32.87

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method Log ROS Method
Mean 5.513 Mean in Log Scale 0.376
SD 19.8 SD in Log Scale 2.35
   95% MLE (t) UCL 7.344 Mean in Original Scale 9.028
   95% MLE (Tiku) UCL 7.367 SD in Original Scale 16.22
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 10.57
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 10.81

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.383 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 24.26
nu star 236.7

A‐D Test Statistic 6.045 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.85 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.85 Mean 9.028
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0553 SD 16.19
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.909
  95% KM (t) UCL 10.53
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 10.52
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 10.53
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 10.79
Maximum 156   95% KM (BCA) UCL 10.62
Mean 9.028   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 10.58
Median 1.663 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 12.99
SD 16.22 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 14.71
k star 0.3 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 18.08
Theta star 30.11
Nu star 190.7 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 159.7 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 14.71
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 10.78
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 10.79
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
NICKEL (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 41 Number of Detected Data 41
Number of Distinct Detected Data 41 Number of Non‐Detect Data 0
Number of Missing Values 287 Percent Non‐Detects 0.00%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 3 Minimum Detected 1.099
Maximum Detected 2090 Maximum Detected 7.645
Mean of Detected 111.1 Mean of Detected 3.279
SD of Detected 348.3 SD of Detected 1.362
Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A     Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A    
Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A     Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A    

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.325 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.904
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.941 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.941
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 111.1 Mean 3.279
SD 348.3 SD 1.362
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 202.6   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 122.2

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE method failed to converge properly Mean in Log Scale     N/A    
SD in Log Scale     N/A    
Mean in Original Scale     N/A    
SD in Original Scale     N/A    
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL     N/A    
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL     N/A    

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.434 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 255.7
nu star 35.61

A‐D Test Statistic 5.215 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.824 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.824 Mean 111.1
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.147 SD 344
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 54.39
  95% KM (t) UCL 202.6
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 200.5
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 202.6
Minimum 3   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 389.5
Maximum 2090   95% KM (BCA) UCL 215.8
Mean 111.1   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 210.5
Median 27.32 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 348.1
SD 348.3 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 450.7
k star 0.434 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 652.2
Theta star 255.7
Nu star 35.61 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 22.95   95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 348.1
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 172.3
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 175.1
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
VANADIUM (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 37 Number of Detected Data 37
Number of Distinct Detected Data 37 Number of Non‐Detect Data 0
Number of Missing Values 291 Percent Non‐Detects 0.00%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 1.753 Minimum Detected 0.562
Maximum Detected 279 Maximum Detected 5.631
Mean of Detected 23.65 Mean of Detected 2.248
SD of Detected 53.14 SD of Detected 1.11
Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A     Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A    
Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A     Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A    

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.416 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.878
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.936 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.936
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 23.65 Mean 2.248
SD 53.14 SD 1.11
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 38.4   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 27.93

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE method failed to converge properly Mean in Log Scale     N/A    
SD in Log Scale     N/A    
Mean in Original Scale     N/A    
SD in Original Scale     N/A    
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL     N/A    
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL     N/A    

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.629 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 37.59
nu star 46.56

A‐D Test Statistic 4.282 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.797 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.797 Mean 23.65
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.152 SD 52.41
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 8.736
  95% KM (t) UCL 38.4
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 38.02
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 38.4
Minimum 1.753   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 57.4
Maximum 279   95% KM (BCA) UCL 38.9
Mean 23.65   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 39.84
Median 9.179 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 61.73
SD 53.14 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 78.21
k star 0.629 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 110.6
Theta star 37.59
Nu star 46.56 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 31.91 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 78.21
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 34.52
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 35.1
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
DIBENZOFURAN (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 33 Number of Detected Data 26
Number of Distinct Detected Data 26 Number of Non‐Detect Data 7
Number of Missing Values 295 Percent Non‐Detects 21.21%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.0476 Minimum Detected ‐3.044
Maximum Detected 16.35 Maximum Detected 2.794
Mean of Detected 2.417 Mean of Detected ‐0.0461
SD of Detected 4.12 SD of Detected 1.453
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.0537 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐2.925
Maximum Non‐Detect 1.087 Maximum Non‐Detect 0.0837

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 19
For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 14
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 57.58%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.532 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.969
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.92 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.92
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 1.937 Mean ‐0.597
SD 3.763 SD 1.763
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 3.046   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 6.157

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE yields a negative mean Mean in Log Scale ‐0.579
SD in Log Scale 1.674
Mean in Original Scale 1.924
SD in Original Scale 3.768
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 3.088
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 3.463

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.606 Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 3.986
nu star 31.54

A‐D Test Statistic 0.781 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.793 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.793 Mean 1.927
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.179 SD 3.709
Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.659
  95% KM (t) UCL 3.043
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 3.01
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 3.036
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 5.439
Maximum 16.35   95% KM (BCA) UCL 3.102
Mean 1.933   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 3.096
Median 0.624 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 4.798
SD 3.765 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 6.04
k star 0.194 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 8.48
Theta star 9.981
Nu star 12.78 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 5.745   95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 4.798
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 4.299
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 4.489
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
DIELDRIN (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 32 Number of Detected Data 15
Number of Distinct Detected Data 15 Number of Non‐Detect Data 17
Number of Missing Values 296 Percent Non‐Detects 53.13%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.00104 Minimum Detected ‐6.873
Maximum Detected 0.0243 Maximum Detected ‐3.717
Mean of Detected 0.00619 Mean of Detected ‐5.602
SD of Detected 0.00681 SD of Detected 1.044
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.001 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐6.908
Maximum Non‐Detect 0.00901 Maximum Non‐Detect ‐4.709

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 28
For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 4
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 87.50%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.77 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.924
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.881 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.881
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 0.00372 Mean ‐6.288
SD 0.00526 SD 1.164
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 0.0053   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 0.00473

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE yields a negative mean Mean in Log Scale ‐6.703
SD in Log Scale 1.31
Mean in Original Scale 0.00318
SD in Original Scale 0.00541
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.00484
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 0.00526

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.928 Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 0.00667
nu star 27.83

A‐D Test Statistic 0.648 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.761 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.761 Mean 0.00357
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.227 SD 0.00516
Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 9.50E‐04
  95% KM (t) UCL 0.00518
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 0.00514
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 0.00514
Minimum 0.00104   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 0.00622
Maximum 0.0243   95% KM (BCA) UCL 0.00536
Mean 0.00609   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 0.00523
Median 0.00462 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 0.00771
SD 0.00519 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 0.00951
k star 1.511 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 0.013
Theta star 0.00403
Nu star 96.7 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 75.02   95% KM (t) UCL 0.00518
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 0.00785
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 0.00796
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
DIOXINS (as TCDD equivalents)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Observations 8 Number of Distinct Observations 8

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum 0.6 Minimum of Log Data ‐0.51083
Maximum 229.25 Maximum of Log Data 5.434813
Mean 74.90375 Mean of log Data 2.891502
Median 64.715 SD of log Data 2.474948
SD 80.30804
Coefficient of Variation 1.07215
Skewness 0.97689

Warning:  There are only 8 Values in this data
Note:  It should be noted that even though bootstrap methods may be performed on this data set,
the resulting calculations may not be reliable enough to draw conclusions

The literature suggests to use bootstrap methods on data sets having more than 10‐15 observations.

Relevant UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test Lognormal Distribution Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.883714 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.809705
Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818 Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.818
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
   95% Student's‐t UCL 128.6969   95% H‐UCL 425641.8
   95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)   95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 701.9146
   95% Adjusted‐CLT UCL 132.0848 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 936.9635
   95% Modified‐t UCL 130.3313   99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 1398.672

Gamma Distribution Test Data Distribution
k star (bias corrected) 0.366343 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 204.4636
MLE of Mean 74.90375
MLE of Standard Deviation 123.7542
nu star 5.861484
Approximate Chi Square Value (.05) 1.569493 Nonparametric Statistics
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.01946   95% CLT UCL 121.6064
Adjusted Chi Square Value 1.075581   95% Jackknife UCL 128.6969
  95% Standard Bootstrap UCL 118.4452
Anderson‐Darling Test Statistic 0.617797   95% Bootstrap‐t UCL 149.8426
Anderson‐Darling 5% Critical Value 0.770601   95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL 141.6336
Kolmogorov‐Smirnov Test Statistic 0.251247   95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 119.74
Kolmogorov‐Smirnov 5% Critical Value 0.310868   95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 129.14
Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level 95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 198.6667
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 252.2191
Assuming Gamma Distribution 99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL 357.4123
   95% Approximate Gamma UCL 279.7381
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 408.1951

Potential UCL to Use Use 95% Student's‐t UCL 128.6969

General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
PCBs (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 272 Number of Detected Data 163
Number of Distinct Detected Data 163 Number of Non‐Detect Data 109
Number of Missing Values 19 Percent Non‐Detects 40.07%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.00448 Minimum Detected ‐5.408
Maximum Detected 23 Maximum Detected 3.135
Mean of Detected 0.96 Mean of Detected ‐1.856
SD of Detected 2.5 SD of Detected 1.917
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00485 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.329
Maximum Non‐Detect 0.278 Maximum Non‐Detect ‐1.282

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 217

For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 55
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 79.78%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.351 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.114
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0694 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0694
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 0.583 Mean ‐2.832
SD 1.987 SD 1.984
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 0.782   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 0.51

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE yields a negative mean Mean in Log Scale ‐3.234
SD in Log Scale 2.291
Mean in Original Scale 0.578
SD in Original Scale 1.989
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.79
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 0.861

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.365 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 2.629
nu star 119

A‐D Test Statistic 9.933 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.852 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.852 Mean 0.58
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0788 SD 1.984
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.121
  95% KM (t) UCL 0.779
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 0.778
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 0.779
Minimum 0.00448   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 0.882
Maximum 23   95% KM (BCA) UCL 0.794
Mean 0.781   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 0.788
Median 0.342 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1.106
SD 1.949 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1.334
k star 0.539 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1.781
Theta star 1.449
Nu star 293.1 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 254.4 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1.334
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 0.899
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 0.9
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
1,2,4‐TRICHLOROBENZENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 326 Number of Detected Data 117
Number of Distinct Detected Data 117 Number of Non‐Detect Data 209
Number of Missing Values 2 Percent Non‐Detects 64.11%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.00385 Minimum Detected ‐5.559
Maximum Detected 382.8 Maximum Detected 5.947
Mean of Detected 15.92 Mean of Detected 0.931
SD of Detected 51.51 SD of Detected 2.482
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00651 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.035
Maximum Non‐Detect 32.03 Maximum Non‐Detect 3.467

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 319

For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 7
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 97.85%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.379 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.205
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0819 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0819
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 6.257 Mean ‐1.753
SD 31.67 SD 3.277
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 9.15   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 36.59

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE yields a negative mean Mean in Log Scale ‐2.087
SD in Log Scale 2.736
Mean in Original Scale 5.732
SD in Original Scale 31.71
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 8.889
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 10.07

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.36 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 44.22
nu star 84.26

A‐D Test Statistic 4.008 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.852 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.852 Mean 5.811
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0916 SD 31.66
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 1.761
  95% KM (t) UCL 8.717
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 8.708
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 8.709
Minimum 0.00385   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 12.81
Maximum 382.8   95% KM (BCA) UCL 9.322
Mean 16.38   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 8.979
Median 12.48 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 13.49
SD 31.36 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 16.81
k star 0.822 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 23.34
Theta star 19.92
Nu star 536.2 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 483.5 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 16.81
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 18.16
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 18.17
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
1,2,4‐TRIMETHYLBENZENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 6 Number of Detected Data 6
Number of Distinct Detected Data 6 Number of Non‐Detect Data 0
Number of Missing Values 311 Percent Non‐Detects 0.00%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.017 Minimum Detected ‐4.075
Maximum Detected 28 Maximum Detected 3.332
Mean of Detected 9.036 Mean of Detected 0.124
SD of Detected 11.97 SD of Detected 3.238
Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A     Minimum Non‐Detect     N/A    
Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A     Maximum Non‐Detect     N/A    

Warning:  There are only 6 Detected Values in this data
Note:  It should be noted that even though bootstrap may be performed on this data set
the resulting calculations may not be reliable enough to draw conclusions

It is recommended to have 10‐15 or more distinct observations for accurate and meaningful results.

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.789 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.852
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.788
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 9.036 Mean 0.124
SD 11.97 SD 3.238
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 18.88   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 1.14E+10

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE method failed to converge properly Mean in Log Scale     N/A    
SD in Log Scale     N/A    
Mean in Original Scale     N/A    
SD in Original Scale     N/A    
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL     N/A    
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL     N/A    

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.275 Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 32.89
nu star 3.297

A‐D Test Statistic 0.356 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.762 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.762 Mean 9.036
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.356 SD 10.93
Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 4.887
  95% KM (t) UCL 18.88
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 17.07
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 18.88
Minimum 0.017   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 56.12
Maximum 28   95% KM (BCA) UCL 16.69
Mean 9.036   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 17.04
Median 3.062 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 30.34
SD 11.97 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 39.56
k star 0.275 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 57.66
Theta star 32.89
Nu star 3.297 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 0.466   95% KM (t) UCL 18.88
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 63.98   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 17.04
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 140.4
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
1,2‐DICHLOROBENZENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 326 Number of Detected Data 200
Number of Distinct Detected Data 200 Number of Non‐Detect Data 126
Number of Missing Values 2 Percent Non‐Detects 38.65%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 4.20E‐04 Minimum Detected ‐7.775
Maximum Detected 1078 Maximum Detected 6.982
Mean of Detected 23.88 Mean of Detected 0.489
SD of Detected 83.65 SD of Detected 3.325
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00658 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.023
Maximum Non‐Detect 25.32 Maximum Non‐Detect 3.232

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 282

For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 44
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 86.50%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.388 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.165
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0626 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0626
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 14.74 Mean ‐1.343
SD 66.47 SD 3.674
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 20.81   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 226.9

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE yields a negative mean Mean in Log Scale ‐1.37
SD in Log Scale 3.517
Mean in Original Scale 14.66
SD in Original Scale 66.49
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 21.47
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 25.41

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.262 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 91.17
nu star 104.8

A‐D Test Statistic 1.916 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.886 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.886 Mean 14.67
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0696 SD 66.38
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 3.686
  95% KM (t) UCL 20.75
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 20.73
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 20.74
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 28.29
Maximum 1078   95% KM (BCA) UCL 21.79
Mean 15.66   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 21.5
Median 2.394 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 30.73
SD 66.32 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 37.69
k star 0.255 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 51.34
Theta star 61.39
Nu star 166.3 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 137.5 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 37.69
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 18.94
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 18.95
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
1,4‐DICHLOROBENZENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 326 Number of Detected Data 224
Number of Distinct Detected Data 224 Number of Non‐Detect Data 102
Number of Missing Values 2 Percent Non‐Detects 31.29%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 8.78E‐04 Minimum Detected ‐7.038
Maximum Detected 3026 Maximum Detected 8.015
Mean of Detected 35.92 Mean of Detected 0.45
SD of Detected 205.8 SD of Detected 3.456
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00658 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.023
Maximum Non‐Detect 25.32 Maximum Non‐Detect 3.232

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 272

For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 54
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 83.44%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.431 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.156
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0592 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0592
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 24.77 Mean ‐1.03
SD 171.3 SD 3.777
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 40.42   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 520.8

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE yields a negative mean Mean in Log Scale ‐1.105
SD in Log Scale 3.698
Mean in Original Scale 24.69
SD in Original Scale 171.3
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 43.12
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 58.06

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.23 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 156.3
nu star 103

A‐D Test Statistic 3.978 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.901 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.901 Mean 24.7
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.067 SD 171
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 9.495
  95% KM (t) UCL 40.36
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 40.32
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 40.35
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 84.61
Maximum 3026   95% KM (BCA) UCL 45.13
Mean 24.73   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 43.26
Median 0.109 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 66.09
SD 171.3 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 83.99
k star 0.0898 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 119.2
Theta star 275.5
Nu star 58.53 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 41.94 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 83.99
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 34.52
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 34.57
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
BENZENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 325 Number of Detected Data 279
Number of Distinct Detected Data 275 Number of Non‐Detect Data 46
Number of Missing Values 2 Percent Non‐Detects 14.15%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 4.94E‐04 Minimum Detected ‐7.613
Maximum Detected 45.86 Maximum Detected 3.826
Mean of Detected 3.248 Mean of Detected ‐1.101
SD of Detected 5.867 SD of Detected 3.069
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00139 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐6.578
Maximum Non‐Detect 9.48 Maximum Non‐Detect 2.249

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 300

For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 25
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 92.31%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.29 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.162
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.053 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.053
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 2.811 Mean ‐1.679
SD 5.548 SD 3.245
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 3.319   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 53.58

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE yields a negative mean Mean in Log Scale ‐1.686
SD in Log Scale 3.214
Mean in Original Scale 2.79
SD in Original Scale 5.551
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 3.311
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 3.408

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.301 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 10.78
nu star 168.2

A‐D Test Statistic 4.065 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.87 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.87 Mean 2.796
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0592 SD 5.542
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.308
  95% KM (t) UCL 3.304
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 3.303
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 3.304
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 3.401
Maximum 45.86   95% KM (BCA) UCL 3.337
Mean 2.795   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 3.308
Median 0.44 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 4.139
SD 5.549 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 4.72
k star 0.16 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 5.861
Theta star 17.47
Nu star 104 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 81.47 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 4.72
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 3.568
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 3.571
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
CHLOROBENZENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 325 Number of Detected Data 235
Number of Distinct Detected Data 235 Number of Non‐Detect Data 90
Number of Missing Values 2 Percent Non‐Detects 27.69%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.0012 Minimum Detected ‐6.725
Maximum Detected 1504 Maximum Detected 7.316
Mean of Detected 26.33 Mean of Detected 0.308
SD of Detected 109.5 SD of Detected 3.28
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00658 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.023
Maximum Non‐Detect 25.32 Maximum Non‐Detect 3.232

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 279

For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 46
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 85.85%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.405 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.14
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0578 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0578
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 19.1 Mean ‐1.044
SD 93.77 SD 3.656
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 27.68   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 323.6

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE yields a negative mean Mean in Log Scale ‐1.075
SD in Log Scale 3.594
Mean in Original Scale 19.04
SD in Original Scale 93.78
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 28.77
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 34.54

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.241 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 109.3
nu star 113.2

A‐D Test Statistic 4.032 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.896 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.896 Mean 19.05
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0655 SD 93.64
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 5.205
  95% KM (t) UCL 27.64
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 27.61
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 27.63
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 39.2
Maximum 1504   95% KM (BCA) UCL 29.32
Mean 19.07   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 28.68
Median 0.199 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 41.74
SD 93.78 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 51.56
k star 0.0983 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 70.84
Theta star 194
Nu star 63.87 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 46.49 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 51.56
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 26.2
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 26.24
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
ETHYLBENZENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 325 Number of Detected Data 232
Number of Distinct Detected Data 230 Number of Non‐Detect Data 93
Number of Missing Values 2 Percent Non‐Detects 28.62%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.00103 Minimum Detected ‐6.881
Maximum Detected 376.1 Maximum Detected 5.93
Mean of Detected 5.487 Mean of Detected ‐0.9
SD of Detected 27.81 SD of Detected 2.959
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00139 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐6.578
Maximum Non‐Detect 26.11 Maximum Non‐Detect 3.262

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 322

For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 3
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 99.08%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.422 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.17
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0582 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0582
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 4.117 Mean ‐1.984
SD 23.61 SD 3.325
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 6.278   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 42.51

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE yields a negative mean Mean in Log Scale ‐2.201
SD in Log Scale 3.316
Mean in Original Scale 3.92
SD in Original Scale 23.61
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 6.32
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 7.705

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.269 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 20.4
nu star 124.8

A‐D Test Statistic 6.099 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.883 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.883 Mean 3.959
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0655 SD 23.57
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 1.311
  95% KM (t) UCL 6.12
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 6.114
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 6.119
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 13.33
Maximum 376.1   95% KM (BCA) UCL 6.595
Mean 4.051   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 6.365
Median 0.165 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 9.671
SD 23.6 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 12.14
k star 0.109 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 17
Theta star 37.04
Nu star 71.09 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 52.68 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 12.14
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 5.466
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 5.474
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
HEXACHLOROBENZENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 37 Number of Detected Data 29
Number of Distinct Detected Data 29 Number of Non‐Detect Data 8
Number of Missing Values 291 Percent Non‐Detects 21.62%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.0106 Minimum Detected ‐4.551
Maximum Detected 18.51 Maximum Detected 2.918
Mean of Detected 1.342 Mean of Detected ‐1.257
SD of Detected 3.629 SD of Detected 1.699
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00106 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐6.849
Maximum Non‐Detect 2.5 Maximum Non‐Detect 0.916

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 34
For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 3
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 91.89%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.386 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.972
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.926 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.926
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 1.12 Mean ‐1.691
SD 3.236 SD 2.115
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 2.018   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 6.058

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE yields a negative mean Mean in Log Scale ‐1.781
SD in Log Scale 1.908
Mean in Original Scale 1.063
SD in Original Scale 3.246
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 2.021
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 2.633

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.4 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 3.353
nu star 23.22

A‐D Test Statistic 2.07 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.829 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.829 Mean 1.075
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.174 SD 3.199
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.535
  95% KM (t) UCL 1.979
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 1.955
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 1.974
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 5.673
Maximum 18.51   95% KM (BCA) UCL 2.079
Mean 1.097   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 2.044
Median 0.286 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 3.409
SD 3.238 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 4.419
k star 0.192 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 6.403
Theta star 5.722
Nu star 14.19 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 6.7   99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 6.403
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 2.323
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 2.403
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
PENTACHLOROBENZENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 4 Number of Detected Data 4
Number of Distinct Detected Data 4 Number of Non‐Detect Data 0
Number of Missing Values 293 Percent Non‐Detects 0.00%

Warning: This data set only has 4 observations!
Data set is too small to compute reliable and meaningful statistics and estimates!
The data set for variable PENTACHLOROBENZENE (mg/kg) was not processed!

It is suggested to collect at least 8 to 10 observations before using these statistical methods!
If possible, compute and collect Data Quality Objectives (DQO) based sample size and analytical results.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
UNRES. COMB. OF 1,2,3/4,5 TETRACHLOROBENZENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 4 Number of Detected Data 4
Number of Distinct Detected Data 4 Number of Non‐Detect Data 0
Number of Missing Values 293 Percent Non‐Detects 0.00%

Warning: This data set only has 4 observations!
Data set is too small to compute reliable and meaningful statistics and estimates!
The data set for variable UNRES. COMB. OF 1,2,3/4,5 TETRACHLOROBENZENE (mg/kg) was not processed!

It is suggested to collect at least 8 to 10 observations before using these statistical methods!
If possible, compute and collect Data Quality Objectives (DQO) based sample size and analytical results.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
XYLENES, TOTAL (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 325 Number of Detected Data 262
Number of Distinct Detected Data 262 Number of Non‐Detect Data 63
Number of Missing Values 2 Percent Non‐Detects 19.38%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.00245 Minimum Detected ‐6.01
Maximum Detected 314.3 Maximum Detected 5.75
Mean of Detected 34.32 Mean of Detected 0.802
SD of Detected 55.01 SD of Detected 3.604
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00308 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.782
Maximum Non‐Detect 0.971 Maximum Non‐Detect ‐0.0299

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 159

For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 166
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 48.92%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.266 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.174
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0547 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0547
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 27.68 Mean ‐0.281
SD 51.21 SD 3.95
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 32.36   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 2622

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE yields a negative mean Mean in Log Scale ‐0.293
SD in Log Scale 3.963
Mean in Original Scale 27.67
SD in Original Scale 51.21
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 32.43
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 33.06

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.258 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 133
nu star 135.2

A‐D Test Statistic 5.503 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.889 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.889 Mean 27.67
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0619 SD 51.13
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 2.842
  95% KM (t) UCL 32.36
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 32.35
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 32.36
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 32.89
Maximum 314.3   95% KM (BCA) UCL 32.37
Mean 27.67   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 32.37
Median 1.28 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 40.06
SD 51.21 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 45.42
k star 0.12 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 55.95
Theta star 231.3
Nu star 77.77 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 58.46 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 45.42
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 36.81
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 36.86
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
2‐METHYLNAPHTHALENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 33 Number of Detected Data 28
Number of Distinct Detected Data 28 Number of Non‐Detect Data 5
Number of Missing Values 295 Percent Non‐Detects 15.15%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.0436 Minimum Detected ‐3.133
Maximum Detected 37.37 Maximum Detected 3.621
Mean of Detected 7.503 Mean of Detected 1.059
SD of Detected 8.905 SD of Detected 1.834
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.0537 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐2.925
Maximum Non‐Detect 0.122 Maximum Non‐Detect ‐2.107

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 7
For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 26
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 21.21%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.759 Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic 0.893
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.924 5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.924
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 6.372 Mean 0.391
SD 8.62 SD 2.332
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 8.913   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 93.2

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method Log ROS Method
Mean 5.005 Mean in Log Scale 0.577
SD 10.11 SD in Log Scale 2.045
   95% MLE (t) UCL 7.985 Mean in Original Scale 6.384
   95% MLE (Tiku) UCL 7.99 SD in Original Scale 8.61
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 8.92
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 9.552

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.595 Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 12.6
nu star 33.34

A‐D Test Statistic 0.367 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.796 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.796 Mean 6.374
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.173 SD 8.487
Data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 1.504
  95% KM (t) UCL 8.922
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 8.848
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 8.915
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 10.2
Maximum 37.37   95% KM (BCA) UCL 9.04
Mean 6.366   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 8.957
Median 4 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 12.93
SD 8.624 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 15.77
k star 0.186 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 21.34
Theta star 34.22
Nu star 12.28 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 5.411   95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 12.93
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 14.45
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 15.1
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 305 Number of Detected Data 290
Number of Distinct Detected Data 287 Number of Non‐Detect Data 15
Number of Missing Values 23 Percent Non‐Detects 4.92%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.00251 Minimum Detected ‐5.987
Maximum Detected 31.46 Maximum Detected 3.449
Mean of Detected 2.442 Mean of Detected ‐0.579
SD of Detected 4.901 SD of Detected 1.96
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00472 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.356
Maximum Non‐Detect 1.172 Maximum Non‐Detect 0.159

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 196

For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 109
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 64.26%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.309 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.073
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.052 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.052
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 2.324 Mean ‐0.765
SD 4.806 SD 2.108
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 2.778   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 5.301

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE yields a negative mean Mean in Log Scale ‐0.755
SD in Log Scale 2.073
Mean in Original Scale 2.323
SD in Original Scale 4.807
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 2.792
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 2.854

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.438 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 5.575
nu star 254

A‐D Test Statistic 5.126 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.836 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.836 Mean 2.323
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0568 SD 4.799
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.275
  95% KM (t) UCL 2.777
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 2.776
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 2.777
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 2.858
Maximum 31.46   95% KM (BCA) UCL 2.792
Mean 2.322   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 2.781
Median 0.519 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 3.523
SD 4.807 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 4.042
k star 0.287 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 5.062
Theta star 8.085
Nu star 175.2 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 145.6 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 4.042
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 2.794
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 2.796
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
BENZO(A)PYRENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 305 Number of Detected Data 283
Number of Distinct Detected Data 279 Number of Non‐Detect Data 22
Number of Missing Values 23 Percent Non‐Detects 7.21%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.00358 Minimum Detected ‐5.632
Maximum Detected 32.12 Maximum Detected 3.469
Mean of Detected 1.886 Mean of Detected ‐0.88
SD of Detected 4.081 SD of Detected 1.908
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00454 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.395
Maximum Non‐Detect 2.429 Maximum Non‐Detect 0.887

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 253

For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 52
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 82.95%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.322 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0502
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0527 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0527
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 1.758 Mean ‐1.127
SD 3.958 SD 2.102
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 2.132   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 3.427

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE yields a negative mean Mean in Log Scale ‐1.124
SD in Log Scale 2.061
Mean in Original Scale 1.752
SD in Original Scale 3.959
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 2.138
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 2.196

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.427 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 4.414
nu star 241.9

A‐D Test Statistic 6.681 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.839 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.839 Mean 1.754
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0577 SD 3.953
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.227
  95% KM (t) UCL 2.128
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 2.127
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 2.128
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 2.213
Maximum 32.12   95% KM (BCA) UCL 2.148
Mean 1.751   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 2.136
Median 0.32 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 2.742
SD 3.96 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 3.17
k star 0.252 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 4.01
Theta star 6.94
Nu star 153.9 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 126.2 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 3.17
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 2.135
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 2.137
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 305 Number of Detected Data 283
Number of Distinct Detected Data 283 Number of Non‐Detect Data 22
Number of Missing Values 23 Percent Non‐Detects 7.21%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.00453 Minimum Detected ‐5.398
Maximum Detected 27.8 Maximum Detected 3.325
Mean of Detected 2 Mean of Detected ‐0.691
SD of Detected 3.911 SD of Detected 1.811
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00454 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.395
Maximum Non‐Detect 2.429 Maximum Non‐Detect 0.887

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 247

For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 58
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 80.98%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.305 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0428
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0527 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0527
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 1.863 Mean ‐0.956
SD 3.8 SD 2.049
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 2.222   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 3.566

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE yields a negative mean Mean in Log Scale ‐0.935
SD in Log Scale 1.974
Mean in Original Scale 1.858
SD in Original Scale 3.801
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 2.233
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 2.285

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.462 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 4.331
nu star 261.3

A‐D Test Statistic 6.587 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.83 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.83 Mean 1.859
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0574 SD 3.795
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.218
  95% KM (t) UCL 2.218
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 2.217
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 2.218
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 2.291
Maximum 27.8   95% KM (BCA) UCL 2.226
Mean 1.857   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 2.235
Median 0.41 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 2.808
SD 3.802 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 3.219
k star 0.262 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 4.025
Theta star 7.096
Nu star 159.6 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 131.4 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 3.219
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 2.256
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 2.258
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 305 Number of Detected Data 258
Number of Distinct Detected Data 256 Number of Non‐Detect Data 47
Number of Missing Values 23 Percent Non‐Detects 15.41%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.00224 Minimum Detected ‐6.1
Maximum Detected 17.25 Maximum Detected 2.848
Mean of Detected 0.962 Mean of Detected ‐1.364
SD of Detected 1.986 SD of Detected 1.777
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00454 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.395
Maximum Non‐Detect 9.3 Maximum Non‐Detect 2.23

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 302

For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 3
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 99.02%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.314 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0452
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0552 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0552
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 0.847 Mean ‐1.72
SD 1.867 SD 1.969
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 1.023   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 1.296

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE method failed to converge properly Mean in Log Scale ‐1.782
SD in Log Scale 1.946
Mean in Original Scale 0.819
SD in Original Scale 1.857
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 1.002
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 1.029

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.479 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 2.009
nu star 247.1

A‐D Test Statistic 5.349 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.826 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.826 Mean 0.824
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0604 SD 1.855
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.107
  95% KM (t) UCL 0.999
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 0.999
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 0.999
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 1.043
Maximum 17.25   95% KM (BCA) UCL 1.011
Mean 0.828   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 1.008
Median 0.183 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1.288
SD 1.855 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1.489
k star 0.199 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1.884
Theta star 4.151
Nu star 121.7 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 97.2 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1.489
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 1.036
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 1.037
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
CHRYSENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 305 Number of Detected Data 292
Number of Distinct Detected Data 288 Number of Non‐Detect Data 13
Number of Missing Values 23 Percent Non‐Detects 4.26%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.00453 Minimum Detected ‐5.398
Maximum Detected 29.97 Maximum Detected 3.4
Mean of Detected 2.42 Mean of Detected ‐0.463
SD of Detected 4.383 SD of Detected 1.966
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00472 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.356
Maximum Non‐Detect 0.16 Maximum Non‐Detect ‐1.833

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 74
For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 231
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 24.26%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.291 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.1
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0518 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0518
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 2.318 Mean ‐0.647
SD 4.316 SD 2.125
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 2.726   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 6.313

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method Log ROS Method
Mean 1.448 Mean in Log Scale ‐0.623
SD 5.19 SD in Log Scale 2.075
   95% MLE (t) UCL 1.938 Mean in Original Scale 2.318
   95% MLE (Tiku) UCL 1.94 SD in Original Scale 4.315
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 2.745
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 2.787

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.473 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 5.12
nu star 276.1

A‐D Test Statistic 2.924 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.828 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.828 Mean 2.318
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0563 SD 4.309
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.247
  95% KM (t) UCL 2.726
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 2.724
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 2.725
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 2.795
Maximum 29.97   95% KM (BCA) UCL 2.725
Mean 2.317   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 2.741
Median 0.693 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 3.395
SD 4.316 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 3.861
k star 0.315 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 4.777
Theta star 7.363
Nu star 192 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 160.9 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 3.861
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 2.764
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 2.767
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 305 Number of Detected Data 257
Number of Distinct Detected Data 254 Number of Non‐Detect Data 48
Number of Missing Values 23 Percent Non‐Detects 15.74%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.00153 Minimum Detected ‐6.483
Maximum Detected 5.6 Maximum Detected 1.723
Mean of Detected 0.392 Mean of Detected ‐2.042
SD of Detected 0.723 SD of Detected 1.577
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00454 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.395
Maximum Non‐Detect 9.3 Maximum Non‐Detect 2.23

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 305

For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 0
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 100.00%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.295 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0466
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0553 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0553
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 0.364 Mean ‐2.309
SD 0.721 SD 1.769
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 0.432   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 0.495

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE method failed to converge properly Mean in Log Scale ‐2.382
SD in Log Scale 1.7
Mean in Original Scale 0.334
SD in Original Scale 0.677
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 0.402
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 0.409

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.56 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 0.699
nu star 288

A‐D Test Statistic 5.662 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.815 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.815 Mean 0.338
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0601 SD 0.677
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.039
  95% KM (t) UCL 0.402
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 0.402
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 0.402
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 0.415
Maximum 5.6   95% KM (BCA) UCL 0.406
Mean 0.342   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 0.405
Median 0.109 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 0.508
SD 0.676 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 0.581
k star 0.236 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 0.726
Theta star 1.445
Nu star 144.2 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 117.5 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 0.581
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 0.42
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 0.42
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
FLUORANTHENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 305 Number of Detected Data 295
Number of Distinct Detected Data 293 Number of Non‐Detect Data 10
Number of Missing Values 23 Percent Non‐Detects 3.28%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.00632 Minimum Detected ‐5.065
Maximum Detected 53.18 Maximum Detected 3.974
Mean of Detected 5.152 Mean of Detected 0.224
SD of Detected 9.215 SD of Detected 2.054
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00489 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.32
Maximum Non‐Detect 0.0656 Maximum Non‐Detect ‐2.725

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 44
For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 261
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 14.43%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.288 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.123
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0516 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0516
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 4.983 Mean 0.0528
SD 9.109 SD 2.23
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 5.844   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 16.78

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method Log ROS Method
Mean 4.01 Mean in Log Scale 0.0797
SD 10.11 SD in Log Scale 2.171
   95% MLE (t) UCL 4.965 Mean in Original Scale 4.984
   95% MLE (Tiku) UCL 4.921 SD in Original Scale 9.109
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 5.871
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 5.979

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.453 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 11.37
nu star 267.3

A‐D Test Statistic 3.445 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.833 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.833 Mean 4.983
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.056 SD 9.094
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.522
  95% KM (t) UCL 5.844
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 5.841
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 5.844
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 5.963
Maximum 53.18   95% KM (BCA) UCL 5.885
Mean 4.983   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 5.868
Median 1.56 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 7.257
SD 9.109 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 8.241
k star 0.327 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 10.17
Theta star 15.22
Nu star 199.7 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 168 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 8.241
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 5.923
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 5.928
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
FLUORENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 305 Number of Detected Data 207
Number of Distinct Detected Data 207 Number of Non‐Detect Data 98
Number of Missing Values 23 Percent Non‐Detects 32.13%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.00453 Minimum Detected ‐5.398
Maximum Detected 335.8 Maximum Detected 5.817
Mean of Detected 4.731 Mean of Detected ‐0.657
SD of Detected 24.2 SD of Detected 2.212
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00296 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.824
Maximum Non‐Detect 0.866 Maximum Non‐Detect ‐0.144

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 221

For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 84
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 72.46%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.423 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0402
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0616 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0616
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 3.229 Mean ‐1.555
SD 20.04 SD 2.358
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 5.123   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 4.588

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE yields a negative mean Mean in Log Scale ‐1.873
SD in Log Scale 2.589
Mean in Original Scale 3.216
SD in Original Scale 20.04
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 5.382
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 7.195

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.309 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 15.32
nu star 127.9

A‐D Test Statistic 8.606 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.867 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.867 Mean 3.219
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0682 SD 20.01
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 1.148
  95% KM (t) UCL 5.114
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 5.108
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 5.112
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 9.329
Maximum 335.8   95% KM (BCA) UCL 5.541
Mean 3.229   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 5.388
Median 0.174 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 8.225
SD 20.04 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 10.39
k star 0.105 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 14.65
Theta star 30.84
Nu star 63.87 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 46.48 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 10.39
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 4.437
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 4.444
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
INDENO(1,2,3‐CD)PYRENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 305 Number of Detected Data 276
Number of Distinct Detected Data 274 Number of Non‐Detect Data 29
Number of Missing Values 23 Percent Non‐Detects 9.51%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.00264 Minimum Detected ‐5.937
Maximum Detected 13.8 Maximum Detected 2.625
Mean of Detected 0.964 Mean of Detected ‐1.381
SD of Detected 1.915 SD of Detected 1.765
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00454 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.395
Maximum Non‐Detect 9.3 Maximum Non‐Detect 2.23

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 302

For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 3
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 99.02%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.308 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.0386
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0533 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0533
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 0.898 Mean ‐1.624
SD 1.852 SD 1.96
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 1.073   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 1.479

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method N/A Log ROS Method

MLE yields a negative mean Mean in Log Scale ‐1.644
SD in Log Scale 1.905
Mean in Original Scale 0.876
SD in Original Scale 1.842
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 1.058
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 1.078

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.474 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Theta Star 2.035
nu star 261.4

A‐D Test Statistic 6.427 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.827 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.827 Mean 0.88
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0582 SD 1.84
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.106
  95% KM (t) UCL 1.054
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 1.053
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 1.054
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 1.09
Maximum 13.8   95% KM (BCA) UCL 1.063
Mean 0.88   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 1.059
Median 0.202 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1.34
SD 1.841 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1.54
k star 0.26 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1.931
Theta star 3.379
Nu star 158.9 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 130.7 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 1.54
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 1.069
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 1.07
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
NAPHTHALENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 322 Number of Detected Data 266
Number of Distinct Detected Data 263 Number of Non‐Detect Data 56
Number of Missing Values 6 Percent Non‐Detects 17.39%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.003 Minimum Detected ‐5.809
Maximum Detected 815 Maximum Detected 6.703
Mean of Detected 100.7 Mean of Detected 1.612
SD of Detected 144.9 SD of Detected 4.025
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00658 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.023
Maximum Non‐Detect 0.341 Maximum Non‐Detect ‐1.076

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 138

For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 184
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 42.86%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.243 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.213
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0543 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0543
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 83.2 Mean 0.431
SD 137.1 SD 4.486
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 95.8   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 57451

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method Log ROS Method
Mean 14.91 Mean in Log Scale 0.574
SD 206.6 SD in Log Scale 4.307
   95% MLE (t) UCL 33.9 Mean in Original Scale 83.2
   95% MLE (Tiku) UCL 36.76 SD in Original Scale 137.1
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 96.19
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 97.15

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.238 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 422.6
nu star 126.8

A‐D Test Statistic 10.39 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.898 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.898 Mean 83.2
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0616 SD 136.9
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 7.641
  95% KM (t) UCL 95.8
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 95.77
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 95.8
Minimum 0.003   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 97.58
Maximum 815   95% KM (BCA) UCL 96.16
Mean 83.35   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 95.93
Median 2.032 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 116.5
SD 137 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 130.9
k star 0.231 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 159.2
Theta star 361.3
Nu star 148.6 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 121.4 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 130.9
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 102
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 102.1
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.
General UCL Statistics for Data Sets with Non‐Detects
User Selected Options
Full Precision    OFF
Confidence Coefficient    95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations    10000
PHENANTHRENE (mg/kg)

General Statistics
Number of Valid Data 305 Number of Detected Data 295
Number of Distinct Detected Data 291 Number of Non‐Detect Data 10
Number of Missing Values 23 Percent Non‐Detects 3.28%

Raw Statistics Log‐transformed Statistics
Minimum Detected 0.00348 Minimum Detected ‐5.66
Maximum Detected 104.2 Maximum Detected 4.646
Mean of Detected 7.366 Mean of Detected 0.443
SD of Detected 13.64 SD of Detected 2.283
Minimum Non‐Detect 0.00454 Minimum Non‐Detect ‐5.395
Maximum Non‐Detect 0.0656 Maximum Non‐Detect ‐2.725

Note: Data have multiple DLs ‐ Use of KM Method is recommended Number treated as Non‐Detect 50
For all methods (except KM, DL/2, and ROS Methods), Number treated as Detected 255
Observations < Largest ND are treated as NDs Single DL Non‐Detect Percentage 16.39%

UCL Statistics
Normal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Lognormal Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.295 Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.17
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0516 5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.0516
Data not Normal at 5% Significance Level Data not Lognormal at 5% Significance Level

Assuming Normal Distribution Assuming Lognormal Distribution
DL/2 Substitution Method DL/2 Substitution Method
Mean 7.125 Mean 0.263
SD 13.48 SD 2.458
   95% DL/2 (t) UCL 8.398   95%  H‐Stat (DL/2) UCL 37.85

Maximum Likelihood Estimate(MLE) Method Log ROS Method
Mean 5.432 Mean in Log Scale 0.295
SD 15.19 SD in Log Scale 2.389
   95% MLE (t) UCL 6.868 Mean in Original Scale 7.125
   95% MLE (Tiku) UCL 6.813 SD in Original Scale 13.48
  95% Percentile Bootstrap UCL 8.45
  95% BCA Bootstrap UCL 8.601

Gamma Distribution Test with Detected Values Only Data Distribution Test with Detected Values Only
k star (bias corrected) 0.418 Data do not follow a Discernable Distribution (0.05)
Theta Star 17.62
nu star 246.7

A‐D Test Statistic 3.362 Nonparametric Statistics

5% A‐D Critical Value 0.841 Kaplan‐Meier (KM) Method
K‐S Test Statistic 0.841 Mean 7.125
5% K‐S Critical Value 0.0563 SD 13.46
Data not Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level SE of Mean 0.772
  95% KM (t) UCL 8.398
Assuming Gamma Distribution   95% KM (z) UCL 8.395
Gamma ROS Statistics using Extrapolated Data   95% KM (jackknife) UCL 8.398
Minimum 1.00E‐09   95% KM (bootstrap t) UCL 8.614
Maximum 104.2   95% KM (BCA) UCL 8.427
Mean 7.125   95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL 8.446
Median 2.476 95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 10.49
SD 13.48 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 11.95
k star 0.309 99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 14.81
Theta star 23.06
Nu star 188.4 Potential UCLs to Use
AppChi2 157.7 97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL 11.95
   95% Gamma Approximate UCL 8.514
   95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 8.521
Note: DL/2 is not a recommended method.