I-32_Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022

Brown„.Caldwell'
DRAFT REPORT I Prepared for
City of Durham Department of Public Works
Contaminant Risk Assessment
and Improvement Opportunities
- Warren Creek
February 11, 2022

DRAFT
Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities
- Warren Creek
Prepared for
City of Durham, NC
February 11, 2022
155504
FINAL DRAFT
This is a draft and is not intended to be a final representation
of the work done or recommendations made by Brown and Caldwell.
It should not be relied upon; consult the final report.
Brown AND
Caldwell
5430 Wade Park Blvd., Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27607
T: 919.233.9178

Table of Contents
Listof Figures.............................................................................................................................................. iv
Listof Tables............................................................................................................................................... iv
Listof Abbreviations.................................................................................................................................... v
ExecutiveSummary.................................................................................................................................... vi
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................1-1
2. Baseline Data Review.......................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Watershed Characteristics & Potential Sources...................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Land Use...................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.2 Sanitary and Storm Sewer Infrastructure...............................................................2-1
2.1.3 Hazardous Sites.......................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Surface Water and Sediment Quality Data...........................................................................2-4
3. Methods.............................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Field Investigation...................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Screening -Level Ecological Risk Assessment.......................................................................3-3
3.2.1 Food Chain Model....................................................................................................3-5
3.2.2 Exposure Point Concentrations...............................................................................3-6
3.2.3 Uptake Factors.........................................................................................................3-6
3.2.4 Dietary Intakes..........................................................................................................3-6
3.2.5 Toxicity Reference Values........................................................................................3-6
3.3 Human Health Screening.......................................................................................................3-6
4. Results - Water Quality......................................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Stream and Channel Characteristics.....................................................................................4-1
4.2 Surface Water Results............................................................................................................4-1
4.2.1 Field Parameters......................................................................................................4-1
4.2.2 Grab Sample Results...............................................................................................4-1
5. Results - Sediment Quality................................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Sediment Morphology.............................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Sediment Chemistry...............................................................................................................5-1
5.3 Screening -Level Ecological Risk Assessment....................................................................5-15
5.3.1 Step 1: Screening -Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects
Evaluation..............................................................................................................
5-15
5.3.2 Step 2: Screening -Level Preliminary Exposure Estimate and Risk
Calculation.............................................................................................................
5-16
5.3.3 Screening -Level Food Chain Model......................................................................5-19
5.3.4 Uncertainties..........................................................................................................5-20
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement
Table of Contents
5.4 Human Health Screening....................................................................................................5-21
5.4.1
Exposure Pathways...............................................................................................
5-21
5.4.2
Exposure and Toxicity Assumptions.....................................................................
5-21
5.4.3
Human Health Risk Results..................................................................................5-21
6. Potential Sources
..............................................................................................................................6-1
6.1 Metals
......................................................................................................................................6-1
6.2 PAHs........................................................................................................................................6-1
7. Recommended Improvement Strategies.........................................................................................7-1
7.1 MS4 Control Measures...........................................................................................................7-1
7.1.1
Public Education and Outreach...............................................................................7-1
7.1.2
Public Involvement...................................................................................................7-2
7.1.3
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination.............................................................7-3
7.1.4
Construction Site Run-Off........................................................................................7-3
7.1.5
Post -Construction Runoff.........................................................................................7-3
7.1.6
Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations.............7-5
7.1.7
Program to Monitor and Control Pollutants............................................................7-5
7.1.8
Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring.............................................................7-5
7.1.9
Total Maximum Daily Load Programs.....................................................................7-5
7.2 Monitored
Natural Attenuation..............................................................................................7-5
8. References........................................................................................................................................8-1
AppendixA: Data Catalog.........................................................................................................................A-1
Appendix B: Food Chain Modeling.......................................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C: North Carolina Human Health Risk Calculator...................................................................C-1
AppendixD: Field Parameters................................................................................................................. D-1
Appendix E: Screening of Surface Water Analytical Results - USEPA Region 4 Screening Values ...... E-1
Appendix F: Screening of Surface Water Analytical Results - North Carolina Screening Values ......... F-1
Appendix G: Screening of Sediment Analytical Results......................................................................... G-1
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure1-1. Site Location..........................................................................................................................1-2
Figure 1-2. City Of Durham Sampling Locations for Previous Studies in the Warren Creek
Watershed..............................................................................................................................1-3
Figure 2-1. Warren Creek Watershed Land Use.....................................................................................2-2
Figure 2-2. Sanitary and Storm Sewer Infrastructure.............................................................................2-3
Figure2-3. Contaminated Sites...............................................................................................................2-5
Figure 2-4. NC Division of Water Resources Mapping Results..............................................................2-6
Figure 2-5. Toxics Release Inventory Search Results.............................................................................2-7
Figure 3-1. Sediment/Surface Water Grab Sample Locations..............................................................3-2
Figure5-1. Barium in Sediment...............................................................................................................5-6
Figure5-2. Chromium in Sediment..........................................................................................................5-7
Figure5-3. Cobalt in Sediment................................................................................................................5-8
Figure5-4. Iron in Sediment.....................................................................................................................5-9
Figure 5-5. Manganese in Sediment....................................................................................................
5-10
Figure 5-6. Nickel in Sediment..............................................................................................................
5-11
Figure 5-7. Total High Molecular Weight PAHs in Sediment...............................................................5-12
Figure 5-8. Distribution of Individual High -Molecular Weight PAH Compounds in Sediment ...........
5-13
Figure 5-9. Comparison of Warren Creek Metal Sediment Concentrations to Reported Urban
SedimentBackground........................................................................................................
5-14
List of Tables
Table 3-1. Summary of Field Program....................................................................................................3-3
Table 4-1. Summary of Constituents Detected in Surface Water..........................................................4-3
Table5-1. Sediment Morphology.............................................................................................................5-1
Table 5-2. Summary of Sediment Analytical Results..............................................................................5-3
Table 5-3. Comparison of Historical and 2021 Sediment Analytical Results in Warren Creek........ 5-15
Table 5-4. Summary of Screening -Level Hazard Quotients for Metals ............................................... 5-18
Table 5-5. Summary of Screening -Level Hazard Quotients for PAHs................................................. 5-19
Table 5-6. Summary of Overall Food Chain Model Receptor Hazard Quotients...............................5-20
Table 6-1. Environmental Sources of Chemical of Concern Metals......................................................6-2
Table 6-2. Screening of Sediment Analytical Results.............................................................................6-4
iv
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations
BC
Brown and Caldwell
BMP
best management practice
BOD
biochemical oxygen demand
CAPP
Critical Area Protection Plan
CBOD5
carbonaceous BOD 5-day
CCC
continuous criterion concentration
cfu
colony -forming units
City
City of Durham
CIVIC
criterion maximum concentration
COPC
Chemical of Potential Concern
COPEC
chemical of potential ecological concern
DO
dissolved oxygen
DWR
Department of Water Resources
ELCR
excess lifetime cancer risk
EPC
Exposure Point Concentration
ESC
erosion control
ESV
ecological screening values
ft/sec
foot per second
g/L
grams per liter
GIS
geographic information system
HMWPAHs
high -molecular weight PAHs
HI
hazard index
HQ
hazard quotient
IDDE
illicit discharge detection and elimination
LMWPAHs low -molecular -weight PAHS
MDL
method detection limit
MS4
municipal separate storm sewer system
pg/L
micrograms per liter
mg/Cm2
milligrams per square centimeter
mg/kg
milligrams per kilogram
mg/L
milligrams per liter
NCDEQ
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
NTU
nephelometric turbidity units
PAH
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PEC
probable effect concentration
QAPP
quality assurance project plan
RSV
refined screening value
SLERA
screening -level risk ecological assessment
SLRA
screening -level risk assessment
TDS
total dissolved solids
TEC
threshold effect concentration
TMDL
total maximum daily load
toc
total organic carbon
TP
total phosphorus
TRI
Toxics Release Inventory
TRV
toxicity reference value
TSS
total suspended solids
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
WLA
wasteload allocation
WQI
water quality index
WQS
Water Quality Standards
v
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Executive Summary
In response to City of Durham (City) concerns about surface water and sediment quality, Brown and
Caldwell (BC) completed a special study of water and sediment quality in Warren Creek. The City's
concerns were primarily motivated by elevated levels of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
and metals in sediment at station EN1O.3WC near Horton Road. Study components included a
mapping evaluation of potential pollutant sources, sediment and surface water sampling, and
several risked -based methods to determine if the ambient water and sediment quality posed a threat
to human or aquatic health.
The Warren Creek watershed above monitoring station EN1O.3WC drains about 2.4 square miles
and is mostly residential with some public green space (Whippoorwill Park and the Warren Trail) and
commercial land use. The watershed contains no permitted industrial sources, hazardous waste
sites, or major municipal operation centers. Sanitary sewer overflows have occasionally been
reported in the watershed, which also contains some septic systems and sand filters. Overall, the
review of available sampling and mapping did not indicate a primary cause/source of PAHs or
metals.
Field sampling and laboratory analysis identified sediment concentrations above ecological
screening values (ESVs; USEPA 2018) in one or more locations. The screening evaluation identified
the chemicals of potential ecological concern (COPECs) as barium, chromium, cobalt, iron,
manganese, nickel, and PAHs.
Because ESVs are very conservative, a Screening -Level Risk Assessment (SLRA) was completed to
assess whether sediment concentrations are likely to represent a hazard concern to ecological life or
humans. The screening -level risk ecological assessment (SLERA) evaluated potential hazards to
several species of birds and mammals expected to be representative of the habitat. The SLERA
included a food chain model assessing risk via dietary and incidental sediment ingestion. No hazard
quotients (HQs) above the threshold of 1 were identified for metals, indicating that ecological risks
were low. High -molecular weight PAHs (HMWPAHs) exhibited HQs over 1 in several locations.
However, most COPEC concentrations were within the range of urban background and do not
indicate a specific contaminant source. Concentrations of cobalt and chromium were higher than
typical urban background range, but HQs of less than 1 indicate that these metals do not represent a
high ecological risk through the food chain.
Human health risks were assessed using the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) risk calculator. Despite conservative assumptions about potential exposure to sediments,
estimated risks were below risk benchmarks. Thus human health risks were below levels of concern.
The data exhibited a lack of geospatial patterns that would indicate a concentrated or localized
source, such as co -occurrence of higher concentrations of different analytes, association with stream
characteristics, or gradients with concentrations gradually increasing or decreasing along the
stream. PAHs had similar molecular weight distributions across the sampled locations, which also
support a regional and dispersed origin rather a localized source. Based on this evaluation, the likely
sources of PAHs and metals in Warren are typical urban/suburban sources such as vehicular traffic,
other types of combustion, regional atmospheric deposition, occasional sanitary sewer overflows,
and household products. PAHs and most metals tend to correlate with sediment and solids in urban
stormwater. Coal tar -based pavement sealants are also a common source of PAHs in urban
watersheds.
vi
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities Executive Summa
It is recommended to periodically monitor the COPECs in Warren Creek to confirm that
concentrations attenuate over time, or at least do not increase significantly. Many of the City's
existing MS4 control measures would be effective at reducing a wide range of pollutants including
PAHs and metals. Examples applicable to the Warren Creek watershed include public education on
the proper disposal of household wastes, maintenance of the pollution reporting hotline, dry weather
screening, erosion and sediment control, and post -construction pollution controls. Disuse of coal tar -
based pavement sealants represents a potential opportunity to further reduce PAH loading to Warren
Creek.
vii
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Section
Introduction
The City of Durham (City) maintains an extensive surface water and sediment monitoring program
throughout the City. In September 2020, the City of Durham Public Works Department summarized
available stream sediment chemistry data from monitoring locations within Durham County and four
surrounding counties (City of Durham, 2020). Four of these sampling locations were located in
Warren Creek, a small tributary of the Eno River in the northern part of the City (Figure 1-1). Location
EN10.3WC, just south of Horton Road (Figure 1-2), revealed elevated levels of polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) and various inorganic elements, particularly the metals chromium and nickel, in
sediment samples collected in August 2013 and February 2014. The City's conclusion that these
concentrations were elevated was based on comparison with other regional sites and exceedance of
threshold effect concentrations (TECs; MacDonald et al 2000). Conversely, the sediment samples
did not exceed probable effect concentrations (PECs), and so the sampling results were inconclusive
regarding the environmental significance of the observed concentrations.
In response to concerns about surface water and sediment quality in Warren Creek, specifically in
the area near Horton Road, in 2020, the City's Stormwater and Geographic Information System (GIS)
Services Division of the Public Works Department engaged Brown and Caldwell (BC) to perform a
special study of the elevated inorganic and PAH concentrations in Warren Creek. The study elements
included:
• A desktop evaluation of potential pollutant sources, based on watershed characteristics and
available databases.
• A January 2021 field investigation that included water quality and sediment sampling at
10 stations in the Creek and tributaries upstream of and just downstream of Horton Road.
• Risk -based evaluations to determine if the ambient contaminant levels were problematic for
human or ecological health.
• Recommendations for potential improvement projects.
Previous deliverables on this project included a catalog of data compiled to support the study
(Appendix A), a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) for the field investigations (BC, 2020), and an
interim memo that summarized methods/results of the desktop evaluation and field investigations
(BC, 2021). The purpose of this final study report is to summarize all methods and results of all
major study components as listed above. This report presents interpretations of the likely sources(s)
of contaminants to Warren Creek, levels of risk to ecological and human health, and potential
improvement opportunities.
1-1
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

I I
Legehid N
0 Warren Creek Watershed
I I
49 I G r
I I
I I
I
� I
I I
I I
I I
-------1------____.------------------------
-------- --- --------------------�
I '
I
501
I
I '
57
r
I
I
I
86 I
r
II
r '
r
r
Hillsborough I
o r
I
Orange
r
I
r Durham
I
I
I
N� yoPe Creek oDurham
r
r 15
i
r
I
r
r 55
I
o
Chapel Hill I
r
r
r
I
-- I
---------
I
I
15 �
r
r
r
r
r
sac
Butrer
Creec
r-
------ 50
85------
I
Fdlls
Reservoir
70
ovary
50
Esri, NASA, NGA,oU FEMA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, FAO,
Fittsboro B METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS
Everett �
Jordan
I n4o i
c
Brown AND
L Caldwell
a
FIGURE 1-1
SITE LOCATION
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
0 2.5
Miles

L
a
E
0
0
Q
Legend
0 City of Durham Sample Locaitons
Trail
Warren Creek
L _ Warren Creek Watershed
Horton Rd , •— —
1
1
a �
a --
0
0 1
3 •
• 392 ft
0 1 v
�f
1 'pep
11 APrtrP
� PS
t
1
i
1 �
a 1 0
Q �
ca 11 M24 a
m 1
•
Backwater I EN10.3WC
10WQ027
Midstream
10WQ027
a a
a
�� C
N
Crystal take
v
x
Upstream
10WQ027
Cherrycrest Or
/Lei"1' Castle 0
FIGURE 1-2
Brown AND • CITY OF DURHAM SAMPLING LOCATIONS 0 600
Caldwell !FOR PREVIOUS STUDIES WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
CREEK WATERSHEDFeet

Section 2
Baseline Data Review
The baseline data review was performed to determine if the existing monitoring and mapping data
could provide insights into the nature and sources of contaminants in Warren Creek. It included a
review of data sources listed in the data catalog (Appendix A) including water quality and sediment
quality data, watershed characteristics, and public databases on potential pollutant sources.
2.1 Watershed Characteristics & Potential Sources
The following subsections describe the Warren Creek watershed as interpreted from GIS mapping
data and publicly available databases.
2.1.1 Land Use
Warren Creek is located in a mixed residential and commercial area. Land use adjacent to Warren
Creek is mostly residential, with parkland in the southern reaches and commercial areas to the
north, as illustrated in Figure 2-1. In the Eno River Watershed Improvement Plan (City of Durham,
2018), Warren Creek was noted to contain beaver dams, beaver activity, or debris dams in the area
south of Horton Road. This document also indicated the presence of septic systems, sand filters, and
sanitary sewer overflows within the Warren Creek watershed. The Warren Creek drainage area
upstream of Horton Road is approximately 23 percent impervious, indicating the developed nature of
the watershed.
Warren Creek Trail is a 10-foot-wide paved hiking and biking trail that runs for 0.75 miles to the east
of the Creek. It is 200 to 300 feet away from the Creek as the trail heads south from its trailhead at
Horton Road, and then runs immediately alongside the Creek from approximately 300 feet south of
Station WC-7 to its terminus in Whippoorwill Park (Figure 1-2). The trail traverses wooded areas that
provide habitat but are disturbed due to human pedestrian traffic as well as other activities as
evidenced by campfires and rubbish.
2.1.2 Sanitary and Storm Sewer Infrastructure
A sewer line runs along the eastern side of Warren Creek, with numerous manholes along its length
(Figure 2-2). Branch lines from residential and commercial areas intersect with this line in close
proximity to Warren Creek. There are also numerous stormwater outfalls within the immediate
drainage area of Warren Creek, with associated piping and open channels. These stormwater
conveyances serve mostly residential areas but include parkland and commercial uses as well.
2.1.3 Hazardous Sites
The North Carolina (NC) Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains an online GIS
platform that contains data sets and GIS shapefiles for various data topics'. Shapefiles for
hazardous waste sites, inactive hazardous sites, contaminated dry-cleaning sites, UST incidents
(releases), AST incidents, and petroleum contaminated soil remediation permits were downloaded
from this website and mapped in relation to the Warren Creek watershed.
1 httos://data-ncdenr.opendata.arcf�is.com/
2-1
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

is- ---------
Won CSN
o;� ,� '
o � ..' _ ,
!'
711
N �; � " �• � •/ �, ` .: � >� ♦ �i�,i tom, �'± �'��1 re `:
v'
LO
CL
IL
■ A; s
7 J ■
Warren Creek
1 B
o rrr } u � •v' _ . , ll�� , Stream
Warren Creek Watershed
c
=and Use Classification:
Open Water
~ Developed, Open Space ■
' Developed, Low Intensity
�
° tee_ Developed, Medium Intensity ■ ■ •
� � �• � �—+'�i • ' ` '� F Developed, High Intensity
■
Barren Land
D / Deciduous Forest
■ Evergreen Forest
■ Ira Mixed Forest
` T Dwarf Scrub
Grassland/Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
I
Cultivated Crops
' I Woody Wetlands
y Emer ent Herbaceous Wetland
i
FIGURE 2-1
BrOWnAND LAND USE o Soo 1,000
Caldwell WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
Feet

N
04
Legend
m — Stormwater Pipe
® Sewer Manhole
Sewer Force Main
Sewer Gravity Main
— Stormwater Pipe
! _ ' Warren Creek Watershed
Warren Creek
Trail
>1 Y
354S —
1
1
r ,
1 -
1
— r
1 — —
Horton Rd -_-
rton Rd —
1
i
a r
a --
0
1
•
• 2ft
• 1 v
1 - -
r r-
n
� r
UI I \ 1
io � 111 I
Q/ f
I
n 1
� m 1
co
HIV
E
Q
M
nCrystal Lake
co
7
73
o
a�
m
c
Brown AND
Caldwell '
a
FIGURE 2-2
SANITARY AND STORM SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
'low ak-rra Ra
whip, o,-will
0 300 600
Feet

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities Section 2
The AST/UST data represent sites where there has been a release of petroleum to the soil and/or
groundwater from an AST or UST system, spills, or dumping. As shown in Figure 2-3, there are no
active or inactive hazardous waste sites or petroleum contaminated soil remediation permits within
the watershed. There is one contaminated dry-cleaning site within the watershed, upgradient Warren
Creek. There is also one contaminated dry-cleaning site just to the north of the northern boundary of
the watershed, near an active hazardous waste site. Two AST incidents were reported within the
watershed, as well as numerous UST incidents.
The NC Department of Water Resources (DWR) also maintains an online mapping tool of permitted
sources (NC DWR All -in -One Map2). This online mapping system was searched for National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Wastewater Discharge Permits, Non -Discharge Permits, Non -
Discharge Land Application Field Permits, Non -Discharge Wells, Animal Feed Operation Permits, 401
Certifications (Wetland Permits, Buffer Authorizations), NPDES Stormwater Permits, and State
Stormwater Permits. The only permitted entity that appeared in proximity to Warren Creek was the
401 Certification/Wetland Permit for the Warren Creek Trail, which runs along the eastern side of
Warren Creek as shown in Figure 2-4 below.
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) tracks the management of certain toxic chemicals that may pose a
threat to human health and the environment. U.S. facilities in different industry sectors must report
annually how much of each chemical is released to the environment and/or managed through
recycling, energy recovery, and treatment (a "release" of a chemical means that it is emitted to the
air or water or placed in some type of land disposal). According to the online TRI mapper3, there is
one TRI reporting facility within a five -mile radius of the City of Durham sampling point EN10.3WC
near Horton Road on Warren Creek, as shown in Figure 2-5 below. This facility, Southern States
Durham Feed Mill, located at 812 Mallard Avenue in Durham, has not reported releases since 2007.
No further information was available on the TRI website or on Envirofacts
(htti3s://enviro.ei3a.gov/facts/tri/ef-facilities/#/Facility/27702STHRN901MA).
2.2 Surface Water and Sediment Quality Data
As noted in Section 1, the City of Durham has conducted surface water and sediment sampling in
various water bodies throughout the City. In September 2020, the City of Durham Public Works
Department summarized available stream sediment chemistry data from monitoring locations within
Durham County and four surrounding counties in the "Summary of Existing Stream Sediment
Chemistry Data in Durham County, NC and Surrounding Counties" (City of Durham, September
2020). Four of these sampling locations (Backwater 10WQ027, EN10.3WC, Midstream 10WQ027,
and Upstream 10WQ017) were located in Warren Creek (sampled by the City), and one location
(M24) was in a small tributary to Warren Creek (sampled by the Duke University Bernhardt Lab).
Location EN10.3WC revealed elevated levels of PAHs and inorganic constituents, particularly
chromium and nickel in sediment samples collected in August 2013 and February 2014. The other
sampling locations were only sampled for fecal coliform and total organic carbon (TOC).
In the Eno River Watershed Implementation Plan Data Collection Report (City of Durham, October
2014), detected constituents were compared with published TECs and PEC screening values.
Chromium concentrations in both 2013 and 2014 exceeded the TEC value with ratios of 1.65 and
2.07, indicating that toxicity to benthic aquatic life from chromium in sediment cannot be ruled out.
2 httos://ncdenr.mai)s.arcF-Fis.com/apes/webaooviewer/index.html?id=de3c5e32939e43b9a78Od449a49fdacf
3 httos://www.ei)a.i�ov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-i)roF-Fram#trisearch
2-4
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

■
N
Legend
o
m
O City of Durham Sample Locations ■
%
G
Vi
A Hazardous Waste Sites
Eno River CityPark
A Inactive Hazardous Sites
❑ AST Incidents
■ UST Incidents
■
C
o Dry -Cleaning Sites (Contaminated)
o
O Petroleum Contaminated Soil
Remediation Permits ■
■
L ' Warren Creek Watershed
_
■
Warren Creek
■
a ■
atoms■
OA ••
■
�;
��
ok
•� •—' 1
Horton;Cl• ��
• C
Valley
■
■
a
a
o
O
a
•-
■ 1 ■■ 1
a O
.... — Ra
a"t
■
+
Wyldewood Rd
• O
1
■
Chalk Level Rd
■
�
591ft N
■
C
v •_
•
ai
•
,
O i +
lq N
—
°'
o••aa
�+ 4
D W ippo ill
• m
S Park
.
•
is
• � -�
oQ.
l
a.
u
■ ■ Ki kwood Dr 3 10 ■
■
a
■
1F■
■ M
IR
a
a
a
■ Cammie St
• - •
■ Newsom
_
LI
,a
Qj > El
ElJgC S� ( ■
■�
W C�
m
` ` ..
.Tl Ca` •
•
a
w—
Carver St ;. 1—
Q
■ ■ �_
•
■�
■
■
a
■ •
• �
m
Durf
n
a •
Rio
FawnlAve • • • ••
a
c
N
Croasd ile
■ Country lub
a • �•
`
■ Strebor St
on
LL
o
■
■ ■■ ■ ■
d
m a 6
15
z
Me
� dfo
■■
■
to40x
mCroasdc\\e
■ '
■
Leon 5[
�■
a
o
FIGURE 2-3
a
Brown
AND .
CONTAMINATED SITES
0
1,000
2,000
0
Caldwell
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
Feet

CN
N
O
Legend
m Q 401 Water Quality Certs./ Wetlands and Water Permits / Buffer Authorizations
Warren Creek Watershed
Warren Creek
Trail
The Lodge at
Rosebriar Dr Croasdaile Farm
O
Upper Warren Creek\
Trail C/,q Durham
Parks &Rec Depo
1
N
v 1
•�f
Hillana
Horton Rd; —1
Hurturr
d/P
r
.j>
d
t •
NCDOT-
f
SR 132
•
pP
� A'o
a
1 P�tr@
1 e St
o
Cry tal
•
u
ake
ff
�I
O
(D
oasdalle Farm
•f
North -Crystal Lake
—
UI
Greenway Trail
11
c
�
�
J•
f
S\
k
,f
(D
z<-\^Pcl
•
Ci yst �.
a
(DI
oIr .�
i
�'Ca Rd
vl
G�
i
1
1
co f
(n rr
N
U
Qr
O
t,
ri
r
Oak HIS
Subdivi n
0
Horton Hills SD
Isf • f O Marne %eve
• Horton Hills
Subdivision
•
•1
1
,r 1
• Q
IF
J
a•
r � •�• � Z427fi
Cherrycrest
Calu
W yidewood Rd
Cas0e�a
ti ( Pa
n i
m 20.
p
co
v
m e09 = v, Rowem nt
N d r
m 0.
29 Aster Dr J M
L e
o ��� v Glasgow t
a'� � m Kirkwood Dr
o@� = Kirkwood Dr
>
aI
FIGURE 2-4
Brown AND
NC DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES MAPPING RESULTS o 500 1,000
Caldwell ■ WARREN ('.REEK WATERSHED
a ■ 0 Feet

N
0
Legend
m Toxics Release Inventory Sites a'o
0 Warren Creek Watershed
Ra Fox Run
n o
tat 1 f6
I o
1
I ds O
G on Ry 4
' N
dCy y 1 ,a
I
744A
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
Cabes Ford Umstead Ra
157
i
Eno River State
Park
1
X i
a
0
n
a), Eno Hucklebe
s Spring
� 1
N
Lake
Michie
Willardville
Orange
Factory
11000000662 6551Q
River Forest
Park
Hebron Rd
Weaver
� Hillsborough
�
Rd Braggtown
c�
bodes`
h Blvd
Q
i
Or0(/
9h po w Club B\IJa
751 as
Sv Rc
X1
C��et
ai
�
F.tWin Rd
o
•477ft
Duke Unive,sity
Durham
\
Rd
Joyland v
2
�t
751
Colony Park 110018847836Q
CL
Q
L10000347303
E La
ji0004061005(j)co
s,
ersity Dr 5 kC`ee
fO
y �.
a
�`J Third
a
a 4d
y
Li
LO
Keene
Bethesda
>
4'l. �a
Qe
110060257797F9
110000347401Q•
Briarcliff
r�
a
o
FIGURE 2-5
Brown
o_
AND
Caldwell
■
TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY SEARCH RESULTS
WARREN ('RFFK WaTFRSHFD
0 5,000 10,000
a ■ 0 Feet

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities Section 2
The elevated chromium in sediment did not appear to increase chromium concentrations in the
overlying waters. Chromium sediment concentrations did not exceed the PEC value. Nickel did not
exceed the TEC value, but was close to the TEC, with ratios of 0.62 and 0.67. Eight PAH constituents
were detected in both sediment samples in Warren Creek. Four of these constituents
[be nzo(a)anth race ne, chrysene, fluoranthene, and phenanthrene] had ratios greater than one for the
associated TEC values.
Screening values such as TECs represent concentrations below which no additional action or
evaluation is warranted. Concentrations above such screening levels do not necessarily indicate the
presence of risk. Rather, these benchmarks are used as a guide to determine if more attention is
required.
For surface water, the Eno River Watershed Implementation Plan Data Collection Report states that
pollutant and pollutant indicator concentrations were generally higher in the tributary sites than the
mainstem Eno River sites. In general, total suspended solids (TSS) and zinc concentrations were
higher during storm flow conditions, but there were no discernable differences in concentrations
between storm flow and baseflow or between mainstem sites and tributary sites for other
parameters measured during the study. The NC DWR water quality standards (WQS) were not
exceeded in any of the surface water samples. Dissolved fractions of copper, iron, lead, and zinc
were also compared to the USEPA's Continuous Criterion Concentration (CCC) and Criterion
Maximum Concentration (CIVIC). These thresholds were not exceeded in either of the samples
collected at EN10.3WC. The Eno River Watershed Improvement Plan (AECOM, 2018) states that
water quality in Warren Creek showed occasionally elevated concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria
and low dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations during three of the six monitored years, and elevated
total nitrogen during two of the six monitored years.
The City of Durham produces an annual "State of our Streams" report which includes a Water Quality
Index (WQI) rating, based on monitoring data of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), bacteria,
nutrients, turbidity, and metals. The WQI is a numerical grade that ranges from 0 (poor) to 100
(excellent) and indicates the overall health of the City's streams. In 2018, Warren Creek received a
WQI of 78, a value affected by high fecal coliform bacteria counts and high turbidity measurements.
2-8
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Section 3
Methods
This subsection identifies the field and risk assessment methods that BC employed for the Warren
Creek study. It describes the field sampling investigation and how the results from that investigation
were used in the screening -level ecological risk assessment and the human health screening.
3.1 Field Investigation
BC completed an investigation in January 2021 that included field observations and the collection of
surface water and sediment samples for chemical analysis. The field investigation focused on the
stream segment between Whippoorwill Park and the confluence of Warren Creek and the Eno River.
The objectives of the field investigation were to
• Characterize channel conditions and potential pollution sources, focused on the stream segment
between Whippoorwill Park and the confluence of Warren Creek and the Eno River
• Collect water quality and sediment quality data to
o Confirm previous sampling results
o Characterize the spatial variability in contaminant levels, with potential insights on sources
o Support subsequent risk evaluations
The field investigation was led by BC with assistance from Dramby Environmental Consulting, Inc.
(DEC). The field team collected 10 water grab samples and 10 sediment grab samples at locations
shown on Figure 3-1. Surficial (0-to-6-inch depth) sediment samples and surface water samples for
chemical analysis were sent to Pace Analytical Services (Pace) of Mount Juliet, Tennessee, a NC -
certified laboratory, supported by Pace facilities in Raleigh, NC, and Billings, Montana. Duplicate
water quality and sediment samples were collected at Station WC-2 for quality assurance purposes.
The team used handheld meters to measure field water quality parameters at each sampling
location. Table 3-1 lists the types of data that were collected. Full details on the field investigation
methods can be found in the QAPP (BC, 2020). The field data and analytical laboratory reports were
provided in Appendix B of the Interim Memo.
3-1
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Legend
(j) Grab Sample Locations
_ Warren Creek Watershed
Warren Creek
Trail
M
_ A r. ®.
Namw.. -
't 1 1 A v WC-6 0.0 WC'7
Ch5774st Dd''�
�a == ' 0
WC-8 ji
� 4
�Q� l '4EL
® r O WC-9
ke :R dVLE"LLA #} rl _'. ,• tie ti Castle-,
a t.1 14.
r
O WC-10
'zv
a
o Brown FIGURE 3-1
AND
a * SEDIMENT/SURFACE WATER GRAB SAMPLE LOCATIONS 0 300 600
Caldwell ■ WAPPFN rPFFK WATFRSNFn
a ■ ■ Feet

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities
Section 3
Data Category
Ambient Conditions
Location Data
Surface Water
Data Collected
• Weather
• Coordinates
• Physical condition of the channel
• Geomorphic alteration
• Flow conditions
• Potential pollutant sources
• Vegetation
• Debris dams
Field parameters:
• Dissolved oxygen
• pH
• Turbidity
• Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)
• Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Lab parameters:
• Target Analyte List (TAL) total and dissolved metals4
• PAH-18
• Total hardness
• Total phosphorus
• Ammonia nitrogen
• Fecal coliform
• 5-dav carbonaceous BOD
Sediment Target AnalyteList (TAL)metals5
• PAH-18
• Total organic carbon (TOC)
• Grain size
• Percent moisture
Methods
Hand-held GPS, notes and photographs
Asual characterization:
• Notes and photographs
• Cross-section measurements
• Longitudinal profiles
nd-held meters
• EPA Method 6020 and 7470
• EPA Method 8270 SIM
• Method SM2340
• Method 365.1
• Method 350.1
• Method SM922313-2004
• Method SM5210B
• EPA Method 6020 and 7470
• EPA Method 8270 SIM
• USDA Method L01
• ASTM Method D422
• ASTM Method D2974-87
3.2 Screening -Level Ecological Risk Assessment
The screening -level risk ecological assessment (SLERA) adheres to the procedures described in
guidance from the North Carolina Division of Waste Management (NC DNR, 2003) and EPA Region 4
(EPA, 2018). Both reference the same set of screening levels and are based on Federal EPA
ecological risk assessment guidance (EPA 1997). The SLERA constitutes the first two steps in the
eight -step ecological risk assessment process:
1. Screening -Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
2. Screening -Level Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
3. Baseline Problem Formulation
4. Study Design and Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Process
5. Field Verification of Sampling Design
4 The TAIL list includes the non-metals arsenic and selenium.
5 The TAIL list includes the non-metals arsenic and selenium.
3-3
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities
Section 3
6. Site Investigation and Data Analysis
7. Risk Characterization
8. Risk Management
The steps within the SLERA are described further below.
Step 1: Screening -Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation: this step details the
key environmental aspects in defining risk management decisions at the site and includes
information on
• Environmental setting and contaminants known or suspected at the site
• Contaminant fate and transport mechanisms that may exist
• The mechanisms of ecotoxicity associated with contaminants and likely affected receptors
• Identification of complete exposure pathways
• Selection of endpoints to screen for ecological risk
• A preliminary ecological effects evaluation that compares observed concentrations to
conservative ecotoxicity values
Step 1 includes identification of ecological screening values (ESVs) for use in the SLERA. As stated in
USEPA Region 4 guidance (USEPA, 2018), "ecological screening values are based on chemical
concentrations associated with a low probability of unacceptable risks to ecological receptors."
Concentrations below ESVs can be ruled out as being of concern. Concentrations over ESVs do not
necessarily indicate ecological risk but are thresholds for additional evaluation. In many cases,
concentrations above ESVs are not an ecological problem or may present negligible risk to the local
ecological communities (such as in urban settings where less sensitive species may be present or
where habitat constraints and other ecological pressures may be more important than chemical
exposures). The EPA Region 4 TECs and PECs are also useful ecotoxicity values.
Surface water quality criteria and sediment screening values were used to identify chemicals of
potential ecological concern (COPECs). The selected screening values were EPA (2018) Region 4
Freshwater Screening Values. TECs, and PECs from MacDonald and others (2000) were also
referenced for consistency with earlier City evaluations. The COPEC selection is presented along with
the analytical data in Section 4.
Step 2: Screening -Level Preliminary Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation: In this step, the
maximum concentrations of chemicals in each medium are compared to ESVs. Constituents with
concentrations over ESVs are identified as COPECs. The ratio is expressed as a screening -level
Hazard Quotient (HQ). This preliminary HQ ratio is used as the initial screen and is different from the
HQ calculated as part of more specific food chain modeling (discussed below in Section 5.3.1).
The SLERA process includes developing a conceptual site model (sources, contaminants, and
effects), performing more focused screening, and developing a screening -level food chain model. The
food chain model estimates the uptake from sediments to invertebrates and vegetation that serve as
food sources and then compares the estimated intakes to toxicity -based benchmarks for receptors
(species types) expected to be present.
The Region 4 EPA guidance also allows the consideration of habitat quality, frequency and
magnitude of detection, biomagnification potential, and background. This context allows a weight -of -
evidence evaluation as to whether the observed sediment concentrations represent unacceptable
ecological risk.
3-4
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement
Section 3
3.2.1 Food Chain Model
Hazards calculated in the food chain model are based on a ratio of estimated intake to a reference
value that represents acceptable intake:
Intake HQ _
TRV
Equation 1
Where:
HQ = Hazard Quotient (unitless)
Intake = Daily dose of analyte (milligrams per kilogram animal's body weight per day [mg/kg-
day])
TRV = Toxicity Refence Value (mg/kg-day)
BW = Animal's body weight (kg)
The TRV is equivalent to the no -observed adverse effect level or "safe" dose for exposure to the
contaminant. TRVs are published by various agencies such as EPA and Oak Ridge National
Laboratories. An HQ value over 1 indicates a potential for ecological risk that could require further
evaluation. An HQ under 1 indicates negligible potential for ecological risk.
Intake is calculated by estimating the concentration in sediment and the dietary item and combining
it with the food intake and estimated incidental sediment ingestion (which is calculated as a fraction
of food intake) of the animal:
Intake (mg chemical l =FIR ( kg food 1 x Cdiet ( mg )+ [C,ed ( mg ) x FS])
kg -day J \kg-BW-dayJ kg foodkg sed
Equation 2
Where:
FIR = Food ingestion rate (kg dry weight food per kg body weight per day)
Cdiet = Concentration of COPEC in the dietary item (plants or invertebrates)
Csed = Concentration of chemical in sediment
FS = Incidentally ingested sediment as fraction of FIR (unitless)
Individual COPEC HQs for each receptor are summed to provide an overall conservative estimate of
hazard for each receptor across COPECs:
Total HQ for receptor = HQs
YCOPECs
Equation 3
The intake is calculated by estimating the concentration in sediment and the dietary item and
combining it with the food intake and estimated incidental sediment ingestion (which is calculated
as a fraction of food intake) of the animal:
Intake = FIR X ( Cdiet + LCsed x FS])
Equation 4
3-5
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities Section 3
Where:
FIR = Food ingestion rate (kg dry weight per body weight per day)
Cdiet = Concentration of chemical of potential concern in the dietary item (plants or
invertebrates; mg/kg food)
Csed = Concentration of chemical in sediment (mg/kg)
FS = Fraction of sediment in diet (unitless)
In more complex food chain model studies, various additional scaling factors can be applied. These
include an area use factor to account for large home ranges/partial time foraging on site, a seasonal
use factor to account for migration, and statistical estimates of concentration over multiple sampling
locations. Intake can also be allocated among different dietary sources for animals that, for example
are omnivorous. In a screening -level food chain model, however, it is assumed that each receptor is
a full-time, year-round resident exposed to a specific location. The screening approach provides a
worst -case estimate of potential risk so that the benefit of additional risk evaluation can be
determined.
The food chain model tables in Appendix B provide the details of the assumptions and calculations. A
brief discussion of key inputs follows below.
3.2.2 Exposure Point Concentrations
The Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) is the chemical concentration in sediment. At most of the
sampling locations, there is only one round of sediment quality data. Therefore, the EPC for each
chemical of potential concern (COPEC) at each station was the reported concentration from the field
investigation that BC completed in January 2021(see Table 5-2 in Section 5).
3.2.3 Uptake Factors
Chemical concentrations in dietary items were estimated using published uptake factors. Where a
specific factor for plants or benthic invertebrates for a given COPEC was not available from regulatory
agency compendia, values were obtained from the literature. Plant uptake factors for sediment are
generally not available so soil -to -plant values were used. The algorithms, variable values, and
associated references appear in Table 2 in Appendix B.
3.2.4 Dietary Intakes
Intakes were estimated based on published food and incidental sediment (soil) intake rates for each
receptor species. The risk calculations shown for each species appear in Appendix C.
3.2.5 Toxicity Reference Values
TRVs were obtained where available from EPA (published in EcoSSL documents, as referenced in
Table 3 of Appendix B) or Oak Ridge National Laboratories. The exception was the avian TRVs for
PAHs, which were not available in the EcoSSL documents and were obtained from the risk
assessment for the Casmalia Resources Superfund Site prepared for EPA and the State of California.
3.3 Human Health Screening
A human health screening was also conducted for Warren Creek for the same constituents evaluated
for ecological risk: barium, chromium, cobalt, iron, manganese, nickel, low -molecular -weight PAHs
(LMWPAHs) and high -molecular -weight PAHS (HMWPAHs). In human health risk assessment these
are known as Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs). Human health risk assessment evaluates two
endpoints:
M.
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities Section 3
ELCR = Dose x CSF
Where:
ELCR = Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (unitless)
Dose = Intake (mg/kg-day)
CSF = Cancer Slope Factor (mg/kg-day)-1
Cancer risks are summed for all chemicals:
Total ELCR = ELCRs
Y'CoPcS
Equation 5
Equation 6
• Noncancer toxic effects, expressed as HQ (for individual chemicals) and Hazard Index (HI, equal
to the sum of the HQs); these are calculated as ratios of the estimated daily intake to doses
expected to be without risk of noncancer toxic effects over a lifetime:
Dose
HQ RfD
HI = Y, HQs
where:
HQ = Hazard Quotient (unitless)
Dose = Intake (mg/kg-day)
RfD = Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)
HI = Hazard Index
Equation 7
Equation 8
Risks were evaluated for Warren Creek exposure using the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ 2021) Risk Calculator (Calculator). The Calculator was used to
estimate risks for a recreator. The exposure assumptions in the Calculator for the recreator are very
conservative:
• A child aged 0 to 6 years
• Direct contact with sediment 195 days per year for two hours per day
• Sediment covering head, hands, forearms, lower legs, and feet
• Sediment that adheres at a rate of 2 milligrams per square centimeter of skin (mg/cm2), which
is about three times what is typically assumed for an adult
• Accidental ingestion of 200 mg of sediment, which is twice the total soil amount that is typically
assumed for an adult
The maximum detected concentration in sediment from any of the 10 locations
3-7
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities Section 3
Additional details appear in the Risk Calculator input and output tables (Appendix C).
NCDEQ establishes the following risk targets:
ELCR of 1 x1O-6 (one in a million) for individual contaminants, and 1 x1O-4 (one in 10,000) for the
sum of the risks for all contaminants
HQ of 0.2 for individual contaminants, and HI (sum of HQs) of 1
Details of the methodology are included in the Risk Calculator inputs and outputs (Appendix C). The
human health screening also includes a qualitative discussion of the potential for bioaccumulation
into small game fish.
3-8
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Section 4
Results - Water Quality
This section presents a summary of the results of the field investigation of Warren Creek that BC
completed January 6 and 7, 2021, with a focus on channel characteristics and surface water quality.
4.1 Stream and Channel Characteristics
Field parameters and notes, including stream width, water depth, flow, and general observations are
presented in the Interim Memo (BC 2021). In general, wetted stream width ranged between 1.5 feet
at WC-3 and 15 feet at WC-5, where water was diverted around a gravel island/peninsula. Water
depth was shallow, ranging from less than 1 inch to 5 inches, and stream velocity ranged from zero
(stagnant water) to just over 1 foot per second (ft/sec). Warren Creek was described as "sinuous" at
most of the locations, and erosion/eroded banks were common throughout the sampling area. A
stormwater outfall was noted near sample location WC 2, two culverts were observed along the
Warren Creek trail at location WC-4, and a sewer manhole was observed in the area adjacent to WC-
8. Trash was observed at locations WC-2, WC-5, and WC-8; a discarded automobile fuel tank was
also observed near WC-8.
4.2 Surface Water Results
Field parameters and grab sample results are discussed in separate subsections below.
4.2.1 Field Parameters
Field parameter measurements from the field investigation are provided in Appendix D. The water
was relatively clear, with most turbidity less than 6 nephelometric turbidity units [NTU] at most
stations. The highest turbidity was noted at WC-6 (185 NTU). DO saturation was relatively low
(59.7 percent) at station WC-6, although the DO concentration at 6.64 milligrams per liter [mg/L])
was above the state WQS of 5 mg/L. DO saturation was greater than 75 percent at all other stations,
with the highest value of 119.1 percent (13.9 mg/L) observed at WC-7. Total dissolved solids (TDS)
was low, ranging from 0.014 grams per liter (g/L) at WC-1 to 9.98 g/L at WC-4. The pH was in the
6.5 - 7.0 range at most stations, but was less than 6.5 at four stations and as low as 5.5 at station
WC-3. The lower pH values were observed in locations where relatively stagnant water was in contact
with decaying vegetative material. Overall, the water quality parameters collected in the field did not
indicate any specific locations with major water quality concerns.
4.2.2 Grab Sample Results
Surface water analytical results for detected constituents are summarized below in Table 4-1.
Appendix E includes the comparison of results to ESVs, specifically, the USEPA Region 4 Freshwater
Screening Values. There were very few exceedances of ESVs, and those exceedances were minor.
Iron and manganese concentrations exceeded the chronic screening values at WC-6 (iron only
slightly); manganese was below the acute value. These screening values are for unfiltered samples.
WC-6 had higher turbidity than the other stations, and the dissolved concentrations of these metals
were in the range of other stations. No other inorganic constituent exceeded the screening values.
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene and indeno(1,2,3-c,d) pyrene concentrations exceeded both the non -narcotic
and narcotic chronic values at WC-6. The observations were all trace (in the part -per -trillion range),
4-1
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities Section 4
but some of the chronic screening values are similarly very low. Particulate matter in the surface
water at WC-6, a tributary with leafy debris, appears to account for all of these exceedances. PAHs
have low aqueous solubility and tend to sorb to particulate matter. Areas with debris generally have
higher suspended solids, so unfiltered water samples often reflect PAHs in suspended sediment and
not as dissolved contaminants in surface water.
It should be noted that the method detection limits (MDLs) for mercury were higher than the wildlife
acute and wildlife chronic screening values, but mercury concentrations did not exceed the aquatic
acute or aquatic chronic values at any location. The MDL for silver was higher than the aquatic
chronic ESV, but silver did not exceed the acute ESV at any station. The MDLs for benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene were higher than the lowest of the screening level;
however, these constituents did not exceed the remaining screening levels.
Appendix F includes the comparison of surface water sampling results to North Carolina WQS. WQS
for several inorganic constituents were also calculated based on site -specific laboratory -calculated
hardness values. Hardness (as calcium carbonate [CaC031) exceeded the WQS for water supply at
WC-9 and WC-10; since Warren Creek is not an actual water supply these observations are not of
concern. No inorganic constituents exceeded the WQS. Total PAHs exceeded the water supply WQS
at WC-6; there are no WQS for individual PAHs, either for aquatic life/secondary recreation or for
water supply. It should be noted that the MDL for mercury (0.1 micrograms per liter [pg/L]) was
higher than the WQS (0.012 pg/L).
Fecal coliform concentrations were slightly above the WQS for protection of aquatic life of
200 colony -forming units per 100 milliliters (cfu/100 mL) at WC-9 (240 cfu/100 mL) but ranged
from 6 to 182 cfu/100 mL at the other locations. There is no carbonaceous BOD 5-day (CBOD5)
standard, but, with the exception of 4.2 mg/L at WC-7, results were consistent at all stations and in
the range of 1 mg/L, indicating low levels of oxygen -demanding substances. Total phosphorus (TP)
concentrations were generally less than 80 pg/L, the City TP benchmark applied as part of its WQI
[City of Durham, 20181), with the exception of 82 pg/L at WC-2 and 135 pg/L at WC-6. Ammonia was
not detected. Overall, water quality was good in Warren Creek, with few exceedances of ESVs or
water quality criteria. The few exceedances that were observed were minor in magnitude. Although
Warren Creek is not a public water supply, the single exceedance of the water supply WQS for total
PAHs (at WC-6) indicates that whatever PAH source(s) are affecting the sediment can also cause
above -background concentrations in surface water. The surface water sampling results did not
indicate an impairment of any use of Warren Creek, and the remainder of the investigation focused
on sediment quality.
4-2
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities Section 4
Constituent
WC-1
WC-2
Table 4-1.
WC-2
(Dup)
Summary of
WC-3
Constituents Detected in Surface Water
WC-4 WC-5 WC-6
WC-7
WC-8
WC-9
WC-10
General Chemistry
Carbonaceous BOD
(m L)
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.7
1.6
4.2
1.4
1.6
1.2
Fecal Coliform (CFU/100
mL)
144
182
137
6
6
118
113
125
81
240
131
Hardness (as CaCO3)
(mg/L)
77.4
78.3
76.2
68.5
67
77.9
75.5
79
66.4
104
112
Total Phosphorus as P
(pg/L)
41
82.1
54.6
29
25
40.1
135
37.8
37.8
34
33.1
Metals (pg/L)
Aluminum
655
676
653
785
797
645
1,040
694
618
603
542
Aluminum ,Filtered
238
219
205
196
538
234
138
205
140
206
143
Arsenic
0.441
0.408
0.425
0.27
0.207
0.445
0.419
0.409
0.386
0.371
0.346
Arsenic, Filtered
0.355
0.368
0.354
0.188
0.222
0.387
< 0.18
0.368
0.344
0.344
0.332
Barium
36.4
36.3
35
26.6
28.3
36.1
67.6
38.6
36
34.6
35.8
Barium ,Filtered
36.2
35
33.9
24.8
26.3
35.4
56.1
33.2
37.1
34.2
32.2
Calcium
16,800
17,100
16,600
14,200
14,200
17,000
16,500
17,300
14,800
22,200
23,800
Calcium ,Filtered
17,600
17,700
17,400
15,100
14,400
18,200
17,400
17,600
15,400
22,900
25,800
Chromium
3.69
3.35
2.7
1.87
3.28
2.43
3.15
2.96
1.62
2.92
3.4
Chromium ,Filtered
< 1.24
< 1.24
< 1.24
< 1.24
1.96
< 1.24
< 1.24
< 1.24
< 1.24
< 1.24
< 1.24
Cobalt
0.748
0.741
0.777
0.874
0.661
0.734
2.84
0.733
0.436
0.549
0.542
Cobalt, Filtered
0.375
0.396
0.356
0.379
0.354
0.377
0.109
0.354
0.291
0.26
0.194
Copper
5.86
5.08
4.8
2.53
3.73
2.69
2.85
4.24
2.28
3.99
7.71
Copper, Filtered
2.82
2.62
2.42
2.69
2.33
2.33
1.52
2.18
2.23
2.58
2.06
Iron
799
817
803
698
974
814
1390
847
712
722
684
Iron ,Filtered
417
425
414
241
857
394
165
399
325
378
281
Lead
< 0.849
< 0.849
< 0.849
< 0.849
0.868
< 0.849
1.34
< 0.849
< 0.849
< 0.849
< 0.849
Magnesium
8,600
8,650
8,410
8,030
7,690
8,590
8,310
8,680
7,140
11,800
12,700
Magnesium Filtered
8,670
8,740
8,890
8,310
7,560
9,460
8,430
9,170
7,120
12,800
13,800
Manganese
80.1
80.6
81
70.9
30.9
84.4
262
85.2
44.4
60.1
28.7
Manganese,Filtered
59.2
61.7
62.2
54.9
19.5
63.5
15.2
61.9
37.4
40.2
16.8
Nickel
3.47
3.24
2.85
1.78
2.89
2.38
3.37
2.9
2.09
3.05
3.25
Nickel ,Filtered
1.93
1.94
1.93
1.1
2.33
2.09
1.44
1.78
1.5
1.71
1.77
Brown,,-- Caldwell
4-3
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities Section 4
Constituent
WC-1
WC-2
Table 4-1.
WC-2
(Dup)
Summary
of
WC-3
Constituents
Detected
WC-4
in Surface
WC-5
Water
WC-6
WC-7
WC-8
WC-9
WC-10
Potassium
1700
1640
1640
881
812
1660
1010
1660
1620
1640
1530
Potassium ,Filtered
1640
1620
1640
878
797
1710
963
1580
1660
1620
1450
Sodium
7240
7280
7050
7130
4850
7350
6100
7450
7620
8210
8940
Sodium,Filtered
7630
8050
7860
8160
5180
8030
6710
8520
8230
9130
10300
Vanadium
2.05
1.98
1.96
2.12
2.41
1.98
3.34
2.11
1.64
1.99
2.14
Vanadium ,Filtered
1.34
1.55
1.5
1.23
2.51
1.47
0.958
1.5
1.12
1.6
1.68
Zinc
4.82
4.24
4.84
<
3.02
<
3.02
3.6
5.15
4.49
6.86
<
3.02
<
3.02
Zinc,Filtered
7.97
6.3
7.21
7.31
7.27
6.68
6.76
6.27
8.96
6.18
5.45
PAHs (p L)
Benzo(a)anthracene
<
0.02
<
0.02
<
0.02
<
0.02
<
0.02
<
0.02
0.027
<
0.02
<
0.02
<
0.02
<
0.02
Benzo(a)pyrene
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
0.033
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
<
0.017
<
0.017
<
0.017
<
0.017
<
0.017
<
0.017
0.078
<
0.017
<
0.017
<
0.017
<
0.017
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
0.044
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
<
0.02
<
0.02
<
0.02
<
0.02
<
0.02
<
0.02
0.031
<
0.02
<
0.02
<
0.02
<
0.02
Chrysene
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
0.056
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
Fluoranthene
<
0.027
<
0.027
<
0.027
<
0.027
<
0.027
<
0.027
0.08
<
0.027
<
0.027
<
0.027
<
0.027
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
<
0.016
<
0.016
<
0.016
<
0.016
<
0.016
<
0.016
0.045
<
0.016
<
0.016
<
0.016
<
0.016
Phenanthrene
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
0.024
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
<
0.018
Pyrene
<
0.017
<
0.017
<
0.017
<
0.017
<
0.017
<
0.017
0.066
<
0.017
<
0.017
<
0.017
<
0.017
BrawnAwCaldwell
4-4
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities Section 4
This section describes the observations and analytical data from the sediment investigation.
The water quality analyses and field parameters collected did not indicate any specific locations with
major water quality concerns. Overall, there is no apparent pattern of WQls suggesting a sanitary
sewer leak, and water quality overall is good.
The lowest concentrations of many of the metals were observed at Warren Creek tributary location
WC-8, which had no HQs above 1(see Tables 5-4 and 5-5 for the screening -level HQ ratios).
However, it was also the location with the highest PAH concentrations. As shown on the contaminant
distribution figures (Figures 5-1 through 5-7), there was no consistency as to where the highest
concentrations of various analytes were detected. Station WC-2 (by Horton Road) had the highest
number of HQs over 1, but these HQs were not that different from other locations. There were only
two screening -level HQs over 5, and these were for different analytes at different locations
(chromium at WC-2 and barium at WC-10, the most upstream location sampled).
Overall, the data exhibit a lack of geospatial patterns, such as co -occurrence of higher
concentrations of different analytes, association with stream characteristics, or gradients with
concentrations gradually increasing or decreasing along the stream. The similar HMW PAH arrays at
the different stations suggest that PAH analytes in Warren Creek are the result of widespread
sources. Potential sources for contaminants entering Warren Creek are discussed in Section 6.
4-5
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Section 5
Results - Sediment Quality
This section presents a summary of the results of the field investigation of Warren Creek that BC
completed January 6 and 7, 2021, with a focus on sediment characteristics and quality. It also
presents the results of the SLERA, including the food chain model and human health screening.
5.1 Sediment Morphology
Grain size and TOC analysis results are summarized below in Table 5-1. Refer to Figure 3-1 for
locations. Most of the sediment samples were sandy with varying amount of silt and TOC content
that ranged from less than 1 to 5 percent. The relatively high TOC content of sample WC-6
(5 percent) was associated with leafy debris.
Location
I Lithology
TOC (%)
WC-1 Warren Creek, approximately 150 feet north of Horton Road
Poorly graded sand
0.7
0.8/0.7
WC-2/ Warren Creek, immediately north of Horton Road at City of Durham Poorly graded sand/ Poorly graded sand with silt
WC-21)location EN10.3WC
2.0
WC-3 Tributary 1, approximately mid -way between Warren Creek and Warren Silty sand
Creek Trail
1.5
WC-4 Tributary 2, approximately mid -way between Warren Creek and Warren Silty sand
Creek Trail
0.9
WC-5 Warren Creek, approximately 200 feet upstream of the residential area Poorly graded sand with gravel
along Signet Drive
5
WC-6 Warren Creek, at confluence with Tributary 3, approximately 300 feet Sandy silt
upstream of WC-5
1.4
WC-7 Tributary 3, approximately mid -way between Warren Creek and Warren Well -graded gravel with silt and sand
Creek Trail
0.5
WC-8 Creek entering Warren Creek from southwest, upstream of residential Poorly graded sand
area along Peppertree Street
WC-9 Warren Creek, approximately 1,000 feet upstream from the confluence
of Warren Creek and the creek entering from the west, nearthe
Poorly graded sand
0.7
residential area along Zenith Place
WC-10 Warren Creek, downstream of Whippoorwill Park and just downstream
of the confluence of Warren Creek and a tributary entering from the
Poorly graded sand with gravel
1.3
east
5.2 Sediment Chemistry
Sediment analytical results are summarized in Table 5-2. Bold values in Table 5-2 indicate the
exceedance of one or more screening values (USEPA Region 4 freshwater sediment screening
values). Appendix G provides the full tabulation of screening values in conjunction with the sediment
5-1
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities
Section 5
quality results. As indicated in the Table 5-2, six metals (barium, chromium, copper, iron manganese
and nickel) and PAH compounds had maximum observed concentrations over an ESV.6 These
constituents are the COPECs that are addressed further in the SLRA (Section 5.3). Additional
discussion of sediment quality appears below. Further discussion of these screening values appears
in subsections on SLRA (Section 5.3) and human health screening (Section 5.4).
6Copper exceeded the ESV of 31.5 mg/kg (see Appendix G) by a small margin in one sample (39.5 mg/kg at WC-2), but the
duplicate at this station showed a much lower concentration (15.7 mg/kg); thus the overall concentration is not concluded
to exceed the ESV and is several fold below the RSV of 149 mg/kg. Copper is not retained as a COPEC.
5-2
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement
Section 5
WC-1
WC-2
WC-2
(Dup)
2. Summary
WC-3
of
Sediment
WC-4
Analytical
Results
WC-5
WC-6
WC-7
WC-8
WC-9
WC-10
General Chemistry
Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)
6940
8490
6720
20,000
14900
8940
51200
14400
5050
7110
12800
Total solids (%)
80.9
55.4
76.1
73.2
78.8
88.7
44.9
88.1
85.1
79.1t18
Metals (mg/kg)
Aluminum
14,700
16,300
9,480
14,400
10,800
13,300
13,800
15,600
4,160
15,7000Antimony
<
0.205
<
0.3
<
0.218
0.436
<
0.211
<
0.187
<
0.37
<
0.189
<
0.195
<
0.21
Arsenic
6.96
6.12
5.15
8.68
1.25
7.35
1.99
2.5
1.27
2.27
.
Barium
69.8
58.9
28.3
56.4
57.5
50.9
78.1
63.4
11
51.3
133
Beryllium
0.98
0.606
0.402
0.888
0.334
0.469
0.364
0.266
0.335
0.252
0.814
Cadmium
<
0.106
<
0.154
<
0.112
<
0.117
<
0.108
<
0.0964
<
0.191
<
0.0971
<
0.1
<
0.108
<
0.0936
Calcium
3060
4710
3810
3160
2420
5020
2700
7460
1580
9410
6240
Chromium
202
282
113
109
107
194
48.7
69.9
45
74.6
100
Cobalt
99.5
51.9
23.3
38.8
20.9
27.2
19.4
32.2
10.3
22.5
46.6
Copper
30.5
39.5
15.7
28
18.1
22.5
28.2
22.9
8.93
22.2
28
Iron
85,400
71,500
33,700
68,700
21,000
67,600
18,400
37,600
16,700
25,500
51,600
Lead
16
10.8
8.53
22.2
10.3
8.77
15.4
4.66
2.65
6.03
9.8
Magnesium
2290
5080
2930
1370
2210
6180
1710
10600
798
5180
6530
Manganese
1,560
933
396
777
556
522
328
466
251
1,070
1,420
Mercury
<
0.0223
<
0.0325
<
0.0236
<
0.0246
<
0.0228
<
0.0203
0.0539
<
0.0204
<
0.0211
<
0.0228
<
0.0197
Nickel
53.3
66.6
33.2
28.3
23.7
52.7
27.7
77.9
12.3
47
70.2
Potassium
320
272
210
303
322
196
446
194
113
228
803
Selenium
0.359
0.493
<
0.236
0.588
0.356
0.331
0.493
<
0.204
<
0.211
<
0.228
0.408
Silver
<
0.107
<
0.156
<
0.114
<
0.118
0.401
<
0.0975
<
0.193
<
0.0982
<
0.102
<
0.109
<
0.0947
Sodium
347
710
577
145
232
821
197
1210
231
1420
632
Thallium
0.204
<
0.117
<
0.0854
<
0.0888
0.103
<
0.0733
<
0.145
<
0.0738
<
0.0764
<
0.0822
0.0748
Vanadium
227
214
92.7
171
57.2
158
51.6
75.5
40.4
60.5
110
Zinc
69.6
60.3
33
42.5
17.6
39.8
54.7
37.2
19.8
30.5
84
PAHs(mg/kg)
Low Molecular Weight (LMW)
1-Methylnaphthalene
<
0.00555
<
0.0081
<
0.0059
<
0.00613
<
0.0057
<
0.00506
<
0.01
<
0.0051
<
0.00528
<
0.00568
<
0.00492
2-Methylnaphthalene
<
0.00528
<
0.00771
<
0.00561
<
0.00583
<
0.00542
<
0.00481
<
0.00952
<
0.00485
<
0.00502
<
0.0054
<
0.00468
Acenaphthene
<
0.00258
<
0.00377
<
0.00275
<
0.00286
<
0.00265
<
0.00236
<
0.00466
<
0.00237
0.0106
<
0.00264
<
0.00229
Acenaphthylene
<
0.00267
<
0.0039
<
0.00284
<
0.00295
<
0.00274
<
0.00244
<
0.00482
<
0.00245
<
0.00254
<
0.00273
<
0.00237
Anthracene
0.0305
<
0.00415
<
0.00302
<
0.00314
<
0.00292
<
0.00259
<
0.00513
<
0.00261
0.0233
0.00497
0.0136
Fluorene
0.00513
<
0.0037
<
0.00269
<
0.0028
<
0.0026
<
0.00231
<
0.00457
<
0.00233
0.0116
<
0.00259
<
0.00225
Naphthalene
<
0.00505
<
0.00736
<
0.00536
<
0.00557
<
0.00518
<
0.0046
<
0.0091
<
0.00463
<
0.00479
<
0.00516
<
0.00447
Phenanthrene
0.124
0.0301
0.00344
<
0.00316
<
0.00293
0.0101
0.006
0.00325
0.208
0.043
0.062
TOTAL LMW-PAHS
0.15963
0.0301
0.00344
ND
ND
0.0101
0.006
0.00325
0.2535
0.04797
0.0756
High Molecular Weight
(HMW)
Benzo(a)anthracene
0.143
0.0174
0.00692
<
0.00236
<
0.00219
0.0117
0.00972
0.00508
0.173
0.0478
0.0737
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.137
0.0224
0.00661
<
0.00245
<
0.00227
0.0169
0.0148
0.00795
0.17
0.0531
0.0716
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.183
0.0381
0.00931
<
0.00209
<
0.00194
0.0304
0.0243
0.0146
0.257
0.0837
0.1
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
0.108
0.0204
0.00552
<
0.00242
<
0.00225
0.0154
0.016
0.0101
0.145
0.0435
0.0552
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.0683
0.0136
0.00434
<
0.00294
<
0.00273
0.0096
0.0101
0.00604
0.0855
0.0273
0.0384
Chrysene
0.146
0.0307
0.00862
<
0.00317
<
0.00294
0.0221
0.0184
0.00844
0.207
0.0641
0.0821
5-3
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement
Section 5
WC-1
WC-2
-2. Summary of Sediment Analytical Results
WC-2
(Dup) WC-3 WC-4 WC-5
WC-6
WC-7
WC-8
WC-9
WC-10
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
0.0234
0.00365
< 0.00226
< 0.00235
< 0.00218
0.00297
< 0.00383
0.00215
0.0305
0.009
0.0117
Fluoranthene
0.329
0.0785
0.0159
< 0.0031
< 0.00288
0.0458
0.029
0.0152
0.485
0.139
0.206
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
0.0879
0.0164
0.00427
< 0.00247
< 0.0023
0.0127
0.0125
0.00914
0.117
0.0337
0.0442
Pyrene
0.255
0.0579
0.0129
< 0.00273
< 0.00254
0.0351
0.0218
0.0114
0.39
0.113
0.154
TOTAL HMW-PANS
1.4806
0.29905
0.07439
ND
ND
0.20267
0.15662
0.0901
2.06
0.6142
0.8369
TOTAL PAHS
1.6402
0.32915
0.07783
ND
ND
0.21277
0.16262
0.09335
2.3135
0.66217
0.9125
Bolded results indicate exceedance of one or more screening levels; see Table 4 in the Interim Memo (BC 2021) for screening details.
5-4
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities
Section 5
Figures 5-1 through 5-6 present the concentration distributions of the COPECs. Overall, there is no
particular location that exhibited elevated concentrations of multiple COPECs. Rather, the maximum
concentrations of metals and PAHs were observed at different locations throughout Warren Creek
and its tributaries. Location WC-6 had the highest TOC concentration (from leafy debris) and also the
highest concentrations PAHs and some other COPECs such as iron and manganese. This provides
some evidence that organic content is one of the variables that explains the variability of COPEC
concentrations between locations. However, most other locations had relatively similar TOC content,
and no other apparent relationship exists between concentrations of metals and PAHs and either
grain size or TOC.
Figure 5-7 shows the range of concentrations of HMWPAHs at each location. PAHs were only
detected at concentrations above the bulk screening levels at locations WC-1 and WC-8. The array of
HMWPAHs detected at each station is shown in Figure 5-8. The pattern was similar in all locations,
despite concentrations ranging by over an order of magnitude. This is true even for samples from
independent drainage areas; for example, locations WC-6, WC-8, and WC-9. The similarity of the PAH
arrays suggests that PAHs in stream sediments are all from a similar regional source or type of
source (petroleum, combustion, etc.), with the range of concentrations due to localized conditions.
Likewise, it also suggests that the PAHs are not derived from discrete upstream sources, which
would tend to result in different PAH arrays for different drainage areas. Additional discussion of
potential sources of sediment contamination appears in Section 6.
Table 5-3 presents a comparison of the results from the sediment sampling completed by the City
several years ago and the recent sampling event. The 2013/2014 Station EN10.3WC, just north
(downstream) of the bridge at Horton Road, is closest to the 2021 station WC-2. Data for location
WC-2 are also shown. Concentrations of several metals (chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc)
were higher in the more recent sampling event. However, the WC-2 duplicate pair information also
indicates that there is a lot of variability even within one pair of grab samples collected at the same
time. Furthermore, sampling and analytical methodologies may have differed. It is not possible to
draw trend conclusions from this limited data set.
There is a large literature database on urban background, but most studies are not representative
for comparative use here because they address soil rather than stream sediment, are from
agricultural or heavily industrial areas, are international, are from estuarine or marine systems, or
only report selected metals. For this study, urban background values were derived from Bain and
others (2012) because the authors provide an extensive list of parameters that included all Warren
Creek COPECs, and because the mid -Atlantic study location (Baltimore, MD) is more comparable to
Warren Creek than most other references. The urban background values were used to provide
perspective on the Warren Creek findings.
Figure 5-9 presents a comparison of observed sediment concentrations in Warren Creek to urban
sediment background concentrations reported by Bain and others (2012). For four of the metals
(barium, iron, manganese and nickel), the Warren Creek concentration range encompassed the
reported mean background concentration. Cobalt and chromium were notably higher than
background as defined by Bain and others (2012). These observations should be used with caution
as the comparison is only based on one Warren Creek sampling event and one literature study.
However, the comparison does suggest that the majority of the metals that exceeded screening
levels are likely to be consistent with background for this type of watershed. In addition, the other
(non-COPEC) inorganic analytes did not exceed screening levels.
5-5
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

-, , ,A,
.._,
,. ,.... , ,. . _ 11.1, ,,, . , • ,„... ., 4 I 1 ,,,.,-.., c
it i•, 4 a ,k4 WV A , '
-'4 ----- '1 l',.- ,, - '°,I 0,' . .. A * It/ ' 1 4 ' '
111
we-2 �ilr�
-,Horton Rd. .
taxes
z
x
/ • x •s. � s� x ` .
4 _ •
p
OOW �x
p WC-6
Cherrycrest Dr< 4.
is a,
• I ' � 1WC-8 , I O_ � I, ' 77#.
'
1M ;ve' _ .4 g` t; '4 i•
_
r
q i"n !Iii
_d Legend
O WC-9h} _
Total Barium in Sediment�
O ND - 25 mg/kg # �., 'n ,
O >25 - 50 mg/kg ' :' _ •
U
cl)
o_
O >50 -75 mg/kg '
as
M
>75 - 100 mg/kg =
co
• >100 mg/kg
as '. . we-1 o
13 - Results shown to 2 significant figures '°1
E 4 N pi' F
o Warren Creek
i
-. L — _I Warren Creek Watershed ;co
in 1
a
8 FIGURE 5-1
a Brown AND i0 250 500
ldW�yllBARIUM IN SEDIMENT
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
Q Feet

- 4 , ,fir 41111 11111 k �,I.,, ,:,ii 6....., , .i, 4; ,,, .,...: , ,,,,,, :ii ti . t..,1, . 4, , .. i:-.„_Aim 44-..L04... :__ 4i,:j..m._,,,..;141- 4,6i. , , :11: ....71..i, - .,
p
Air
y V/LL/rRRD
ESI3
020
Qp WC-6
VD cs.,
.
s' � 4�R e� r�♦� ':.. A-+!tom.`� �.
�' �. '„t e t i- it�
WC-8 * 4 ' ''� 4,4 7,1 `'- 4, -1144 g'
i
°' Legend
WC-9rill ,
,
a)1 Total Chromium in Sediment
O ND - 50 mg/kg # ,., 'r'
O >50 - 100 mg/kg ' _ .
U
O >100 - 150 mg/kg ,
as r
� ;� ® >150 - 200 mg/kg - ' —,
0.
ct ,,- • >200 mg/kg
kS
n WC-10
Results shown to 2 significant figures
j Warren Creek
E
' L
_ _
r '' L I Warren Creek Watershed
in
—
°Add 1tt da1is i., ., P. ••� -co
a
FIGURE 5-2
a Brown AND i0 250 500
ldW�yllCHROMIUM IN SEDIMENT
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
I Feet

„,,, ,00 „ ; ; 4 -, ,,,,_, . ,.: ,''',,,,,..,-.., , 4 4 ,.. ips4, oil ow Volga , f ' ""P 4..:L '''''5', '114:4,411,:;”i--4.,:
,� ��, x
52 _
W !�" A t.�x w ° 2 a"
•
"A ..3, `'` r 7 ,'4.a `' yt SDI•.0`w' t+ .- ,�, ,. +•,';° ..
'Z.:4“:,......-,,,:;,,4„..7,7* : ''','
., ..
>tiol.
yti. , h„ , ...,...„,,,. ,.:„.„,..,,Y' Mc 1
`` .Iv X.,,. t j u
r ,, {,A �\1''(�/ W C 6 �x *n
Itir `7 ',r A ..
*'V 0 ,Mt I M •
I
WC-8 � ,
i 14:
{ �a R
f 1 3
ill +�.
-6 _' I - '� `�'�Y, ', ✓ `
E . - '...4,416,,,4 h I RP g 44. 'f ' ' $,,,
Legend ' - Via
-0 '� 0 WC-9 ,,v , 0 46 r
� Total Cobalt in Sediment Y p, k ow A /Y
°I ® ND - 25 mg/kg r' ,*. I} d , ^' Via` r" ;
>25 - 50 mg/kg +i ! r a .: o�
a
D >50 -75 mg/kg
Q :,, '
f
2 ," rD >75 - 100 mg/kg _ z f M �
Q
2 • >100 mg/kg -` Ni x a
�,. . '. 0 WC-10 - t
2 :;4 Results shown to 2 significant figures 5,; ' f
0 ` Warren Creek
E r — —
_ am „
— I Warren Creek Watershed Y'f - •
03
o
E
FIGURE 5-3
FEND . LT IN SEDIMENT 0 250 500
Caldwell •
WARREN COBACREEK WATERSHED
a Feet

„,, i,1,,,,r,,,,..„1„ ...,
n
z, -,,,, ,„-,”; s
N ,-
-, {T , • ' - -0 a, . 85000- $ 1, r ".'A.
10414;
o.WC-2 ,r< ' ..
72000 iy
� 69000 S-
iz ter a ,, 4 toz
,
oo
•
r - .. 21000 �° , Z � ,
tea './: '_ `
68000
irAJW p WC-6
38000 18000 i '
e1 .r u.
:n4 - -
YS .a f R • NKr ary}. 4 '.
,hi
WC-8 � ',— `1. ' I4 . .
17000 ° `,a _ _.4 `�1 "" s >`
a-,
d t Lill ii.:1r 1, 1; F
,,, .4,04
-, Legend ,.
WC-9h
sI Total Iron in Sediment 26000
O ND - 20,000 mg/kg T., r
O >20,000 -40,000 mg/kg ' :
O >40,000 - 60,000 mg/kg _— , 4-,
co $ f
1600.1ifir
r _�� >60,000 80,000 mg/kgaa, : • >80,000 mg/kg '`Y,
a O WC-10
E ,1 Results shown to 2 significant figures 52000
¢D � Fi
0 Warren Creek
r " ; L — —I Warren Creek Watershed r
o
m
a
��� ND FIGURE 5-4
Caldwell • IRON IN SEDIMENT WARREN 0 250 500
CREEK WATERSHED Feet

n
z -.� s
Ate a �F,ip - € a '� �' � �
i.l."11'-rim.'" ' '`f41 . - ,,,A, , it.,..) k
xx � �,�' _s I ,iNi , '.J WC-1 A' .... lit
I [
C-2 y ,�
� b
F ' 1
Q v—
LRA Y
n ..WC-6
ea,K Yi[Ij1 - .j. lay' �.," .1
VViCAAlJ 4
n4•- - ,
.. - - vim, 4
YS.wa �f R y,K r ary}.
t a "Ye nn N. , ,
a
1
C
Ln
g� Legend . ,.
= WC-9 `
s' 1 Total Manganese in Sediment 1100
1
2 O ND - 300 mg/kg -
a
O >300 - 600 mg/kg - ;
U
•
-
N d! !
1 , 4.
>600 - 900 mg/kg ,
01,- g f
as
2 , O >900 - 1,200 mg/kg
lc
cu .4: • >1,200 mg/kg 0,,,.
a
WC-10
E .1 Results shown to 2 significant figures 1400
0 Warren Creek
E
-c " ; L — —I Warren Creek Watershed r
o
co
Brown �� FIGURE 5-5
I
MANGANESE IN SEDIMENT 0 250 500
Caldwell
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED Feet

�,� 4. -r� ,�4:, ,, age
o
1 .� ! 4, fit fl..lt (I 1jil� ..'f'� ,.. n1, �V � p •
R'. j 4`
stio
tr
Al..* v;irt �
• a+ a O -lig; -, ,-'-b.'-itlip ' - * ry6- — ��
® si f'
r tY•"
mow >'Q -< r', .•./I
O
M51V
W
.
Q v WC-6
SO
.�
w~• � .tin a
�
41
1L1 s
'1 ' �.
p
X
2� Legend
O WC-9 • wh}
�i Total Nickel in Sediment
O >20 -40 mg/kg ,-
U
cu
0- O >40 - 60 mg/kg
,'. .c. rmg
g
y(Y
-6
co •
WC-10
�' Results shown to 2 significant figures �' lip
to
r*i/ ,••I'r; il, ., . ..., ..
. ,...., ..
iz .1.
Warren Creek
— _I Warren Creek Watershed pA :, --
a
Brown AND FIGURE 5-6
o_ NICKEL IN SEDIMENT 0 250 500
Caldwell+��v� WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
I Feet

m
;,� i; te , , ' N
s 4 i+ • i'° 4' ' _4 ,Y .fit, , ' �„
- +I Itt it p•f 4 s� 4 � :L _
-74
----- -H',"- , - `°,11.' . .1 i — - . 4 .
- 144,-
.,.. � �.
4 ,Horton Rd. 0 „ 'f% 0`
ISEte
r.
0
m
QED
Cherrycrest Dr 4.' '
: .
•
V 5�#,�y�.�' �,M,,n ♦r •i 1 :4,r
WC-8 - '.4 -" ' i I' '
ell
li 34 M i i. .
- / A �, xl # l
Iq
s } WC9 w
YI , O
V
Legend u
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs '
2 Non-Detect , _
as .0 Oly
it 3
2 ® >ND - 0.5 mg/kg
O >0.5- 1.0 mg/kg ,_
®ri) >1.0 mg/kg - � O
WC-10
r .ate a
• 4• Results shown to 2 significant figures r* .4 '
- Warren Creek �r '
's _ I Warren Creek Watershed .'
4
k
N
a
i Brown AND . FIGURE 5-7
a 0 250 500
Caldwell
TOTAL HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT PAHs IN SEDIMENT
+�rvv u ' WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
Q Feet

'" , +III,Ill" 'j I+,r t *'r1 14"'1 IPA i ,r ,' �s_: A WC-1 s 4 ' ', 1'
1,,-urn r, ' y ' :�* �� • ,, ..,�
T _ —
—,Horton Rd. _r`- " .WC 2 :_ A
F „P eD
I Wag
,
i,I WC-7 -A�o
• �� 0.09 ./�� A��� WC-6 a %-r
:'� Cherrycrest Dr
,
Legend N, ',,,, , , ) t4:
�w '.
PAH Distribution1$1�' a -
1� ,,r
E ,i J+ f T 4 r.. "rrra„k,
o "
o '
Benzo(a)anthracene i , ba.5
a Benzo(b)fluoranthene '� a , VVC-9
st 5iik � rg Benzo(g,h,i)perylenea) , ir,,,, , ,_ ,,,,c,
- ter" ��
. , ,
�Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4 ,Chrysene _U yy -
-
o Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
co Fluoranthene '4. b
,. s
Q ; T`
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene '�z
WC-10
m `� '`qy ` �F �� t
as
40
N Results shown to f . ` ; 0.84 ,
to 2 significant figures +
v
Warren Creek I V'�iz
` , i4Plir �'I 4x f;
r ' — i Warren Creek Watershed �; - ; 1 33
- ..
o
FIGURE 5-8
Brown AND • DISTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL HIGH-MOLECULAR WEIGHT 0 250 500
Caldwell ' PAH COMPOUNDS IN SEDIMENT
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED Feet

100
300
120
250
tio
80
100
E
E 200
c
60
80
•2 150
0 60
40
`�°
a
a)
ill
(U
40
40
0
20
0 50
20
IL
•
U
, 0
U M
0
0
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
100,000
2,000
90
80
80,000
own 1,500
own 70
E
E
E 60
c
60,000
0
0 50
o
+, 1,000
M
P
0 40
}L
40,000
c
U
a)30
U 500
U
C
20,000
0
20
U
U
,
0
U 10
0
0
0 ,
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
■ Warren Creek Minimum
■ Warren Creek Mean
■ Warren Creek Maximum
7 Mean Background Sed
Figure 5-9. Comparison of Warren Creek Metal Sediment Concentrations to Reported Urban Sediment
Background. Reported urban sediment concentrations from Bain and others (2012).

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement
Section 5
5-3.
ComparisonTable
2013-
2014 2021
Sampling Sampling
Station All
EN 10.3WC Locations
Unit Min Max Min Max WC-2/WC-2DUP
2021 Max
Location
Parameter
Aluminum
mg/kg
3,500
4,390
4,160
18,300
16,300/9,480
WC-10
Arsenic
mg/kg
2.49
3.35
1.25
8.68
6.12/5.15
WC-3
Cadmium
mg/kg
<0.0249
0.145
<0.0936
<0.191
<0.154/<0.112
NA
Chromium
mg/kg
59
89.8
45
282
282/113
WC-2
Copper
mg/kg
8.5
9.35
8.93
39.5
39.5/15.7
WC-2
Iron
mg/kg
17,000
17,000
16,700
85,400
71,500/33,700
WC-1
Lead
mg/kg
4.67
5.31
2.65
22.2
10.8/8.53
WC-3
Nickel
mg/kg
12.4
15.8
12.3
77.9
66.6/33.2
WC-7
Zinc
mg/kg
20
22.6
17.6
84
60.3/33
WC-10
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
0.046
0.16
0.00219
0.173
0.0174/0.00692
WC-8
Benzo(a)p nine
mg/kg
0.058
0.14
0.00227
0.17
0.0224/0.0066
WC-8
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
mg/kg
<0.059
0.075
0.00225
0.145
0.0204/0.0055
WC-8
Chrysene
mg/kg
0.067
0.25
0.00294
0.207
0.0307/0.0086
WC-8
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
0.12
0.48
0.00288
0.485
0.0785/0.0159
WC-8
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)p rene
mg/kg
<0.059
0.073
0.0023
0.117
0.0164/0.0043
WC-8
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
<0.034
0.22
0.00293
0.208
0.0301/0.0034
WC-8
Notes:
Only constituents detected in 2013/2014 are presented above
5.3 Screening -Level Ecological Risk Assessment
The Screening -Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLRA) provides a conservative assessment as to
whether the contamination conditions in sediment potentially pose a hazard to either ecological or
humans health.
5.3.1 Step 1: Screening -Level Problem Formulation and Ecological Effects Evaluation
Ecological Setting
Much of the descriptive information for this step of the SLERA was gathered and presented as part of
the Data Catalog (Appendix A) and Interim Memo (BC 2021). The Data Catalog characterized the
Warren Creek area and compiled information on local and regional sources to Warren Creek. Horton
Road may be one localized source of loading to sediments. Other sources in the area have been
documented in the Data Catalog and include stormwater, sewers, dumping and discharges such as
tanks. stormwater run-off, point source discharges, and atmospheric deposition may all contribute to
urban sediment contamination
Conceptual Model
Surface water in Warren Creek is generally of good quality. Sediments contain varying concentrations
of metals and PAHs, which, as detailed further below, are above ecological screening levels. There is
no consistent pattern as to where the higher concentrations were. The relative concentrations of
individual PAH compounds were similar in all 10 locations (see Figure 2-4). These observations
5-15
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities
Section 5
suggest that the sediment quality is related to the urbanized setting and is not a result of a particular
source or release.
Affected receptors are sediment -dwelling life (benthos) and aquatic or semi -aquatic animal species
(birds and mammals) that live or forage in the Warren Creek. Wildlife is most likely to be exposed by
consumption of food (plants or benthos) that has accumulated contaminants. Direct toxicity to
benthos and food chain effects to higher -level wildlife are the key endpoints of concern.
The USEPA Region 4 ESVs as well as the TECs and PECs are appropriate ecotoxicity values for initial
screening. These benchmarks are intended to address the range of potential toxicity mechanisms,
including direct exposure to sediment -dwelling life and food chain effects to animals higher on the
food chain.
5.3.2 Step 2: Screening -Level Preliminary Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
Comparison of observed concentrations to screening levels was completed as part of the field
evaluation, as discussed in Section 4. Surface water showed minimal exceedances of screening
levels and no exceedances of water quality standards. Surface water can therefore be ruled out as a
matrix of concern.
Concentrations of constituents (metals and PAHs) detected in sediment were evaluated against
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 4 (2018) Freshwater Sediment ESVs,
Refined Screening Values (RSV), and wildlife -based screening values (ESV-WL and RSV-WL). RSVs
are based on less conservative values than ESVs. For example, they may represent concentrations
associated with the lowest observed adverse effects, rather than no effects, or be based on effects
in less sensitive species. For these reasons RSVs may be more appropriate than ESVs for use in
urbanized settings where highly sensitive species are not expected.
Further understanding of the magnitude of the exceedances can be derived from the screening -level
HQ:
Screening -Level HQ =
HQs are expressed to one significant figure.
Concentration (mg/kg)-
Screening Level (mg/kg)
Equation 9
Barium, chromium, cobalt, iron, manganese and nickel exceeded screening levels in one or more
samples, as did several PAH compounds (see Table 5-2 and Appendix E). These constituents were
carried forward in the SLERA and Human Health Screening, as described in the following sections.
In Table 5-4, screening -level HQs are presented for the metal COPECs. HQs are shown for both the
ESV ("screening HQ") and RSV ("refined HQ") for each constituent. Table 5-5 shows the HQs based
on the ESVs and RSVs for individual PAH compounds, total (HMW) PAHs, and total PAHs at stations
WC-1 and WC-8 (where ESV exceedances were observed). HQs based on the lower of the screening
values were greater than 2 for total HMW PAHs at WC-1, and for all PAHs that exceeded a screening
value at WC-8, the highest single constituent HQ being 4 (for pyrene).
Screening ecotoxicity values are derived to avoid underestimating risk and should not serve as a
basis for risk management actions (USEPA, 2015). Most of the screening -level HQs are below 5, and
none were over 10, indicating that concentrations are not markedly elevated even compared to
conservative screening benchmarks. As noted previously, screening levels are concentrations below
5-16
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities
Section 5
which ecological concerns can be ruled out. However, much higher concentrations may exist also
without hazardous effects.
As shown in the table, the barium concentration exceeded both high and low screening values at
WC-10, chromium exceeded both high and low screening values at WC-2, and iron exceeded both
high and low screening values at WC-1. HQs based on the lower screening value were greater than 2
(concentrations more than twice the screening value) for barium (nine locations), chromium (six
locations), iron (five locations), manganese (three locations), and nickel (six locations).
5-17
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement
Section 5
Constituent
ESV
RSV
WC-1
Table
WC-2*
5-4. Summary of Screening -Level Hazard Quotients for
I WC-3
Screening Refined Result Screening
HQ HQ (mg/kg) HQ
Metals
WC-4
Result Screening Refined
(mg/kg) HQ HQ
WC-5
Screening Refined
HQ HQ
Result
(mg/kg)
Screening
HQ
Refined
HQ
Result
(mg/kg)
Refined
HQ
Result
(mg/kg)
Barium
20
60
69.8
3E+00
1E+00
58.9
3E+00
1E+00
56.4
3E+00
9E-01
57.5
3E+00 1E+00
50.9
3E+00
8E-01
Chromium
43.4
111
202.0
5E+00 2E+00 282.0
2E+00 2E+00 51.9
4E+00 2E+00 71500
6E+00
3E+00
109.0
3E+00
1E+00
107.0
2E+00 1E+00
194.0
4E+00
2E+00
Cobalt
50
50
99.5
1E+00
1E+00
Iron
20000
40000
85400
4E+00
2E+00
68700
3E+00
+
21000
1E+00 5E-01
67600
3E+00
+
Manganese
460
1100
1560
3E+00
1E+00
933
2E+00
8E-01
777
2E+00
7E-01
556
1E+00 5E-01
522
1E+00
5E-01
Nickel
22.7
48.6
53.3
2E+00
1E+00
66.6
3E+00
1E+00
28.3
1E+00
6E-01
23.7
1E+00 5E-01
52.7
2E+00
1E+00
Constituent
ESV
RSV
WC-6
WC-7
Refined
HQ
WC-8
Result
(mg/kg)
Screening
HQ
Refined
HQ
WC-9
Result Screening
(mg/kg) HQ
51.3 3E+00
WC-10
Screening Refined
HQ HQ
Result
(m k
Screening
HQ
Refined
HQ
Result
(mg/kg)
Screening
HQ
Refined
HQ
Result
(mg/kg)
Barium
20
60
78.1
4E+00
1E+00
63.4
3E+00
1E+00
9E-01
133.0
7E+00
2E+00
Chromium
43.4
111
48.7
1E+00
4E-01
69.9
2E+00
6E-01
45.0
1E+00
4E-01
74.6
2E+00
7E-01
100.0
2E+00
9E-01
Cobalt
50
50
Iron
20000
40000
37600
2E+00
9E-01
25500
1E+00
6E-01
51600
3E+00
1E+00
Manganese
460
1100
466
1E+00
4E-01
1070
2E+00
1E+00
1420
3E+00
1E+00
Nickel
22.7
48.6
27.7
1E+00
I 6E-01
77.9
3E+00
2E+00
47.0
2E+00
1E+00
70.2
3E+00
1E+00
-- = No exceedance of Screening Values; therefore, no HQs calculated.
*Results are the higher concentration of WC-2 and WC-21).
Screening HQ>1
Refined HQ>1
Bolded values: HQ>3
5-18
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement
Section 5
Table 5-5. Summary of Screening -Level
WC-1
Hazard Quotients for PAHs
WC-8
Constituent
Result
(mg/kg)
ESV
Screening
HQ
RSV
Refined
HQ
Result
(mg/kg)
ESV
Screening
HQ
RSV
Refined
HQ
Acenaphthene
0.011
0.0034
3E+00
NA
Phenanthrene
0.208
0.10
2E+00
1.17
2E-01
Benzo(a)anthracene
0.143
0.08
2E+00
1.05
1E-01
0.173
0.05
3E+00
1.05
2E-01
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.137
0.10
1E+00
1.45
9E-02
0.17
0.08
2E+00
1.45
1E-01
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.183
0.132
1E+00
NA
0.257
0.10
3E+00
NA
Benzo(g.h,I)perylene
0.145
0.09
2E+00
NA
Chrysene
0.146
0.115
1E+00
1.29
1E-01
0.207
0.08
2E+00
1.29
2E-01
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
0.0234
0.023
1E+00
NA
0.0305
0.02
2E+00
NA
Fluoranthene
0.329
0.294
1E+00
2.23
1E-01
0.485
0.21
2E+00
2.23
2E-01
Indeno(1,2,3-
cd)pyrene
0.117
0.10
1E+00
NA
rene
0.255
0.14
2E+00
1.52
2E-01
0.39
0.10
4E+00
1.52
3E-01
TOTAL HMW-PAHs
1.481
0.69
2E+00
NA
2.06
0.51
4E+00
NA
TOTAL PAHs
1.64
1.12
1E+00
22.8
7E-02
2.31
0.81
3E+00
22.8
1E-01
- = No exceedance of Screening Values; therefore, no HQs calculated.
NA = Not Available
i
Screening HQ>1
5.3.3 Screening -Level Food Chain Model
The food chain model was prepared to determine whether the observed sediment concentrations of
COPECs present a potential concern to local wildlife that may be obtaining prey which have
bioaccumulated metals or PAHs from sediment. The methodology for the modeling was described in
Section 3.2.1. The full food chain model calculations appear in Appendix B.
Representative mammal and bird species were omnivorous mammal (raccoon), herbivorous
mammal (muskrat), invertivorous bird (heron) and herbivorous bird (mallard). These are commonly
evaluated species used in food chain models for their respective receptor guilds. Heron typically
consume more fish than invertebrates, but fish concentrations are difficult to estimate (and typically
lower in concentration than sediment -dwelling species) and therefore most simple food chain
models conservatively assume that the heron's diet is invertebrates.
The HQs were calculated separately for the four receptors for each constituent at each station.
Cumulative risk from all constituents evaluated to each of the four receptors at each station was
then calculated separately as an overall HQ (see Equation 3). A summary of the total HQ values is
shown below in Table 5-6. This overall HQ is very conservative because it also assumes that the
potential toxic effects from all the COPECs are additive.
As shown, none of the screening -level HI values were above 1, even with the conservative
assumptions used. It can therefore be concluded that metals and PAHs do not represent a potential
ecological risk via the food chain.
5-19
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement
Section 5
Station
Raccoon
Muskrat
Heron
Mallard
WC-1
9E-01
9E-01
7E-01
8E-01
WC-2
9E-01
1E+00
7E-01
1E+00
WC-3
5E-01
5E-01
4E-01
4E-01
WC-4
4E-01
4E-01
4E-01
4E-01
WC-5
7E-01
7E-01
5E-01
7E-01
WC-6
3E-01
3E-01
3E-01
2E-01
WC-7
6E-01
5E-01
5E-01
3E-01
WC-8
2E-01
2E-01
2E-01
2E-01
WC-9
6E-01
5E-01
5E-01
4E-01
WC-10
9E-01
7E-01
7E-01
5E-01
5.3.4 Uncertainties
The screening -level risks are based on a range of conservative assumptions about site usage, diet,
uptake into dietary items, and toxicity. The selected species are likely to represent receptors that live
in the area. However, they may ingest prey or soil/sediment in multiple locations including upland
areas and are not likely to be exposed to only one sediment location.
The data are from one round of grab samples in specific locations and may not reflect changing
conditions or sediment quality at other locations.
Uptake into food items is difficult to model. For example, PAHs are not particularly bioaccumulative
(ATSDR 2004), as reflected in the low uptake factors (see Table 2 in Appendix B), and without actual
measurement of dietary items, exposure is uncertain. The extent to which exposures are associated
with risk is also uncertain, as TRVs are deliberately designed to be conservative and reflect no -
observed effect levels with additional safety factors. Thus, the TRVs are intakes intended to be well
below risk thresholds.
The food chain model does not address direct toxicity to benthic (sediment -dwelling) life. Screening
levels (ESVs) do reflect the range of potential exposures but are intended to rule out, not predict,
risk. Where concentrations are below ESVs, there is relatively little uncertainty regarding the
conclusion that the constituent is not an ecological concern. While exceedances cannot be used to
draw definitive conclusions about the potential for hazard, the fact that the screening -level HQs were
generally below 5 indicates that risk is unlikely.
Overall, the finding of no HQs greater than one for metals and PAHs indicates that very low risk is
associated with actual hazard to invertebrates in the Warren Creek system. Regardless, any risks are
reflective of the urbanized setting and not a particular contamination condition, as discussed in
Section 6. To reduce the potential for risk, various control measures to reduce contaminant loading
can be pursued, as discussed further in Section 7.
5-20
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities
Section 5
5.4 Human Health Screening
This section presents an overview and screening of human health exposure and risk associated with
Warren Creek sediments. Human health risk assessment evaluates two endpoints:
Cancer, expressed as excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR), the hypothetical risk of cancer over a
lifetime; the ELCR is calculated as daily intake multiplied by a slope factor that expresses the
risk of cancer relative to dose
Noncancer toxic effects, expressed as HQ (for individual chemicals) and HI (equal to the sum of
the HQs); these are calculated as ratios of the estimated daily intake to doses expected to be
without risk of noncancer toxic effects over a lifetime
As described in Section 3.3, risks were evaluated for Warren Creek exposure using the NCDEQ Risk
Calculator (Calculator) for the same constituents evaluated for ecological risk: barium, chromium,
cobalt, iron, manganese, nickel, LMWPAHs, and HMWPAHs. NCDEQ establishes the following risk
to rgets:
• ELCR of 1 x1O-6 (one in a million) for individual contaminants, and 1 x1O-4 (one in 10,000) for the
sum of the risks for all contaminants
HQ of 0.2 for individual contaminants, and HI (sum of HQs) of 1.
5.4.1 Exposure Pathways
Typical human health exposure pathways associated with sediments are soil direct contact pathways
(incidental [unintended] ingestion and dermal contact by waders) and ingestion of fish that have
bioaccumulated contaminants. In most cases, skin contact with sediment is not a concern since
sediments tend to be wet and wash off easily rather than adhering to skin. However, given the
accessibility of the Creek to walking areas and the possible presence of drier material along the
edges, sediment could behave as soil and be contacted and adhere to skin.
Fish ingestion is considered a de minimis concern. There may be some recreational fishing in deeper
pooled areas, but fish from Warren Creek are unlikely to present a significant dietary source for local
residents. In addition, metals and PAHs are generally not bioaccumulators (in contrast with
contaminants such as pesticides). Mercury, the one metal that does substantially bioaccumulate in
fish, was undetected in previous samples, except an estimated trace of 0.054 mg/kg in one sample,
well below screening levels.
5.4.2 Exposure and Toxicity Assumptions
The Calculator includes a set of calculations and assumptions for estimating risk associated with
recreational contact. The Calculator was run for this Recreator scenario using the maximum
observed sediment concentrations as the EPCs; results appear in Appendix C.
As detailed in Section 3.3, the exposure assumptions in the Calculator for the Recreator are very
conservative. The input details (assumptions, equations, toxicity factors, and NCDEQ risk targets)
appear in the Calculator input and output tables (the summary is output table 2B, "Sitewide Risk").
5.4.3 Human Health Risk Results
Using the maximum value of each of the constituents of concern in Warren Creek, the calculated
cumulative ELCR was 7.5E-07 (7.5 in 10 million), more than two orders of magnitude below the
NCDEQ cumulative risk benchmark of 1E-04 (one in 10,000). The calculated HI was 0.16, well below
the NCDEQ hazard index target of 1.
The estimated human health risks are below NCDEQ risk targets. Thus, despite the extremely
conservative assumptions, human health risks screen well below levels of concern.
5-21
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Section 6
Potential Sources
As discussed in Section 5, the pattern of contaminants in sediments suggested that contaminants
were more likely derived from regional and dispersed urban background than large, discrete, or
concentrated sources. Rather, the maximum concentrations of various metals and PAHs occurred at
different locations throughout the Warren Creek study area. It was not possible to identify a specific
source or sources. Much of the influence may come from stormwater road run-off or other nonpoint
sources. It is possible that some releases may be associated with specific point sources such as
historic spills, outfalls, or unidentified commercial or residential discharges; run-off from Horton
Road may be source. However, no apparent relationship between observed chemical concentrations
and locations or specific environmental elements was noted, with the exception that the relatively
high TOC content at location WC-6 might have been a factor in the higher PAH concentrations there.
The similarity in PAH arrays between locations and the lack of spatial patterns in COPEcs suggests
that sources are likely diffuse.
6.1 Metals
Table 6-1 presents a summary of typical environmental sources of the COPEC metals. Most of the
major sources are from industrial activities that were not identified in the Warren Creek watershed.
Petroleum combustion and household products are typical urban sources.
Metals tend to adsorb to particles that settle as sediments. The observation that surface water was
compliant with water quality standards while sediments exceeded screening levels is typical. The
extent to which individual metals partition into sediments depends on the physico-chemical
characteristics of the source material as well as the receiving water location. Certain zones may be
depositional in nature and act as local sinks. However, the typical variables that are associated with
sediment contaminant accumulation (fine grain size, high organic carbon) did not relate to
concentrations in this investigation.
6.2 PAHs
Based on initial screening and data evaluation, PAH compounds appear to be regional in the vicinity
of Warren Creek. In addition, they are not notably elevated compared to typical urbanized PAH
concentrations. The maximum concentration of PAHs was 2.1 mg/kg at station WC 8. PAHs in
urbanized waterway sediments have been generally reported in the low mg/kg concentration range
(Stout et al 2004; Artigas et al 2018; Wang et al 2004). Urbanized soils (which are a source to
sediment) are also in the mg/kg range (ATSDR 2004; Sugihara et al 2020; Wang et al 2004).
Overall, the observed concentrations in Warren Creek are not indicative of particularly contaminated
conditions but appear to reflect urbanized contributions. PAHs in Warren Creek sediments are within
typical urban background ranges.
6-1
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities Section 6
Table 6-1. Environmental Sources of Chemical of Concern Metals
COPEC
Typical Sources Comments/Relevance to Warren Creek Watershed
Barium
Air: Mining, Refining, and production of barium and barium chemicals. Fossil fuel combustion, coal ash,
None of these large point sources is likely to be contributing to
manufacture of glass, paint, and rubber products.
Warren Creek. Local sources may be general waste from commercial
Water: Leaching of sedimentary rocks into groundwater, drillingwastes and muds into coastal sediments.
or household products.
Soil: Domestic manufacturing, insecticides (land farming), drilling for crude oil and natural gas.
Chromium
Domestic Wastewater Effluents, metal manufacturing, chemical manufacturing, smelting and refining of
None of these large point sources is likely to be contributing to
nonferrous metals, and atmospheric fallout
Warren Creek. Local sources may include atmospheric deposition
and commercial or household products. Wastewater may also be a
source.
Cobalt
Primary anthropogenic sources include fossil fuel and waste combustion, vehicular and aircraft exhausts,
Localized sources are likely fossil fuel combustion (exhaustfumes)
processing of cobalt and cobalt -containing alloys, copper and nickel smelting and refining, and the
and possibly residential or commercial use of fertilizers.
manufacture and use of cobalt chemicals and fertilizers derived from phosphate rocks
Mining, steelmaking operations, steel structures and any corrosion of stockpile and raw material yards or
Local inputs may be occurring due to corrosion of iron -containing
Iron
automobiles.
materials (such as car parts) entering runoff.
Manganese
Manganese is released to the environment from industrial emissions, fossil fuel combustion, and erosion of
Localized sources may include gasoline additives and fossil fuel
manganese -containing soils. Manganese may also be released to the environment through the use of
combustion.
Methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl, an organomanganese compound used as a gasoline additive.
None of these large point sources is likely to be contributing to
Nickel
The burning of residual and fuel oil is responsible for 62% of anthropogenic emissions, followed by nickel
metal refining, municipal incineration, steel production, other nickel alloy production, and coal combustion.
Warren Creek. Local sources may be from combustion of fuel oil.
Is A
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities
Section 6
Several literature sources (Tobiszewski and Namiesnik 2012; Wang et al 2004) indicate that ratios
of various combinations of PAHs at a particular location can estimate whether the source of the
PAHs is from pyrolytic processes (burning; fuel combustion in automobiles, e.g.) or petrogenic (the
slow maturation of organic matter). These ratios are calculated and presented in Table 6-2 for PAHs
detected in Warren Creek sediments. For example, the ratio of LMW to HMW PAHs is generally less
than 1 for Warren Creek sediments, which indicates a primarily pyrogenic source. The ratios
presented in Table 6-2 indicate pyrogenic sources such as traffic emissions and other combustion -
related sources, although a few of the ratios were inconclusive due to some of the PAHs not being
detected in the sediment samples.
Coal tar sealants are also an important nonpoint source of PAHs. Used to seal parking lots,
playgrounds, and driveways, these sealants can contain 25-35 percent (by weight) coal tar or coal -tar
pitch, which has high concentrations of PAHs (USGS, 2017). The PAHs can be released into the
environment through volatilization into the air and as dust when the sealant breaks up over time,
and subsequently transported via stormwater runoff. Studies have shown that coal -tar sealants
contributed 2/3 of total PAHs in urban stormwater ponds sediments. These substances are
considered an important source of PAHs to urban waterways (LeCrane and others, 2010).
6-3
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities Section 6
Location:
WC-1
Table 6-2.
WC-2
Screening of Sediment
WC-2
(Dup)
Analytical Results
WC-5 WC-6
WC-7
WC-8
WC-9
WC-10
Depthlnt.:
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
Sample
Date:
01/06/21
01/06/21
01/06/21
01/06/21
01/06/21
01/06/21
01/07/21
01/07/21
01/07/21
Constituent
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
1-Methyl naphthalene
90-12-0
2-Methyl naphthalene
91-57-6
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
0.0106
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
Anthracene
120-12-7
0.0305
0.0233
0.00497
0.0136
Fluorene
86-73-7
0.00513
0.0116
Naphthalene
91-20-3
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
0.124
0.0301
0.00344
0.0101
0.006
0.00325
0.208
0.043
0.062
TOTAL LMW PAHs
0.15963
0.0301
0.00344
0.0101
0.006
0.00325
0.2535
0.04797
0.0756
Benzo(a)anthracene
56-55-3
0.143
0.0174
0.00692
0.0117
0.00972
0.00508
0.173
0.0478
0.0737
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
0.137
0.0224
0.00661
0.0169
0.0148
0.00795
0.17
0.0531
0.0716
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
205-99-2
0.183
0.0381
0.00931
0.0304
0.0243
0.0146
0.257
0.0837
0.1
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
191-24-2
0.108
0.0204
0.00552
0.0154
0.016
0.0101
0.145
0.0435
0.0552
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
0.0683
0.0136
0.00434
0.0096
0.0101
0.00604
0.0855
0.0273
0.0384
Chrysene
218-01-9
0.146
0.0307
0.00862
0.0221
0.0184
0.00844
0.207
0.0641
0.0821
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
0.0234
0.00365
0.00297
0.00215
0.0305
0.009
0.0117
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
0.329
0.0785
0.0159
0.0458
0.029
0.0152
0.485
0.139
0.206
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
193-39-5
0.0879
0.0164
0.00427
0.0127
0.0125
0.00914
0.117
0.0337
0.0442
Pyrene
129-00-0
0.255
0.0579
0.0129
0.0351
0.0218
0.0114
0.39
0.113
0.154
TOTAL HMW PAHs
1.4806
0.29905
0.07439
0.20267
0.15662
0.0901
2.06
0.6142
0.8369
TOTAL PAHS
1.64023
0.32915
0.07783
0.21277
0.16262
0.09335
2.3135
0.66217
0.9125
6-4
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Section 7
Recommended Improvement
Strategies
Because the contaminants in Warren Creek are likely derived from dispersed urban or regional
sources rather than large, concentrated sources, it is not practical to identify discrete sites for
remediation. Moreover, this study concluded that the ambient level of contamination presents little
risks to human and ecological health. For these reasons, the recommended improvement strategy
consists of continuing to employ municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) stormwater quality
control measures while periodically monitoring contaminant levels in Warren Creek. The MS4 control
measures will serve to prevent and reduce pollution, whereas monitoring can verify contaminant
concentration attenuation over time —or at least do not increase. The disuse of coal tar -based
pavement sealants is a potential new measure to reduce PAHs. These components of the
recommended improvement strategies are discussed in subsections below.
7.1 MS4 Control Measures
The City of Durham is a Phase 1 MS4 community, and is authorized by the State of North Carolina to
discharge stormwater under NPDES permit NCS000249. Clean Water Act regulations require MS4
communities to implement six minimum control measures to reduce pollutant discharges: (1) public
education and outreach, (2) public participation/ involvement, (3) illicit discharge detection and
elimination, (4) construction site runoff control, (5) post -construction runoff control, and (6) pollution
prevention/ good housekeeping for municipal operations. In addition, North Carolina requires
Phase 1 MS4 communities to implement three additional measures: (7) a program to monitor and
control pollutants in stormwater discharges to municipal systems, (8) water quality assessment and
monitoring, and (9) total maximum daily load programs. In addition to the permit itself, the City's
approaches to control measures are described in the City's Stormwater Management Plan (City of
Durham, 2019) and annual reports (e.g., City of Durham, 2021).
The Warren Creek watershed is not known to have large, concentrated sources of PAHs or metals.
However, the MS4 controls measures have the potential to reduce these constituents both through
general pollution reductions and —in some cases —from PAH and metal sources categories as
identified in Section 6 of this report. If implemented consistently over time, these measures could
reduce pollutant concentrations in Warren Creek sediments. The subsections below describe the
City's existing control measures and discuss manners in which these actions could reduce PAH and
metals loads to surface waters.
7.1.1 Public Education and Outreach
The City's Stormwater Management Plan implements various types of public education and outreach
to reduce or prevent stormwater pollution, most of which are under the leadership of the City's Public
Education Coordinator. These include:
Promotion and maintenance of the Stormwater Services Website
(www.durhamnc.gov/stormwater) that provides information on water quality and pollution
prevention
7-1
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities
Section 7
• Financial support and contribution of information material to the Clean Water Education
Partnership (www.NC-cleanwater.org)
• Distribution of public education materials (e.g., brochures, flyers, videos, utility bill inserts) to
target groups
• Organization or participation in community events and school programs
• Outreach through traditional media (newspaper articles, public service announcements) and
social media (e.g., Don't Waste Durham Facebook site)
The City's target pollutants for stormwater educations include bacteria, nitrogen, phosphorus, low
DO, turbidity, copper, and zinc. Although PAHs and metals such as chromium are not explicitly
included in this list, many of the public outreach messages for target pollutants would also be
expected to reduce PAHs and various metals. For example, many PAHs and metals are associated
with particulates, so public efforts to reduce turbidity and particulate runoff could reduce the loading
of these pollutants to Warren Creek. Education to encourage proper disposal of cooking grease,
automotive fluids, batteries, dumpsterjuice, and household hazardous waste can reduce a wide
variety of pollutants including PAHs and metals.
As noted in Section 6, coal tar -based pavement sealants have been implicated as a source of PAHs
in stormwater. The City could consider incorporating related information into outreach materials and
citing alternatives to coal -tar sealants on driveways and private parking lots. These alternatives
include use of paving materials that do not require sealants (e.g., pervious concrete/pavers,
permeable asphalt) and petroleum asphalt -based sealants, which contain far lower levels of PAHs
than coal tar -based sealants. Some Cities (e.g., Austin, TX and Washington, DC) have actually banned
the use of coal tar sealants.
Finally, the City's Stormwater Management Plan cites the general water quality benefits of "broad
efforts to improve air quality, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and reduce dependence of
petroleum". As noted in Section 6, vehicles and roads are major sources of both PAHs and metals to
urban stormwater. Hence, a reduction in vehicular use could potentially reduce loadings of these
pollutants to Warren Creek and other surface waters. This topic exceeds the scope of stormwater
management and encompasses other City efforts to encourage use of public transportation and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
7.1.2 Public Involvement
As with public education and outreach program, the public involvement opportunities could serve to
reduce a wide variety of pollutants. The pollution reporting hotline is an especially important
opportunity for the public to inform City of pollutant sources or discharges that could include PAHs
and metals. Operation of City's household hazardous wastewater collection facility is another
practical manner for the public to reduce pollution. This facility accepts many PAH- and metals
containing materials including batteries, cooking oil, oil -based paints, electronic waste, and
automotive fluids. Other City Programs to involve the public include:
• Offering of volunteer opportunities such as stream cleanup campaigns, adopt -a -drain, and
adopt -a -street
• Soliciting public comments on the annual stormwater reports and the stormwater management
plan
• Holding public notice, meetings, and opportunities for input on watershed plans, major
construction projects, retrofit plans, ordinance revisions, etc.
• Promoting and maintaining a stormwater pollution reporting hotline
Support of the non-profit group Keep Durham Beautiful
7-2
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities
Section 7
Presentation to the City -County Environmental Affairs Board
7.1.3 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Various illicit discharges could be sources of PAHs and metals to surface water, including wastewater
leaks, illegal discharges, and improper disposal of waste. The monitoring data from Warren Creek do
not suggest that a single illicit discharge is responsible for levels of PAHs and metals observed in the
creek sediments. However, just as in most commercial/residential areas with aging infrastructure
and on -site wastewater disposal systems, dry weather flows will sometimes be detected within the
watershed. The Eno River Watershed Management Plan (AECOM, 2018) states that "approximately
20% of sanitary sewer overflows reported by the City within the Eno River Watershed ...were located
in the Crooked Run Creek and Warren Creek subwatersheds." Similarly, about one third of the on -
site wastewater disposal systems (septic system and sand filters) within the Eno River Watershed
are located in these subwatersheds.
The City has a longstanding illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE) program that can
continue to be applied in the Warren Creek watershed. This program includes procedures and
schedules for screening outfalls, investigating concerns, training municipal employees, fixing leaks,
and reporting illicit discharges to the State if necessary.
7.1.4 Construction Site Run -Off
Because PAHs and most metals correlate strongly with particulates in stormwater runoff, efforts to
reduce erosion can also reduce loadings of these pollutants. The Durham County Stormwater and
Erosion Control Division has delegated authority over an erosion control program that would apply to
most private construction projects within the Warren Creek watershed. Permits are required for
activities that disturb 12,000 square feet or more, and an approved erosion control (ESC) plan is
required for activities that disturb more than 20,000 square feet. Similarly, the NC Department of
Transportation (NC DOT) is responsible for erosion control on state road construction projects. The
Land Quality Section of the NC Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources regulates land
disturbing activity for construction projects that have public funding, projects by agencies with the
power of eminent domain, and projects by state and federal agencies. The City's Stormwater
Management Plan cites all these programs as components of construction site runoff controls.
7.1.5 Post -Construction Runoff
The City's Stormwater Management Plan describes various management practices that the City
employs to control post -construction pollutant loading. The most important of these is an ordinance
(Chapter 70, Article X, Sections 70-736 through 70-744) that authorizes a post -construction
stormwater control program. This code section contains post -construction performance standards
applicable throughout the City. Within the Falls Lake Basin (including the Warren Creek watershed),
the thresholds for limits of application of the stormwater pollutant requirements are:
0.5 acres of land disturbance (limited residential)
12,000 square feet of land disturbance (multifamily and other)
The City program was developed primarily to control nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and TSS
rather than PAHs and metals. For activities that exceed disturbance thresholds in the Falls Lake
basin, the City requires post -development controls that limit loading to 2.2 pounds per acre per year
(lb/ac/yr) total nitrogen and 0.33 Ib/ac/yr total phosphorus. The program regulates post -
construction control measurements by utilizing design standards of the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality Stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) Manual and City's own addendum to
this manual. Common post -construction BMPs include wet ponds, dry ponds, bioretention cells, and
7-3
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities
Section 7
constructed wetlands. Permeable pavers, green roofs, infiltration practices, and vegetated swales
are also employed to treat small areas.
The City of Durham also uses several non-structural BMPs to mitigate the effects of development,
including Natural Resource Protection that address tree protection and tree coverage, floodplain
protection, stream buffer protection, steep slope protection, and wetlands protection. The City's Park
and Recreation Department and Planning Department manages a program for maintaining and
increasing open space. This program concentrates on preserving environmentally sensitive and
natural resource areas within the City including wetlands and riparian buffers. Associated areas
within the Warren Creek watershed include Whippoorwill Park and the Warren Creek Trail. The City's
Critical Area Protection Plan (CAPP) identifies privately -owned parcels with high -quality riparian
buffers that might be conserved or protected. According to the Eno River Watershed Improvement
Plan (AECOM, 2018), eight of the 45 "keystone" properties are in the Warren Creek watershed.
The NCDOT is subject to a specific state regulation under the Falls Lake Rules (15A NCAC
02B .0281). In accordance with this regulation, NCDOT has developed a Stormwater Management
Program for new and existing development in the Falls Lake Watershed. This program relies on a
combination structural BMPs, non-structural BMPs, riparian buffer protection, and nutrient offset
payments to reduce nutrient loads to Falls Lake.
Because the post -construction controls in the Warren Creek watershed are oriented toward nutrients
and TSS rather than PAHs and metals, it merits the question of which nutrient and TSS-related BMPs
would also be effective for PAHs and metals:
PAHs: Relatively few studies have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of common
structural stormwater BMPs at removing PAHs. However, the studies that are available suggest that
because PAHs are strongly associated with solids/sediments, BMPs that remove sediment are also
relatively effective at reducing PAHs. For example, Di Blasi and others (2008) found that bioretention
reduced PAHs levels in urban stormwater by 87 percent. Crabtree and others (2006) found that
two wet ponds reduced PAHs from high runoff by 57-99 percent, but that dry detention ponds were
less effective. Stormwater BMPs will be more effective at removing heavier, hydrophobic PAHs than
more soluble PAHs (Roinas and others, 2014). However, even soluble PAHs such as naphthalene
can be removed in stormwater BMPs by adsorption to particulate organic material, biodegradation,
and biological degradation (LeFevre and others, 2015).
As with structural stormwater BMPs, few studies have been conducted to evaluate the benefit of
disuse of coal tar -based pavement sealants at the watershed scale. However, Van Metre and Mahler
(2014) did demonstrate that PAH levels in lake sediments decreased significantly following the City
of Austin's (TX) ban on the use of coal tar -based pavement sealants.
Metals: Schueler and Youngk (2015) provide a useful review of the literature on the effectiveness of
structural stormwater BMPs on removing a wide variety of metals. Removal efficiencies varied widely
by metal and BMP type. However, the authors concluded that most metals were "highly treatable" in
urban runoff and that BMP removal rates tended to be slightly lower than those of total suspended
solids. As expected, removal rates tended to be higher for metals with lower solubility (e.g., iron,
lead) than for more soluble metals such as cadmium, copper, and zinc. However, even soluble
metals were reduced by adsorption to organic materials and subsequent sedimentation or filtration.
For example, bioretention and wet ponds were considered highly effective (50-75-percent removal)
or very highly effective (>75-percent removal) for a wide variety of metals including cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, and zinc. Grass channels and dry ponds were less effective (<50-percent
removal) for most metals. Interestingly, although bioretention was the most effective practice for
many metals, it was not shown to be effective for nickel. The highest -rated practices for nickel were
wet ponds, permeable pavers, and grass channels.
7-4
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities Section 7
It can be generally concluded that the City's post -construction control measures, although oriented
toward nutrients and sediment, would also provide significant benefits with regard to PAHs and
metals. These include various measures to minimize impervious surface, preserve natural areas, and
install structural BMPs. A reduction in coal tar -based pavement sealants represents a potential
opportunity, should PAH levels increase in Warren Creek or other City streams. Short of legal bans,
related measures could include the disuse of coal tar -based pavement sealants on City projects and
related discussion with NC DOT.
7.1.6 Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
The City's Stormwater Management Plan lists a large number of pollution prevention and good
housekeeping programs for municipal operations. Examples include the development of site
pollution prevention plans, spill response procedures, inspections and maintenance, and staff
training. The City maintains an inventory of 32 municipal operation facilities, none of which are
located in the Warren Creek watershed. Similarly, there are no fire stations, police stations, or public
schools within the Warren Creek watershed. However, some relevant programs that could reduce
pollution in this watershed include routine inspections and maintenance of:
City streets/roads, and parking lots. See previous recommendations on the disuse of coal tar -
based pavement sealants
• Whipporwill Park and the Warren Creek Trail
• Stormwater infrastructure, including periodic removal of accumulated sediment that could
contain a variety of pollutants
7.1.7 Program to Monitor and Control Pollutants
Section 7.8 of the City's Stormwater Management Plan describes measures that the City undertakes
to monitor and control pollutants entering the MS4. Most of these relate to the inspection and
control of pollution of permitted industrial sites, none of which are present in the Warren Creek
watershed. Therefore, this measure would be most relevant if a future industrial site was constructed
in the watershed.
7.1.8 Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring
The City's maintains an extensive water quality and biological monitoring network, and uses the
results to detect water quality problems and plan improvements. Monitoring results from station
EN10.3WC (Warren Creek at Horton Road) were the impetus behind this special pollutant source
tracking project. As described in Section 7.2 (Monitored Natural Attenuation), it is recommended to
continue monitoring at this station to verify that the pollutants of concern do not increase over time.
7.1.9 Total Maximum Daily Load Programs
The City's MS4 permit requires the development of plans to address the City's wasteload allocations
(WLAs) in USEPA-approved total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). Warren Creek is not currently listed
as impaired on North Carolina's 303(d) list, and no TMDL is currently planned for this water body.
7.2 Monitored Natural Attenuation
Monitored natural attenuation is a remediation technique that relies on natural processes (e.g.,
biodegradation, dilution, chemical reactions) to reduce contaminant levels over time (USEPA, 2021).
Monitoring is performed to verify that contaminant concentrations are reduced over time. Monitored
natural attenuation is usually employed when concentrated pollutant sources have been removed
and when the remaining level of contamination does not present unacceptable risks to human or
7-5
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement
Section 7
ecological health. Monitoring natural attenuation can be a very slow process, and take years to
decades to reduce contaminant concentrations.
In the case of Warren Creek sediment, it is not known how much of the PAH and metals are derived
from historical sources versus active sources such as paved surfaces and vehicular traffic. Hence, it
cannot be concluded that contaminant sources have been removed, or that concentrations will
necessarily decrease. However, the steady implementation of MS4 control measures discussed in
section 7.1 might decrease contaminant concentrations over an extended time period. For example,
some of the development within the Warren Creek watershed pre -dated current post -construction
control measures, and so redevelopment of these areas could increase the proportion of runoff that
is treated by structural BMPs. As another example, the expected multi-decadal increase in the
proportion of electric vehicles would reduce vehicular -related combustion sources.
Because attenuation of PAHs and metals in Warren Creek will likely be a slow process, it is not
considered necessary to monitor every year. Monitoring of sediment quality at a five to ten year
frequency would be sufficient to detect major changes and verify that contaminant concentrations
are not increasing.
W.
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Section 8
References
AECOM. 2018. Eno River Watershed Improvement Plan. Report prepared for the City of Durham. 34 p.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 1995. Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons. U.S. Public Health Service. August.
Artigas, F, Horton B, Pechmann,l and M Christie. 2018. Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Industrial and
Agricultural Contaminants in the Raritan River Meadowlands Environmental Research Institute (MERI-Rutgers).
June 5.
Bain, D, Yesilonis, I and R. Pouyat. 2012. Metal concentrations in urban riparian sediments along an urbanization
gradient. Biogeochemistry 107:67-79.
Brown and Caldwell. 2020. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Initial Field Investigations - Warren Creek.
December 2.
Brown and Caldwell. 2021. Interim Memo - Warren Creek. Technical memo prepared for the City of Durham. 12 p.
plus appendices.
City of Durham, 2014. Eno River Watershed Implementation Plan Data Collection. Project #13-001. October.
City of Durham. 2019. Stormwater Management Plan. Revision as of January 2019.
City of Durham. 2021. Annual Report - NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. Report covering period July 1, 202 to
June 30, 2021.
Crabtree, B., F. Moy, M. Whitehead and A. Roe. 2006. Monitoring pollutants in highway runoff. Water & Environment
Journal. 20(4): 287-294.
DiBlasi, C., H. Li, A. Davis and U. Ghosh. 2008. Removal and fate of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon pollutants in an
urban stormwater bioretention facility. Environmental Science & Technology. 43(2): 494-502.
LeCrane, 2021. Contamination of Stormwater Pond Sediments by Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in
Minnesota. The Role of Coal Tar -based Sealcoat Products as a Source of PAHs. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, St. Paul, Minnesota. March 2010. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/tdr-g1-O7.pdf.
Le Fevre, G., K. Paus, P. Natarajan, J. Gulliver, P. Novak and R. Hozalski. 2015. Review of dissolved pollutants in
urban storm water and their removal and fate in bioretention cells. Journal of Environmental Engineering.
141(1).
MacDonald, D.D., Ingersoll, C.G and T. A. Berger. 2000. Development and Evaluation of Consensus -Based Sediment
Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39, 20-31.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DNR) 2003. Guidelines for Performing
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessments within the North Carolina Division of Waste Management. Division
of Waste Management. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/waste-management-rules-
data/gu idel i nes-for-performing-screen i ng-level-ecological-risk-assessments. October.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) 2021) Risk Calculator.
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Waste%2OManagement/DWM/SF/RiskBased Remediation/2O210617_RiskCalculat
or.xlsm. June.
Roinas, G., C. Mant and J.B. Williams. 2014. Fate of hydrocarbon pollutants in source and non -source control
sustainable drainage systems. Water Science & Technology. 69(4): 703-709.
8-1
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement Opportunities Section 8
Schueler T., and Youngk, A. 2015. Potential Benefits of Nutrient and Sediment Practices to Reduce Toxic
Contaminants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Part 1: Removal of Urban Toxic Contaminants. Report
prepared for Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Work Group. 148 p.
Stout, S, Uhler, A and Emsbo-Mattingly 2004. Comparative evaluation of background anthropogenic hydrocarbons in
surficial sediments from nine urban waterways. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38:2987-2994.
Sugihara, T, Mueller, R, Boyer, J, Evenson, J, Froehlich, D, Giles, G, Lester, L, Motter, A, Neumann, G and K Schick
2020. Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in New Jersey Soils. New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection. February.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental
Guidance. Supplemental Guidance to ERAGS: Region 4, Ecological Risk Assessment. Originally published
November 1995 and updated March 2018. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
O3/docu me nts/era_regi on a I_su pplementa 1_gu id an ce_re port -ma rch-2O18_update. pdf.
United States Environmental Protection Agency 2012. Water: Contaminated Sediments, Major Contaminants.
https://archive.epa.gov/water/arch ive/polwaste/web/html/contaminants.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process
for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments - Interim Final. EPA 540-R-97-006, OSWER 9285.7-
25, PB97-963211, June.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. Community Guide to Monitored Natural Attenuation. EPA-542-
F-21-018. 2 p.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Interim Ecological Soil Screening Level Documents.
https://www.epa.gov/chemica I-resea rch/i nteri m-ecoIogica I-soi I -screen i ng-level-documents
U.S. Geological Survey, 2017. Coal -tar -based pavement sealants —a potent source of PAHs.
https://www.usgs.F-Fov/publications/coal-tar-based-pavement-sealants-potent-source-pahs.
Wang, G, Mielke, H, Quach, V, Gonzales, C, and Q Zhang 2004. Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
and trace metals in New Orleans soils and sediments. Soi & Sed. Contam. 13:313-327.
8-2
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement
Appendix A: Data Catalog
A-1
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Brown-- Caldwell
Data Catalog
Water Quality Pollutant
Source Tracking
Warren Creek
-�
155504 November 5, 2020
Teresa Caputi and Tamara Sorell
This data catalog provides a tabular summary of available sediment and water quality data, watershed characteristics and environmental
elements obtained from relevant records for Warren Creek. This summary also includes a desktop review of potential contaminant sources
within the watershed, with particular attention to polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metals such as chromium and nickel.
Results of consultation with the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) database, industrial permit databases and other public databases are also
included, to determine if known hotspots are or were present! n the Warren Creek subwatershed. This information will guide collection and
interpretation of data from Warren Creek.
Brown—, Caldwell
1

Brown-- Caldwell
Water and
Summary of
PDF
City of Durham,
September
Report summarizes available stream sediment chemistry data from monitoring locations within
Sediment
Existing
Dept of Public
2020
Durham County and four surrounding counties. Four of these sampling locations (Backwater
Quality
Stream
Works
10WQ027, EN 10.3WC, Midstream 10WQ027 and Upstream 10WQ017) were located in Warren
Sediment
Stormwater &
Creek (sampled by the City) and one location (M24) was in a small tributary to Warren Creek
Chemistry
GIS Services
(sampled by the Duke University Bernhardt Lab).
Data
Water Quality
Excel
City of Durham,
October
http://www.durhamwaterquality.org/ Provides mapping information and data/reports for
Data Web
Public Works
2020
water/sediment quality data, including station information. Data forfour stations in Warren Creek
Portal
are available.
Eno River
PDF
City of Durham
December
Trash dumping was noted to the south of Warren Creek in or near a tributary, and Warren Creek was
Watershed
Public Works
2018
noted to contain beaver dams, beaver activity or debris dams in the area south of Horton Road. This
Improvement
Department
document also indicated the presence of septic systems, sand filters and sanitary sewer overflows
Plan
within the Warren Creek sub watershed.
Eno River
PDF
City of Durham
October
Report summarizes environmental quality data collected in the Eno River Watershed that are not
Watershed
Dept of Public
2014
routinely collected ortargeted in the City's existing monitoring program. One sampling location
Implementati
Works
(EN 10.3WC) was in Warren Creek. Sites were monitored forfixed-interval water chemistry, storm
on Plan Data
waterchemistry, sediment quality, habitat, and hydrology.
Collection
City of
Sewer
GIS
City of Durham
September
GIS Shapefiles provided by City. Provides locations of sewer lines and manholes. A sewer line runs
Durham GIS
Infrastructure
Shapefile
2020
along the eastern side of Warren Creek, with numerous manholes along its length. Branch lines from
residential and commercial areas intersectwith this line in close proximityto Warren Creek.
Stormwater
GIS
City of Durham
September
GIS Shapefiles provided by City. Provides locations of stormwater piping, channels and outfalls.
Infrastructure
Shapefile
2020
There are numerous stormwater outfalls within the immediate drainage area of Warren Creek, with
associated piping and open channels. These stormwater conveyances serve mostly residential areas
but include parkland and commercial uses as well.
Data extracted from the Regional Underground Storage Tank (RUST) database. https://data-
NC State UST Incidents GIS NC DEQ, Div of October
Agencies
Shapefile
Waste Mgmt
2020
ncdenr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ust-
incidents?where=(IncidentNumber%20lS%20NOT%20NU LL)
Brown—, Caldwell s

Brown-- Caldwell
AST Incidents
GIS
NC DEQ
October
Data extracted from the Regional Aboveground Storage Tank (RAST) database. https://data-
Shapefile
2020
ncdenr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ast-
incidents?where=(IncidentNumber%201S%20NOT%20NU LL)
Represents sites that have received a permit or Certificate of Approval from the NC Underground
Petroleum
GIS
NC DEQ, Div of
October
Contaminate
Shapefile
Waste Mgmt
2020
Storage Tank Section. Data extracted from the UST Section's Soil Permit database.
d Soil
https://data-ncdenr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/petroleum-contaminated-soil-remediation-
Remediation
Permits
permits
Hazardous
GIS
NC DENR
October
Represents the locations of sites that are regulated by the hazardous waste portions of the Resource
Waste Sites
Shapefile
2020
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Includes Large Quantity and Small Quantity Generators,
Transporters of Hazardous Waste, permitted treatment, storage or disposal (TSD) facilities and TSD
facilities that are under an Order or a Consent Agreement. Data is extracted from the EPA RCRAInfo
database. https://data-ncdenr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/hazardous-waste-sites
Inactive
GIS
NC DEQ
October
Represents hazardous substance spill and disposal sites and includes active and inactive facilities
Hazardous
Shapefile
2020
and a variety of property types. Includes closed remediation sites that have land use restrictions
Sites
recorded as part of the remedy. https://data-ncdenr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/inactive-
hazardous-sites-1
Dry-cleaning
GIS
NC DEQ
October
Sites that have been certified into the Dry -Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Act Program (DSCA) Program;
Sites
Shapefile
2020
sites that are being investigated by the DSCA Program for dry-cleaning solvent contamination; sites
that have been investigated and determined not to have been contaminated by dry-cleaning solvent
contamination. https://data-ncdenr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/drycleanin9-I
NCDWRAll- Online NC Dept of October https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webapoviewer/index.html?id=de3c5e32939e43b9a780d
in -One Map Mapping Water Resources 2020 449a49fdacf GIS Layers include NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permits, Non Discharge Permits, Non
(DWR) Discharge Land Application Field Permits, Non Discharge Wells, Animal Feed Operation Permits, 401
Certifications (Wetland Permits, Buffer Authorizations), NPDES Stormwater Permits and State
Stormwater Permits.
Brown—, Caldwell

Brown-- Caldwell
Active and
Expired
Online
Mapping
NC DEQ - Dept
of Energy,
October
2020
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.htmI?id=93b173a969fd4790bd492
56df37360f4 This map identifies Active and Expired Stormwater Permits in North Carolina. Permit
Stormwater
Mineral and
categories include: NPDES Industrial Permits, No Exposure Certifications, and State Post -
Permits Online
Land Resources
Construction Permits. Data layers are extracted weekly from NC DENR's BIMS database.
Map
(DEMLR)
(Stormwater
Program)
Toxics
TRI Mapper
Online
USEPA TRI
October
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) tracks the management of certain toxic chemicals that may pose a
Release
Mapping
Program
2020
threat to human health and the environment. https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-
Inventory
program#trisearch
USEPA
October
USEPA Envirofacts Online
Database searches include air, waste, facility, land, toxics, compliance, water, radiation.
Multiple
Database
Mapping
2020
https://enviro.epa.gov/index.html
Database
and Data
Search
Brown—, Caldwell

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement
Appendix B: Food Chain Modeling
B-1
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

Table 1-Data
General Chemistry -Ak-
Total Organic Carbon TOC mg/kg 6940 J 84901 20000 14900 89401 51200 14400 5050 7110 12800
Total solids TS PERCENT 80.9 55.4 76.1 73.2 78.8 88.7 44.9 88.1 85.1 79.1 91.3
Metals
Aluminum 7429-90-5 mg/kg 14700 16300J 9480J 14400 10800 13300 13800 156001 4160 15700 18300
Antimony
7440-36-0
mg/kg
0.205
U
0.3
U
0.218
U
0.436
J
0.211
U
0.187
U
0.37
U
0.189
U
0.195
U
0.21
U
0.182
U
Arsenic
7440-38-2
mg/kg
6.96
6.12
5.15
8.68
1.25
J
7.35
1.99
J
2.5
1.27
2.27
4.48
Barium
7440-39-3
mg/kg
69.8
58.9
J
28.3
J
56.4
57.5
50.91
78.1
63.4
11
51.3
133
Beryllium
7440-41-7
mg/kg
0.98
J
0.606
J
0.402
J
0.888
J
0.334
J
0.469
J
0.364
J
0.266
J
0.335
J
0.252
J
0.814
J
Cadmium
7440-43-9
mg/kg
0.106
U
0.154
U
0.112
U
0.117
U
0.108
U
0.0964
U
0.191
U
0.0971
U
0.1
U
0.108
U
0.0936
U
Calcium
7440-70-2
mg/kg
3060
4710J
3810J
3160
2420
5020
2700
7460
1580
9410
6240
Chromium
7440-47-3
mg/kg
202
282
J
113
J
109
107
194
48.7
69.9
45
74.6
100
Cobalt
7440-48-4
mg/kg
99.5
51.9
J
23.3
J
38.8
20.9
27.2
19.4
32.2
10.3
22.5
46.6
Copper
7440-50-8
mg/kg
30.5
39.5
J
15.7
J
28
18.1
22.5
28.2
22.9
8.93
22.2
28
Iron
7439-89-6
mg/kg
85400
71500J
33700J
68700
21000
676001
18400
37600
16700
25500
51600
Lead
7439-92-1
mg/kg
16
10.8
J
8.53
J
22.2
10.3
8.77
15.4
4.66
2.65
6.03
9.8
Magnesium
7439-95-4
mg/kg
2290
5080J
2930J
1370
2210
6180
1710
10600
798
5180
6530
Manganese
7439-96-5
mg/kg
1560
933
J
396J
777
556
522
328
466
2511
1070
1420
Mercury
7439-97-6
mg/kg
0.0223
U
0.0325
U
0.0236
U
0.0246
U
0.0228
U
0.0203
U
0.0539
J
0.0204
U
0.0211
U
0.0228
U
0.0197
U
Nickel
7440-02-0
mg/kg
53.3
66.6
J
33.2
J
28.3
23.7
52.7
27.7
77.9
12.3
47
70.2
Potassium
7440-09-7
mg/kg
320
J
272
J
210
J
303
J
322
J
196
J
446
J
194
J
113
J
228
J
803
Selenium
7782-49-2
mg/kg
0.359
J
0.493
J
0.236
U
0.588
J
0.356
J
0.331
J
0.493
J
0.204
U
0.211
U
0.228
U
0.408
J
Silver
7440-22-4
mg/kg
0.107
U
0.156
U
0.114
U
0.118
U
0.401
J
0.0975
U
0. 1931
U
0.0982
U
0.102
U
0.109
U
0.0947
U
Sodium
7440-23-5
mg/kg
347
J
710
J
577
J
145
J
232
J
821
197
J
1210
231
J
1420
632
Thallium
7440-28-0
mg/kg
0.204
J
0.117
U
0.0854
U
0.0888
U
0.103
J
0.0733
U
0.145
U
0.0738
U
0.0764
U
0.0822
U
0.0748
J
Vanadium
7440-62-2
mg/kg
227
214
J
92.7
J
171
57.2
158
51.6
75.51
40.4
60.5
110
Zinc
7440-66-6
mg/kg
69.6
60.3
J
33
J
42.5
17.6
J
39.8
54.7
J
37.2
19.8
J
30.5
J
84
SVOCs
2-Chloronaphthalene
PAHs
Low Molecular Weight (LMW)
91-58-7
mg/kg
0.00576
U
0.00841
U
0.00612
U
0.00637
U
0.00591
U
0.00525
U
0.0104
U
0.00529
U
0.00547
U
0.00589
U
0.0051
U
1-Methylnaphthalene
90-12-0
mg/kg
0.00555
U
0.0081
U
0.0059
U
0.00613
U
0.0057
U
0.00506
U
0.01
U
0.0051
U
0.00528
U
0.00568
U
0.00492
U
2-Methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
mg/kg
0.00528
U
0.00771
U
0.00561
U
0.00583
U
0.00542
U
0.00481
U
0.00952
U
0.00485
U
0.00502
U
0.0054
U
0.00468
U
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
mg/kg
0.00258
U
0.00377
U
0.00275
U
0.00286
U
0.00265
U
0.00236
U
0.00466
U
0.00237
U
0.0106
0.00264
U
0.00229
U
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
mg/kg
0.00267
U
0.0039
U
0.00284
U
0.00295
U
0.00274
U
0.00244
U
0.00482
U
0.00245
U
0.00254
U
0.00273
U
0.00237
U
Anthracene
120-12-7
mg/kg
0.0305
0.00415
U
0.00302
U
0.00314
U
0.00292
U
0.00259
U
0.00513
U
0.00261
U
0.0233
0.00497
J
0.0136
Fluorene
86-73-7
mg/kg
0.00513
J
0.0037
U
0.00269
U
0.0028
U
0.0026
U
0.00231
U
0.00457
U
0.00233
U
0.0116
0.00259
U
0.00225
U
Naphthalene
91-20-3
mg/kg
0.00505
U
0.00736
U
0.00536
U
0.00557
U
0.00518
U
0.0046
U
0.0091
U
0.00463
U
0.00479
U
0.00516
U
0.00447
U
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
mg/kg
0.124
0.0301
J
0.00344
J
0.00316
U
0.00293
U
0.0101
0.006
J
0.00325
J
0.208
0.043
0.062
TOTAL LMW-PANS (114)
LMWPAH
mg/kg
0.15963
0.0301
0.00344
ND
ND
0.01011
0.006
0.00325
0.2535
0.04797
0.0756
High Molecular Weight (HMW)
Benzo(a)anthracene
56-55-3
mg/kg
0.143
0.0174
J
0.00692
J
0.00236
U
0.00219
U
0.0117
0.00972
J
0.00508
J
0.1731
0.0478
0.0737
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
mg/kg
0.137
0.0224
J
0.00661
J
0.00245
U
0.00227
U
0.0169
0.0148
0.00795
0.17
0.0531
0.0716
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
205-99-2
mg/kg
0.183
0.0381
J
0.00931
J
0.00209
U
0.00194
U
0.0304
0.0243
0.0146
0.257
0.0837
0.1
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
191-24-2
mg/kg
0.108
0.0204
J
0.00552
J
0.00242
U
0.00225
U
0.0154
0.016
0.0101
0.145
0.0435
0.0552
Benzo(k)fuoranthene
207-08-9
mg/kg
0.0683
0.0136
0.00434
J
0.00294
U
0.00273
U
0.0096
0.01011
0.00604
J
0.0855
0.0273
0.0384
Chrysene
218-01-9
mg/kg
0.146
0.0307
J
0.00862
J
0.00317
U
0.00294
U
0.0221
0.0184
0.00844
0.207
0.0641
0.0821
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
mg/kg
0.0234
0.00365
J
0.00226
U
0.00235
U
0.00218
U
0.00297
J
0.00383
U
0.00215
J
0.0305
0.009
0.0117
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
mg/kg
0.329
0.0785
J
0.0159
J
0.0031
U
0.00288
U
0.0458
0.029
0.0152
0.485
0.139
0.206
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
193-39-5
mg/kg
0.0879
0.0164
J
0.00427
J
0.00247
U
0.0023
U
0.0127
0.0125
J
0.00914
0.117
0.0337
0.0442
Pyrene
129-00-0
mg/kg
0.255
0.0579
J
0.0129
J
0.00273
U
0.00254
U
0.03511
0.0218
0.0114
0.39
0.113
0.154
TOTAL HMW-PAHS
HMWPAH
mg/kg
1.4806
0.29905
0.074391
ND
ND
0.20267
0.15662
0.0901
2.06
0.6142
0.8369
TOTAL PAHS
mg/kg
1.64023
0.32915
1 0.077831
ND
ND
0.212771
0.16262
1 0.09335
2.31351
0.66217
0.9125

CALCULATION OF UPTAKE INTO DIETARY COMPONENTS
FORMER GRIFFIN PIPE COMPANY SITE
FLORENCE, NEWJERSEY
Barium
7440-39-3
0.156
d 0.57 e
Chromium
7440-47-3
0.041
d 0.246 0.341 f
Cobalt
7440-48-4
0.0075
d 0.01 e
Iron
7439-89-6
-
4 0.03 h
Manganese
7439-96-5
0.079
d 0.265 h
Nickel
7440-02-0
0.748
-2.223 d 0.217
LMWPAH LMWPAH 0.454-1.3205 d 0.0009484
HMWPAHh HMWPAH 0.947 -1.703 d 0.002398971
Notes:
COPEC = constituent of potential ecological concern.
mg/kg= milligrams per kilogram.
LMWPAH = Low Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
General logarithmic equation: In(C v or C,) _ [a' Cv or C, = exp(([a' x In(C gam)] + b)
General linear equation: Cv or Cl = a' x Csed
a CSed = concentration in vege Value from January 2021 samping event.
b Cv = concentration in vegetation (dry weight)
e C1= concentration in invertebrates (dry weight)
d
USEPA 2007: Attachment 4-1 Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs). Exposure
Factors and Bioaccumulation Modelsfor Derivation of Wildlife Eco-SSLs OSWER Directive 9285.7-55. Issued
November2003, Revised February 2005, Revised April 2007.
e
Barium: Derived from concentrations of metals in sediment and invertebrates from nine streams in the Blackfoot
riverwatershed, ID, reported by Hamilton et al (2002), and from two sites on the Wolf river, WI, reported by Garn et al
(2001).
Cobalt: From two sites over four years on the Wolf river, WI reported by Garn et al (2001).
Hamilton et al 2002. Selenium and other trace elements in water, sediment, aquatic plants, aquatic invertebrates,
and fish from streams in southeastern Idaho near phosphate mining operations: June 2000. Final Report as part of
the USGS Western U.S., Phosphate Project. United States Geological Survey and United States Department of the
Interior. October 10.
Garn, et al 2001. Characteristics of Water, Sediment, and Benthic Communities of the Wolf River, Menominee
Indian Reservation, Wisconsin, WaterYears 1986-1998. United States Geological Survey and United States
Department of the Interior. Water -Resources Investigations Report 01-4019. USGS. Middleton, Wisconsin. 54 pp.
f Bechtel Jacobs 1998. Table 3 (undepurated).
B No data found for plant uptake .
h
Thomann et al 1995. Steady-state model of biota sediment accumulation factor for metals in two marine bivalves.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14:1989-1998. Fe: average of means for Crassostrea virginica (0.04) and Myto/is edu/is
(0.02) = 0.03. Mn: average of means for c, virginica (0.11) and In. eda/is (0.42)=0.265. No freshwater data found.
1 Ecology and Environment 2017. Draft Final Soil, Groundwater, Surface Water, and Kuskokwim River Sediment
Characterization: Supplement to Remedial Investigation, Red Devil Mine, Alaska. Prepared for US Department ofthe
Interior, Bureau of Land Management (Appendix F). The maximum BASF was converted with a wetweight/dry weight
Stantec 2009. Site Specific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment -Technical Study Report, Durham York
Residual Waste EA Study.
hftps://www.du rhamyorkwaste.ca/en/ resources/Arch ived%20 Docu ments/Environmentala/a20Assessment%20Ap
pendix%20C 12%20HHERA%20Technical%20Study%20Report. pdf
12%20Appendices/APPENDIX%20Ka/a20"/a20Biological%20Uptake%20Factors.pdf
HMW: 0.0099957 Wet weight/dry weight CF 0.24 OF
0.0039517 Wet weight/dry weight CF 0.24 OF
Brown ANo Caldwell
C:\Users\narchambault\bcpw\d1819502\Appendix B - Data_Uptake_TRVs_WC.xlsx\Table 2 - Uptake
Page 1 of 1

TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
FORMER GRIFFIN PIPE COMPANY SITE
FLORENCE, NEWJERSEY
Barium
7440-39-3
5.18E+01
a
2.10E+02 b
Chromium
7440-47-3
2.40E+00
c
2.66E+00 c
Cobalt
7440-48-4
7.33E+00
d
7.61E+00 d
Iron
7439-89-6
Manganese
7439-96-5
5.15E+01
a
1.79E+02 e
Nickel
7440-02-0
1.70E+00
f
6.71E+00 f
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
6.56E+01
g
2.28E+01 h
HMAPAH
HMWPAH
6.15E-01
g
1.00E+01 h
Notes:
TRV -Toxicity Reference Value in mg/kg-day (milligrams per kilogram body weight per day).
COPEC = constituent of potential ecological concern
HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
LMWPAH = Low Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
a EPA 2005a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Barium.
b Sample et al 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. Risk Assessment
Program, Health Sciences Research Division, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-86/R3.
EPA 2008. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Chromium; assumes Cr(III)
EPA 2005b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Cobalt
e EPA 2007a. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Manganese.
` EPA 2007b. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Nickel.
g EPA 2007c. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs).
b Casmalia Resources Site Steering Committee 2011. Final Remedial
Investigation Report. Prepared for USEPA Region 9.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwacb3/water issues/programs/stormwater/docs
/lid/Casmalia Superfund Site/ Remedial%20lnvestigati on%20Report/ApPend ix%2
OU/Attach m ents/Attach ment%20U-2 %20(rRVs)/Attach ment%20U-
2%20 TRVs %20Final%2OText Jan2011.pdf
Battelle 2008. Passaic River SLERA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2 and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
https://shareooint.ourDassaic.org/Public°/a20Documents/2008-12-
No value for LMWPAHs; value is for total PAHs.
Brown AND Caldwell
C:\Users\narchambault\bcpw\d1819502\Appendix B - Data_Uptake_TRVs_WC.xlsx\Table 3 -TRVs
Page 1 of 1

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Raccoon Station WC-1
Barium
7440-39-3
6.98E+01
3.98E+01
1.10E+00
1.81E-01
1.28E+00
5.18E+01
2E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
2.02E+02
5.19E+00
1.43E-01
5.24E-01
6.68E-01
2.40E+00
3E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
9.95E+01
9.95E-01
2.75E-02
2.58E-01
2.86E-01
7.33E+00
4E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
8.54E+04
2.56E+03
7.07E+01
2.22E+02
2.92E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
1.56E+03
4.13E+02
1.14E+01
4.05E+00
1.55E+01
5.15E+01
3E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
5.33E+01
1.16E+01
3.19E-01
1.38E-01
4.58E-01
1.70E+00
3E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
1.60E-01
1.51E-04
4.18E-06
4.14E-04
4.19E-04
6.56E+01
6E-06
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
1.48E+00
3.55E-03
9.81E-05
3.84E-03
3.94E-03
6.15E-01
6E-03
Hazard Index:
9E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Ci x IRF)/BW where:
b Ci = Dietary concentration (for racoon, the dietary component is invertebrate -based).
IRF= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
" Total intake = Dietary Intake + Sediment Intake.
a TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
8 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol
Input variables
Body Weight (BW)
5.12 kilogram (kg)
EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males
5120 gram (g)
and females in MO and AL
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
141.37 g/day dw
0.432(bw[g])1671 Nagy 2001
0.14137 kg/day dw
(omnivores)
Diet: Invertebrates
100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS)
9.4% of IRF
Beyer et al 1994
0.013289 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-1 (linked) Page 1 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Muskrat Station: WC-1
Barium
7440-39-3
6.98E+01
1.09E+01
7.53E-01
1.59E-01
9.13E-01
5.18E+01
1.8E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
2.02E+02
8.28E+00
5.73E-01
4.61E-01
1.03E+00
2.40E+00
4.3E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
9.95E+01
7.46E-01
5.16E-02
2.27E-01
2.79E-01
7.33E+00
3.8E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
8.54E+04
1.95E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
1.56E+03
1.23E+02
8.52E+00
3.56E+00
1.21E+01
5.15E+01
2.3E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
5.33E+01
2.12E+00
1.47E-01
1.22E-01
2.68E-01
1.70E+00
1.6E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
1.60E-01
1.16E-01
8.02E-03
3.64E-04
8.39E-03
6.56E+01
1.3E-04
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
1.48E+00
2.64E-01
1.83E-02
3.38E-03
2.17E-02
6.15E-01
3.5E-02
Hazard Index:'
9E-01
Notes:
° Dietary Intake = (C,x IRF)/BW where:
" Cv = Dietary concentration (for muskrat, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BM from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Soil Intake.
° TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 0.873 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males and
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
Diet: Vegetation
Soil Ingestion Rate (IRs)
873 gram (g)
60.39 g/day dw
0.06039 kg/ day dw
100 percent (%)
3.3% of IRF
0.001993 kg/day
females in MO and AL (EPA 1993)
0.859(bw[gl)° 628 Nagy 2001
(herbivores)
EPA 2003 Chapter 12, based in references cited therein
Food Chain Model WC-1 (linked) Page 2 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Heron Station: WC-1
Barium
7440-39-3
6.98E+01
3.98E+01
3.44E+00
1.21E-01
3.56E+00
2.10E+02
1.7E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
2.02E+02
5.19E+00
4.49E-01
3.50E-01
7.99E-01
2.66E+00
3.0E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
9.95E+01
9.95E-01
8.61E-02
1.72E-01
2.58E-01
7.61E+00
3.4E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
8.54E+04
2.56E+03
2.22E+02
1.48E+02
3.70E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
1.56E+03
4.13E+02
3.58E+01
2.70E+00
3.85E+01
1.79E+02
2.1E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
5.33E+01
1.16E+01
1.00E+00
9.23E-02
1.09E+00
6.71E+00
1.6E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
1.60E-01
1.51E-04
1.31E-05
2.76E-04
2.89E-04
2.28E+01
1.3E-05
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
1.48E+00
3.55E-03
3.07E-04
2.56E-03
2.87E-03
1.00E+01
2.9E-04
Hazard Index:'
7E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Cd x IRr)/BW where:
Ci = Dietary concentration (for heron, dietary concentration is invertebrate -based).
IRr = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
d Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Inoutvariables
Body Weight (BW)
2.389 kilogram (kg)
EPA 1993 Average of adult males and females
2389 gram (g)
(EPA 1993)
Food Ingestion Rate (IRr)
207 g/day dw
0.522(bw[g])1769 Nagy 2001
0.207 kg/day dw
Charadriiformes(shore birds)
Diet: Invertebrates
100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRs)
2.0% of IRr
Based on foraging behavior sediment ingestion is likely to be
0.004136 kg/day
minimal
Food Chain Model WC-1 (linked) Page 3 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Mallard Station: WC-1
Barium
7440-39-3
6.98E+01
1.09E+01
1.12E+00
2.37E-01
1.36E+00
2.10E+02
6.5E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
2.02E+02
8.28E+00
8.52E-01
6.85E-01
1.54E+00
2.66E+00
5.8E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
9.95E+01
7.46E-01
7.67E-02
3.38E-01
4.14E-01
7.61E+00
5.4E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
8.54E+04
2.90E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
1.56E+03
1.23E+02
1.27E+01
5.29E+00
1.80E+01
1.79E+02
1.0E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
5.33E+01
2.12E+00
2.18E-01
1.81E-01
3.99E-01
6.71E+00
5.9E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
1.60E-01
1.16E-01
1.19E-02
5.42E-04
1.25E-02
2.28E+01
5.5E-04
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
1.48E+00
2.64E-01
2.72E-02
5.02E-03
3.22E-02
1.00E+01
3.2E-03
Hazard Index:' 8E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Cvx IRF)/BWwhere:
b C, = Dietary concentration (for mallard, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
" Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
a TRV=Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = ZHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 1.134 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average reported for males and
1134 gram (g) females throughout N. America
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF) 117 g/daydw 0.522(bw[gl)0769 Nagy2001
0.117 kg/day dw Charadriiformes(shore birds)
Diet: Vegetation 100 percent (%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS) 3.3% of IRF Beyer et al, 1994
0.003848 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-1 (linked) Page 4 of 5

Barium
7440-39-3
2E-02
2E-02
2E-02
6E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
3E-01
4E-01
3E-01
6E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
4E-02
4E-02
3E-02
5E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
Manganese
7439-96-5
3E-01
2E-01
2E-01
1E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
3E-01
2E-01
2E-01
6E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
6E-06
1E-04
1E-05
5E-04
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
6E-03
4E-02
3E-04
3E-03
Total Hazard Index (HI) 9E-01 9E-01 7E-01 8E-01
HI = JHQs; risks shown to one significant figure.
Shaded values are above 1.
Food Chain Model WC-1(linked) Page 5 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Raccoon Station WC-2
Barium
7440-39-3
5.89E+01
3.36E+01
9.27E-01
1.53E-01
1.08E+00
5.18E+01
2E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
2.82E+02
5.63E+00
1.56E-01
7.32E-01
8.88E-01
2.40E+00
4E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
5.19E+01
5.19E-01
1.43E-02
1.35E-01
1.49E-01
7.33E+00
2E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
7.15E+04
2.15E+03
5.92E+01
1.86E+02
2.45E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
9.33E+02
2.47E+02
6.83E+00
2.42E+00
9.25E+00
5.15E+01
2E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
6.66E+01
1.45E+01
3.99E-01
1.73E-01
5.72E-01
1.70E+00
3E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
3.01E-02
2.85E-05
7.88E-07
7.81E-05
7.89E-05
6.56E+01
1E-06
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
2.99E-01
7.17E-04
1.98E-05
7.76E-04
7.96E-04
6.15E-01
1E-03
Hazard Index:'
9E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Ci x IRF)/BW where:
b Ci = Dietary concentration (for racoon, the dietary component is invertebrate -based).
IRF= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
" Total intake = Dietary Intake + Sediment Intake.
a TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
8 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol
Input variables
Body Weight (BW)
5.12 kilogram (kg)
EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males
5120 gram (g)
and females in MO and AL
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
141.37 g/day dw
0.432(bw[g])1671 Nagy 2001
0.14137 kg/day dw
(omnivores)
Diet: Invertebrates
100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS)
9.4% of IRF
Beyer et al 1994
0.013289 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-2 (linked) Page 1 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Muskrat Station: WC-2
Barium
7440-39-3
5.89E+01
9.19E+00
6.36E-01
1.34E-01
7.70E-01
5.18E+01
1.5E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
2.82E+02
1.16E+01
8.00E-01
6.44E-01
1.44E+00
2.40E+00
6.0E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
5.19E+01
3.89E-01
2.69E-02
1.18E-01
1.45E-01
7.33E+00
2.0E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
7.15E+04
1.63E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
9.33E+02
7.37E+01
5.10E+00
2.13E+00
7.23E+00
5.15E+01
1.4E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
6.66E+01
2.50E+00
1.73E-01
1.52E-01
3.25E-01
1.70E+00
1.9E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
3.01E-02
5.43E-02
3.76E-03
6.87E-05
3.83E-03
6.56E+01
5.8E-05
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
2.99E-01
5.81E-02
4.02E-03
6.83E-04
4.70E-03
6.15E-01
7.6E-03
Hazard Index:'
1E+00
Notes:
° Dietary Intake = (C,x IRF)/BW where:
" Cv = Dietary concentration (for muskrat, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BM from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Soil Intake.
° TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 0.873 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males and
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
Diet: Vegetation
Soil Ingestion Rate (IRs)
873 gram (g)
60.39 g/day dw
0.06039 kg/ day dw
100 percent (%)
3.3% of IRF
0.001993 kg/day
females in MO and AL (EPA 1993)
0.859(bw[gl)° 628 Nagy 2001
(herbivores)
EPA 2003 Chapter 12, based in references cited therein
Food Chain Model WC-2 (linked) Page 2 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Heron Station: WC-2
Barium
7440-39-3
5.89E+01
3.36E+01
2.91E+00
1.02E-01
3.01E+00
2.10E+02
1.4E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
2.82E+02
5.63E+00
4.88E-01
4.88E-01
9.76E-01
2.66E+00
3.7E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
5.19E+01
5.19E-01
4.49E-02
8.98E-02
1.35E-01
7.61E+00
1.8E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
7.15E+04
2.15E+03
1.86E+02
1.24E+02
3.09E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
9.33E+02
2.47E+02
2.14E+01
1.62E+00
2.30E+01
1.79E+02
1.3E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
6.66E+01
1.45E+01
1.25E+00
1.15E-01
1.37E+00
6.71E+00
2.0E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
3.01E-02
2.85E-05
2.47E-06
5.21E-05
5.46E-05
2.28E+01
2.4E-06
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
2.99E-01
7.17E-04
6.21E-05
5.18E-04
5.80E-04
1.00E+01
5.8E-05
Hazard Index:'
7E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Cd x IRr)/BW where:
Ci = Dietary concentration (for heron, dietary concentration is invertebrate -based).
IRr = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
d Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Inoutvariables
Body Weight (BW)
2.389 kilogram (kg)
EPA 1993 Average of adult males and females
2389 gram (g)
(EPA 1993)
Food Ingestion Rate (IRr)
207 g/day dw
0.522(bw[g])1769 Nagy 2001
0.207 kg/day dw
Charadriiformes(shore birds)
Diet: Invertebrates
100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRs)
2.0% of IRr
Based on foraging behavior sediment ingestion is likely to be
0.004136 kg/day
minimal
Food Chain Model WC-2 (linked) Page 3 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Mallard Station: WC-2
Barium
7440-39-3 5.89E+01 9.19E+00 9.45E-01 2.00E-01
1.14E+00
2.10E+02 5.5E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3 2.82E+02 1.16E+01 1.19E+00 9.57E-01
2.15E+00
2.66E+00 8.1E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4 5.19E+01 3.89E-01 4.00E-02 1.76E-01
2.16E-01
7.61E+00 2.8E-02
Iron
7439-89-6 7.15E+04 2.43E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5 9.33E+02 7.37E+01 7.58E+00 3.17E+00
1.07E+01
1.79E+02 6.0E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0 6.66E+01 2.50E+00 2.57E-01 2.26E-01
4.83E-01
6.71E+00 7.2E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH 3.01E-02 5.43E-02 5.59E-03 1.02E-04
5.69E-03
2.28E+01 2.5E-04
HMWPAH
HMWPAH 2.99E-01 5.81E-02 5.97E-03 1.01E-03
6.99E-03
1.00E+01 7.0E-04
Hazard Index:' 1E+00
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (C,x IRF)/BW where:
Cv = Dietary concentration (for mallard, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Inoutvariables
Body Weight (BW) 1.134 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993
Average reported for males and
1134 gram (g)
females throughout N. America
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF) 117 g/day dw 0.522(bw[gl)° 769
Nagy 2001
0.117 kg/daydw
Charadriiformes(shorebirds)
Diet: Vegetation 100 percent (%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRs) 3.3% of IRF Beyer et al, 1994
0.003848 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-2 (linked) Page 4 of 5

Barium
7440-39-3
2E-02
1E-02
1E-02
5E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
4E-01
6E-01
4E-01
8E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
2E-02
2E-02
2E-02
3E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
Manganese
7439-96-5
2E-01
1E-01
1E-01
6E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
3E-01
2E-01
2E-01
7E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
1E-06
6E-05
2E-06
2E-04
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
1E-03
8E-03
6E-05
7E-04
Total Hazard Index (HI)
9E-01
1E+00
7E-01
1E+00
HI = JHQs; risks shown to one significant figure.
Shaded values are above 1.
Food Chain Model WC-2 (linked) Page 5 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Raccoon Station WC-3
Barium
7440-39-3
5.64E+01
3.21E+01
8.88E-01
1.46E-01
1.03E+00
5.18E+01
2E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.09E+02
4.46E+00
1.23E-01
2.83E-01
4.06E-01
2.40E+00
2E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
3.88E+01
3.88E-01
1.07E-02
1.01E-01
1.11E-01
7.33E+00
2E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
6.87E+04
2.06E+03
5.69E+01
1.78E+02
2.35E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
7.77E+02
2.06E+02
5.69E+00
2.02E+00
7.70E+00
5.15E+01
1E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
2.83E+01
6.14E+00
1.70E-01
7.35E-02
2.43E-01
1.70E+00
1E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
ND
6.56E+01
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
ND
6.15E-01
Hazard Index
5E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Ci x IRF)/BW where:
b Ci = Dietary concentration (for racoon, the dietary component is invertebrate -based).
IRF= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
" Total intake = Dietary Intake + Sediment Intake.
a TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
8 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol
Input variables
Body Weight (BW)
5.12 kilogram (kg)
EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males
5120 gram (g)
and females in MO and AL
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
141.37 g/day dw
0.432(bw[g])1671 Nagy 2001
0.14137 kg/day dw
(omnivores)
Diet: Invertebrates
100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS)
9.4% of IRF
Beyer et al 1994
0.013289 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-3 (linked) Page 1 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Muskrat Station: WC-3
Barium
7440-39-3
5.64E+01
8.80E+00
6.09E-01
1.29E-01
7.37E-01
5.18E+01
1.4E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.09E+02
4.47E+00
3.09E-01
2.49E-01
5.58E-01
2.40E+00
2.3E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
3.88E+01
2.91E-01
2.01E-02
8.86E-02
1.09E-01
7.33E+00
1.5E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
6.87E+04
1.57E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
7.77E+02
6.14E+01
4.25E+00
1.77E+00
6.02E+00
5.15E+01
1.2E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
2.83E+01
1.32E+00
9.13E-02
6.46E-02
1.56E-01
1.70E+00
9.2E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
ND
6.56E+01
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
ND
6.15E-01
Hazard Index'
5E-01
Notes:
° Dietary Intake = (C,x IRF)/BW where:
" Cv = Dietary concentration (for muskrat, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BM from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Soil Intake.
° TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 0.873 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males and
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
Diet: Vegetation
Soil Ingestion Rate (IRs)
873 gram (g)
60.39 g/day dw
0.06039 kg/ day dw
100 percent (%)
3.3% of IRF
0.001993 kg/day
females in MO and AL (EPA 1993)
0.859(bw[gl)° 628 Nagy 2001
(herbivores)
EPA 2003 Chapter 12, based in references cited therein
Food Chain Model WC-3 (linked) Page 2 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Heron Station: WC-3
Barium
7440-39-3
5.64E+01
3.21E+01
2.78E+00
9.76E-02
2.88E+00
2.10E+02
1.4E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.09E+02
4.46E+00
3.86E-01
1.89E-01
5.75E-01
2.66E+00
2.2E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
3.88E+01
3.88E-01
3.36E-02
6.72E-02
1.01E-01
7.61E+00
1.3E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
6.87E+04
2.06E+03
1.78E+02
1.19E+02
2.97E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
7.77E+02
2.06E+02
1.78E+01
1.35E+00
1.92E+01
1.79E+02
1.1E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
2.83E+01
6.14E+00
5.32E-01
4.90E-02
5.81E-01
6.71E+00
8.7E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
ND
2.28E+01
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
ND
1.00E+01
Hazard Index:'
4E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Cd x IRr)/BW where:
Ci = Dietary concentration (for heron, dietary concentration is invertebrate -based).
IRr = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
d Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Inoutvariables
Body Weight (BW)
2.389 kilogram (kg)
EPA 1993 Average of adult males and females
2389 gram (g)
(EPA 1993)
Food Ingestion Rate (IRr)
207 g/day dw
0.522(bw[g])1769 Nagy 2001
0.207 kg/day dw
Charadriiformes(shore birds)
Diet: Invertebrates
100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRs)
2.0% of IRr
Based on foraging behavior sediment ingestion is likely to be
0.004136 kg/day
minimal
Food Chain Model WC-3 (linked) Page 3 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Mallard Station: WC-3
Barium
7440-39-3
5.64E+01
8.80E+00
9.05E-01
1.91E-01
1.10E+00
2.10E+02
5.2E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.09E+02
4.47E+00
4.59E-01
3.70E-01
8.29E-01
2.66E+00
3.1E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
3.88E+01
2.91E-01
2.99E-02
1.32E-01
1.62E-01
7.61E+00
2.1E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
6.87E+04
2.33E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
7.77E+02
6.14E+01
6.31E+00
2.64E+00
8.95E+00
1.79E+02
5.0E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
2.83E+01
1.32E+00
1.36E-01
9.60E-02
2.32E-01
6.71E+00
3.5E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
ND
2.28E+01
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
ND
1.00E+01
Hazard Index
4E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (C,x IRF)/BW where:
Cv = Dietary concentration (for mallard, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Inoutvariables
Body Weight (BW) 1.134 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average reported for males and
1134 gram (g) females throughout N. America
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF) 117 g/day dw 0.522(bw[g])1761 Nagy 2001
0.117 kg/daydw Charadriiformes(shorebirds)
Diet: Vegetation 100 percent (%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRs) 3.3% of IRF Beyer et al, 1994
0.003848 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-3 (linked) Page 4 of 5

Barium
7440-39-3
2E-02
1E-02
1E-02
5E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
2E-01
2E-01
2E-01
3E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
2E-02
1E-02
1E-02
2E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
Manganese
7439-96-5
1E-01
1E-01
1E-01
5E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
3E-01
9E-02
9E-02
3E-02
LMWPAH LMWPAH
HMWPAH HMWPAH
Total Hazard Index (HI) 5E-01 5E-01 4E-01 4E-01
HI = JHQs; risks shown to one significant figure.
Shaded values are above 1.
Food Chain Model WC-3 (linked) Page 5 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Raccoon Station WC-4
Barium
7440-39-3
5.75E+01
3.28E+01
9.05E-01
1.49E-01
1.05E+00
5.18E+01
2E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.07E+02
4.44E+00
1.23E-01
2.78E-01
4.00E-01
2.40E+00
2E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
2.09E+01
2.09E-01
5.77E-03
5.42E-02
6.00E-02
7.33E+00
8E-03
Iron
7439-89-6
2.10E+04
6.30E+02
1.74E+01
5.45E+01
7.19E+01
Manganese
7439-96-5
5.56E+02
1.47E+02
4.07E+00
1.44E+00
5.51E+00
5.15E+01
1E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
2.37E+01
5.14E+00
1.42E-01
6.15E-02
2.04E-01
1.70E+00
1E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
ND
6.56E+01
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
ND
6.15E-01
Hazard Index
4E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Ci x IRF)/BW where:
b Ci = Dietary concentration (for racoon, the dietary component is invertebrate -based).
IRF= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
" Total intake = Dietary Intake + Sediment Intake.
a TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
8 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol
Input variables
Body Weight (BW)
5.12 kilogram (kg)
EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males
5120 gram (g)
and females in MO and AL
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
141.37 g/day dw
0.432(bw[g])1671 Nagy 2001
0.14137 kg/day dw
(omnivores)
Diet: Invertebrates
100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS)
9.4% of IRF
Beyer et al 1994
0.013289 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-4 (linked) Page 1 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Muskrat Station: WC-4
Barium
7440-39-3
5.75E+01
8.97E+00
6.20E-01
1.31E-01
7.52E-01
5.18E+01
1.5E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.07E+02
4.39E+00
3.03E-01
2.44E-01
5.48E-01
2.40E+00
2.3E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
2.09E+01
1.57E-01
1.08E-02
4.77E-02
5.86E-02
7.33E+00
8.0E-03
Iron
7439-89-6
2.10E+04
4.79E+01
Manganese
7439-96-5
5.56E+02
4.39E+01
3.04E+00
1.27E+00
4.31E+00
5.15E+01
8.4E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
2.37E+01
1.16E+00
7.99E-02
5.41E-02
1.34E-01
1.70E+00
7.9E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
ND
6.56E+01
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
ND
6.15E-01
Hazard Index'
4E-01
Notes:
° Dietary Intake = (C,x IRF)/BW where:
" Cv = Dietary concentration (for muskrat, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BM from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Soil Intake.
° TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 0.873 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males and
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
Diet: Vegetation
Soil Ingestion Rate (IRs)
873 gram (g)
60.39 g/day dw
0.06039 kg/ day dw
100 percent (%)
3.3% of IRF
0.001993 kg/day
females in MO and AL (EPA 1993)
0.859(bw[gl)° 628 Nagy 2001
(herbivores)
EPA 2003 Chapter 12, based in references cited therein
Food Chain Model WC-4 (linked) Page 2 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Heron Station: WC-4
Barium
7440-39-3
5.75E+01
3.28E+01
2.84E+00
9.95E-02
2.94E+00
2.10E+02
1.4E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.07E+02
4.44E+00
3.84E-01
1.85E-01
5.69E-01
2.66E+00
2.1E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
2.09E+01
2.09E-01
1.81E-02
3.62E-02
5.43E-02
7.61E+00
7.1E-03
Iron
7439-89-6
2.10E+04
6.30E+02
5.45E+01
3.64E+01
9.09E+01
Manganese
7439-96-5
5.56E+02
1.47E+02
1.28E+01
9.63E-01
1.37E+01
1.79E+02
7.7E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
2.37E+01
5.14E+00
4.45E-01
4.10E-02
4.86E-01
6.71E+00
7.2E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
ND
2.28E+01
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
ND
1.00E+01
Hazard Index:'
4E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Cd x IRF)/BW where:
Ci = Dietary concentration (for heron, dietary concentration is invertebrate -based).
IRF = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
d Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Inoutvariables
Body Weight (BW) 2.389 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average of adult males and females
2389 gram (g)
(EPA 1993)
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF) 207 g/day dw
0.522(bw[g])1769 Nagy 2001
0.207 kg/day dw
Charadriiformes(shore birds)
Diet: Invertebrates 100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRs) 2.0% of IRF
Based on foraging behavior sediment ingestion is likelyto be
0.004136 kg/day
minimal
Food Chain Model WC-4 (linked) Page 3 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Mallard Station: WC-4
Barium
7440-39-3
5.75E+01
8.97E+00
9.22E-01
1.95E-01
1.12E+00
2.10E+02
5.3E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.07E+02
4.39E+00
4.51E-01
3.63E-01
8.14E-01
2.66E+00
3.1E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
2.09E+01
1.57E-01
1.61E-02
7.09E-02
8.70E-02
7.61E+00
1.1E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
2.10E+04
7.13E+01
Manganese
7439-96-5
5.56E+02
4.39E+01
4.52E+00
1.89E+00
6.40E+00
1.79E+02
3.6E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
2.37E+01
1.16E+00
1.19E-01
8.04E-02
1.99E-01
6.71E+00
3.0E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
ND
2.28E+01
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
ND
1.00E+01
Hazard Index:' 4E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Cvx IRF)/BWwhere:
b C, = Dietary concentration (for mallard, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
" Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
a TRV=Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = ZHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 1.134 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average reported for males and
1134 gram (g) females throughout N. America
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF) 117 g/daydw 0.522(bw[gl)0769 Nagy2001
0.117 kg/day dw Charadriiformes(shore birds)
Diet: Vegetation 100 percent (%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS) 3.3% of IRF Beyer et al, 1994
0.003848 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-4 (linked) Page 4 of 5

Barium
7440-39-3
2E-02
1E-02
1E-02
5E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
2E-01
2E-01
2E-01
3E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
8E-03
8E-03
7E-03
1E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
Manganese
7439-96-5
1E-01
8E-02
8E-02
4E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
3E-01
8E-02
7E-02
3E-02
LMWPAH LMWPAH
HMWPAH HMWPAH
Total Hazard Index (HI) 4E-01 4E-01 4E-01 4E-01
HI = JHQs; risks shown to one significant figure.
Shaded values are above 1.
Food Chain Model WC-4 (linked) Page 5 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Raccoon Station WC-5
Barium
7440-39-3
5.09E+01
2.90E+01
8.01E-01
1.32E-01
9.33E-01
5.18E+01
2E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.94E+02
5.14E+00
1.42E-01
5.04E-01
6.45E-01
2.40E+00
3E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
2.72E+01
2.72E-01
7.51E-03
7.06E-02
7.81E-02
7.33E+00
1E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
6.76E+04
2.03E+03
5.60E+01
1.75E+02
2.31E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
5.22E+02
1.38E+02
3.82E+00
1.35E+00
5.17E+00
5.15E+01
1E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
5.27E+01
1.14E+01
3.16E-01
1.37E-01
4.53E-01
1.70E+00
3E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
1.01E-02
9.58E-06
2.64E-07
2.62E-05
2.65E-05
6.56E+01
4E-07
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
2.03E-01
4.86E-04
1.34E-05
5.26E-04
5.39E-04
6.15E-01
9E-04
Hazard Index: i
7E-01
Notes:
e Dietary Intake=(CixIRr)/BWwhere:
Cl = Dietary concentration (for racoon, the dietary component is invertebrate -based).
IRr= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001 (calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
" Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
g HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol
Input variables
Body Weight (BW)
5.12 kilogram (kg)
EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males
5120 gram (g)
and females in MO and AL
Food Ingestion Rate (IRr)
141.37 g/daydw
0.432(bw[g])1.178 Nagy2001
0.14137 kg/daydw
(omnivores)
Diet: Invertebrates
100 percent (%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS)
9.4% of IRr
Beyer et al 1994
0.013289 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-5 (linked) Page 1 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Muskrat Station: WC-5
Barium
7440-39-3
5.09E+01
7.94E+00
5.49E-01
1.16E-01
6.65E-01
5.18E+01
1.3E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.94E+02
7.95E+00
5.50E-01
4.43E-01
9.93E-01
2.40E+00
4.1E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
2.72E+01
2.04E-01
1.41E-02
6.21E-02
7.62E-02
7.33E+00
1.0E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
6.76E+04
1.54E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
5.22E+02
4.12E+01
2.85E+00
1.19E+00
4.04E+00
5.15E+01
7.9E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
5.27E+01
2.10E+00
1.45E-01
1.20E-01
2.66E-01
1.70E+00
1.6E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
1.01E-02
3.31E-02
2.29E-03
2.31E-05
2.31E-03
6.56E+01
3.5E-05
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
2.03E-01
4.02E-02
2.78E-03
4.63E-04
3.24E-03
6.15E-01
5.3E-03
Hazard Index: i
7E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (C, x IRF)/BW where:
b Cv = Dietary concentration (for muskrat, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001 (calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
Total intake = Dietary Intake + Soil Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
8 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 0.873 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males and
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
Diet: Vegetation
Soil Ingestion Rate (IRs)
873 gram (g)
60.39 g/day dw
0.06039 kg/day dw
100 percent (%)
3.3% of IRF
0.001993 kg/day
females in MO and AL (EPA 1993)
0.859(bw[gl)1'628 Nagy2001
(herbivores)
EPA 2003 Chapter 12, based in references cited therein
Food Chain Model WC-5 (linked) Page 2 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Heron Station: WC-5
Barium
7440-39-3
5.09E+01
2.90E+01
2.51E+00
8.81E-02
2.60E+00
2.10E+02
1.2E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.94E+02
5.14E+00
4.45E-01
3.36E-01
7.81E-01
2.66E+00
2.9E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
2.72E+01
2.72E-01
2.35E-02
4.71E-02
7.06E-02
7.61E+00
9.3E-03
Iron
7439-89-6
6.76E+04
2.03E+03
1.76E+02
1.17E+02
2.93E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
5.22E+02
1.38E+02
1.20E+01
9.04E-01
1.29E+01
1.79E+02
7.2E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
5.27E+01
1.14E+01
9.90E-01
9.12E-02
1.08E+00
6.71E+00
1.6E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
1.01E-02
9.58E-06
8.29E-07
1.75E-05
1.83E-05
2.28E+01
8.0E-07
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
2.03E-01
4.86E-04
4.21E-05
3.51E-04
3.93E-04
1.00E+01
3.9E-05
Hazard Index: i
5E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Cd x IRr)/BW where:
Cl = Dietary concentration (for heron, dietary concentration is invertebrate -based).
IRr= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001 (calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
d Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 2.389 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average of adult males and females
2389 gram (g)
(EPA 1993)
Food Ingestion Rate (IRr) 207 g/day dw
0.522(bw[g])"769 Nagy 2001
0.207 kg/daydw
Charadriiformes(shorebirds)
Diet: Invertebrates 100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS) 2.0% of IRr
Based on foraging behavior sediment ingestion is likely to be
0.004136 kg/day
minimal
Food Chain Model WC-5 (linked) Page 3 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Mallard Station: WC-5
Barium
7440-39-3
5.09E+01
7.94E+00
8.16E-01
1.73E-01
9.89E-01
2.10E+02
4.7E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.94E+02
7.95E+00
8.18E-01
6.58E-01
1.48E+00
2.66E+00
5.5E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
2.72E+01
2.04E-01
2.10E-02
9.23E-02
1.13E-01
7.61E+00
1.5E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
6.76E+04
2.29E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
5.22E+02
4.12E+01
4.24E+00
1.77E+00
6.01E+00
1.79E+02
3.4E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
5.27E+01
2.10E+00
2.16E-01
1.79E-01
3.95E-01
6.71E+00
5.9E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
1.01E-02
3.31E-02
3.40E-03
3.43E-05
3.44E-03
2.28E+01
1.5E-04
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
2.03E-01
4.02E-02
4.13E-03
6.88E-04
4.82E-03
1.00E+01
4.8E-04
Hazard Index?
7E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (C,x IRF)/BW where:
e C, = Dietary concentration (for mallard, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001 (calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
Total intake = Dietary Intake + Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
s HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = YHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 1.134 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average reported for males and
1134 gram (g) females throughout N. America
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF) 117 g/day dw 0.522(bw[g])"" Nagy 2001
0.117 kg/daydw Charadriiformes(shorebirds)
Diet: Vegetation 100 percent (%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS) 3.3% of IRF Beyer et al, 1994
0.003848 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-5 (linked) Page 4 of 5

Barium
7440-39-3
2E-02
1E-02
1E-02
5E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
3E-01
4E-01
3E-01
6E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
1E-02
1E-02
9E-03
1E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
-
-
-
-
Manganese
7439-96-5
1E-01
8E-02
7E-02
3E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
3E-01
2E-01
2E-01
6E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
4E-07
4E-05
8E-07
2E-04
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
9E-04
5E-03
4E-05
5E-04
Total Hazard Index (HI)
7E-01
7E-01
5E-01
7E-01
HI = JHQs; risks shown to one significant figure.
Shaded values are above 1.
Food Chain Model WC-5 (linked) Page 5 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Raccoon Station WC-6
Barium
7440-39-3
7.81E+01
4.45E+01
1.23E+00
2.03E-01
1.43E+00
5.18E+01
3E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
4.87E+01
3.66E+00
1.01E-01
1.26E-01
2.27E-01
2.40E+00
9E-02
Cobalt
7440-48-4
1.94E+01
1.94E-01
5.36E-03
5.04E-02
5.57E-02
7.33E+00
8E-03
Iron
7439-89-6
1.84E+04
5.52E+02
1.52E+01
4.78E+01
6.30E+01
Manganese
7439-96-5
3.28E+02
8.69E+01
2.40E+00
8.51E-01
3.25E+00
5.15E+01
6E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
2.77E+01
6.01E+00
1.66E-01
7.19E-02
2.38E-01
1.70E+00
1E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
6.00E-03
5.69E-06
1.57E-07
1.56E-05
1.57E-05
6.56E+01
2E-07
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
1.57E-01
3.76E-04
1.04E-05
4.07E-04
4.17E-04
6.15E-01
7E-04
Hazard Index: i
3E-01
Notes:
e Dietary Intake=(CixIRr)/BWwhere:
Cl = Dietary concentration (for racoon, the dietary component is invertebrate -based).
IRr= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001 (calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
" Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
g HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol
Input variables
Body Weight (BW)
5.12 kilogram (kg)
EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males
5120 gram (g)
and females in MO and AL
Food Ingestion Rate (IRr)
141.37 g/daydw
0.432(bw[g])1.178 Nagy2001
0.14137 kg/daydw
(omnivores)
Diet: Invertebrates
100 percent (%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS)
9.4% of IRr
Beyer et al 1994
0.013289 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-6 (linked) Page 1 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Muskrat Station: WC-6
Barium
7440-39-3
7.81E+01
1.22E+01
8.43E-01
1.78E-01
1.02E+00
5.18E+01
2.0E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
4.87E+01
2.00E+00
1.38E-01
1.11E-01
2.49E-01
2.40E+00
1.0E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
1.94E+01
1.46E-01
1.01E-02
4.43E-02
5.43E-02
7.33E+00
7.4E-03
Iron
7439-89-6
1.84E+04
4.20E+01
Manganese
7439-96-5
3.28E+02
2.59E+01
1.79E+00
7.49E-01
2.54E+00
5.15E+01
4.9E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
2.77E+01
1.30E+00
8.98E-02
6.32E-02
1.53E-01
1.70E+00
9.0E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
6.00E-03
2.61E-02
1.81E-03
1.37E-05
1.82E-03
6.56E+01
2.8E-05
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
1.57E-01
3.15E-02
2.18E-03
3.58E-04
2.54E-03
6.15E-01
4.1E-03
Hazard Index: i
3E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (C, x IRF)/BW where:
b Cv = Dietary concentration (for muskrat, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001 (calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
Total intake = Dietary Intake + Soil Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
8 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 0.873 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males and
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
Diet: Vegetation
Soil Ingestion Rate (IRs)
873 gram (g)
60.39 g/day dw
0.06039 kg/day dw
100 percent (%)
3.3% of IRF
0.001993 kg/day
females in MO and AL (EPA 1993)
0.859(bw[gl)1'628 Nagy2001
(herbivores)
EPA 2003 Chapter 12, based in references cited therein
Food Chain Model WC-6 (linked) Page 2 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Heron Station: WC-6
Barium
7440-39-3
7.81E+01
4.45E+01
3.85E+00
1.35E-01
3.99E+00
2.10E+02
1.9E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
4.87E+01
3.66E+00
3.17E-01
8.43E-02
4.01E-01
2.66E+00
1.5E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
1.94E+01
1.94E-01
1.68E-02
3.36E-02
5.04E-02
7.61E+00
6.6E-03
Iron
7439-89-6
1.84E+04
5.52E+02
4.78E+01
3.19E+01
7.96E+01
Manganese
7439-96-5
3.28E+02
8.69E+01
7.52E+00
5.68E-01
8.09E+00
1.79E+02
4.5E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
2.77E+01
6.01E+00
5.20E-01
4.80E-02
5.68E-01
6.71E+00
8.5E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
6.00E-03
5.69E-06
4.93E-07
1.04E-05
1.09E-05
2.28E+01
4.8E-07
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
1.57E-01
3.76E-04
3.25E-05
2.71E-04
3.04E-04
1.00E+01
3.0E-05
Hazard Index: i
3E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (C° x IRF)/BW where:
6 Cl = Dietary concentration (for heron, dietary concentration is invertebrate -based).
IRF = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
° Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
° Total intake = Dietary Intake + Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
4 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = FHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 2.389 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average of adult males and females
2389 gram (g)
(EPA 1993)
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF) 207 g/day dw
0.522(bw[gl)1'769 Nagy2001
0.207 kg/daydw
Charadriiformes(shorebirds)
Diet: Invertebrates 100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRs) 2.0% of IRF
Based on foraging behavior sediment ingestion is likely to be
0.004136 kg/day
minimal
Food Chain Model WC-6 (linked) Page 3 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Mallard Station: WC-6
Barium
7440-39-3
7.81E+01
1.22E+01
1.25E+00
2.65E-01
1.52E+00
2.10E+02
7.2E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
4.87E+01
2.00E+00
2.05E-01
1.65E-01
3.71E-01
2.66E+00
1.4E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
1.94E+01
1.46E-01
1.50E-02
6.58E-02
8.08E-02
7.61E+00
1.1E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
1.84E+04
6.24E+01
Manganese
7439-96-5
3.28E+02
2.59E+01
2.66E+00
1.11E+00
3.78E+00
1.79E+02
2.1E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
2.77E+01
1.30E+00
1.34E-01
9.40E-02
2.28E-01
6.71E+00
3.4E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
6.00E-03
2.61E-02
2.69E-03
2.04E-05
2.71E-03
2.28E+01
1.2E-04
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
1.57E-01
3.15E-02
3.24E-03
5.31E-04
3.77E-03
1.00E+01
3.8E-04
Hazard Index?
2E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (C,x IRF)/BW where:
e C, = Dietary concentration (for mallard, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001 (calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
Total intake = Dietary Intake + Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
s HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = YHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 1.134 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average reported for males and
1134 gram (g) females throughout N. America
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF) 117 g/day dw 0.522(bw[g])"" Nagy 2001
0.117 kg/daydw Charadriiformes(shorebirds)
Diet: Vegetation 100 percent (%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS) 3.3% of IRF Beyer et al, 1994
0.003848 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-6 (linked) Page 4 of 5

Barium
7440-39-3
3E-02
2E-02
2E-02
7E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
9E-02
1E-01
2E-01
1E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
8E-03
7E-03
7E-03
1E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
-
-
-
-
Manganese
7439-96-5
6E-02
5E-02
5E-02
2E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
1E-01
9E-02
8E-02
3E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
2E-07
3E-05
5E-07
1E-04
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
7E-04
4E-03
3E-05
4E-04
Total Hazard Index (HI)
3E-01
3E-01
3E-01
2E-01
HI = JHQs; risks shown to one significant figure.
Shaded values are above 1.
Food Chain Model WC-6 (linked) Page 5 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Raccoon Station WC-7
Barium
7440-39-3
6.34E+01
3.61E+01
9.98E-01
1.65E-01
1.16E+00
5.18E+01
2E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
6.99E+01
4.00E+00
1.10E-01
1.81E-01
2.92E-01
2.40E+00
1E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
3.22E+01
3.22E-01
8.89E-03
8.36E-02
9.25E-02
7.33E+00
1E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
3.76E+04
1.13E+03
3.11E+01
9.76E+01
1.29E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
4.66E+02
1.23E+02
3.41E+00
1.21E+00
4.62E+00
5.15E+01
9E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
7.79E+01
1.69E+01
4.67E-01
2.02E-01
6.69E-01
1.70E+00
4E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
3.25E-03
3.08E-06
8.51E-08
8.44E-06
8.52E-06
6.56E+01
1E-07
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
9.01E-02
2.16E-04
5.97E-06
2.34E-04
2.40E-04
6.15E-01
4E-04
Hazard Index: i
SE-01
Notes:
e Dietary Intake=(CixIRr)/BWwhere:
Cl = Dietary concentration (for racoon, the dietary component is invertebrate -based).
IRr= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001 (calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
" Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
g HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol
Input variables
Body Weight (BW)
5.12 kilogram (kg)
EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males
5120 gram (g)
and females in MO and AL
Food Ingestion Rate (IRr)
141.37 g/daydw
0.432(bw[g])1.178 Nagy2001
0.14137 kg/daydw
(omnivores)
Diet: Invertebrates
100 percent (%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS)
9.4% of IRr
Beyer et al 1994
0.013289 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-7 (linked) Page 1 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Muskrat Station: WC-7
Barium
7440-39-3
6.34E+01
9.89E+00
6.84E-01
1.45E-01
8.29E-01
5.18E+01
1.6E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
6.99E+01
2.87E+00
1.98E-01
1.60E-01
3.58E-01
2.40E+00
1.5E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
3.22E+01
2.42E-01
1.67E-02
7.35E-02
9.02E-02
7.33E+00
1.2E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
3.76E+04
8.58E+01
Manganese
7439-96-5
4.66E+02
3.68E+01
2.55E+00
1.06E+00
3.61E+00
5.15E+01
7.0E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
7.79E+01
2.81E+00
1.95E-01
1.78E-01
3.73E-01
1.70E+00
2.2E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
3.25E-03
1.98E-02
1.37E-03
7.42E-06
1.37E-03
6.56E+01
2.1E-05
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
9.01E-02
1.87E-02
1.29E-03
2.06E-04
1.50E-03
6.15E-01
2.4E-03
Hazard Index: i
5E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (C, x IRF)/BW where:
b Cv = Dietary concentration (for muskrat, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001 (calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
Total intake = Dietary Intake + Soil Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
8 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 0.873 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males and
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
Diet: Vegetation
Soil Ingestion Rate (IRs)
873 gram (g)
60.39 g/day dw
0.06039 kg/day dw
100 percent (%)
3.3% of IRF
0.001993 kg/day
females in MO and AL (EPA 1993)
0.859(bw[gl)1'628 Nagy2001
(herbivores)
EPA 2003 Chapter 12, based in references cited therein
Food Chain Model WC-7 (linked) Page 2 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Heron Station: WC-7
Barium
7440-39-3
6.34E+01
3.61E+01
3.13E+00
1.10E-01
3.24E+00
2.10E+02
1.5E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
6.99E+01
4.00E+00
3.46E-01
1.21E-01
4.67E-01
2.66E+00
1.8E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
3.22E+01
3.22E-01
2.79E-02
5.57E-02
8.36E-02
7.61E+00
1.1E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
3.76E+04
1.13E+03
9.76E+01
6.51E+01
1.63E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
4.66E+02
1.23E+02
1.07E+01
8.07E-01
1.15E+01
1.79E+02
6.4E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
7.79E+01
1.69E+01
1.46E+00
1.35E-01
1.60E+00
6.71E+00
2.4E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
3.25E-03
3.08E-06
2.67E-07
5.63E-06
5.89E-06
2.28E+01
2.6E-07
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
9.01E-02
2.16E-04
1.87E-05
1.56E-04
1.75E-04
1.00E+01
1.7E-05
Hazard Index: i
5E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Cd x IRr)/BW where:
Cl = Dietary concentration (for heron, dietary concentration is invertebrate -based).
IRr= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001 (calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
d Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 2.389 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average of adult males and females
2389 gram (g)
(EPA 1993)
Food Ingestion Rate (IRr) 207 g/day dw
0.522(bw[g])"769 Nagy 2001
0.207 kg/daydw
Charadriiformes(shorebirds)
Diet: Invertebrates 100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS) 2.0% of IRr
Based on foraging behavior sediment ingestion is likely to be
0.004136 kg/day
minimal
Food Chain Model WC-7 (linked) Page 3 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Mallard Station: WC-7
Barium
7440-39-3
6.34E+01
9.89E+00
1.02E+00
2.15E-01
1.23E+00
2.10E+02
5.9E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
6.99E+01
2.87E+00
2.95E-01
2.37E-01
5.32E-01
2.66E+00
2.0E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
3.22E+01
2.42E-01
2.48E-02
1.09E-01
1.34E-01
7.61E+00
1.8E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
3.76E+04
1.28E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
4.66E+02
3.68E+01
3.79E+00
1.58E+00
5.37E+00
1.79E+02
3.0E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
7.79E+01
2.81E+00
2.89E-01
2.64E-01
5.54E-01
6.71E+00
8.3E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
3.25E-03
1.98E-02
2.03E-03
1.10E-05
2.04E-03
2.28E+01
9.0E-05
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
9.01E-02
1.87E-02
1.92E-03
3.06E-04
2.22E-03
1.00E+01
2.2E-04
Hazard Index: i
3E-01
Notes:
° Dietary Intake = (C, x IRF)/BW where:
° Cv = Dietary concentration (for mallard, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001 (calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
° Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
° TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
4 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 1.134 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average reported for males and
1134 gram (g) females throughout N. America
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF) 117 g/day dw 0.522(bw[g])1.711 Nagy 2001
0.117 kg/day dw Charadriiformes(shore birds)
Diet: Vegetation 100 percent (%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRs) 3.3% of IRF Beyer et al, 1994
0.003848 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-7 (linked) Page 4 of 5

Barium
7440-39-3
2E-02
2E-02
2E-02
6E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
1E-01
1E-01
2E-01
2E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
1E-02
1E-02
1E-02
2E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
-
-
-
-
Manganese
7439-96-5
9E-02
7E-02
6E-02
3E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
4E-01
2E-01
2E-01
8E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
1E-07
2E-05
3E-07
9E-05
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
4E-04
2E-03
2E-05
2E-04
Total Hazard Index (HI)
6E-01
5E-01
5E-01
3E-01
HI = JHQs; risks shown to one significant figure.
Shaded values are above 1.
Food Chain Model WC-7 (linked) Page 5 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Raccoon Station WC-8
Barium
7440-39-3
1.10E+01
6.27E+00
1.73E-01
2.86E-02
2.02E-01
5.18E+01
4E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
4.50E+01
3.59E+00
9.91E-02
1.17E-01
2.16E-01
2.40E+00
9E-02
Cobalt
7440-48-4
1.03E+01
1.03E-01
2.84E-03
2.67E-02
2.96E-02
7.33E+00
4E-03
Iron
7439-89-6
1.67E+04
5.01E+02
1.38E+01
4.33E+01
5.72E+01
Manganese
7439-96-5
2.51E+02
6.65E+01
1.84E+00
6.51E-01
2.49E+00
5.15E+01
5E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
1.23E+01
2.67E+00
7.37E-02
3.19E-02
1.06E-01
1.70E+00
6E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
2.54E-01
2.40E-04
6.64E-06
6.58E-04
6.65E-04
6.56E+01
1E-05
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
2.06E+00
4.94E-03
1.36E-04
5.35E-03
5.48E-03
6.15E-01
9E-03
Hazard Index:
2E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Ci x IRF)/BW where:
b Ci = Dietary concentration (for racoon, the dietary component is invertebrate -based).
IRF= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
" Total intake = Dietary Intake + Sediment Intake.
a TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
8 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol
Input variables
Body Weight (BW)
5.12 kilogram (kg)
EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males
5120 gram (g)
and females in MO and AL
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
141.37 g/day dw
0.432(bw[g])1671 Nagy 2001
0.14137 kg/day dw
(omnivores)
Diet: Invertebrates
100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS)
9.4% of IRF
Beyer et al 1994
0.013289 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-8 (linked) Page 1 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Muskrat Station: WC-8
Barium
7440-39-3
1.10E+01
1.72E+00
1.19E-01
2.51E-02
1.44E-01
5.18E+01
2.8E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
4.50E+01
1.85E+00
1.28E-01
1.03E-01
2.30E-01
2.40E+00
9.6E-02
Cobalt
7440-48-4
1.03E+01
7.73E-02
5.34E-03
2.35E-02
2.89E-02
7.33E+00
3.9E-03
Iron
7439-89-6
1.67E+04
3.81E+01
Manganese
7439-96-5
2.51E+02
1.98E+01
1.37E+00
5.73E-01
1.94E+00
5.15E+01
3.8E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
1.23E+01
7.08E-01
4.89E-02
2.81E-02
7.70E-02
1.70E+00
4.5E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
2.54E-01
1.43E-01
9.90E-03
5.79E-04
1.05E-02
6.56E+01
1.6E-04
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
2.06E+00
3.61E-01
2.50E-02
4.70E-03
2.97E-02
6.15E-01
4.8E-02
Hazard Index:'
2E-01
Notes:
° Dietary Intake = (C,x IRF)/BW where:
" Cv = Dietary concentration (for muskrat, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BM from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Soil Intake.
° TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 0.873 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males and
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
Diet: Vegetation
Soil Ingestion Rate (IRs)
873 gram (g)
60.39 g/day dw
0.06039 kg/ day dw
100 percent (%)
3.3% of IRF
0.001993 kg/day
females in MO and AL (EPA 1993)
0.859(bw[gl)° 628 Nagy 2001
(herbivores)
EPA 2003 Chapter 12, based in references cited therein
Food Chain Model WC-8 (linked) Page 2 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Heron Station: WC-8
Barium
7440-39-3
1.10E+01
6.27E+00
5.43E-01
1.90E-02
5.62E-01
2.10E+02
2.7E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
4.50E+01
3.59E+00
3.11E-01
7.79E-02
3.88E-01
2.66E+00
1.5E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
1.03E+01
1.03E-01
8.92E-03
1.78E-02
2.67E-02
7.61E+00
3.5E-03
Iron
7439-89-6
1.67E+04
5.01E+02
4.34E+01
2.89E+01
7.23E+01
Manganese
7439-96-5
2.51E+02
6.65E+01
5.76E+00
4.35E-01
6.19E+00
1.79E+02
3.5E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
1.23E+01
2.67E+00
2.31E-01
2.13E-02
2.52E-01
6.71E+00
3.8E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
2.54E-01
2.40E-04
2.08E-05
4.39E-04
4.60E-04
2.28E+01
2.0E-05
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
2.06E+00
4.94E-03
4.28E-04
3.57E-03
3.99E-03
1.00E+01
4.0E-04
Hazard Index:'
2E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Cd x IRr)/BW where:
Ci = Dietary concentration (for heron, dietary concentration is invertebrate -based).
IRr = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
d Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Inoutvariables
Body Weight (BW)
2.389 kilogram (kg)
EPA 1993 Average of adult males and females
2389 gram (g)
(EPA 1993)
Food Ingestion Rate (IRr)
207 g/day dw
0.522(bw[g])1769 Nagy 2001
0.207 kg/day dw
Charadriiformes(shore birds)
Diet: Invertebrates
100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRs)
2.0% of IRr
Based on foraging behavior sediment ingestion is likely to be
0.004136 kg/day
minimal
Food Chain Model WC-8 (linked) Page 3 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Mallard Station: WC-8
Barium
7440-39-3
1.10E+01
1.72E+00
1.76E-01
3.73E-02
2.14E-01
2.10E+02
1.0E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
4.50E+01
1.85E+00
1.90E-01
1.53E-01
3.42E-01
2.66E+00
1.3E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
1.03E+01
7.73E-02
7.94E-03
3.49E-02
4.29E-02
7.61E+00
5.6E-03
Iron
7439-89-6
1.67E+04
5.67E+01
Manganese
7439-96-5
2.51E+02
1.98E+01
2.04E+00
8.52E-01
2.89E+00
1.79E+02
1.6E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
1.23E+01
7.08E-01
7.28E-02
4.17E-02
1.14E-01
6.71E+00
1.7E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
2.54E-01
1.43E-01
1.47E-02
8.60E-04
1.56E-02
2.28E+01
6.8E-04
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
2.06E+00
3.61E-01
3.71E-02
6.99E-03
4.41E-02
1.00E+01
4.4E-03
Hazard Index:' 2E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Cvx IRF)/BWwhere:
b C, = Dietary concentration (for mallard, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
" Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
a TRV=Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = ZHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 1.134 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average reported for males and
1134 gram (g) females throughout N. America
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF) 117 g/daydw 0.522(bw[gl)0769 Nagy2001
0.117 kg/day dw Charadriiformes(shore birds)
Diet: Vegetation 100 percent (%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS) 3.3% of IRF Beyer et al, 1994
0.003848 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-8 (linked) Page 4 of 5

Barium
7440-39-3
4E-03
3E-03
3E-03
1E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
9E-02
1E-01
1E-01
1E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
4E-03
4E-03
4E-03
6E-03
Iron
7439-89-6
Manganese
7439-96-5
5E-02
4E-02
3E-02
2E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
6E-02
5E-02
4E-02
2E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
1E-05
2E-04
2E-05
7E-04
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
9E-03
5E-02
4E-04
4E-03
Total Hazard Index (HI)
2E-01
2E-01
2E-01
2E-01
HI = JHQs; risks shown to one significant figure.
Shaded values are above 1.
Food Chain Model WC-8 (linked) Page 5 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Raccoon Station WC-9
Barium
7440-39-3
5.13E+01
2.92E+01
8.07E-01
1.33E-01
9.41E-01
5.18E+01
2E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
7.46E+01
4.06E+00
1.12E-01
1.94E-01
3.06E-01
2.40E+00
1E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
2.25E+01
2.25E-01
6.21E-03
5.84E-02
6.46E-02
7.33E+00
9E-03
Iron
7439-89-6
2.55E+04
7.65E+02
2.11E+01
6.62E+01
8.73E+01
Manganese
7439-96-5
1.07E+03
2.84E+02
7.83E+00
2.78E+00
1.06E+01
5.15E+01
2E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
4.70E+01
1.02E+01
2.82E-01
1.22E-01
4.04E-01
1.70E+00
2E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
4.80E-02
4.55E-05
1.26E-06
1.25E-04
1.26E-04
6.56E+01
2E-06
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
6.14E-01
1.47E-03
4.07E-05
1.59E-03
1.63E-03
6.15E-01
3E-03
Hazard Index:'
6E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Ci x IRF)/BW where:
b Ci = Dietary concentration (for racoon, the dietary component is invertebrate -based).
IRF= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
" Total intake = Dietary Intake + Sediment Intake.
a TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
8 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol
Input variables
Body Weight (BW)
5.12 kilogram (kg)
EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males
5120 gram (g)
and females in MO and AL
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
141.37 g/day dw
0.432(bw[g])1671 Nagy 2001
0.14137 kg/day dw
(omnivores)
Diet: Invertebrates
100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS)
9.4% of IRF
Beyer et al 1994
0.013289 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-9 (linked) Page 1 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Muskrat Station: WC-9
Barium
7440-39-3
5.13E+01
8.00E+00
5.54E-01
1.17E-01
6.71E-01
5.18E+01
1.3E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
7.46E+01
3.06E+00
2.12E-01
1.70E-01
3.82E-01
2.40E+00
1.6E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
2.25E+01
1.69E-01
1.17E-02
5.14E-02
6.30E-02
7.33E+00
8.6E-03
Iron
7439-89-6
2.55E+04
5.82E+01
Manganese
7439-96-5
1.07E+03
8.45E+01
5.85E+00
2.44E+00
8.29E+00
5.15E+01
1.6E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
4.70E+01
1.93E+00
1.33E-01
1.07E-01
2.41E-01
1.70E+00
1.4E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
4.80E-02
6.72E-02
4.65E-03
1.10E-04
4.76E-03
6.56E+01
7.2E-05
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
6.14E-01
1.15E-01
7.94E-03
1.40E-03
9.35E-03
6.15E-01
1.5E-02
Hazard Index:'
5E-01
Notes:
° Dietary Intake = (C,x IRF)/BW where:
" Cv = Dietary concentration (for muskrat, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BM from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Soil Intake.
° TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 0.873 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males and
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
Diet: Vegetation
Soil Ingestion Rate (IRs)
873 gram (g)
60.39 g/day dw
0.06039 kg/ day dw
100 percent (%)
3.3% of IRF
0.001993 kg/day
females in MO and AL (EPA 1993)
0.859(bw[gl)° 628 Nagy 2001
(herbivores)
EPA 2003 Chapter 12, based in references cited therein
Food Chain Model WC-9 (linked) Page 2 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Heron Station: WC-9
Barium
7440-39-3
5.13E+01
2.92E+01
2.53E+00
8.88E-02
2.62E+00
2.10E+02
1.2E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
7.46E+01
4.06E+00
3.52E-01
1.29E-01
4.81E-01
2.66E+00
1.8E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
2.25E+01
2.25E-01
1.95E-02
3.90E-02
5.84E-02
7.61E+00
7.7E-03
Iron
7439-89-6
2.55E+04
7.65E+02
6.62E+01
4.41E+01
1.10E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
1.07E+03
2.84E+02
2.45E+01
1.85E+00
2.64E+01
1.79E+02
1.5E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
4.70E+01
1.02E+01
8.83E-01
8.14E-02
9.64E-01
6.71E+00
1.4E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
4.80E-02
4.55E-05
3.94E-06
8.30E-05
8.70E-05
2.28E+01
3.8E-06
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
6.14E-01
1.47E-03
1.28E-04
1.06E-03
1.19E-03
1.00E+01
1.2E-04
Hazard Index:'
5E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Cd x IRr)/BW where:
Ci = Dietary concentration (for heron, dietary concentration is invertebrate -based).
IRr = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
d Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Inoutvariables
Body Weight (BW)
2.389 kilogram (kg)
EPA 1993 Average of adult males and females
2389 gram (g)
(EPA 1993)
Food Ingestion Rate (IRr)
207 g/day dw
0.522(bw[g])1769 Nagy 2001
0.207 kg/day dw
Charadriiformes(shore birds)
Diet: Invertebrates
100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRs)
2.0% of IRr
Based on foraging behavior sediment ingestion is likely to be
0.004136 kg/day
minimal
Food Chain Model WC-9 (linked) Page 3 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Mallard Station: WC-9
Barium
7440-39-3
5.13E+01
8.00E+00
8.23E-01
1.74E-01
9.97E-01
2.10E+02
4.7E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
7.46E+01
3.06E+00
3.14E-01
2.53E-01
5.68E-01
2.66E+00
2.1E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
2.25E+01
1.69E-01
1.73E-02
7.63E-02
9.37E-02
7.61E+00
1.2E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
2.55E+04
8.65E+01
Manganese
7439-96-5
1.07E+03
8.45E+01
8.69E+00
3.63E+00
1.23E+01
1.79E+02
6.9E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
4.70E+01
1.93E+00
1.98E-01
1.59E-01
3.58E-01
6.71E+00
5.3E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
4.80E-02
6.72E-02
6.91E-03
1.63E-04
7.07E-03
2.28E+01
3.1E-04
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
6.14E-01
1.15E-01
1.18E-02
2.08E-03
1.39E-02
1.00E+01
1.4E-03
Hazard Index:' 4E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Cvx IRF)/BWwhere:
b C, = Dietary concentration (for mallard, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
" Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
a TRV=Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = ZHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 1.134 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average reported for males and
1134 gram (g) females throughout N. America
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF) 117 g/daydw 0.522(bw[gl)0769 Nagy2001
0.117 kg/day dw Charadriiformes(shore birds)
Diet: Vegetation 100 percent (%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS) 3.3% of IRF Beyer et al, 1994
0.003848 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-9 (linked) Page 4 of 5

Barium
7440-39-3
2E-02
1E-02
1E-02
5E-03
Chromium
7440-47-3
1E-01
2E-01
2E-01
2E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
9E-03
9E-03
8E-03
1E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
Manganese
7439-96-5
2E-01
2E-01
1E-01
7E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
2E-01
1E-01
1E-01
5E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
2E-06
7E-05
4E-06
3E-04
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
3E-03
2E-02
1E-04
1E-03
Total Hazard Index (HI) 6E-01 5E-01 5E-01 4E-01
HI = JHQs; risks shown to one significant figure.
Shaded values are above 1.
Food Chain Model WC-9 (linked) Page 5 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Raccoon Station WC-10
Barium
7440-39-3
1.33E+02
7.58E+01
2.09E+00
3.45E-01
2.44E+00
5.18E+01
5E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.00E+02
4.37E+00
1.21E-01
2.60E-01
3.80E-01
2.40E+00
2E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
4.66E+01
4.66E-01
1.29E-02
1.21E-01
1.34E-01
7.33E+00
2E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
5.16E+04
1.55E+03
4.27E+01
1.34E+02
1.77E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
1.42E+03
3.76E+02
1.04E+01
3.69E+00
1.41E+01
5.15E+01
3E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
7.02E+01
1.52E+01
4.21E-01
1.82E-01
6.03E-01
1.70E+00
4E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
7.56E-02
7.17E-05
1.98E-06
1.96E-04
1.98E-04
6.56E+01
3E-06
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
8.37E-01
2.01E-03
5.54E-05
2.17E-03
2.23E-03
6.15E-01
4E-03
Hazard Index:'
9E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Ci x IRF)/BW where:
b Ci = Dietary concentration (for racoon, the dietary component is invertebrate -based).
IRF= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
" Total intake = Dietary Intake + Sediment Intake.
a TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
8 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol
Input variables
Body Weight (BW)
5.12 kilogram (kg)
EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males
5120 gram (g)
and females in MO and AL
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
141.37 g/day dw
0.432(bw[g])1671 Nagy 2001
0.14137 kg/day dw
(omnivores)
Diet: Invertebrates
100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS)
9.4% of IRF
Beyer et al 1994
0.013289 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-10 (linked) Page 1 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Muskrat Station: WC-10
Barium
7440-39-3
1.33E+02
2.07E+01
1.44E+00
3.04E-01
1.74E+00
5.18E+01
3.4E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.00E+02
4.10E+00
2.84E-01
2.28E-01
5.12E-01
2.40E+00
2.1E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
4.66E+01
3.50E-01
2.42E-02
1.06E-01
1.31E-01
7.33E+00
1.8E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
5.16E+04
1.18E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
1.42E+03
1.12E+02
7.76E+00
3.24E+00
1.10E+01
5.15E+01
2.1E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
7.02E+01
2.60E+00
1.80E-01
1.60E-01
3.40E-01
1.70E+00
2.0E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
7.56E-02
8.26E-02
5.71E-03
1.73E-04
5.89E-03
6.56E+01
9.0E-05
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
8.37E-01
1.54E-01
1.06E-02
1.91E-03
1.26E-02
6.15E-01
2.0E-02
Hazard Index:'
7E-01
Notes:
° Dietary Intake = (C,x IRF)/BW where:
" Cv = Dietary concentration (for muskrat, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BM from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Soil Intake.
° TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 0.873 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993 Average of mean weights reported for males and
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF)
Diet: Vegetation
Soil Ingestion Rate (IRs)
873 gram (g)
60.39 g/day dw
0.06039 kg/ day dw
100 percent (%)
3.3% of IRF
0.001993 kg/day
females in MO and AL (EPA 1993)
0.859(bw[gl)° 628 Nagy 2001
(herbivores)
EPA 2003 Chapter 12, based in references cited therein
Food Chain Model WC-10 (linked) Page 2 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Heron Station: WC-10
Barium
7440-39-3
1.33E+02
7.58E+01
6.56E+00
2.30E-01
6.79E+00
2.10E+02
3.2E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.00E+02
4.37E+00
3.78E-01
1.73E-01
5.51E-01
2.66E+00
2.1E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
4.66E+01
4.66E-01
4.03E-02
8.07E-02
1.21E-01
7.61E+00
1.6E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
5.16E+04
1.55E+03
1.34E+02
8.93E+01
2.23E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5
1.42E+03
3.76E+02
3.26E+01
2.46E+00
3.50E+01
1.79E+02
2.0E-01
Nickel
7440-02-0
7.02E+01
1.52E+01
1.32E+00
1.22E-01
1.44E+00
6.71E+00
2.1E-01
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
7.56E-02
7.17E-05
6.21E-06
1.31E-04
1.37E-04
2.28E+01
6.0E-06
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
8.37E-01
2.01E-03
1.74E-04
1.45E-03
1.62E-03
1.00E+01
1.6E-04
Hazard Index:'
7E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake = (Cd x IRr)/BW where:
Ci = Dietary concentration (for heron, dietary concentration is invertebrate -based).
IRr = Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (Cs X IRs)/BW where Cs = sediment concentration from same station.
d Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
e TRV = Toxicity Reference Value
' Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = JHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Inoutvariables
Body Weight (BW)
2.389 kilogram (kg)
EPA 1993 Average of adult males and females
2389 gram (g)
(EPA 1993)
Food Ingestion Rate (IRr)
207 g/day dw
0.522(bw[g])1769 Nagy 2001
0.207 kg/day dw
Charadriiformes(shore birds)
Diet: Invertebrates
100 percent(%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRs)
2.0% of IRr
Based on foraging behavior sediment ingestion is likely to be
0.004136 kg/day
minimal
Food Chain Model WC-10 (linked) Page 3 of 5

Calculation of Intakes and Hazard Quotients: Mallard Station: WC-10
Barium
7440-39-3 1.33E+02 2.07E+01 2.13E+00 4.51E-01
2.58E+00
2.10E+02
1.2E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3 1.00E+02 4.10E+00 4.22E-01 3.39E-01
7.61E-01
2.66E+00
2.9E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4 4.66E+01 3.50E-01 3.59E-02 1.58E-01
1.94E-01
7.61E+00
2.5E-02
Iron
7439-89-6 5.16E+04 1.75E+02
Manganese
7439-96-5 1.42E+03 1.12E+02 1.15E+01 4.82E+00
1.64E+01
1.79E+02
9.1E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0 7.02E+01 2.60E+00 2.68E-01 2.38E-01
5.06E-01
6.71E+00
7.5E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH 7.56E-02 8.26E-02 8.49E-03 2.57E-04
8.75E-03
2.28E+01
3.8E-04
HMWPAH
HMWPAH 8.37E-01 1.54E-01 1.58E-02 2.84E-03
1.87E-02
1.00E+01
1.9E-03
Hazard Index?
5E-01
Notes:
a Dietary Intake =(CvxIRF)/BWwhere:
b C, = Dietary concentration (for mallard, dietary concentration is vegetation -based).
IRF= Food intake rate.
BW = Body weight (kg).
Food ingestion rate based on equations by Nagy 2001(calculation below).
Body weight (BW) from Sample et al 1996.
Sediment intake = (CS X IRS)/BW where CS = sediment concentration from same station.
" Total intake = Dietary Intake+ Sediment Intake.
a TRV=Toxicity Reference Value
f Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Intake/Toxicity Reference Value (TRV); shown to two significant figures.
9 HMWPAH = High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Hazard index (HI) = ZHQs; shown to one significant figure per United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) protocol.
Input variables
Body Weight (BW) 1.134 kilogram (kg) EPA 1993
Average reported for males and
1134 gram (g)
females throughout N. America
Food Ingestion Rate (IRF) 117 g/daydw 0.522(bw[gl)0769
Nagy2001
0.117 kg/day dw
Charadriiformes(shore birds)
Diet: Vegetation 100 percent (%)
Sediment Ingestion Rate (IRS) 3.3% of IRF Beyer et al, 1994
0.003848 kg/day
Food Chain Model WC-10 (linked) Page 4 of 5

Barium
7440-39-3
5E-02
3E-02
3E-02
1E-02
Chromium
7440-47-3
2E-01
2E-01
2E-01
3E-01
Cobalt
7440-48-4
2E-02
2E-02
2E-02
3E-02
Iron
7439-89-6
Manganese
7439-96-5
3E-01
2E-01
2E-01
9E-02
Nickel
7440-02-0
4E-01
2E-01
2E-01
8E-02
LMWPAH
LMWPAH
3E-06
9E-05
6E-06
4E-04
HMWPAH
HMWPAH
4E-03
2E-02
2E-04
2E-03
Total Hazard Index (HI)
9E-01
7E-01
7E-01
5E-01
HI = JHQs; risks shown to one significant figure.
Shaded values are above 1.
Food Chain Model WC-10 (linked) Page 5 of 5

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement
Appendix C: North Carolina Human Health Risk
Calculator
C-1
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Risk Calculator
Version Date:
January 2021
Basis:
November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site Name:
Warren Creek Sediments
Site Address:
DEQ Section:
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Submittal Date:
Prepared By:
Tamara Sorell, PhD, BCES
Reviewed By:
Jesse Braun
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Table of Contents
1
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Form No.
Description
Check box
if included
DATA INPUT SHEETS
Input Section 1 - Exposure Pathways & Parameters
Input Form IA
Complete Exposure Pathways
0
Input Form 113
Exposure Factors and Target Risks
0
Input Form I
Contaminant Migration Parameters
❑
Input Form 1D
Sample Statistics
❑
Input Section 2 - Exposure Point Concentrations
Input Form 2A
Soil Exposure Point Concentration Table
0
Input Form 2B
Groundwater Exposure Point Concentration Table
❑
Input Form 2C
Surface Water Exposure Point Concentration Table
❑
Input Form 2D
Soil Gas Exposure Point Concentration Table
❑
Input Form 2E
Indoor Air Exposure Point Concentration Table
❑
DATA OUTPUT SHEETS
Output Section 1 - Summary Output for All Calculators
Output Form lA
Risk for Individual Pathways
0
Output Form I
Sitewide Risk
El
Output Section 2 - Direct Contact Soil and Groundwater Calculators
Output Form 2A
Resident Soil
❑
Output Form 2B
Resident Groundwater Use
❑
Output Form 2C
Non -Residential Worker Soil
❑
Output Form 2D
Non -Residential Worker Groundwater Use
❑
Output Form 2E
Construction Worker Soil
❑
Output Form 2F
Recreator/Trespasser Soil
El
Output Form 2G
Recreator/Tres asser Surface Water
❑
Output Section 3 - Vapor Intrusion Calculators
Output Form 3A
Resident Groundwater to Indoor Air
❑
Output Form 3B
Resident Soil Gas to Indoor Air
❑
Output Form 3C
Resident Indoor Air
❑
Output Form 3D
Non -Residential Worker Groundwater to Indoor Air
❑
Output Form 3E
Non -Residential Worker Soil Gas to Indoor Air
❑
Output Form 3F
Non -Residential Worker Indoor Air
❑
Output Section 4 - Contaminant Migration to Worksheets
Output Form 4A
Soil to Groundwater - Forward Mode
❑
Output Form 4B
Groundwater to Groundwater - Forward Mode
❑
Output Form 4C
Soil to Surface Water - Forward Mode
❑
Output Form 4D
Groundwater to Surface Water - Forward Mode
❑
Output Form 4E
Soil to Groundwater - Backward Mode
❑
Output Form 4F
Groundwater to Groundwater - Backward Mode
❑
Output Form 4G
Soil to Surface Water - Backward Mode
❑
Output Form 4H
Groundwater to Surface Water - Backward Mode
❑
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Complete Exposure Pathways
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Note: Risk output will only be calculated for complete exposure pathways.
Receptor
Pathway
Check box if
pathway
complete
DIRECT CONTACT SOIL AND WATER PATHWAYS
Resident
Soil
❑
Groundwater Use
❑
Non -Residential Worker
Soil
❑
Groundwater Use
❑
Construction Worker
Soil
❑
Recreator/Trespasser
Soil
0
Surface Water
❑
VAPOR INTRUSION PATHWAYS
Resident
Groundwater to Indoor Air
❑
Soil Gas to Indoor Air
❑
Indoor Air
❑
Non -Residential Worker
Groundwater to Indoor Air
❑
Soil Gas to Indoor Air
❑
Indoor Air
❑
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION PATHWAYS
Groundwater
Source Soil
❑
Source Groundwater
❑
Surface Water
Source Soil
❑
Source Groundwater
❑
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Risk for Individual Pathways
1
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
DIRECT CONTACT SOIL AND WATER CALCULATORS
Receptor
Pathway
CarcinogenicRisk
Hazard Index
Risk exceeded?
Resident
Soil
NC
NC
NC
Groundwater Use*
NC
NC
NC
Non -Residential Worker
Soil
NC
NC
NC
Groundwater Use*
NC
NC
NC
Construction Worker
Soil
NC
NC
NC
Recreator/Trespasser
Soil
7.5E-07
1.6E-01
NO
Surface Water*
NC
NC
NC
VAPOR INTRUSION CALCULATORS
Receptor
Pathway
CarcinogenicRisk
Hazard Index
Risk exceeded?
Resident
Groundwater to Indoor Air
NC
NC
NC
Soil Gas to Indoor Air
NC
NC
NC
Indoor Air
NC
NC
NC
Non -Residential Worker
Groundwater to Indoor Air
NC
NC
NC
Soil Gas to Indoor Air
NC
NC
NC
Indoor Air
NC
NC
NC
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION CAL ULATORS
Pathway
Source
Target Receptor Concentrations Exceeded?
Groundwater
Source Soil
Exceedence of 2L at Receptor?
NC
Source Groundwater
Exceedence of 21, at Receptor?
NC
Surface Water
Source Soil
Exceedence of 2B at Receptor?
NC
Source Groundwater
Exceedence of 213 at Receptor?
NC
Notes:
1. If lead concentrations were entered in the exposure point concentration tables, see the individual calculator sheets for lead
concentrations in comparison to screening levels. Note that lead is not included in cumulative risk calculations.
2. * = If concentrations in groundwater exceed the NC 2L Standards or IMAC, or concentrations in surface water exceed the
NC 213 Standards, appropriate remediation and/or institutional control measures will be necessary to be eligible for a risk -based
closure.
3. NM = Not Modeled
4. NC = Pathway not calculated
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Sitewide Risk
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Resident - Current Scenario
Resident - Future Scenario
Non -Residential Worker - Current Scenario
Non -Residential Worker - Future Scenario
Construction Worker
Recreator/Trespasser
Receptor
Pathway
Check box to
include in site-
wide risk
calculations
Carcinogenic
Risk
Hazard Index
Check box to
include in site-
wide risk
calculations
Carcinogenic
Risk
Hazard Index
Check box to
include in site-
wide risk
calculations
Carcinogenic
Risk
Hazard Index
Check box to
include in site-
wide risk
calculations
Carcinogenic
Risk
Hazard Index
Check box to
include in site-
wide risk
calculations
Carcinogenic
Risk
Hazard Index
Check box to
include in site-
wide risk
calculations
Carcinogenic
Risk
Hazard Index
IL
DIRECT CONTACT SOIL AND WATER CALCULATORS
Resident
Soil
❑
NM
NM
❑
❑
NM
NM
Groundwater Use*
❑ NM
NM
NM
NM
Non -Residential Worker
Soil
❑
NM
NM
❑
NM
NM
Groundwater Use*
❑
NM
NM
❑
NM
NM
Construction Worker
Soil
❑
NM
NM
Soil
0
7.5E-07
1.6E-01
Recreator/Trespasser
Surface Water Use*
❑
NM
NM
VAPOR INTRUSION CALCULATORS
Groundwater to Indoor Air
❑
NM
NM
❑
NM
NM
Resident
Soil Gas to Indoor Air
❑
NM
NM
❑
NM
NM
Indoor Air
❑
NM
NM
❑
NM
NM
Groundwater to Indoor Air
Li
NM
NM
❑
NM
NM
Non -Residential Worker
Soil Gas to Indoor Air
❑
NM
NM
❑
NM
NM
Indoor Air
NM
NM
NM
NM
TOTAL SITEWIDE RISK FOR EACH RECEPTOR
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
0.0E+00
7.5E-07
1.6E-01
Notes:
1. If lead concentrations were entered in the exposure point concentration tables, see the individual calculator sheets for lead concentrations in comparison to screening levels. Note that lead is not included in cumulative risk calculations.
2. * = If concentrations in groundwater exceed the NC 2L Standards or IMAC, or concentrations in surface water exceed the NC 2B Standards, appropriate remediation and/or institutional control measures will be necessary to be eligible for a risk -based closure.
3. NM = Not Modeled
4. NC = Pathway not calculated
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Exposure Point Concentrations
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Soil Exposure Point Concentration Table
Description of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:
NOTE: If the chemical list is chanced from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data output sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculations
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Notes:
CAS Number
Chemical
For the chemicals highlighted in blue, data entry notes are provided in the
PSRG Table link on the Main Menu
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Units
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection Limits
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
Screening
Toxicity Value
(Screening
Level) (n/c)
Potential
ARAR TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(Y/I I)
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion
30560-19-1
Acephate
- kg
75-07-0
Acetaldehyde
mg/kg
34256-82-1
Acetochlor
- kg
67-64-1
Acetone
mg/kg
75-86-5
Acetone Cyanohydrin
mg/kg
75-05-8
Acetonitrile
mg/kg
98-86-2
Acetophenone
- kg
53-96-3
Acetylaminofluorene, 2-
mg/kg
107-02-8
Acrolein
- kg
79-06-1
Acrylamide
mg/kg
79-10-7
Acrylic Acid
- kg
107-13-1
Acrylonitrile
mg/kg
111-69-3
Adiponitrile
- kg
15972-60-8
Alachlor
mg/kg
116-06-3
Aldicarb
- kg
1646-884
Aldicarb Sulfone
mg/kg
1646-87-3
Aldicarb sulfoxide
- kg
309-00-2
Aldrin
mg/kg
107-18-6
Allyl Alcohol
- kg
107-05-1
Allyl Chloride
mg/kg
18300
7429-90-5
Aluminum
- kg
20859-73-8
Aluminum Phosphide
mg/kg
834-12-8
Ametryn
- kg
92-67-1
Aminobiphenyl, 4-
mg/kg
591-27-5
Aminophenol, m-
- kg
95-55-6
Aminophenol, o-
mg/kg
123-30-8
Aminophenol, p-
- kg
33089-61-1
Amitraz
mg/kg
766441-7
Ammonia
- kg
131-74-8
Ammonium Picrate
mg/kg
7773-06-0
Ammonium Sulfamate
- kg
75-854
Amyl Alcohol, tert-
mg/kg
62-53-3
Aniline
- kg
84-65-1
Anthraquinone, 9,10-
mg/kg
0.436
7440-36-0
Antimony (metallic)
- kg
1314-60-9
Antimony Pentoxide
mg/kg
1332-81-6
Antimony Tetroxide
- kg
1309-644
Antimony Trioxide
mg/kg
8.68
7440-38-2
Arsenic, Inorganic
- kg
778442-1
Arsine
mg/kg
1332-214
Asbestos (units in fibers)
- kg
3337-71-1
Asulam
mg/kg
1912-24-9
Atrazine
mg/kg
492-80-8
Auramine
mg/kg
65195-55-3
AvermectinBI
mg/kg
86-50-0
Azinphos-methyl
mg/kg
103-33-3
Azobenzene
mg/kg
123-77-3
Azodicarbonamide
mg/kg
133
7440-39-3
Barium
mg/kg
186140-1
Benfluralin
mg/kg
17804-35-2
Benomyl
mg/kg
83055-99-6
Bensulfaron-methyl
mg/kg
25057-89-0
Bentazon
- kg
100-52-7
Benzaldehyde
mg/kg
7143-2
Benzene
- kg
6369-59-1
Benzenediamine-2-methyl sulfate, 1,4-
mg/kg
108-98-5
Benzenethiol
m k
92-87-5
Benzidine
mg/kg
65-85-0
Benzoic Acid
- kg
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Exposure Point Concentrations
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Soil Exposure Point Concentration Table
Description of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:
NOTE: If the chemical list is chanced from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data outuut sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculations
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Notes:
CAS Number
Chemical
For the chemicals highlighted in blue, data entry notes are provided in the
PSRG Table link on the Main Menu
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Units
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection Limits
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
Screening
Toxicity Value
(Screening
Level) (n/c)
Potential
ARAR TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(Y/I I)
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion
98-07-7
Benzotrichloride
mg/kg
100-51-6
Benzyl Alcohol
mg/kg
10044-7
Benzyl Chloride
- kg
0.98
744041-7
Beryllium and compounds
mg/kg
42576-02-3
Bifenox
mg/kg
82657-04-3
Biphenthrin
mg/kg
92-524
Biphenyl, 1,1'-
- kg
108-60-1
Bis(2-chloro-l-methylethyl) ether
mg/kg
111-91-1
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
- kg
111444
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
mg/kg
542-88-1
Bis(chloromethyl)ether
mg/kg
80-05-7
Bisphenol A
mg/kg
744042-8
Boron And Borates Only
- kg
10294-34-5
Boron Trichloride
mg/kg
7637-07-2
Boron Trifluoride
- kg
15541454
Bromate
mg/kg
107-04-0
Bromo-2-chloroethane, 1-
mg/kg
1073-06-9
Bromo-3-fluorobenzene, 1-
mg/kg
460-004
Bromo4-fluorobenzene, 1-
mg/kg
79-08-3
Bromoacetic acid
mg/kg
108-86-1
Bromobenzene
- kg
74-97-5
Bromochloromethane
mg/kg
75-274
Bromodichloromethane
mg/kg
75-25-2
Bromoform
mg/kg
74-83-9
Bromomethane
mg/kg
2104-96-3
Bromophos
mg/kg
106-94-5
Bromopropane, 1-
mg/kg
1689-84-5
Bromoxynil
mg/kg
1689-99-2
Bromoxynil Octanoate
mg/kg
106-99-0
Butadiene, 1,3-
mg/kg
94-82-6
Butanoic acid, 4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-
mg/kg
71-36-3
Butanol, N-
mg/kg
78-92-2
Butyl alcohol, sec-
mg/kg
200841-5
Butylate
mg/kg
25013-16-5
Butylated hydroxyanisole
- kg
128-37-0
Butylated hydroxytoluene
mg/kg
104-51-8
Butylbenzene, n-
mg/kg
135-98-8
Butylbenzene,sec-
mg/kg
98-06-6
Butylbenzene,tert-
- kg
75-60-5
Cacodylic Acid
mg/kg
7440-41-9
Cadmium (Diet)
- kg
7440-43-9
Cadmium (Water)
mg/kg
105-60-2
Caprolactam
- kg
2425-06-1
Captafol
7
mg/kg
133-06-2
Captan
- kg
63-25-2
Carbaryl
mg/kg
1563-66-2
Carbofuran
- kg
75-15-0
Carbon Disulfide
mg/kg
56-23-5
Carbon Tetrachloride
- kg
463-58-1
Carbonyl Sulfide
mg/kg
55285-14-8
Carbosulfan
- kg
5234-684
Carboxin
mg/kg
1306-38-3
Ceric oxide
- kg
302-17-0
Chloral Hydrate
mg/kg
133-904
Chloramben
- kg
E701235
Chloramines, Organic
mg/kg
118-75-2
Chloranil
- kg
12789-03-6
Chlordane (technical mixture)
mg/kg
143-50-0
Chlordecone (Kepone)
mg/kg
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Exposure Point Concentrations
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Soil Exposure Point Concentration Table
Description of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:
NOTE: If the chemical list is chanced from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data outuut sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculations
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Notes:
CAS Number
Chemical
For the chemicals highlighted in blue, data entry notes are provided in the
PSRG Table link on the Main Menu
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Units
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection Limits
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
Screening
Toxicity Value
(Screening
Level) (n/c)
Potential
ARAR TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(Y/I I)
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion
470-90-6
Chlorfenvinphos
mg/kg
90982-324
Chlorimuron, Ethyl-
mg/kg
7782-50-5
Chlorine
— kg
10049-044
Chlorine Dioxide
mg/kg
7758-19-2
Chlorite (Sodium Salt)
— kg
75-68-3
Chloro-1,l-difluoroethane, 1-
mg/kg
126-99-8
Chloro-1,3-butadiene, 2-
— kg
3165-93-3
Chloro-2-methylaniline HCI, 4-
mg/kg
95-69-2
Chloro-2-methylaniline,4-
— kg
107-20-0
Chloroacetaldehyde,2-
mg/kg
79-11-8
Chloroacetic Acid
— kg
532-274
Chloroacetophenone,2-
mg/kg
10647-8
Chloroaniline, p-
— kg
108-90-7
Chlorobenzene
mg/kg
98-66-8
Chlorobenzene sulfonic acid, p-
— kg
510-15-6
Chlorobenzilate
mg/kg
74-11-3
Chlorobenzoic Acid, p-
— kg
98-56-6
Chlorobenzotrifluoride, 4-
mg/kg
109-69-3
Chlorobutane, 1-
— kg
7545-6
Chlorodifluoromethane
mg/kg
107-07-3
Chloroethanol, 2-
— kg
67-66-3
Chloroform
mg/kg
74-87-3
Chloromethane
mg/kg
107-30-2
Chloromethyl Methyl Ether
mg/kg
88-73-3
Chloronitrobenzene, o-
mg/kg
100-00-5
Chloronitrobenzene, p-
mg/kg
95-57-8
Chlorophenol, 2-
mg/kg
76-06-2
Chloropicrin
mg/kg
189745-6
Chlorothalonil
mg/kg
9549-8
Chlorotoluene,o-
mg/kg
106434
Chlorotoluene,p-
mg/kg
54749-90-5
Chlorozotocin
mg/kg
101-21-3
Chlorpropham
mg/kg
2921-88-2
Chlorpyrifos
mg/kg
5598-13-0
Chlorpyrifos Methyl
mg/kg
64902-72-3
Chlorsulfuron
mg/kg
1861-32-1
Chlorthal-dimethyl
mg/kg
60238-564
Chlorthiophos
mg/kg
282
16065-83-1
Chromium(III), Insolub
— kg
18540-29-9
Chromium(VI)
mg/kg
7440-47-3
Chromium, Total
— kg
74115-24-5
Clofentezine
mg/kg
99.5
7440484
Cobalt
— kg
E649830
Coke Oven Emissions
mg/kg
39.5
7440-50-8
Copper
— kg
108-394
Cresol, m-
mg/kg
9548-7
Cresol, o-
— kg
10644-5
Cresol, p-
mg/kg
59-50-7
Cresol, p-chloro-m-
— kg
1319-77-3
Cresols
mg/kg
123-73-9
Crotonaldehyde,trans-
— kg
98-82-8
Cumene
mg/kg
135-20-6
Cupferron
— kg
2172546-2
Cyanazine
mg/kg
Cyanides
— kg
592-(
_Calcium Cyanide
mg/kg
544-S
Copper Cyanide
m k
57-12-5
Cyanide (CN-)
mg/kg
460-19-5
—Cyanogen
mg/kg
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Exposure Point Concentrations
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Soil Exposure Point Concentration Table
Description of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:
NOTE: If the chemical list is chanced from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data outuut sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculations
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Notes:
CAS Number
Chemical
For the chemicals highlighted in blue, data entry notes are provided in the
PSRG Table link on the Main Menu
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Units
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection Limits
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
Screening
Toxicity Value
(Screening
Level) (n/c)
Potential
ARAR TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(Y/I I)
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion
506-68-3
Cyanogen Bromide
mg/kg
506-774
—Cyanogen Chloride
mg/kg
74-90-8
_Hydrogen Cyanide
— kg
151-50-8
_Potassium Cyanide
mg/kg
506-61-6
Potassium Silver Cyanide
mg/kg
506-64-9
AL —Silver Cyanide
mg/kg
143-33-9
Sodium Cyanide
— kg
E1790664
—Thiocyanates
mg/kg
463-56-9
—Thiocyanic Acid
— kg
557-21-1
110-82-7
Zinc Cyanid
Cyclohexane
mg/kg
— kg
87-84-3
Cyclohexane, 1,2,3,4,5-pentabromo-6-chloro-
mg/kg
108-94-1
Cyclohexanone
— kg
110-83-8
Cyclohexee
mg/kg
108-91-8
Cyclohexylamine
— kg
68359-37-5
Cyflutbrin
mg/kg
68085-85-8
Cyhalothrin
— kg
66215-27-8
Cyromazine
mg/kg
72-54-8
DDD, p,p'- (DDD)
— kg
72-55-9
DDE, p,p'-
mg/kg
50-29-3
DDT
— kg
75-99-0
Dalapon
mg/kg
1596-84-5
Daminozide
mg/kg
1163-19-5
Decabromodiphenyl ether, 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6,6'- (BDE-209)
mg/kg
806548-3
Demeton
mg/kg
103-23-1
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate
mg/kg
2303-164
Diallate
mg/kg
33341-5
Diazinon
mg/kg
132-65-0
Dibenzothiophene
mg/kg
96-12-8
Dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1,2-
mg/kg
631-64-1
Dibromoacetic acid
mg/kg
108-36-1
Dibromobenzene, 1,3-
mg/kg
106-37-6
Dibromobenzene, 1,4-
mg/kg
12448-1
Dibromochloromethane
mg/kg
106-934
Dibromoethane, 1,2-
— kg
74-95-3
Dibromomethane (Methylene Bromide)
mg/kg
E1790660
Dibutyltin Compounds
— kg
1918-00-9
Dicamba
mg/kg
3400-09-7
Dichloramine
— kg
76441-0
Dichloro-2-butene, 1,4-
mg/kg
1476-11-5
Dichloro-2-butene, cis-1,4-
— kg
110-57-6
Dichloro-2-butene, trans-1,4-
mg/kg
7943-6
Dichloroacetic Acid
— kg
95-50-1
Dichlorobenzene,l,2-
mg/kg
10646-7
Dichlorobenzene,l,4-
— kg
91-94-1
Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'-
mg/kg
90-98-2
Dichlorobenzophenone,4,4'-
— kg
75-71-8
Dichlorodifluoromethane
mg/kg
75-34-3
Dichloroethane, 1,1-
— kg
107-06-2
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
mg/kg
75-354
Dichloroethylene, 1,1-
— kg
156-59-2
Dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-
mg/kg
156-60-5
Dichloroethylene, trans-1,2-
— kg
120-83-2
Dichlorophenol,2,4-
mg/kg
94-75-7
Dichlorophenoxy Acetic Acid, 2,4-
— kg
78-87-5
Dichloropropane, 1,2-
mg/kg
142-28-9
Dichloropropane, 1,3-
m k
616-23-9
Dichloropropanol, 2,3-
mg/kg
542-75-6
Dichloropropene, 1,3-
mg/kg
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Exposure Point Concentrations
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Soil Exposure Point Concentration Table
Description of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:
NOTE: If the chemical list is chanced from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data outuut sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculations
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Notes:
CAS Number
Chemical
For the chemicals highlighted in blue, data entry notes are provided in the
PSRG Table link on the Main Menu
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Units
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection Limits
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
Screening
Toxicity Value
(Screening
Level) (n/c)
Potential
ARAR TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(Y/I I)
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion
62-73-7
Dichlorvos
mg/kg
141-66-2
Dicrotophos
mg/kg
77-73-6
Dicyclopentadiene
— kg
60-57-1
Dieldrin
mg/kg
E17136615
Diesel Engine Exhaust
— kg
11142-2
Diethanolamine
mg/kg
112-34-5
Diethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether
— kg
111-90-0
Diethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether
mg/kg
617-84-5
Diethylformamide
— kg
56-53-1
Diethylstilbestrol
mg/kg
4322248-6
Difenzoquat
— kg
35367-38-5
Diflubenzuron
mg/kg
75-37-6
Difluoroethane, 1,1-
— kg
42045-1
Difluoropropane, 2,2-
mg/kg
94-58-6
Dihydrosafrole
— kg
108-20-3
Diisopropyl Ether
mg/kg
1445-75-6
Diisopropyl Methylphosphonate
— kg
55290-64-7
Dimethipin
mg/kg
60-51-5
Dimethoate
— kg
119-904
Dimethoxybenzidine, 3,3'-
mg/kg
756-79-6
Dimethyl methylphosphonate
— kg
60-11-7
Dimethylamino azobenzene [p-]
mg/kg
21436-964
Dimethylaniline HCI, 2,4-
mg/kg
95-68-1
Dimethylaniline, 2,4-
mg/kg
121-69-7
Dimethylaniline, N,N-
mg/kg
119-93-7
Dimethylbenzidine, 3,3'-
mg/kg
68-12-2
Dimethylformamide
mg/kg
57-14-7
Dimethylhydrazine, 1,1-
mg/kg
540-73-8
Dimethylhydrazine, 1,2-
mg/kg
105-67-9
Dimethylphenol,2,4-
mg/kg
576-26-1
Dimethylphenol, 2,6-
mg/kg
95-65-8
Dimethylphenol,3,4-
mg/kg
513-37-1
Dimethylvinylchloride
— kg
534-52-1
Dinitro-o-cresol, 4,6-
mg/kg
131-89-5
Dinitro-o-cyclohexyl Phenol, 4,6-
— kg
528-29-0
Dinitrobenzene, 1,2-
mg/kg
99-65-0
Dinitrobenzene,l,3-
— kg
100-254
Dinitrobenzene,l,4-
mg/kg
51-28-5
Dinitrophenol, 2,4-
— kg
E1615210
Dinitrotoluene Mixture, 2,4/2,6-
mg/kg
121-14-2
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4-
— kg
606-20-2
Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-
mg/kg
35572-78-2
Dinitrotoluene, 2-Amino4,6-
— kg
19406-51-0
Dinitrotoluene, 4-Amino-2,6-
mg/kg
25321-14-6
Dinitrotoluene, Technical grade
mg/kg
88-85-7
Dinoseb
mg/kg
123-91-1
Dioxane,l,4-
m k
Dioxins
mg/kg
34465-46-8
—Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, Mixture
m k
1746-01-6
—TCDD, 2,3,7,8-
mg/kg
957-51-7
Diphenamid
— kg
101-84-8
Diphenyl Ether
mg/kg
127-63-9
Diphenyl Sulfone
— kg
122-394
Diphenylamine
mg/kg
122-66-7
Diphenylhydrazine,l,2-
— kg
2764-72-9
Diquat
mg/kg
1937-37-7
Direct Black 38
m k
2602-46-2
Direct Blue 6
mg/kg
16071-86-6
1 Direct Brown 95
mg/kg
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Exposure Point Concentrations
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Soil Exposure Point Concentration Table
Description of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:
NOTE: If the chemical list is chanced from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data outuut sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculations
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Notes:
CAS Number
Chemical
For the chemicals highlighted in blue, data entry notes are provided in the
PSRG Table link on the Main Menu
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Units
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection Limits
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
Screening
Toxicity Value
(Screening
Level) (n/c)
Potential
ARAR TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(Y/I I)
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion
298-044
Disulfoton
mg/kg
505-29-3
Dithiane, 1,4-
mg/kg
330-54-1
Diuron
— kg
2439-10-3
Dodine
mg/kg
759-944
EPTC
— kg
115-29-7
Endosulfan
mg/kg
1031-07-8
Endosulfan Sulfate
— kg
145-73-3
Endothall
mg/kg
72-20-8
Endrin
— kg
106-89-8
Epichlorohydrin
mg/kg
106-88-7
Epoxybutane,l,2-
— kg
111-77-3
Ethanol, 2-(2-methoxyethoxy)-
mg/kg
16672-87-0
Ethephon
— kg
563-12-2
Ethion
mg/kg
111-15-9
Ethoxyethanol Acetate,2-
— kg
110-80-5
Ethoxyethanol, 2-
mg/kg
141-78-6
Ethyl Acetate
— kg
140-88-5
Ethyl Acrylate
mg/kg
75-00-3
Ethyl Chloride (Chloroethane)
— kg
60-29-7
Ethyl Ether
mg/kg
97-63-2
Ethyl Methacrylate
— kg
2104-64-5
Ethyl-p-nitrophenyl Phosphonate
mg/kg
100414
Ethylbenzene
mg/kg
109-784
Ethylene Cyanohydrin
mg/kg
107-15-3
Ethylene Diamine
mg/kg
107-21-1
Ethylene Glycol
mg/kg
111-76-2
Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether
mg/kg
75-21-8
Ethylene Oxide
mg/kg
9645-7
Ethylene Thiourea
mg/kg
151-564
Ethyleneimine
mg/kg
84-72-0
Ethylphthalyl Ethyl Glycolate
mg/kg
22224-92-6
Fenamiphos
mg/kg
3951541-8
Fenpropathrin
mg/kg
51630-58-1
Fenvalerate
mg/kg
2164-17-2
Fluometuron
— kg
1698448-8
Fluoride
mg/kg
7782414
Fluorine (Soluble Fluoride)
— kg
59756-604
Fluridone
- kg
56425-91-3
Flurprimidol
mg/kg
85509-19-9
Flusilazole
- kg
66332-96-5
Flutolanil
m k
69409-94-5
Fluvalinate
mg/kg
133-07-3
Folpet
— kg
72178-02-0
Fomesafen
mg/kg
944-22-9
Fonofos
— kg
50-00-0
Formaldehyde
mg/kg
64-18-6
Formic Acid
— kg
39148-24-8
Fosetyl-AL
mg/kg
Furans
— kg
132-64-9
—Dibenzofuran
mg/kg
110-00-9
—Furan
— kg
109-99-9
—Tetrahydrofuran
mg/kg
6745-8
Furazolidone
— kg
98-01-1
Furfural
mg/kg
531-82-8
Furium
— kg
60568-05-0
Furmecyclox
mg/kg
77182-82-2
Glufosinate, Ammonium
m k
111-30-8
Glutaraldehyde
mg/kg
765-344
Glycidaldehyde
mg/kg
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Exposure Point Concentrations
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Soil Exposure Point Concentration Table
Description of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:
NOTE: If the chemical list is chanced from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data outuut sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculations
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Notes:
CAS Number
Chemical
For the chemicals highlighted in blue, data entry notes are provided in the
PSRG Table link on the Main Menu
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Units
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection Limits
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
Screening
Toxicity Value
(Screening
Level) (n/c)
Potential
ARAR TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(Y/I I)
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion
1071-83-6
Glyphosate
mg/kg
113-00-8
Guanidine
mg/kg
50-01-1
Guanidine Chloride
- kg
506-934
Guanidine Nitrate
mg/kg
6980640-2
Haloxyfop, Methyl
- kg
7644-8
Heptachlor
mg/kg
1024-57-3
Heptachlor Epoxide
- kg
111-71-7
Heptanal, n-
mg/kg
142-82-5
Heptane, N-
- kg
87-82-1
Hexabromobenzene
mg/kg
6863149-2
Hexabromodiphenyl ether, 2,2',4,4',5,5'- (BDE-153)
- kg
118-74-1
Hexachlorobenzene
mg/kg
87-68-3
Hexachlorobutadiene
- kg
319-84-6
Hexachlorocyclohexane, Alpha-
mg/kg
319-85-7
Hexachlorocyclohexane, Beta-
- kg
58-89-9
Hexachlorocyclohexane, Gamma- (Lindane)
mg/kg
608-73-1
Hexachlorocyclohexane, Technical
- kg
77474
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
mg/kg
67-72-1
Hexachloroethane
- kg
70-304
Hexachlorophene
mg/kg
121-824
Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX)
- kg
822-06-0
Hexamethylene Diisocyanate, 1,6-
mg/kg
4035-89-6
Hexamethylene diisocyanate biuret
mg/kg
3779-63-3
Hexamethylene diisocyanate isocyanurate
mg/kg
680-31-9
Hexamethylphosphoramide
mg/kg
E5241997
Hexane, Commercial
mg/kg
110-54-3
Hexane, N-
mg/kg
124-04-9
Hexanedioic Acid
mg/kg
104-76-7
Hexanol, 1-,2-ethyl- (2-Ethyl-l-hexanol)
mg/kg
591-78-6
Hexanone, 2-
mg/kg
51235-04-2
Hexazinone
mg/kg
78587-05-0
Hexythiazox
mg/kg
67485-294
Hydramethylnon
mg/kg
302-01-2
Hydrazine
mg/kg
10034-93-2
Hydrazine Sulfate
mg/kg
7647-01-0
Hydrogen Chloride
mg/kg
7664-39-3
Hydrogen Fluoride
mg/kg
7783-064
Hydrogen Sulfide
mg/kg
123-31-9
Hydroquinone
- kg
3555444-0
Imazalil
mg/kg
81335-37-7
Imazaquin
- kg
81335-77-5
Imazethapyr
mg/kg
7553-56-2
Iodine
- kg
36734-19-7
Iprodione
mg/kg
85400
7439-89-6
Iron
- kg
78-83-1
Isobutyl Alcohol
mg/kg
78-59-1
Isophorone
- kg
33820-53-0
Isopropalin
mg/kg
67-63-0
Isopropanol
- kg
1832-54-8
Isopropyl Methyl Phosphonic Acid
mg/kg
82558-50-7
Isoxaben
- kg
E1737665
JP-7
mg/kg
77501-634
Lactofen
- kg
78-97-7
Lactonitrile
mg/kg
7439-91-0
Lanthanum
- kg
100587-904
Lanthanum Acetate Hydrate
mg/kg
10025-84-0
Lanthanum Chloride Heptahydrate
m k
10099-58-8
Lanthanum Chloride, Anhydrous
mg/kg
1027743-7
Lanthanum Nitrate Hexahydrate
mg/kg
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Exposure Point Concentrations
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Soil Exposure Point Concentration Table
Description of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:
NOTE: If the chemical list is chanced from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data outuut sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculations
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Notes:
CAS Number
Chemical
For the chemicals highlighted in blue, data entry notes are provided in the
PSRG Table link on the Main Menu
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Units
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection Limits
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
Screening
Toxicity Value
(Screening
Level) (n/c)
Potential
ARAR TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(Y/I I)
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion
Lead Compounds
— kg
7446-27-7
Lead Phosphate
mg/kg
301-04-2
Lead acetate
— kg
22.2
7439-92-1
—Lead and Compounds
mg/kg
1335-32-6
—Lead subacetate
— kg
78-00-2
—Tetraethyl Lead
mg/kg
541-25-3
Lewisite
— kg
330-55-2
Linuron
mg/kg
7439-93-2
Lithium
— kg
94-74-6
MCPA
mg/kg
94-81-5
MCPB
— kg
93-65-2
MCPP
mg/kg
121-75-5
Malathion
— kg
108-31-6
Maleic Anhydride
mg/kg
123-33-1
Maleic Hydrazide
m k
109-77-3
Malononitrile
mg/kg
8018-01-7
Mancozeb
— kg
12427-38-2
Maneb
mg/kg
7439-96-5
Manganese (Diet)
— kg
1560
7439-96-5
Manganese (Non -diet)
mg/kg
950-10-7
Mephosfolan
— kg
24307-264
Mepiquat Chloride
mg/kg
149-304
Mercaptobenzothiazole, 2-
— kg
Mercury Compounds
mg/kg
0.0539
7487-94-7
Mercuric Chloride (and other Mercury salts)
mg/kg
7439-97-6
—Mercury (elemental)
mg/kg
22967-92-6
—Methyl Mercury
mg/kg
62-384
—Phenylmercuric Acetate
mg/kg
150-50-5
Merphos
mg/kg
57837-19-1
Metalaxyl
mg/kg
126-98-7
Methacrylonitrile
mg/kg
10265-92-6
Methamidophos
mg/kg
67-56-1
Methanol
mg/kg
950-37-8
Methidathion
mg/kg
16752-77-5
Methomyl
mg/kg
99-59-2
Methoxy-5-nitroaniline, 2-
mg/kg
7243-5
Methoxychlor
mg/kg
11049-6
Methoxyethanol Acetate, 2-
mg/kg
109-864
Methoxyethanol, 2-
mg/kg
79-20-9
Methyl Acetate
mg/kg
96-33-3
Methyl Acrylate
— kg
78-93-3
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone)
mg/kg
60-344
Methyl Hydrazine
— kg
108-10-1
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (4-methyl-2-pentanone)
mg/kg
624-83-9
Methyl Isocyanate
— kg
80-62-6
Methyl Methacrylate
mg/kg
298-00-0
Methyl Parathion
— kg
993-13-5
Methyl Phosphonic Acid
mg/kg
25013-154
Methyl Styrene (Mixed Isomers)
mg/kg
66-27-3
Methyl methanesulfonate
mg/kg
1634-044
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE)
mg/kg
61545-2
Methyl-1,4-benzenediamine dihydrochloride, 2-
mg/kg
108-11-2
Methyl-2-Pentanol, 4-
— kg
99-55-8
Methyl-5-Nitroaniline, 2-
mg/kg
70-25-7
Methyl-N-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine, N-
— kg
636-21-5
Methylaniline Hydrochloride, 2-
mg/kg
124-58-3
Methylarsonic acid
mg/kg
74612-12-7
Methylbenzene, I -4-diamine monohydrochloride, 2-
mg/kg
615-50-9
Methylbenzene-1,4-diamine sulfate, 2-
mg/kg
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Exposure Point Concentrations
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Soil Exposure Point Concentration Table
Description of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:
NOTE: If the chemical list is chanced from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data outuut sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculations
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Notes:
CAS Number
Chemical
For the chemicals highlighted in blue, data entry notes are provided in the
PSRG Table link on the Main Menu
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Units
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection Limits
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
Screening
Toxicity Value
(Screening
Level) (n/c)
Potential
ARAR TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(Y/I I)
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion
5649-5
Methylcholanthrene, 3-
mg/kg
75-09-2
Methylene Chloride
mg/kg
101-144
Methylene-bis(2-chloroaniline), 4,4'-
- kg
101-61-1
Methylene-bis(N,N-dimethyl) Aniline, 4,4'-
mg/kg
101-77-9
Methylenebisbenzenamine, 4,4'-
mg/kg
101-68-8
Methylenediphenyl Diisocyanate
mg/kg
98-83-9
Methylstyrene, Alpha-
- kg
5121845-2
Metolachlor
mg/kg
21087-64-9
Metribuzin
- kg
74223-64-6
Metsulfuron-methyl
mg/kg
E1790669
Midrange Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Streams
- kg
8012-95-1
Mineral oils
mg/kg
2385-85-5
Mirex
- kg
2212-67-1
Molinate
mg/kg
7439-98-7
Molybdenum
- kg
10599-90-3
Monochloramine
mg/kg
100-61-8
Monomethylaniline
mg/kg
88671-89-0
Myclobutanil
mg/kg
74-31-7
N,N'-Diphenyl-1,4-benzenediamine
- kg
300-76-5
Naled
mg/kg
64742-95-6
Naphtha, High Flash Aromatic (HFAN)
- kg
91-59-8
Naphthylamine, 2-
mg/kg
15299-99-7
Napropamide
mg/kg
373-024
Nickel Acetate
mg/kg
3333-67-3
Nickel Carbonate
mg/kg
13463-39-3
Nickel Carbonyl
mg/kg
1205448-7
Nickel Hydroxide
mg/kg
1313-99-1
Nickel Oxide
mg/kg
E715532
Nickel Refinery Dust
mg/kg
77.9
7440-02-0
11111111111F Nickel Soluble Salts
mg/kg
12035-72-2
Nickel Subsulfide
mg/kg
1271-28-9
Nickelocene
mg/kg
14797-55-8
Nitrate
- kg
E701177
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
mg/kg
14797-65-0
Nitrite
- kg
88-744
Nitroaniline, 2-
mg/kg
100-01-6
Nitroaniline, 4-
mg/kg
98-95-3
Nitrobenzene
mg/kg
9004-70-0
Nitrocellulose
- kg
67-20-9
Nitrofurantoin
mg/kg
59-87-0
Nitrofurazone
m k
55-63-0
Nitroglycerin
mg/kg
556-88-7
Nitroguanidine
- kg
75-52-5
Nitromethane
mg/kg
7946-9
Nitropropane, 2-
- kg
759-73-9
Nitroso-N-ethylurea, N-
mg/kg
684-93-5
Nitroso-N-methylurea, N-
- kg
924-16-3
Nitroso-di-N-butylamine, N-
mg/kg
621-64-7
Nitroso-di-N-propylamine, N-
- kg
1116-54-7
Nitrosodiethanolamine, N-
mg/kg
55-18-5
Nitrosodiethylamine, N-
- kg
62-75-9
Nitrosodimethylamine, N-
mg/kg
86-30-6
Nitrosodiphenylamine, N-
- kg
10595-95-6
Nitrosomethylethylamine, N-
mg/kg
59-89-2
Nitrosomorpholine [N-]
- kg
100-754
Nitrosopiperidine [N-]
mg/kg
930-55-2
Nitrosopyrrolidine, N-
mg/kg
99-08-1
Nitrotoluene, m-
mg/kg
88-72-2
Nitrotoluene, o-
mg/kg
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Exposure Point Concentrations
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Soil Exposure Point Concentration Table
Description of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:
NOTE: If the chemical list is chanced from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data outuut sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculations
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Notes:
CAS Number
Chemical
For the chemicals highlighted in blue, data entry notes are provided in the
PSRG Table link on the Main Menu
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Units
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection Limits
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
Screening
Toxicity Value
(Screening
Level) (n/c)
Potential
ARAR TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(Y/I I)
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion
99-99-0
Nitrotoluene, p-
mg/kg
111-84-2
Nonane, n-
mg/kg
27314-13-2
Norflurazon
— kg
32536-52-0
Octabromodiphenyl Ether
mg/kg
269141-0
Octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine (BMX)
— kg
152-16-9
Octamethylpyrophosphoramide
mg/kg
19044-88-3
Oryzalin
— kg
19666-30-9
Oxadiazon
mg/kg
23135-22-0
Oxamyl
— kg
42874-03-3
Oxyfluorfen
mg/kg
76738-62-0
Paclobutrazol
— kg
191042-5
Paraquat Dichloride
mg/kg
56-38-2
Parathion
— kg
1114-71-2
Pebulate
m kg
4048742-1
Pendimethalin
— kg
32534-81-9
Pentabromodiphenyl Ether
mg/kg
60348-60-9
Pentabromodiphenyl ether, 2,2',4,4',5- (BDE-99)
— kg
608-93-5
Pentachlorobenzene
mg/kg
76-01-7
Pentachloroethane
— kg
82-68-8
Pentachloronitrobenzene
mg/kg
87-86-5
Pentachlorophenol
— kg
78-11-5
Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN)
mg/kg
1015946-3
Pentamethylphosphoramide(PMPA)
mg/kg
109-66-0
Pentane, n-
mg/kg
Perchlorates
mg/kg
7790-98-9
—Ammonium Perchlorate
mg/kg
7791-03-9
—Lithium Perchlorate
mg/kg
14797-73-0
Perchlorate and Perchlorate Salts
mg/kg
7778-74-7
Potassium Perchlorate
mg/kg
7601-89-0
—Sodium Perchlorate
mg/kg
375-73-5
Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)
mg/kg
45187-15-3
Perfluorobutanesulfonate
mg/kg
52645-53-1
Permethrin
mg/kg
6244-2
Phenacetin
mg/kg
13684-634
Phenmedipham
— kg
108-95-2
Phenol
mg/kg
114-26-1
Phenol, 2-(I-methylethoxy)-, methylcarbamate
— kg
92-84-2
Phenothiazine
mg/kg
103-72-0
Phenyl Isothiocyanate
— kg
10845-2
Phenylenediamine, m-
mg/kg
95-54-5
Phenylenediamine,o-
— kg
106-50-3
Phenylenediamine, p-
mg/kg
9043-7
Phenylphenol,2-
— kg
298-02-2
Phorate
mg/kg
7544-5
Phosgene
— kg
732-11-6
Phosmet
mg/kg
Phosphates, Inorganic
— kg
13776-88-0
—Aluminum metaphosphate
mg/kg
68333-79-9
Ammonium polyphosphate
— kg
7790-76-3
Calcium pyrophosphate
mg/kg
7783-28-0
—Diammonium phosphate
— kg
7757-93-9
—Dicalcium phosphate
mg/kg
7782-754
—Dimaguesium phosphate
— kg
7758-114
—Dipotassium phosphate
mg/kg
7558-794
—Disodium phosphate
— kg
13530-50-2
—Monoaluminum phosphate
m kg
77576-1
—Monoammonium phosphate
mg/kg
7758-23-8
—Monocalciumphosphate
mg/kg
7757-86-0
—Monomagnesium phosphate
mg/kg
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Exposure Point Concentrations
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Soil Exposure Point Concentration Table
Description of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:
NOTE: If the chemical list is chanced from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data outuut sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculations
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Notes:
CAS Number
Chemical
For the chemicals highlighted in blue, data entry notes are provided in the
PSRG Table link on the Main Menu
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Units
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection Limits
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
Screening
Toxicity Value
(Screening
Level) (n/c)
Potential
ARAR TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(Y/I I)
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion
7778-77-0
—Monopotassium phosphate
mg/kg
7558-80-7
Monosodium phosphate
mg/kg
8017-16-1
—Polyphosphoric acid
— kg
13845-36-8
Potassium tripolyphosphate
mg/kg
7758-16-9
Sodium acid pyrophosphate
mg/kg
7785-88-8
—Sodium aluminum phosphate (acidic)
mg/kg
10279-59-1
Sodium aluminum phosphate (anhydrous)
— kg
10305-76-7
—Sodium aluminum phosphate (tetrahydrate)
mg/kg
10124-56-8
Sodium hexametaphosphate
mg/kg
68915-31-1
Sodium polyphosphate
mg/kg
7785-844
Sodium trimetaphosphate
— kg
7758-294
—Sodium tripolyphosphate
mg/kg
7320-34-5
—Tetrapotassium phosphate
— kg
7722-88-5
—Tetrasodium pyrophosphate
mg/kg
15136-87-5
—Trialuminum sodium tetra decahydrogenoctaorthophosphate (dihydrate)
mg/kg
7758-874
—Tricalcium phosphate
mg/kg
7757-87-1
—Trimagnesium phosphate
mg/kg
7778-53-2
—Tripotassium phosphate
mg/kg
7601-54-9
—Trisodium phosphate
— kg
7803-51-2
Phosphine
mg/kg
7664-38-2
Phosphoric Acid
— kg
7723-14-0
Phosphorus, White
mg/kg
Phthalates
mg/kg
117-81-7
—Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
mg/kg
85-68-7
—Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
mg/kg
85-70-1
—Butylphthalyl Butylglycolate
mg/kg
84-74-2
—Dibutyl Phthalate
mg/kg
84-66-2
—Diethyl Phthalate
mg/kg
120-61-6
—Dimethylterephthalate
mg/kg
117-84-0
—Octyl Phthalate, di-N-
mg/kg
100-21-0
—Phthalic Acid, P-
mg/kg
8544-9
—Phthalic Anhydride
mg/kg
1918-02-1
Picloram
mg/kg
96-91-3
Picramic Acid (2-Amino-4,6-dinitrophenol)
mg/kg
88-89-1
Picric Acid (2,4,6-Trinitrophenol)
— kg
29232-93-7
Pirimiphos, Methyl
mg/kg
36355-01-8
Polybrominated Biphenyls
— kg
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
mg/kg
12674-11-2
—Aroclor 1016
— kg
11104-28-2
—Aroclor1221
mg/kg
11141-16-5
—Aroclor1232
— kg
53469-21-9
—Aroclor1242
mg/kg
12672-29-6
—Aroclor1249
— kg
11097-69-1
—Aroclor1254
mg/kg
11096-82-5
—Aroclor1260
— kg
11126424
—Aroclor5460
mg/kg
39635-31-9
—Heptachlorobiphenyl, 2,3,3',4,4',5,5'- (PCB 189)
— kg
52663-72-6
—Hexachlorobiphenyl, 2,3',4,4',5,5'- (PCB 167)
mg/kg
69782-90-7
Hexachlorobiphenyl, 2,3,3',4,4',5'- (PCB 157)
mg/kg
38380-084
Hexachlorobiphenyl, 2,3,3',4,4',5- (PCB 156)
mg/kg
32774-16-6
Hexachlorobiphenyl, 3,3',4,4',5,5'- (PCB 169)
— kg
6551044-3
—Pentachlorobiphenyl, 2',3,4,4',5- (PCB 123)
mg/kg
31508-00-6
Pentachlorobiphenyl, 2,3',4,4',5- (PCB 118)
— kg
32598-144
—Pentachlorobiphenyl, 2,3,3',4,4'- (PCB 105)
mg/kg
74472-37-0
Pentachlorobiphenyl, 2,3,4,4',5- (PCB 114)
— kg
57465-28-8
—Pentachlorobiphenyl, 3,3',4,4',5- (PCB 126)
mg/kg
1336-36-3
—Polychlorinated Biphenyls (high risk)
mg/kg
1336-36-3
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (low risk)
mg/kg
1336-36-3
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (lowest risk)
mg/kg
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Exposure Point Concentrations
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Soil Exposure Point Concentration Table
Description of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:
NOTE: If the chemical list is chanced from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data outuut sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculations
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Notes:
CAS Number
Chemical
For the chemicals highlighted in blue, data entry notes are provided in the
PSRG Table link on the Main Menu
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Units
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection Limits
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
Screening
Toxicity Value
(Screening
Level) (n/c)
Potential
ARAR TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(Y/I I)
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion
32598-13-3
—Tetrachlorobiphenyl, 3,3',4,4'- (PCB 77)
mg/kg
70362-50-4
—Tetrachlorobiphenyl, 3,4,4',5- (PCB 81)
mg/kg
9016-87-9
Polymeric Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate (PMDI)
m k
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
mg/kg
0.0106
83-32-9
—Acenaphthene
m k
0.0305
120-12-7
—Anthracene
mg/kg
0.173
56-55-3
—Benz[a]anthracene
— kg
205-82-3
—Benzoo)fluoranthene
mg/kg
0.17
50-32-8
—Benzo[a]pyrene
— kg
0.257
205-99-2
—Benzo[b]fluoranthene
mg/kg
0.0855
207-08-9
—Benzo[k]fluoranthene
— kg
91-58-7
—Chloronaphthalene, Beta-
mg/kg
0.207
218-01-9
—Chrysene
— kg
0.0305
53-70-3
—Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
mg/kg
192-654
—Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene
— kg
57-97-6
—Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, 7,12-
mg/kg
0.485
20644-0
—Fluoranthene
— kg
0.0116
86-73-7
—Fluorene
mg/kg
0.117
193-39-5
—Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
mg/kg
90-12-0
—Methylnaphthalene, 1-
mg/kg
91-57-6
—Methylnaphthalene, 2-
— kg
91-20-3
—Naphthalene
mg/kg
57835-924
—Nitropyrene, 4-
mg/kg
0.39
129-00-0
—Pyrene
mg/kg
2942049-3
Potassium Perfluorobutane Sulfonate
mg/kg
67747-09-5
Prochloraz
mg/kg
26399-36-0
Profluralin
mg/kg
1610-18-0
Prometon
mg/kg
7287-19-6
Prometryn
mg/kg
23950-58-5
Pronamide
mg/kg
1918-16-7
Propachlor
m k
709-98-8
Propanil
mg/kg
2312-35-8
Propargite
mg/kg
107-19-7
Propargyl Alcohol
mg/kg
13940-2
Propazine
— kg
12242-9
Propham
mg/kg
60207-90-1
Propiconazole
— kg
123-38-6
Propionaldehyde
mg/kg
103-65-1
Propyl benzene
— kg
115-07-1
Propylene
mg/kg
57-55-6
Propylene Glycol
— kg
6423434
Propylene Glycol Dinitrate
mg/kg
107-98-2
Propylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether
— kg
75-56-9
Propylene Oxide
mg/kg
110-86-1
Pyridine
— kg
13593-03-8
Quinalphos
mg/kg
91-22-5
Quinoline
— kg
76578-14-8
Quizalofop-ethyl
mg/kg
E715557
Refractory Ceramic Fibers (units in fibers)
— kg
10453-86-8
Resmethrin
mg/kg
299-84-3
Ronnel
— kg
83-794
Rotenone
mg/kg
94-59-7
Safrole
— kg
7783-00-8
Selenious Acid
mg/kg
0.588
778249-2
Selenium
— kg
7446-34-6
Selenium Sulfide
mg/kg
74051-80-2
Sethoxydim
mg/kg
7631-86-9
Silica (crystalline, respirable)
mg/kg
0.401
7440-224
Silver
mg/kg
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Exposure Point Concentrations
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Soil Exposure Point Concentration Table
Description of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:
NOTE: If the chemical list is chanced from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data outuut sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculations
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Notes:
CAS Number
Chemical
For the chemicals highlighted in blue, data entry notes are provided in the
PSRG Table link on the Main Menu
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Units
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection Limits
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
Screening
Toxicity Value
(Screening
Level) (n/c)
Potential
ARAR TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(Y/I I)
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion
122-34-9
Simazine
mg/kg
62476-59-9
Sodium Acifluorfen
mg/kg
26628-22-8
Sodium Azide
- kg
148-18-5
Sodium Diethyldithiocarbamate
mg/kg
7681494
Sodium Fluoride
mg/kg
62-74-8
Sodium Fluoroacetate
mg/kg
13718-26-8
Sodium Metavanadate
mg/kg
1347245-2
Sodium Tungstate
mg/kg
10213-10-2
Sodium Tungstate Dihydrate
mg/kg
961-11-5
Stirofos (Tetrachlorovinphos)
mg/kg
7440-24-6
Strontium, Stable
mg/kg
57-24-9
Strychnine
mg/kg
10042-5
Styrene
mg/kg
57964-39-3
Styrene-Acrylonitrile (SAN) Trimer (THNA isomer)
mg/kg
5796440-6
Styrene-Acrylonitrile (SAN) Trimer (THNP isomer)
- kg
126-33-0
Sulfolane
mg/kg
80-07-9
Sulfonylbis(4-chlorobenzene), 1,1'-
- kg
7446-11-9
Sulfur Trioxide
mg/kg
7664-93-9
Sulfuric Acid
- kg
140-57-8
Sulfurous acid, 2-chloroethyl 2-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenoxy]-1-methylethyl ester
m k
g/ g
21564-17-0
TCMTB
mg/kg
34014-18-1
Tebuthiuron
mg/kg
3383-96-8
Temephos
mg/kg
5902-51-2
Terbacil
mg/kg
13071-79-9
Terbufos
mg/kg
886-50-0
Terbutryn
mg/kg
540-88-5
Tert-Butyl Acetate
mg/kg
543643-1
Tetrabromodiphenyl ether, 2,2',4,4'- (BDE47)
mg/kg
95-94-3
Tetrachlorobezene, 1,2,4,5-
mg/kg
630-20-6
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2-
mg/kg
79-34-5
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
mg/kg
127-184
Tetrachloroethylene
mg/kg
58-90-2
Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-
mg/kg
5216-25-1
Tetrachlorotoluene, p- alpha, alpha, alpha-
mg/kg
3689-24-5
Tetraethyl Dithiopyrophosphate
- kg
811-97-2
Tetrafluoroethane, 1,1,1,2-
mg/kg
16853-364
Tetramethylphosphoramide,-N,N,N',N"(TWA)
mg/kg
47945-8
Tetryl (Trinitrophenylmethylnitramine)
mg/kg
1314-32-5
Thallic Oxide
- kg
1010245-1
Thallium (I) Nitrate
mg/kg
0.204
7440-28-0
Thallium (Soluble Salts
- kg
563-68-8
Thallium Acetate
mg/kg
6533-73-9
Thallium Carbonate
m k
7791-12-0
Thallium Chloride
mg/kg
12039-52-0
Thallium Selenite
- kg
7446-18-6
Thallium Sulfate
mg/kg
79277-27-3
Thifensulfuron-methyl
- kg
28249-77-6
Thiobencarb
mg/kg
11148-8
Thiodiglycol
- kg
39196-184
Thiofanox
mg/kg
23564-05-8
Thiophanate, Methyl
- kg
137-26-8
Thiram
mg/kg
7440-31-5
Tin
- kg
755045-0
Titanium Tetrachloride
mg/kg
108-88-3
Toluene
- kg
584-84-9
Toluene-2,4-diisocyanate
mg/kg
95-70-5
Toluene-2,5-diamine
in
91-08-7
Toluene-2,6-diisocyanate
mg/kg
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Exposure Point Concentrations
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Soil Exposure Point Concentration Table
Description of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:
NOTE: If the chemical list is chanced from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data outuut sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculations
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Notes:
CAS Number
Chemical
For the chemicals highlighted in blue, data entry notes are provided in the
PSRG Table link on the Main Menu
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Units
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection Limits
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
Screening
Toxicity Value
(Screening
Level) (n/c)
Potential
ARAR TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(Y/I I)
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion
99-94-5
Toluic Acid, p-
mg/kg
95-534
Toluidine, o- (Methylaniline, 2-)
mg/kg
10649-0
Toluidine, p-
- kg
E1790670
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Aliphatic High)
mg/kg
E1790666
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Aliphatic Low)
- kg
E1790668
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Aliphatic Medium)
mg/kg
E1790676
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Aromatic High)
- kg
E1790672
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Aromatic Low)
mg/kg
E1790674
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Aromatic Medium)
- kg
8001-35-2
Toxaphene
mg/kg
E1841606
Toxaphene, Weathered
- kg
66841-25-6
Tralomethrin
mg/kg
688-73-3
Tri-n-butyltin
- kg
102-76-1
Triacetin
mg/kg
4312143-3
Triadimefon
- kg
2303-17-5
Triallate
mg/kg
82097-50-5
Triasulfuron
- kg
10120048-0
Tribenuron-methyl
mg/kg
615-54-3
Tribromobenzene, 1,2,4-
- kg
118-79-6
Tribromophenol, 2,4,6-
mg/kg
7848-8
Tribufos
- kg
126-73-8
Tributyl Phosphate
mg/kg
E1790678
Tributyltin Compounds
mg/kg
56-35-9
Tributyltin Oxide
mg/kg
10025-85-1
Trichloramine
mg/kg
76-13-1
Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane, 1,1,2-
mg/kg
76-03-9
Trichloroacetic Acid
mg/kg
33663-50-2
Trichloroaniline HCI, 2,4,6-
mg/kg
634-93-5
Trichloroaniline, 2,4,6-
mg/kg
87-61-6
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,3-
mg/kg
120-82-1
Trichlorobenzene,1,2,4-
mg/kg
71-55-6
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
mg/kg
79-00-5
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
- kg
79-01-6
Trichloroethylene
mg/kg
75-694
Trichlorofluoromethane
- kg
95-954
Trichlorophenol,2,4,5-
mg/kg
88-06-2
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-
mg/kg
93-76-5
Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, 2,4,5-
mg/kg
93-72-1
Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid, -2,4,5
- kg
598-77-6
Trichloropropane, 1,1,2-
mg/kg
96-184
Trichloropropane, 1,2,3-
- kg
96-19-5
Trichloropropene, 1,2,3-
mg/kg
1330-78-5
Tricresyl Phosphate (TCP)
- kg
58138-08-2
Tridiphane
mg/kg
12144-8
Triethylamine
- kg
112-27-6
Triethylene Glycol
mg/kg
42046-2
Trifluoroethane, 1,1,1-
- kg
1582-09-8
Trifluralin
mg/kg
512-56-1
Trimethyl Phosphate
- kg
526-73-8
Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,3-
mg/kg
95-63-6
Trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-
- kg
108-67-8
Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-
mg/kg
25167-70-8
Trimethylpentene,2,4,4-
- kg
99-354
Trinitrobenzene, 1,3,5-
mg/kg
118-96-7
Trinitrotoluene, 2,4,6-
- kg
791-28-6
Triphenylphosphine Oxide
mg/kg
13674-87-8
Tris(1,3-Dichloro-2-propyl) Phosphate
m k
13674-84-5
Tris(1-chloro-2-propyl)phosphate
mg/kg
126-72-7
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
mg/kg
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Exposure Point Concentrations
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Soil Exposure Point Concentration Table
Description of Exposure Point Concentration Selection:
NOTE: If the chemical list is chanced from a prior calculator run, remember to select "See All Chemicals" on the data outuut sheet or newly added chemicals will not be included in risk calculations
Exposure Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Notes:
CAS Number
Chemical
For the chemicals highlighted in blue, data entry notes are provided in the
PSRG Table link on the Main Menu
Minimum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Units
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Detection
Frequency
Range of
Detection Limits
Concentration
Used for
Screening
Background
Value
Screening
Toxicity Value
(Screening
Level) (n/c)
Potential
ARAR TBC
Value
Potential
ARAR/TBC
Source
COPC
Flag
(Y/I I)
Rationale for
Selection or
Deletion
115-96-8
Tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate
mg/kg
7842-2
Tris(2-ethylhexyl)phosphate
mg/kg
7440-33-7
Tungsten
- kg
7440-61-1
Uranium
mg/kg
51-79-6
Urethane
- kg
1314-62-1
Vanadium Pentoxide
mg/kg
227
7440-62-2
Vanadium and Compounds
- kg
1929-77-7
Vernolate
mg/kg
5047144-8
Vinclozolin
- kg
108-054
Vinyl Acetate
mg/kg
593-60-2
Vinyl Bromide
- kg
75-014
Vinyl Chloride
mg/kg
81-81-2
Warfarin
- kg
10642-3
Xylene, P-
mg/kg
108-38-3
Xylene, m-
- kg
9547-6
Xylene, o-
mg/kg
1330-20-7
Xylenes
- kg
1314-84-7
Zinc Phosphide
mg/kg
84
7440-66-6
Zinc and Compounds
m
12122-67-7
Zineb
mg/kg
7440-67-7
Zirconium
m k
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Exposure Factors and Target Risks
Version Date: January 2021
Basis: November 2020 EPA RSL Table
Site ID:
Exposure Unit ID:
Exposure Parameter
Default Value
Site Specific Value
Justification
General
Target Cancer Risk (individual)
1.0E-06
1.0E-06
Target Cancer Risk (cumulative)
1.0E-04
1.0E-04
Target Hazard Index (individual)
2.0E-01
2.0E-01
Target Hazard Index (cumulative)
1.0E+40
1.0E+00
Residential Child
Lifetime (LT) (years)
70
70
Body Weight(BW) (kg)
15
15
Exposure Duration (ED) (yr)
6
6
Exposure Frequency (EF) (d/yr)
350
350
Exposure Time (ET) (hr)
24
24
Skin Surface Area - Soil Exposure (SAg) (cm2)
2373
2373
Soil Adherence Factor (AF) (mg/cm2)
0.2
0.2
Soil Ingestion Rate (IRS) (mg/day)
200
200
Skin Surface Area - Water Exposure (SA,) (cm2)
6365
6365
Water Ingestion Rate (IRW) (L/d)
0.78
0.78
Water Exposure Time (ET,_) (hr/event)
0.54
0.54
Water Event Frequency (EV) (events/day)
1
1
Residential Adult
Lifetime (LT) (years)
70
70
Body Weight(BW) (kg)
80
80
Exposure Duration (ED) (yr)
20
20
Exposure Frequency (EF) (d/yr)
350
350
Exposure Time (ET) (hr)
24
24
Skin Surface Area - Soil Exposure (SAg) (cm)
6032
6032
Soil Adherence Factor (AF) (mg/cm2)
0.07
0.07
Soil Ingestion Rate (IRS) (mg/day)
100
100
Skin Surface Area - Water Exposure (SA,) (Cm 2)
19652
19652
Water Ingestion Rate (IRW) (L/d)
2.5
2.5
Water Exposure Time (ET,_) (hr/event)
0.71
0.71
Water Event Frequency (EV) (events/day)
1
1
Non -Residential Worker
Lifetime (LT) (years)
70
70
Body Weight(BW) (kg)
80
80
Exposure Duration (ED) (yr)
25
25
Exposure Frequency (EF) (d/yr)
250
250
Exposure Time (ET) (hr)
8
8
Skin Surface Area - Soil Exposure (SAs) (cm)
3527
3527
Soil Adherence Factor (AF) (mg/cm2)
0.12
0.12
Soil Ingestion Rate (IR) (mg/day)
100
100
Skin Surface Area - Water Exposure (SA,) (Cm 2)
19652
19652
Water Ingestion Rate (IRW) (L/d)
0.83
0.83
Water Exposure Time (ET,_) (hr/event)
0.67
0.67
Water Event Frequency (EV) (events/day)
1
1
Construction Worker
Lifetime (LT) (years)
70
70
Body Weight(BW) (kg)
80
80
Working Weeks (EW) (wk/yr)
50
50
Exposure Duration (ED) (yr)
1
1
Exposure Frequency (EF) (d/yr)
250
250
Exposure Time (ET) (hr)
8
8
Skin Surface Area - Soil Exposure (SAs) (Cm 2)
3527
3527
Soil Adherence Factor (AF) (mg/cm2)
0.3
0.3
Soil Ingestion Rate (IR) (mg/day)
330
330
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

ID:
e Factors and Target Risks
Date: January 2021
November 2020 EPA RSL'
Unit ID:
Exposure Parameter
Default Value
Site Specific Value
Justification
User Defined Child
Recreator
Trespasser
Lifetime (LT) (years)
70
NA
Averaging Time (AT) (days/yr)
365
NA
Body Weight (BW) (kg)
15
NA
Exposure Duration 0-2 (ED) (yr)
2
NA
Exposure Duration 2-6 (ED) (yr)
4
NA
Exposure Frequency (EF) (d/yr)
195
NA
0
Use adolescent (6-16 years)
Exposure Time (ET) (hr)
2
NA
Skin Surface Area - Soil Exposure (SAJ (cm)
2373
NA
Soil Adherence Factor (AF) (mg/cm2)
0.2
NA
Soil Ingestion Rate (IRS) (mg/day)
200
NA
Skin Surface Area - Water Exposure (SA,) (Cm Z)
6365
NA
6365
Water Ingestion Rate (IRW) (L/hr)
0.124
NA
0.124
Water Exposure Time (ET,_) (hr/event)
2
NA
2
Water Event Frequency (EV) (events/day)
1
NA
1
User Defined Adult
Recreator
Trespasser
Lifetime (LT) (years)
70
70
70
Body Weight(BW) (kg)
80
45
80
Exposure Duration 6-16 (ED) (yr)
10
10
10
Exposure Duration 16-26 (ED) (yr)
10
0
10
Exposure Frequency (EF) (d/yr)
195
90
75
s://rais.oml.gov/tools/rais chemical risk guide.ht
Exposure Time (ET) (hr)
2
2
2
Skin Surface Area - Soil Exposure (SAJ (Cm Z)
6032
6032
6032
Soil Adherence Factor (AF) (mg/cm)
0.07
0.2
0.07
Ingestion Rate (IRS) (mg/day)
100
1 200
100
Surface Area - Water Exposure (SA,) (cm)
19652
19652
19652
:r Ingestion Rate (IRW) (L/hr)
0.0985
0.071
0.0985
:r Exposure Time (ETej (hr/event)
2
2
2
:r Event Frequency (EV) (events/day)
1
1
1
North Carolina DEQ Risk Calculator

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement
Appendix D: Field Parameters
D-1
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

APPENDIX D
FIELD PARAMETERS AND NOTES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Oxidation-
Total
Reduction
Specific
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Stream
Location
Date
Time
Temperature
pH
Po(ORP)
Conductance
Turbidity
Oxygen
Oxygen
Solids (TDS)
Width Water Depth
Left: 2
WC-1
1/6/2021
11:00 AM
6.13
6.23
218
0.154
5.2
11.4
94.9
0.1
8 Center: 3
Right: 1
Left: 1
WC-2
1/6/2021
11:20 AM
6.44
6.5
167
0.153
5.3
12.14
101.8
0.099
7 Center: 2.5
Right: 0.75
1.5 Center: 1
NR NR
WC-3
1/6/2021
1/6/2021
12:05 PM
8.62
5.54
140
0.023
28.4
10.82
95.8
0.014
WC-3
4:00 PM
6.83
6.86
121
0.136
6.4
9.4
79.6
0.088
WC-4
1/6/2021
12:37 PM
6.55
6.89
140
0.125
5.3
10.09
84.9
9.98
NR Center: 2.5
Left: 4.25
WC-5
1/6/2021
3:42 PM
7.19
7.04
136
0.164
3.2
13.3
113.7
0.106
15 Center: 4
Right 0.75
WC-6
1/6/2021
3:00 PM
9.25
5.78
185
0.161
185
6.64
59.7
0.105
NR Center: 3.5
Brown ANo Caldwell
Att_C_Field_Parameters.xlsx\App C
2/11/2022
(Eroded Banks
No vegetation in stream
Left: 0.51
Sinuous
Center: 0.54
Sample collected just upstream of a tributary to the main creek
Right: 1.18
Water is flowing; there are sediment deposits in the creek at some areas
Medium sand/some gravel
There is an outfall on the land above LB
Sample collected right beside bridge
No vegetation in stream
Left: 0.27
Sinuous
Center: 1.02
Rip rap in area
Right: 0.07
Steep eroded banks
Trash in stream and along banks (e.g. skateboard)
Medium sand, some gravel
Not enough water in stream to sample; re -sampled in afternoon with cup.
Low flow, little water
Sinuous
Center: 0.11
Vegetated along banks
Slight erosion
Inch of sand medium over gray clay
NR
Data collected attime of actual sample collection
Transformer station up -stream of location on otherside of trail
Two culverts at the trail
Tributary flows towards main creek but disperses into wetland without a defined channel
Center: 0.05
Inch of sand, medium overgrey clay
Sinuous
Vegetation along bank
Organic debris
Water diverted around gravel island/peninsula
Stream is approximately 15 ft across with 6 feet flowing at sample point
Left: 0
Erosion along banks
Center: 0.49
Behind residential area
Right 0.38
Trash present
Gravel
Leaf debris in tributary
Clay soil
Center:0.04
Sinuous
Connects to a tributary off of creek
Runs along easement
Page i of 2

APPENDIX D
FIELD PARAMETERS AND NOTES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Oxidation-
Total
Reduction
Specific
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Stream
Location
Date
Time
Temperature
pH
Po(ORP)
Conductance
Turbidity
Oxygen
Oxygen
Solids (TDS)
Width
WC-7
1/6/2021
3:05 PM
7.28
6.27
164
0.165
3
13.9
119.1
0.107
8
WC-8
1/7/2021
11:30AM
5.51
6.68
165
0.162
3.6
14.54
119.1
0.105
I
NR
WC-9
1/7/2021
11:00AM
4.45
6.53
144
0.232
1.2
12.74
101.7
NR
NR
WC-10
1/7/2021
10:30 AM 4.58
5.94
248
0.235
0.7
13.66
109.3
NR
NR
Notes:
°C - degrees Celsius
ft -feet
ft/sec - feet per seconds
g/L - grams per liter
mg/L - milligrams per liter
mS/cm - millisiemens per centimeter
mV - millivolt
NR - not recorded
NTU - nephelometric turbidity unit
% - percent
Brown ANo Caldwell
Att_C_Field_Parameters.xlsx\App C
2/11/2022
Mixing zone at confluence of Warren Creek and Tributary
Vegetation on bank
Left: 0.51
Left: 2
At edge of residential neighborhood
Center: 0.61
Center: 4
Gravel island - water diverted around it
Right: 0.38
Right:4
Sandy/pebbles under 4 inches of water
Flowing water/ripples
Trash present
Fuel tank for car in wetland downstream of this point (no odor observed)
Sinuous
Gravel deposits and sediment deposits
Left: 5
Left: 0.51
Erosion on banks
Center: 4
Center: 0.04
Tree debris in stream diverting flow
Right: 1
Right: 1.03
Trash in channel
Sand down to approximately 8 inches (fine -medium)
Next to homes and green open area with a sewer manhole
Sediment: fine -medium sand with some gravel (gravel is deeper, not at surface)
Sinuous - sediment island in center of stream
Rip rap along edges, right off the Warren Creektrail
Left:2
Left: 0.3
Eroded banks
Center: 1.5
Center: 0.52
Just upstream there is a gap in the fence behind the apartments and there is an erosional feature
Right: 1.5
Right: 0.52
There are signs of bacterial/oil (green/orange color) upstream
There is a waterfall downstream at a fallen log
Erosion on right side alongtrail
Sinuous
At confluence with tributary
Downstream of bridge which has rip rap under it
Left: 4.5
Left: 0.02
There is a road above the trail on the west side
Center: 4
Center: 0.03
Eroded banks with some vegetation
Right: 4.5
Right: 0.1
Animal tracks in sand
Gravel in stream
Medium fine - coarse sand (some pebbles & gravel)
Page 2 of 2

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement
Appendix E: Screening of Surface Water Analytical
Results - USEPA Region 4 Screening Values
E-1
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

APPENDIX E
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - USEPA REGION 4 SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
CASRn
eneral Chemistry
Ammonia (as N)a 7664-41-7
Region 4 Freshwater Screening Values
Table 1A (Narcotic ' 1. -
Acute'Wildlife I
ChronicConstituent
--
pg/L
JIM
1
117 U
1
117 U
117 U
1
117 U
1
117 U
1
117 U
1
11/6/2021
117 U
117 U
Carbonaceous BOD
CBOD
mg/L
1.7 J
1.6 J
1.7 J
1.2 J
1.2 J
1.7 J
--
1.6 J
4.2 J
Fecal Coliform
FEC-COL
CFU/100ML
144 1
182 1
137 1
6 1
6 1
--
118 J
113 1
--
Hardness (as CaCO3)
471-34-1
mg/L
77.4
78.3
76.2
68.5
67
77.9
--
75.5
79
Total Phosphorus as P
7723-14-0
1000
pg/L
41
82.1 J
54.6 1
29
25
40.1
135
37.8
Aluminum"
7429-90-5
pg/L
655
676
653
785
797
645
1040
694
Aluminum,Filtered
7429-90-5
pg/L
238
219
205
196
538
234
138
205
Antimony
7440-36-0
900
190
pg/L
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
Antimony,Rltered
7440-36-0
--
--
pg/L
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
Arsenic
7440-38-2
340
148
pg/L
0.441 1
0.408 1
0.425 1
0.27 1
0.207 1
0.445 1
0.419 1
0.409 J
Arsenic,Fltered
7440-38-2
340
150
pg/L
0.355 J
0.368 J
0.354 J
0.188 1
0.222 J
0.387 J
0.18 U
0.368 J
Barium
7440-39-3
2000
220
pg/L
36.4
36.3
35
26.6
28.3
36.1
67.6
38.6
Barium,Rltered
7440-39-3
--
--
pg/L
36.2
35
33.9
24.8
26.3
35.4
56.1
33.2
Beryllium
7440-41-7
93
11
pg/L
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
Beryllium Filtered
7440-41-7
--
pg/L
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
Cadmium
7440-43-9
pg/L
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
Cadmium,Rltered
7440-43-9
Calc
Calc
pg/L
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
IA-FWSV-A(Calc)
pg/L
1.412
1.427
1.391
1.259
1.234
1.42
1.379
1.439
1A-FWSV-C (Calc)
pg/L
0.592
0.598
0.586
0.54
0.531
0.595
0.581
0.602
Calcium
7440-70-21
1
116000
pg/L
16800
17100
116600
14200
14200
17000
16500
17300
Calcium,Flltered
7440-70-2
pg/L
17600
17700
17400
15100
14400
18200
17400
17600
Chromium
7440-47-3
pg/L
3.69
3.35
2.7
1.871
3.28
2.43
3.15
2.96
Chromium ,Filtered
7440-47-3
pg/L
1.24 U
1.24 U
1.24 U
1.24 U
1.96 J
1.24 U
1.24 U
1.24 U
IA-FWSV-A(Calc)
pg/L
461.9
466.3
456.1
418
410.4
464.4
452.6
469.7
1A-FWSV-C (Calc)
pg/L
60.09
60.66
59.32
54.37
53.39
60.4
58.88
61.1
Cobalt
7440-48-4
120
19
pg/L
0.748 1
0.741 1
0.777 1
0.874 1
0.661 1
0.734 J
2.84
0.733 1
Cobalt,Filtered
7440-48-4
1 --
I
--
I
pg/L
0.375 J
1 0.396 J
0.356 J
0.379 J
1 0.354 J
0.377 J
0.109 1
0.354 J
Brown -Caldwell
Appendix E_DRAFT-COD-SW-TABLE(EPAR4Regs)-20210223.xlsx\EPA-R4
2/10/2022
Page 1 of 12

APPENDIX E
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - USEPA REGION 4 SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Constituent
Copper
Region 4 Freshwater Screening Values Locationd
Table 1A (Narcotic Sample 1.
CASRn lAcute Acute I Acute Chronic ChroniciChronic AcutelChronic Units
7440-50-8 pg/L
-
1
5.86
WC-2
WC-2 (Dup)
1
5.08
1
4.8 J
1
2.53 J
1
3.73 J
1
2.69 J
1 11/6/2021
2.85 J 4.24 J
Copper,Flltered
7440-50-8
pg/L
2.821
2.621
2.421
2.691
2.331
2.331
1.521 2.181
IA-FWSV-A(Calc)
pg/L
10.56
10.67
10.4
9.409
9.215
10.62
10.31 10.76
IA-FWSV-C (Calc)
pg/L
7.195
7.266
7.1
6.482
6.36
7.235
7.044 7.322
Iron
7439-89-6
1000
pg/L
799
817
803
698
974
814
1390
165
847
Iron ,Filtered
7439-89-6
--
pg/L
417
425
414
241
857
394
399
Lead
7439-92-1
--
I
pg/L
1 0.849 U
1 0.849 U
1 0.849 U
1 0.849 U
1 0.868 J
1 0.849 U
1.34 J
0.849 U
Lead,Fltered
7439-92-1
pg/L
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849 U
IA-FWSV-A(Calc)
pg/L
48.81
49.43
47.98
42.68
41.65
49.16
47.5
49.92
IA-FWSV-C (Calc)
pg/L
1.902
1.926
1.87
1.663
1.623
1.916
1.851
1.945
Brown -Caldwell
Appendix E_DRAFT-COD-SW-TABLE(EPAR4Regs)-20210223.xlsx\EPA-R4
2/10/2022
Page 2 of 12

APPENDIX E
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - USEPA REGION 4 SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Sample 1.
F7U't�
pg/L
1
8600
Constituent
Magnesium
Region 4 Freshwater Screening Values
Table 1A (Narcotic
lAquatic Wildlife Aquatic [Wfldlife
CASRn lAcute Acute Acute Chronic Chronic Chronic Acute Chronic
7439-95-4 82000
1
8650
1
8410
1
8030
1
7690
1
8590
1 11/6/2021
8310 8680
Magnesium,Filtered
7439-95-4
--
pg/L
8670
8740
8890
8310
7560
9460
8430 9170
Manganese
7439-96-5
1680
93
pg/L
80.1
80.6
81
70.9
30.9
84.4
_
262 85.2
15.2 61.9
Manganese,Fltered
7439-96-5
--
--
pg/L
59.2
61.7
62.2
54.9
19.5
63.5
Mercury
7439-97-6
1.4
0.012
0.77
0.0013
pg/L
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
Memury,Filtered
7439-97-6
--
--
--
--
pg/L
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
Nickel
7440-02-0
pg/L
3.47
3.24
2.85
1.78 J
2.89
2.38
3.37
2.9
Nickel,Filtered
7440-02-0
pg/L
1.93 1
1.94 1
1.93 1
1.1 1
2.33
2.09
1.44 1
1.78 J
IA- FWSV-A(Calc)
pg/L
377
380.7
372
340
333.7
379.1
369.2
383.6
1A-FWSV-C (Calc)
pg/L
41.87
42.28
41.32
37.76
37.06
42.1
41
42.6
Potassium
7440-09-7
53000
pg/L
1700 J
1640 J
1640 J
881 1
812 J
1660 J
1010 1
1660 J
Potassium Filtered
7440-09-7
--
pg/L
16401
16201
16401
8781
7971
17101
9631
15801
Selenium
7782-49-2
20
5
pg/L
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
Selenium,Filtered
7782-49-2
--
pg/L
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
Silver
7440-22-4
0.98
0.06
pg/L
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
Silver,Fltered
7440-22-4
--
--
pg/L
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
IA- FWSV-A(Calc)
pg/L
2.07
2.112
2.015
1.678
1.615
2.093
1.984
2.145
Sodium
7440-23-5
680000
pg/L
7240
7280
7050
7130
4850
7350
6100
7450
Sodium,Fihered
7440-23-5
--
pg/L
7630
8050
7860
8160
5180
8030
6710
8520
Thallium
7440-28-0
54
6
pg/L
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
Thallium,Filtered
7440-28-0
--
--
pg/L
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
Vanadium
7440-62-2
79
27
pg/L
2.05 1
1.98 J
1.96 1
2.12 1
2.41 1
1.98 1
3.34 1
2.11 1
Vanadium,Fltered
7440-62-2
--
--
pg/L
1.34 J
1.55 J
1.5 J
1.23 J
2.51 J
1.47 J
0.958 J
1.5 J
Zinc
7440-66-6
pg/L
4.82 1
4.24 J
4.84 1
3.02 U
3.02 U
3.6 1
5.15 1
4.49 J
Zinc,Filtered
7440-66-6
pg/L
7.97 J
6.3 J
7.21 J
7.31 J
7.27 J
6.68 J
6.76 J
6.27 J
IA-FWSV-A(Calc)
pg/L
94.32
95.24
93.08
85.04
83.46
94.83
92.35
95.97
1A-FWSV-C (Calc)
pg/L
95.09
96.02
93.84
85.74
84.14
95.61
93.11
96.75
1-Methylnaphthalene
90-12-0
1 109
6.1
157 75
pg/L
0.069 U
0.069 U
0.069 U
0.069 U
0.069 U
0.069 U
0.069 U
0.069 U
2-Chloronaphthalene
91-58-7
1 --
pg/L
0.068 U
0.068 U
0.068 U
0.068 U
0.068 UJ
0.068 U
0.068 U
0.068 U
Brown -Caldwell
Appendix E_DRAFT-COD-SW-TABLE(EPAR4Regs)-20210223.xlsx\EPA-R4
2/10/2022
Page 3 of 12

APPENDIX E
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - USEPA REGION 4 SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
2-Methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
Sample 1.
pg/L
1
0.067 U
Region 4 Freshwaty Screening Values
AquatFc- Wildlife
42 4.7
Table 1E)
(Narcotic
150 72
1
0.067 U
1
0.067 U
1
0.067 U
1
0.067 U
1
0.067 U
1
11/6/2021
0.067 U
0.067 U
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
19
15
116
56
pg/L
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 1.11
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
120
13
640
307
pg/L
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 UJ
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 U
AMhracene
120-12-7
0.18
0.02
43
21
pg/L
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
Benzo(a)anthracene
56-55-3
42
4.7
4.6
2.2
pg/L
0.02 U
0.02 U
0.02 U
0.02 U
0.02 UJ
0.02 U
0.027 J
0.02 U
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
0.54
0.06
2
0.96
pg/L
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.033 1
0.018 U
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
205-99-2
23
2.6
1.4
0.68
pg/L
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.078
0.044 1
0.017 U
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
191-24-2
0.19
0.012
0.91
0.44
pg/L
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
1.3
0.06
1.3
0.64
pg/L
0.02 U
0.02 U
0.02 U
0.02 U
0.02 U
1 0.02 U
I
_
j 0.031 J
j 0.02 U
Chrysene
218-01-9
42
4.7
4.2
2
pg/L
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 UJ
0.018 U
0.056
0.018 U
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
0.28
0.012
0.59
0.28
pg/L
0.016 UJ
0.016 UJ
0.016 UJ
0.016 UJ
0.016 UJ
0.016 UJ
0.016 UJ
1 0.016 UJ
Brown -Caldwell
Appendix E_DRAFT-COD-SW-TABLE(EPAR4Regs)-20210223.xlsx\EPA-R4
2/10/2022
Page 4 of 12

APPENDIX E
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - USEPA REGION 4 SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
1 3.7
0.8
15
1 7.1
pg/L
0.027 U
0.027 U
0.027 U
0.027 U
0.027 U
0.027 U
0.08 J
0.027 U
Fluorene
86-73-7
110
19
82
39
pg/L
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 UJ
0.017 U
0.017 U_
0.017 U
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
193-39-5
0.27
0.012
0.57
0.28
pg/L
0.016 U
0.092 U
0.016 U
0.092 U
0.016 U
0.092 U
0.016 U
0.092 U
0.016 U
0.092 U
0.016 U
0.092 U
_
0.045 J
0.092 U
0.016 U
0.092 U
Naphthalene 91-20-3
170
21
402
194 pg/L
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
31
2.3
40
19
pg/L
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.024 J
0.018 U
Pyrene
129-00-0
42
4.6
21
10
pg/L
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 UJ
0.017 U
0.066
0.017 U
Notes:
(Dup) - as part of the location, indicates a duplicate sample
IA-FWSV-A (Calc) -Table 1A Calculated Freshwater Screening Values, Acute
IA-FWSV-C (Calc) -Table IA Calculated Freshwater Screening Values, Chronic
RBTL - Risk Basted Threshold Levels, as presented in this table are the minimum value between cancerous, non -cancerous
and mutagenic values.
Values in bold font exceed Table 1A acute screening values
Values presented in dashed borders exceed Table 1A Chronic Screening Values
Underlined values exceed Table 1E Acute Screening Values
Shaded values exceed Table 1E Chronic Screening Values
Values in green are method detection limits that exceed any screening value
J - result is estimated
U - constituent not detected above the method detection limit
W - constituent not detected, associated method detection limit is estimated.
a Criteria are pH, temperature, and lifestage dependent- not calculated here.
Brown -Caldwell
Appendix E_DRAFT-COD-SW-TABLE(EPAR4Regs)-20210223.xlsx\EPA-R4
2/10/2022
Calculated Region 4 USEPA 2015 Screening Values were determined using the following:
1A-FWSV-A (Cale) Formula: Filtered Acute Value =exp(mA[In(H)]+bA)[CF]
ma
be
CF
Beryllium
1.609
-2.874
NA
Cadmium
0.9789
-3.866
1.136672-0.041838 (InH)
Chromium III
0.819
3.7256
0.316
Chromium VI
NA
NA
0.982
Copper
0.9422
-1.7
0.96
Lead
1.273
-1.46
1.46203-0.145712 (InH)
Mercury
NA
NA
0.85
Nickel
0.846
2.255
0.998
Selenium
NA
NA
NA
Silver
1.72
-6.59
0.85
Zinc
0.8473
0.884
0.978
1A-FWSV-C(Calc)Formula: Filtered
Chronic Value=exp(mC[In(H)]+bC)[CF]
me
be
CIF
Beryllium
1.609
-5.017
NA
Cadmium
0.7977
-3.909
1.101672-0.041838(InH)
Chromium III
0.819
0.6848
0.86
Chromium VI
NA
NA
0.962
Copper
0.8545
-1.702
0.96
Lead
1.273
-4.705
1.46203-0.145712(InH)
Mercury
NA
NA
0.85
Nickel
0.846
0.0584
0.997
Selenium
NA
NA
NA
Silver
NA
NA
NA
Zinc
0.8473
0.884
0.986
Page S of 12

APPENDIX E
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - USEPA REGION 4 SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
H = Hardness in mg/L
In = natural log
Acute and Chronic values were derived for filtered chromium using the formula fortrivalent
chromium above.
Brown ANn Caldwell
Appendix E_DRAFT-COD-SW-TABLE(EPAR4Regs)-20210223.xlsx\EPA-R4
2/10/2022
Page 6 of 12

APPENDIX E
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - USEPA REGION 4 SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Constituent
ral Chemistry
Ammonia(asN)a
CASRn
7664-41-7
Location:
Sample 1
Units
pg/L
1
117 U
11/7/2021
117 U
r
117 UJ
Region 4 Freshwater
Screening Values
, ®�
Table 1E)
(Narcotic
ChronlcF
--
Carbonaceous BOD
CBOD
mg/L
1.4 J
1.6 J
1.2 J
Fecal Coliform
FEC-COL
CFU/100ML
125 J
81 J
240 1
131 1
Hardness (as CaCO3)
471-34-1
mg/L
--
66.4
104
112
Total Phosphorus as P
7,723-14-0
1000
pg/L
37.8
34
33.1
Metals
Aluminum"
7429-90-5
--
pg/L
618
603
542
Aluminum,Filtered
7429-90-5
--
I
--
pg/L
140
206
143
Antimony
7440-36-0
900
190
pg/L
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
Antimony,Rltered
7440-36-0
--
--
pg/L
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
Arsenic
7440-38-2
340
148
pg/L
0.3861
0.3711
0.3461
Arsenic,Fltered
7440-38-2
340
150
pg/L
0.344 J
0.344 J
0.332 J
Barium
7440-39-3
2000
220
pg/L
36
34.6
35.8
Barium,Rltered
7440-39-3
--
--
pg/L
37.1
34.2
32.2
Beryllium
7440-41-71
93
1
11
pg/L
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
Beryllium Filtered
7440-41-7
--
--
pg/L
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
Cadmium
7440-43-9
pg/L
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
Cadmium,Rltered
7440-43-9
Calc
Cale
pg/L
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
lA- FWSV-A(Calc)
pg/L
1.223
1.861
1.994
IA-FWSV-C (Calc)
pg/L
0.528
0.74
0.782
Calcium
7440-70-2
1116000
1 pg/L
114800
22200
23800
Calcium,Filtered
7440-70-2
--
pg/L
15400
22900
25800
Chromium
7440-47-3
pg/L
1.621
2.92
3.4
Chromium ,Filtered
7440-47-3
--
pg/L
1.24 U
1.24 U
1.24 U
lA- FWSV-A(Calc)
pg/L
407.4
588.4
625.2
IA-FWSV-C (Calc)
pg/L
53
76.53
81.32
Cobalt
7440-48-4
120
19
pg/L
0.4361
0.5491
0.5421
Cobalt,Filtered
7440-48-4
--
pg/L
0.291 J
0.26 J
0.194 J
Brown -Caldwell
Appendix E_DRAFT-COD-SW-TABLE(EPAR4Regs)-20210223.xlsx\EPA-R4
2/10/2022
Page 7 of 32

APPENDIX E
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - USEPA REGION 4 SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Constituent CASRn
Region 4 Freshwater Screening Values Location: WC-7
Table 1E)
Table 1A (Narcotic Sample Date: 1/7/2021
Aquatic Wildlife Aquatic Wildlife
Acute Acute Acute Chronic Chronic Chronic Acute Chronic Units
WC-8
1/7/2021
WC-9
1/7/2021
WC-10
1/7/2021
Brown —Caldwell :
Appendix E_DRAFT-COD-SW-TABLE(EPAR4Regs)-20210223.xlsx\EPA-R4
2/10/2022
Page 8 of 32

APPENDIX E
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - USEPA REGION 4 SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Magnesium
7439-95-4
1.
pg/L
1
1
7140
1
11800
r
1
12700
Region 4 Freshwater Screening Values
Table 1A
82000
Table 1E)
(Narcotic
Magnesium,Filtered
7439-95-4
pg/L
7120
12800
13800
Manganese
7439-96-5
1680
93
pg/L
44.4
60.1
28.7
Manganese,Fltered
7439-96-5
--
--
pg/L
37.4
40.2
16.8
Mercury
7439-97-6
1.4
0.012
0.77
0.0013
pg/L
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
Memury,Filtered
7439-97-6
--
--
--
--
pg/L
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
Nickel
7440-02-0
pg/L
2.09
3.05
3.25
Nickel,Filtered
7440-02-0
pg/L
1.51
1.711
1.77 J
IA-FWSV-A(Calc)
pg/L
331.1
484
515.4
IA-FWSV-C (Calc)
pg/L
36.78
53.76
57.24
Potassium
7440-09-7
53000
pg/L
1620 J
1640 J
1530 J
Potassium Filtered
7440-09-7
--
pg/L
16601
16201
14501
Selenium
7782-49-2
20
5
pg/L
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
Selenium,Filtered
7782-49-2
-
--
pg/L
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
Silver
7440-22-4
0.98
0.06
pg/L
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
Silver,Fltered
7440-22-4
--
--
pg/L
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
IA-FWSV-A(Calc)
pg/L
1.591
3.441
3.909
Sodium
7440-23-5
680000
pg/L
7620
8210
8940
Sodium,Fiitered
7440-23-5
--
pg/L
8230
9130
10300
Thallium
7440-28-01
54
1
6
pg/L
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
Thallium,Filtered
7440-28-0
--
--
pg/L
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
Vanadium
7440-62-2
79
27
pg/L
1.641
1.991
2.141
Vanadium Filtered
7440-62-2
--
--
pg/L
1.12 J
1.6 J
1.68 J
Zinc
7440-66-6
pg/L
6.86 1
3.02 U
3.02 U
Zinc,Filtered
7440-66-6
pg/L
8.96 J
6.18 J
5.45 J
IA-FWSV-A(Calc)
pg/L
82.83
121.1
129
lA-FWSV-C (Calc)
pg/L
83.51
122.1
130
1-Methylnaphthalene
90-12-0
1 109
1
6.1
157 75
pg/L
0.069 U
0.069 U
0.069 U
2-Chloronaphthalene
91-58-7
1 --
I
pg/L
1
0.068 U
0.068 U
0.068 U
Brown -Caldwell
Appendix E_DRAFT-COD-SW-TABLE(EPAR4Regs)-20210223.xlsx\EPA-R4
2/10/2022
Page 8 of 12

APPENDIX E
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - USEPA REGION 4 SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Constituent
2-Methylnaphthalene
CASRn
91-57-6
r.
Units
pg/L
WC-7
r
WC-8
1
0.067 U
WC-9
11/7/2021
0.067 U
r
0.067 U
A7A,quatic
Acute Acute
42
Region 4 Freshwater
Table 1A
Wildlife
Acute Chronic
4.7
Screening Values
Aquatic Wildlifel
ChroniciChronic
®'
Acute Chronic
150 72
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
19
15
116
56
pg/L
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
120
13
640
307
pg/L
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 U
AMhracene
120-12-7
0.18
0.02
43
21
pg/L
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
Benzo(a)anthracene
56-55-3
42
4.7
4.6
2.2
pg/L
0.02 U
0.02 U
0.02 U
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
0.54
0.06
2
0.96
pg/L
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
205-99-2
23
2.6
1.4
0.68
pg/L
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 U
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
191-24-2
0.19
0.012
0.91
0.44
pg/L
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
1.3
0.06
1.3
0.64
pg/L
0.02 U
0.02 U
0.02 U
Chrysene
218-01-9
42
4.7
4.2
2
pg/L
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
0.28
0.012
-�t"0.59
0.28
pg/L
0.016 U
0.016 U
0.016 U
Brown -Caldwell
Appendix E_DRAFT-COD-SW-TABLE(EPAR4Regs)-20210223.xlsx\EPA-R4
2/10/2022
Page 10 of 12

APPENDIX E
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - USEPA REGION 4 SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
1 3.7
0.8
15
7.1
pg/L
0.027 U
0.027 U
0.027 U
Fluorene
86-73-7
110
19
82
39
pg/L
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 U
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
193-39-5
0.27
0.012
0.57
0.28
pg/L
0.016 U
0.016 U
0.016 U
Naphthalene
91-20-3
170
21
402
194
pg/L
0.092 U
0.092 U
0.092 U
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
31
2.3
40
19
pg/L
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
Pyrene
129-00-0
42
4.6
21
10
pg/L
0.017 U
0.017 U
0.017 U
Notes:
(Dup) -as part of the location, indicates a duplicate sample
IA-FWSV-A (Calc) - Table 1A Calculated Freshwater Screening Values, Acute
IA-FWSV-C (Calc)-Table 1A Calculated Freshwater Screening Values, Chronic
RBTL - Risk Basted Threshold Levels, as presented in this table are the minimum value between cancerous, non -cancerous
and mutagenic values.
Values in bold font exceed Table 1A acute screening values
Values presented in dashed borders exceed Table 1A Chronic Screening Values
Underlined values exceed Table 1E Acute ScreeningValues
Shaded values exceed Table 1E Chronic Screening Values
Values in green are method detection limits that exceed any screening value
J - result is estimated
U - constituent not detected above the method detection limit
LU - constituent not detected, associated method detection limit is estimated.
a Criteria are pH, temperature, and lifestage dependent- not calculated here.
Brown —Caldwell
Appendix E_DRAFT-COD-SW-TABLE(EPAR4Regs)-20210223.xlsx\EPA-R4
2/10/2022
Page 11 of 12

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement
Appendix F: Screening of Surface Water Analytical
Results - North Carolina Screening Values
F-1
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

APPENDIX F
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - NORTH CAROLINA SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
ConstituentAquatic
al Chemistry
NC Surface Water Standards
Life and Secondary Recreation Water
_
pg/L 117 U 117 U
117 U 117 U
1/7/2021
1/6/
Ammonia (as N)
7664-41-7
117 U
117 U
117
Carbonaceous BOD
CBOD
--
Mg/L
1.7 J
1.6 J
1.7 J
1.2 J
1.2 J
1.7 J
--
1.6
Fecal Coliform
FEC-COL
200
CFp/100ML
144 J
182 J
137 J
6 J
6 J
--
118 J
113
Hardness (as CaCO3)
471-34-1
--
100
Mg/L
77.4
78.3
76.2
68.5
67
77.9
--
75.5
Total Phosphorus as P
7723-14-0
pg/L
41
82.1 J
54.6 J
29
25
40.1
135
etals
Aluminum
7429-90-5
pg/L
655
676
653
785
797
645
1040
Aluminum, Filtered
7429-90-5
pg/L
238
219
205
196
538
234
138
Antimony
7440-36-0
pg/L
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03
Antimony, Filtered
7440-36-0
pg/L
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03
Arsenic
7440-38-2
10
pg/L
0.441 J
0.408 J
0.425 J
0.27 J
0.207 J
0.445 J
0.419
Arsenic, Filtered
7440-38-2
340
150
--
pg/L
0.355 J
0.368 J
0.354 J
0.188 J
0.222 J
0.387 J
0.18
Barium
7440-39-3
--
--
1000
pg/L
36.4
36.3
35
26.6
28.3
36.1
67.6
Barium, Filtered
7440-39-3
pg/L
36.2
35
33.9
24.8
26.3
35.4
56.1
Beryllium
7440-41-7
pg/L
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19
Beryllium, Filtered
7440-41-7
65
6.5
pg/L
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19
Cadmium
7440-43-9
--
--
pg/L
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15
Cadmium, Filtered
7440-43-9
pg/L
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15
ALSR-Acute (Calc)
pg/L
2.1922
2.2144
2.1626
1.9709
1.9332
2.2046
2.1453
ALSR-Chronic (Calc)
pg/L
0.3498
0.3528
0.3457
0.319
0.3137
0.3515
0.3433
Calcium
7440-70-2
pg/L
16800
17100
16600
14200
14200
17000
16500
Calcium, Filtered
7440-70-2
pg/L
17600
17700
17400
15100
14400
18200
17400
Chromium
7440-47-3
pg/L
3.69
3.35
2.7
1.87 J
3.28
2.43
3.15
Chromium, Filtered
7440-47-3
pg/L
1.24 U
1.24 U
1.24 U
1.24 U
1.96 J
1.24 U
1.24
ALSR-Acute (Calc)
pg/L
461.93
466.32
456.05
417.95
410.44
464.37
452.62
ALSR-Chronic (Calc)
pg/L
60.087
60.659
59.323
54.367
53.39
60.405
58.876
Cobalt
7440-48-4
pg/L
0.748 J
0.741 J
0.777 J
0.874 J
0.661 J
0.734 J
2.84
Cobalt, Filtered
7440-48-4
pg/L
0.375 J
0.396 J
0.356 1
0.379 1
0.354 J
0.377 J
0.109
Brown -Caldwell c
Appendix F_DRAFT-CODSW-TABLE(NCRegs)-20210222.xlsx\NCREgs
2/10/2022
Page 1 of a

APPENDIX F
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - NORTH CAROLINA SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Constituent
Copper
CASRn NC Surface Water
7440-50-8
7440-50-8
Standards pg/L 5.86 5.08
1 4.8 J 2.53 J
3.73 J 2.69 J 2.85
Copper, Filtered
pg/L
2.82 J
2.62 J
2.42 J
2.69 J
2.33 J
2.33 J
1.52
ALSR-Acute(Calc)
pg/L
10.557
10.673
10.403
9.4093
9.2151
10.621
10.313
ALSR-Chronic(Calc)
pg/L
7.195
7.2664
7.0996
6.4819
6.3604
7.2347
7.0438
Iron
7439-89-6
pg/L
799
817
803
698
974
814
1390
Iron, Filtered
7439-89-6
pg/L
417
425
414
241
857
394
165
Lead
7439-92-1
pg/L
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.868 J
0.849 U
1.34
Lead, Filtered
7439-92-1
pg/L
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849
ALSR-Acute (Calc)
pg/L
48.809
49.432
47.979
42.678
41.65
49.155
47.496
ALSR-Chronic (Calc)
pg/L
1.902
1.9263
1.8697
1.6631
1.623
1.9155
1.8508
Magnesium
7439-95-4
pg/L
8600
8650
8410
8030
7690
8590
8310
Magnesium, Filtered
7439-95-4
pg/L
8670
8740
8890
8310
7560
9460
8430
Manganese
7439-96-5
pg/L
80.1
80.6
81
70.9
30.9
84.4
262
Manganese, Filtered
7439-96-5
pg/L
59.2
61.7
62.2
54.9
19.5
63.5
15.2
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.012
pg/L
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1
Mercury, Filtered
7439-97-6
--
pg/L
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1
Nickel
7440-02-0
pg/L
3.47
3.24
2.85
1.78 J
2.89
2.38
3.37
Nickel, Filtered
7440-02-0
pg/L
1.93 J
1.94 J
1.93 J
1.1 1
2.33
2.09
1.44
ALSR-Acute (Calc)
pg/L
377
380.7
372.05
339.98
333.68AU
379.06
369.15
ALSR-Chronic (Calc)
pg/L
41.873
42.284
41.323
37.762
37.06142.102
41.002
Potassium
7440-09-7
pg/L
1700 J
1640 J
1640 J
881 J
812
1660 J
1010
Potassium, Filtered
7440-09-7
pg/L
1640 J
1620 J
1640 J
878 J
797
1710 J
963
Selenium
7782-49-2
5
pg/L
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3
0.3 U
0.3
Selenium, Filtered
7782-49-2
--
pg/L
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3
Silver
7440-22-4
pg/L
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07
Silver, Filtered
7440-22-4
0.06
pg/L
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07
ALSR-Acute (Calc)
pg/L
2.0704
2.112
2.0155
1.6781
1.6154
2.0935
1.9838
Brown -Caldwell c
Appendix F_DRAFT-CODSW-TABLE(NCRegs)-20210222.xlsx\NCREgs
2/10/2022
Page 2 of 8

APPENDIX F
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - NORTH CAROLINA SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Sodium
NC Surface Water
7440-23-5
Standards
p9/L
pg/L
7240
7280
8050
0.121 U
7050
7130
4850 7350
6100
6710
Sodium, Filtered
7440-23-5
7630
0.121 U
7860
8160
5180
8030
Thallium
7440-28-0
pg/L
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121
Thallium, Filtered
7440-28-0
pg/L
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121
Vanadium
7440-62-2
pg/L
2.05 J
1.98 J
1.96 J
2.12 J
2.41 J
1.98 J
3.34
Vanadium, Filtered
7440-62-2
pg/L
1.34 J
1.55 J
1.5 J
1.23 J
2.51 J
1.47 J
0.958
Zinc
7440-66-6
pg/L
4.82 J
4.24 J
4.84 J
3.02 U
3.02 U
3.6 J
5.15
Zinc, Filtered
7440-66-6
pg/L
7.97 J
6.3 J
7.21 J
7.31 J
7.27 J
6.68 J
6.76
ALSR-Acute (Calc)
pg/L
94.316
95.244
93.076
85.042
83.462
94.832
92.351
ALSR-Chronic (Calc)
pg/L
95.088
96.024
93.837
85.738
84.145
95.608
93.106
1-Methylnaphthalene
90-12-0
pg/L
0.0687 U
0.0687 U
0.0687 U
0.0687 U
0.0687 U
0.0687 U
0.0687
2-Chloronaphthalene
91-58-7
pg/L
0.0682 U
0.0682 U
0.0682 U
0.0682 U
0.0682 W
0.0682 U
0.0682
2-Methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
pg/L
0.0674 U
0.0674 U
0.0674 U
0.0674 U
0.0674 U
0.0674 U
0.0674
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
pg/L
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 UJ
0.019 U
0.019
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
pg/L
0.0171 U
0.0171 U
0.0171 U
0.0171 U
0.0171 UJ
0.0171 U
0.0171
Anthracene
120-12-7
pg/L
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
191-24-2
pg/L
0.0184 U
0.0184 U
0.0184 U
0.0184 U
0.0184 U
0.0184 U
0.0443
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
pg/L
0.027 U
0.027 U
0.027 U
0.027 U
0.027 U
0.027 U
0.0799
Fluorone
86-73-7
pg/L
0.0169 U
0.0169 U
0.0169 U
0.0169 U
0.0169 UJ
0.0169 U
0.0169
Naphthalene
91-20-3
pg/L
0.0917 U
0.0917 U
0.0917 U
0.0917 U
0.0917 U
0.0917 U
0.0917
Phenanthrone
85-01-8
pg/L
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.0243
Pyrone
129-00-0
pg/L
0.0169 U
0.0169 U
0.0169 U
0.0169 U
0.0169 UJ
0.0169 U
0.0664
NC PAHs*
Benzo(a)anthracene
56-55-3
pg/L
0.0203 U
0.0203 U
0.0203 U
0.0203 U
0.0203 UJ
0.0203 U
0.0265
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
pg/L
0.0184 U
0.0184 U
0.0184 U
0.0184 U
0.0184 U
0.0184 U
0.0326
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
205-99-2
pg/L
0.0168 U
0.0168 U
0.0168 U
0.0168 U
0.0168 U
0.0168 U
0.0784
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
pg/L
0.0202 U
0.0202 U
0.0202 U
0.0202 U
0.0202 U
0.0202 U
0.0305
Chrysene
218-01-9
pg/L
0.0179 U
0.0179 U
0.0179 U
0.0179 U
0.0179 UJ
0.0179 U
I --
0.0562
Brown -Caldwell c
Appendix F_DRAFT-CODSW-TABLE(NCRegs)-20210222.xlsx\NCREgs
2/10/2022
Page 8 of a

Total NC PAHs*
APPENDIX F
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - NORTH CAROLINA SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
NC Surface WaterStandards
-�� ® --
53-70-3 pg/L 0.016 UJ 0.016 UJ 1 0.016 UJ 0.016 UJ 0.016 UJ 0.016 UJ 1 0.016
193-39-5 _ --- pg/L 0.0158 U 0.0158 U 0.0158 U 0.0158 U 0.0158 U 0.0158 U_ _= 0.0449
0.0028 pg/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.2691
Notes:
(Dup) -as part of the location, indicates a duplicate sample
ALSR-Acute (Calc) - Calculated Aquatic Life and Secondary Recreation Standards, Acute
ALSR-Chronic (Calc) - Calculated Aquatic Life and Secondary Recreation Standards, Chronic
Values in boldfont exceed Aquatic Life and Secondary Recreation Standards (unspecified)
Values presented in dashed borders exceed Aquatic Life and Secondary Recreation Acute Standards
Underlined values exceed Aquatic Life and Secondary Recreation Chronic Standards
Shaded values exceed Water Supply Standards
Values in green are method detection limits that exceed any screening value
J - result is estimated
U - constituent not detected above the method detection limit
UJ - constituent not detected, associated method detection limit is estimated.
ND - Not detected.
*PAHs listed in NC 15A NCAC 02B Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters, under Total PAH
Brown ANo Caldwell
Appendix F_DRAFT-COD-SW-TABLE(NCRegs)-20210222.xlsx\NCREgs
2/10/2022
Calculated North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters were determined using the following
ALSR-Acute (Calc) Formula: Filtered Acute Value =exp(mA[ln(H)J+bA)[CF]
ma
ba
CF
Cadmium
0.9151
-3.1485
1.136672-0.041838 (InH)
Chromium III
0.819
3.7256
0.316
Copper
0.9422
-1.7
0.960
Lead
1.273
-1.46
1.46203-0.145712(InH)
Nickel
0.846
2.255
0.998
Silver
1.72
-6.59
0.85
Zinc
0.8473
0.884
0.978
ALSR-Chronic (Calc) Formula: Filtered Chronic Value =exp(mA[In(H)J+bA)[CF]
me
b,
CF
Cadmium
0.7998
-4.4451
1.101672-0.041838(InH)
Chromium III
0.82
0.6848
0.86
Copper
0.8545
-1.702
0.96
Lead
1.273
-4.705
1.46203-0.145712(InH)
Nickel
0.846
0.0584
0.997
Silver
NA
NA
NA
Zinc
0.8473
0.884
0.986
CF= Conversion Factor
H = Hardness in mg/L
In = natural log
NC standards are multiplied by the Water Effects Ratio (WER); this value is set to 1 by default
Acute and Chronicvalues were derived forfiltered chromium using the formula fortrivalent chromium above.
NA - Not applicable
Page 4 of S

APPENDIX F
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - NORTH CAROLINA SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Constituent
General Chemistry
CASRn
StandardsNC Surface Water
7'7
U 117 U 117 U 117 U 117 UJ
Ammonia (as N)
7664-41-7
Carbonaceous BOD
CBOD
J
4.2 J
--
1.4 J
1.6 J
1.2 J
Fecal Coliform
FEC-COL
200
J
125 J
81 J
240 1
131 J
Hardness (as CaCO3)
471-34-1
--
79
--
66.4
104
112
Total Phosphorus as P
7723-14-0
pg/L
37.8
37.8
34
33.1
Metals M.
Aluminum
7429-90-5
pg/L
694
618
603
542
Aluminum, Filtered
7429-90-5
pg/L
205
140
206
143
Antimony
7440-36-0
pg/L
U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
Antimony, Filtered
7440-36-0
pg/L
U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
1.03 U
Arsenic
7440-38-2
10
pg/L
J
0.409 J
0.386 J
0.371 J
0.346 J
Arsenic, Filtered
7440-38-2
340
150
--
pg/L
U
0.368 J
0.344 J
0.344 J
0.332 J
Barium
7440-39-3
--
--
1000
pg/L
38.6
36
34.6
35.8
Barium, Filtered
7440-39-3
pg/L
33.2
37.1
34.2
32.2
Beryllium
7440-41-7
pg/L
U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
Beryllium, Filtered
7440-41-7
65
6.5
pg/L
U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
0.19 U
Cadmium
7440-43-9
--
--
pg/L
U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
Cadmium, Filtered
7440-43-9
pg/L
U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
0.15 U
ALSR-Acute (Calc)
pg/L
2.2317
1.9181
2.8355
3.0245
ALSR-Chronic (Calc)
pg/L
0.3552
0.3116
0.437
0.4621
Calcium
7440-70-2
pg/L
17300
14800
22200
23800
Calcium, Filtered
7440-70-2
pg/L
17600
15400
22900
25800
Chromium
7440-47-3
pg/L
2.96
1.62 J
2.92
3.4
Chromium, Filtered
7440-47-3
pg/L
U
1.24 U
1.24 U
1.24 U
1.24 U
ALSR-Acute (Calc)
pg/L
469.73
407.43
588.36
625.18
ALSR-Chronic (Calc)
pg/L
61.103
52.998
76.534
81.323
Cobalt
7440-48-4
pg/L
0.733 J
0.436 J
0.549 J
0.542 J
Cobalt, Filtered
7440-48-4
pg/L
J
0.354 J
0.291 J
0.26 J
0.194 J
Brown -Caldwell c
Appendix F_DRAFT-CODSW-TABLE(NCRegs)-20210222.xlsx\NCREgs
2/10/2022
Page 5 of a

APPENDIX F
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - NORTH CAROLINA SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Constituent
Copper
Copper, Filtered
NC Surface Water
7440-50-8
7440-50-8
Standards ME M., M., WC-9
ME 1/7/2021
pg/L J 4.24 J 2.28 1 3.99 J 7.71
pg/L J 2.18 J 2.23 1 2.58 J 2.06 J
ALSR-Acute (Calc)
pg/L
10.763
9.1373
13.945
14.954
ALSR-Chronic (Calc)
pg/L
7.3219
6.3117
9.261
9.8664
Iron
7439-89-6
pg/L
847
712
722
684
Iron, Filtered
7439-89-6
pg/L
399
325
378
281
Lead
7439-92-1
pg/L
J
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849 U
Lead, Filtered
7439-92-1
pg/L
U
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849 U
0.849 U
ALSR-Acute (Calc)
pg/L
49.917
41.239
67.397
73.046
ALSR-Chronic (Calc)
pg/L
1.9452
1.607
2.6264
2.8465
Magnesium
7439-95-4
pg/L
8680
7140
11800
12700
Magnesium, Filtered
7439-95-4
pg/L
9170
7120
12800
13800
Manganese
7439-96-5
pg/L
85.2
44.4
60.1
28.7
Manganese, Filtered
7439-96-5
pg/L
61.9
37.4
40.2
16.8
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.012
pg/L
U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
Mercury, Filtered
7439-97-6
--
pg/L
U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
0.1 U
Nickel
7440-02-0
pg/L
2.9
2.09
3.05
3.25
Nickel, Filtered
7440-02-0
pg/L
J
1.78 J
1.5 J
1.71 J
1.77 J
ALSR-Acute (Calc)
pg/L
383.58
331.15
484.03
515.35
ALSR-Chronic (Calc)
pg/L
42.604
36.78
53.761
57.24
Potassium
7440-09-7
pg/L
J
1660 J
1620 J
1640 J
1530 J
Potassium, Filtered
7440-09-7
pg/L
J
1580 J
1660 J
1620 J
1450 J
Selenium
7782-49-2
5
pg/L
U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
Selenium, Filtered
7782-49-2
--
pg/L
U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
0.3 U
Silver
7440-22-4
pg/L
U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
Silver, Filtered
7440-22-4
0.06
pg/L
U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
0.07 U
ALSR-Acute (Calc)
pg/L
2.1446
1.5906
3.4412
3.9091
Brown -Caldwell c
Appendix F_DRAFT-CODSW-TABLE(NCRegs)-20210222.xlsx\NCREgs
2/10/2022
Page 6 of a

APPENDIX F
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - NORTH CAROLINA SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Constituent
Sodium
NC Surface Water
7440-23-5
7440-23-5
7440-28-0
Standards
ME M., M.,
ME
pg/L
7450
7620
1/7/2021
1 8210 8940
9130 10300
Sodium, Filtered
pg/L
8520
8230
Thallium
pg/L
U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
Thallium, Filtered
7440-28-0
pg/L
U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
0.121 U
Vanadium
7440-62-2
pg/L
J
2.11 J
1.64 J
1.99 J
2.14 J
Vanadium, Filtered
7440-62-2
pg/L
J
1.5 J
1.12 J
1.6 J
1.68 J
Zinc
7440-66-6
pg/L
J
4.49 J
6.86 J
3.02 U
3.02 U
Zinc, Filtered
7440-66-6
pg/L
J
6.27 J
8.96 J
6.18 J
5.45 J
.."cute (Calc)
pg/L
95.965
82.828
121.14
128.99
sMUM
ALSR-Chronic (Calc)
pg/L
96.75
83.506
122.13
130.05
1-Methylnaphthalene
90-12-0
pg/L
U
0.0687 U
0.0687 U
0.0687 U
0.0687 U
2-Chloronaphthalene
91-58-7
pg/L
U
0.0682 U
0.0682 U
0.0682 U
0.0682 U
2-Methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
pg/L
U
0.0674 U
0.0674 U
0.0674 U
0.0674 U
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
pg/L
U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
pg/L
U
0.0171 U
0.0171 U
0.0171 U
0.0171 U
Anthracene
120-12-7
pg/L
U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
191-24-2
pg/L
J
0.0184 U
0.0184 U
0.0184 U
0.0184 U
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
pg/L
J
0.027 U
0.027 U
0.027 U
0.027 U
Fluorone
86-73-7
pg/L
U
0.0169 U
0.0169 U
0.0169 U
0.0169 U
Naphthalene
91-20-3
pg/L
U
0.0917 U
0.0917 U
0.0917 U
0.0917 U
Phenanthrone
85-01-8
pg/L
J
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
0.018 U
Pyrone
129-00-0
pg/L
0.0169 U
0.0169 U
0.0169 U
0.0169 U
NC PAHs*
Benzo(a)anthracene
56-55-3
pg/L
J
0.0203 U
0.0203 U
0.0203 U
0.0203 U
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
pg/L
J
0.0184 U
0.0184 U
0.0184 U
0.0184 U
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
205-99-2
pg/L
0.0168 U
0.0168 U
0.0168 U
0.0168 U
Benzo(k)fluomnthene
207-08-9
pg/L
J
0.0202 U
0.0202 U
0.0202 U
0.0202 U
Chrysene
218-01-9
pg/L
0.0179 U
0.0179 U
0.0179 U
0.0179 U
Brown -Caldwell c
Appendix F_DRAFT-CODSW-TABLE(NCRegs)-20210222.xlsx\NCREgs
2/10/2022
Page 7 of 8

APPENDIX F
SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - NORTH CAROLINA SCREENING VALUES
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Dibenz(a,h)anth racene 53-70-3 I pg/L UJ 0.016 UJ
0.016 U 0.016 U
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 193-39-5 pg/L J 0.0158 U I
0.0158 U 0.0158 U
Total NC PAHs* 0.0028 pg/L ND
ND ND
Notes:
(Dup) - as part of the location, indicates a duplicate sample
ALSR-Acute (Cale) - Calculated Aquatic Life and Secondary Recreation Standards, Acute
ALSR-Chronic (Cale) - Calculated Aquatic Life and Secondary Recreation Standards, Chronic
Values in boldfont exceed Aquatic Life and Secondary Recreation Standards (unspecified)
Values presented in dashed borders exceed Aquatic Life and Secondary Recreation Acute Standards
Underlined values exceed Aquatic Life and Secondary Recreation Chronic Standards
Shaded values exceed Water Supply Standards
Values in green are method detection limits that exceed anyscreening value
J - result is estimated
U - constituent not detected above the method detection limit
UJ - constituent not detected, associated method detection limit is estimated.
ND - Not detected.
*PAHs listed in NC 15A NCAC 02B Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters, under Total PAH
Brown ANo Caldwell
Appendix F_DRAFT-COD-SW-TABLE(NCRegs)-20210222.xlsx\NCREgs
2/10/2022
0.016 U
0.0158 U
ND
Page 8 of 8

Contaminant Risk Assessment and Improvement
Appendix G: Screening of Sediment Analytical Results
G-1
Warren Creek Final Report Draft Feb 2022.docx

APPENDIX G
SCREENING OF SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
General Chemistry
-
-- --
-
--
J MO
55.4
6720
20000 1 14900
73.2 78.8
Total Organic Carbon
TOC
mg/kg 6940
Total solids
TS
--
--
--
--
--
PERCENT
80.9
1 76.1
Metals
Aluminum
7429-90-5
25000
58000
mg/kg
14700
16300
J
9480
J
14400
10800
Antimony
7440-36-0
2
25
mg/kg
0.205
U
0.3
U
0.218
U
0.436
J
0.211
U
Arsenic
7440-38-2
9.79
33
9.8
33
mg/kg
6.96
----------
89.8
----------
6.12
5.15
8.68
1.25
J
Barium
7440-39-3
--
--
20
60
mg/kg
58.9
282
56A
57.5
Beryllium
7440-41-7
--
--
--
--
mg/kg
1 0.606
J
0.402
J
0.888
J
0.334
J
Cadmium
7440-43-9
0.99
4.98
1
5
mg/kg
0.106
U
0.154
U
0.112
U
0.117
U
0.108
U
Calcium
7440-70-2
--
--
--
--
mg/kg
_ 3060
202
99.5
4710
282
51.9
J _
J
_ 3810
- -
23.3
J _ _ 3160
J 109
J 38.8
2420
Chromium
7440-47-3
43.4
111
43.4
--
111
--
--
-
m
mg/kg
107
rIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Cobalt
7440-48-4
--
--
50
--
mg/kg
20.9
Copper
7440-50-8
31.6
149
31.6
149
mg/kg
30.5
85400
----------
16
_ _39.5
71500
-----
10.8
J
J ----
J
15.7
J
28
68700
----
22.2
-----
18.1
Iron
7439-89-6
--
--
20000
40000
mg/kg
33700
21000
Lead
7439-92-1
35.8
128
35.8
128
mg/kg
8.53
J
10.3
Magnesium
7439-95-4
--
--
--
--
mg/kg 2290
----------
mg/kg _ 1560
mg/kg 0.0223
_
U
5080 J
2930
J
1370
2210
Manganese
7439-96-5
--
--
460
--
1100
--
933
396
J
777
556
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.18
1.06
0.18
0.17
1.1
0.17
0.0325 U
----- ----
66.6 1
-272 J -
0.0236
U
0.0246
U
0.0228
U
Nickel
7440-02-0
22.7
48.6
22.7
--
48.6
--
--
--
-
mg/kg
332
J
28.3
23.7
Potassium
7440-09-7
--
--
--
--
--
mg/kg
320
J
210
J
303
J
322
J
Selenium
7782-49-2
0.72
0.8
2.9
1.2
mg/kg
0.359
J
0.493
J
0.236
U
0.588
J
0.356
J
Silver
7440-22-4
--
--
1
--
2.2
--
--
--
mg/kg
0.107
U
0.156
U
0.114
U
0.118
U
0.401
J
Sodium
7440-23-5
--
--
mg/kg
347
J
710
J
577
J
145
J
232
J
Thallium
7440-28-0
mg/kg
0.204
J
0.117
U
0.0854
U
0.0888
U
0.103
J
Vanadium
7440-62-2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
mg/kg
227
214
J
92.7
J
171
57.2
Zinc
7440-66-6
1 121
459
121
459
mg/kg
1 69.61
60.3
J
33
J
42.5
17.6
J
SVOCs
2-Chloronaphthalene
91-58-7
--
--
mg/kg
0.00576
U
0.00841
U
0.00612
U
0.00637
U
0.00591
U
PAHs
Low Molecular Weight (LMW)
1-Methylnaphthalene 1 90-12-0
--
--
--
--
--
--
0.141
Result:
mg/kg
0.00555
U
0.0081
U
0.0059
U
0.00613
1 U
0.0057
U
BrownµoCaldwell
Appendix G_Table_4DRAFf SEDIMENT TABLE\Sediment
2/10/2022
Page 1 of 9

APPENDIX G
SCREENING OF SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Freshwater Sediment Screening Valuesa it r�
ESV.' a 097854 0.119709
it ri
0.094752 0.282
0.00561 U 0.00583 U
it
0.21009
0.00542 U
2-Methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
0.0202
Result:
mg/kg
0.00528
U
0.00771 U
ESK
0.014019
0.01715
a013574
0.0404
0.030098
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
0.0067
Result:
mg/kg
0.00258
U
0.00377
U
0.00275
U
0.00286
U
0.00265
U
ESK
0.00465
0.005688
0.0045w
0.0134
0.009983
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
0.0059
Result:
mg/kg
0.00267
U
0.0039
U
0.00284
U
0.00295
U
0.00274
U
ESK
aoo4095
0.005009
1 0.003965
0.0118
0.008791
AMhracene
120-12-7
0.0572
0.845
0.057
Result:
mg/kg
0.0305
0.00415
U
0.00302
U
0.00314
U
0.00292
U
ESK
0.039558
0.048393
a038304
aim
0.08493
Fluorene
86-73-7
0.0774
0.536
0.077
Result:
mg/kg
0.00513
J
0.0037
U
0.00269
U
0.0028
U
0.0026
U
ESK
ao53438
0.065373
0.051744
a154
0.11473
Naphthalene
91-20-3
0.176
0.561
0.176
Result:
mg/kg
0.00505
U
0.00736
U
0.00536
U
0.00557
U
0.00518
U
ESK
a122144
0.149424
a118272
a352
0.26224
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
0.204
1.17
0.204
Result:
mg/kg
0.124
0.0301
J
0.00344
J
0.00316
U
0.00293
U
ESK
a141576
0.173196
a 1370881
a408
0.30396
TOTAL LMW-PAHS(R4)
--
--
--
--
--
--
0.6
Result:
mg/kg
0.15963
0.0301
0.00344
ND
ND
ESK
a4164
0.5094
a4032
1,2
a894
High Molecular Weight (HMW)
Benzo(a)anthracene
56-55-3
0.108
1.05
0.108
Result:
mg/kg
0.143
0.0174
J
0.00692
J
0.00236
U
0.00219
U
ESK
0.074952
0.091691
0.072576
a216
0 mow
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
0.15
1.45
0.15
Result:
mg/kg
0.137
0.0224
J
0.00661
J
0.00245
U
0.00227
U
ESK
0.1041
a12735
0.1008
a3
0.2235
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
205-99-2
--
--
0.19
Result:
mg/kg
0.183
0.0381
J
0.00931
J
0.00209
U
0.00194
U
ESK
0.13186
a16131
0.12768
0.38
a2831
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
191-24-2
0.17
Result:
mg/kg
0.108
0.0204
J
0.00552
J
0.00242
U
0.00225
U
ESK
0.11798
a14433
0.11424
0.34
a2533
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
0.24
Result:
mg/kg
1 0.0683
0.0136
0.00434
J
0.00294
U
0.00273
U
ESK
0.16656
a20376
0.16128
0.46
a3576
Chrysene
218-01-9
0.166
1.29
0.166
Result:
mg/kg
0.146
0.0307
J
0.00862
J
0.00317
U
0.00294
U
ESK
0.115104
0.140934
0.111552
a332
0.24734
Dibenz(a,h)anthrecene
53-70-3
0.033
--
--
--
--
--
0.033
Result:
mg/kg
0.0234
0.00365
J
0.00226
U
0.00235
U
0.00218
U
Esvl
0.011901
0.028017
0.022176
0.066
0.04917
BrownµoCaldwell
Appendix G_Table_4DRAFf SEDIMENT TABLE\Sediment
2/10/2022
Page 2 of 8

APPENDIX G
SCREENING OF SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Constituent CASRn TEC' PEC'
r. • � "®�
Region 4 Location: WC-1 WC-2
Freshwater Sediment Screening Values° Depth Int.: 0-0.5 0-0.5
Table 2A (nonnarcotic) Table 2B (narcotic) Sample Date: 01/06/21 01/06/21
ESV ESV-WL RSV RSV-WL ESV Units Result Lab Qual Result Lab Qual
r• i r r
WC-2 (Dup)
0-0.5
01/06/21
Result I Lab Qual
r r
�
WC-3
0-0.5
01/06/21
Result Lab Qual
r rr
WC-4
0-0.5
01/06/21
Result Lab Qual
r rr
--_-----®
���������
i r: •-
r r .•
r r i
i r r
i r r
Notes:
e-httos://www.eoa.gov/sites/Dmduction/files/2018-03/documents/ere regional suoolemental guidance report-march-2018 uodate.odf
° - MacDonald et al 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus -based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environ. Toxicol. 39:20-31
° - These ESVs are based on 1% (10,000 mg/kg) tOC. The adjusted ESV on a sample -specific basis appears under each result.
mg/kg -milligrams per kilogram
(Dup) -as part of the location, indicates a duplicate sample
Depth Int. -depth interval in feet below sediment surface
ESV -Ecological Screening Value
ESV-WL- Ecological Screening Value, wildlife -based; Table 2A: Non -narcotic effects; Table 2 B: narcotic effects
RSV - Refined Screening Value
RSV-WL- Refined Screening Value, wildlife -based
Brown --Caldwell
Appendix G_Table_4DRAFT SEDIMENT TABLE\Sediment
2/10/2022
PEC -Probable Effect Concentrations, consensus -based
TEC -Threshold Effect Concentrations, consensus -based
Detected Values in bold font exceed any ESV
Detected Values presented in dashed borders exceed any RSV
Underlined detected values exceed the PEC
Shaded detected values exceed the TEC
U - constituent not detected above the method detection limit
1- result is estimated.
Page 8 of 8

APPENDIX G
SCREENING OF SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
General Chemistry
- -
-- -- --
-
--
512001
14400
5050 7110
1 79.1
Total Organic Carbon
TOC
mg/kg 8940
Total solids
TS
--
--
--
--
PERCENT
88.7
44.9
88.1
Metals
Aluminum
7429-90-5
25000
58000
mg/kg
13300
138001
15600
4160
15700
Antimony
7440-36-0
2
25
mg/kg
0.187
U
0.37
U
0.189
U
0.195
U
0.21
U
Arsenic
7440-38-2
9.79
33
9.8
33
mg/kg
7.35
1.99
-----
78.1
-----
0.364
J
----
----
J
2.5
-----
63.4
-----
0.266
----
----
J
1.27
2.27
Barium
7440-39-3
--
--
20
60
mg/kg
50.9
11
51.3
Beryllium
7440-41-7
--
--
--
--
mg/kg
0.469
J
0.335
J
0.252
J
Cadmium
7440-43-9
0.99
4.98
1
5
mg/kg
0.0964
U
0.191
U
0.0971
U
0.1
U
0.108
U
Calcium
7440-70-2
--
--
--
--
mg/kg 5020
----------
mg/kg 194
mg/kg 27.21
-
2700
7460
15801
9410
Chromium
7440-47-3
43.4
111
43.4
--
111
--
--
--
48.7
69.9
45
Cobalt
7440-48-4
--
--
50
--
--
--
--
--
19.4
32.2
10.3
22.5
Copper
7440-50-8
31.6
149
31.6
--
149
--
--
--
mg/kg
22.5
-- ----
67600
----------
8.77
----
28.2
22.9
8.93
22.2
Iron
7439-89-6
--
--
20000
40000
mg/kg
18400
37600
16700
25500
Lead
7439-92-1
35.8
128
35.8
128
mg/kg
15.41
4.66
2.65
6.03
Magnesium
7439-95-4
--
--
--
--
mg/kg
6180
1710
10600
798
5180
Manganese
7439-96-5
--
--
460
1100
mg/kg
522
328
466
251
1070
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.18
1.06
0.18
0.17
1.1
0.17
mg/kg
0.0203
----------
52.7
- - - 196
U
J - - - -
0.0539
J
0.0204
-----
77.9
- - - 194
U
----
J - - - -
0.0211
U
0.0228
U
Nickel
7440-02-0
22.7
48.6
22.7
--
48.6
--
--
--
mg/kg
1 27.7
1 12.3
47
Potassium
7440-09-7
--
I --
--
--
--
--
--
--
mg/kg
446
J
113
J
228
J
Selenium
7782-49-2
--
--
0.72
0.8
2.9
1.2
--
--
mg/kg
0.331
J
0.493
J
0.204
U
0.211
U
0.228
U
Silver
7440-22-4
1
--
2.2
--
mg/kg
0.0975
U
0.193
U
0.0982
U
0.102
U
0.109
U
Sodium
7440-23-5
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
mg/kg
821
197
J
1210
231
J
1420
Thallium
7440-28-0
mg/kg
0.0733
U
0.145
U
0.0738
U
0.0764
U
0.0822
U
Vanadium
7440-62-2
--
--
mg/kg
158
51.6
75.5
40.4
60.5
Zinc
7440-66-6
121
459
121
459
mg/kg
1 39.8
54.7
J
37.2
19.8
J
30.5
J
SVOCs
2-Chloronaphthalene
1 91-58-7
--
mg/kg
0.00525
U
0.0104
U
0.00529
U
0.00547
U
0.00589
U
PAHs
Low Molecular Weight (LMW)
1-Methylnaphthalene 1 90-12-0
--
--
--
--
--
--
0.141
Result:
mg/kg
1 0.005061
U
0.01
U
0.0051
U
0.00528
U
0.005681
U
BrownµoCaldwell
Appendix G_Table_4-DRAFT SEDIMENT TABLE\Sediment
2/10/2022
Page 4 of 9

APPENDIX G
SCREENING OF SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
��
it
0.20304
ri
0.071205
it
0.100251
Freshwater Sediment Screening Valuesa it
ESV. 0.126054
0.72192
2-Methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
0.0202
Result:
mg/kg
0.00481
U
0.00952
U
0.00485
U
0.00502
U
0.0054
U
ESK
0.018059
0.103424
0.029088
am201
0.014362
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
0.0067
Result:
mg/kg
0.00236
U
0.00466
U
0.00237
U
0.0106
0.00264
U
ESK
aoo599
aow3w
a009648
0.003384
a004764
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
0.0059
Result:
mg/kg
0.00244
U
0.00482
U
0.00245
U
0.00254
U
0.00273
U
ESK
0.005275
0.030208
0.008496
0.00298
1 0.004195
AMhracene
120-12-7
0.0572
0.845
0.057
Result:
mg/kg
0.00259
U
0.00513
U
0.00261
U
0.0233
0.00497
J
ESK
0.050958
a291841
0.08208
ao28785
a040527
Fluorene
86-73-7
0.0774
0.536
0.077
Result:
mg/kg
0.00231
U
0.00457
U
0.00233
U
0.0116
0.00259
U
ESK
0.068838
a39424
0.11088
0.038885
0.054747
Naphthalene
91-20-3
0.176
0.561
0.176
Result:
mg/kg
0.0046
U
0.0091
U
0.00463
U
0.00479
U
0.00516
U
ESK
0.157344
0.90112
0.25344
0.088881
a125136
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
0.204
1.17
0.204
Result:
mg/kg
0.0101
0.006
J
0.00325
J
1 0208
0.043
ESK
0.182376
L04448
0.29376
0.10302
a145044
TOTAL UMW-PAHS(R4)
--
--
0.6
Result:
mg/kg
0.0101
0.0061
0.00325
0.2535
0.04797
ICSY,
a5364
3.072
a864
0.303
a4266
High Molecular Weight (HMW)
Benzo(a)anthracene
56-55-3
0.108
1.05
0.108
Result:
mg/kg
0.0117
0.00972
J
0.00508
J
0.173
0.0478
ESK
0.096552
a55296
0.15552
0.05454
0.076788
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
0.15
1.45
0.15
Result:
mg/kg
0.0169
0.0148
0.007951
0.17
0.0531
ESK
0.1341
0.768
a216
0.07575
0.10665
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
205-99-2
--
--
0.19
Result:
mg/kg
0.0304
0.0243
0.0146
0257
0.0837
ESK
0.16986
a97281
0.2736
0.09595
0.13509
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
191-24-2
--
--
--
--
--
--
0.17
Result:
mg/kg
0.0154
0.0161
0.0101
0.145
0.0435
ESK
0.15198
a8704
0.2448
ao8585
0.12087
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
0.24
Result:
mg/kg
0.0096
0.0101
J
0.00604
J
0.0855
0.0273
ESK
a21456
L2288
0.3456
0.1212
0.17064
Chrysene
218-01-9
0.166
1.29
0.166
Result:
mg/kg
0.0221
0.0184
0.00844
0207
0.0641
ESK
0.mwx
a84992
0.23904
0.08383
a118026
Dibenz(a,h)anthrecene
53-70-3
0.033
--
--
--
--
--
0.033
Result:
mg/kg
0.00297
J
0.00383
U
0.00215
J
0.0305
0.009
ESK
a029502
a168961
0.04752
a016665I
a023463
BrownµoCaldwell
Appendix G_Table_4DRAFf SEDIMENT TABLE\Sediment
2/10/2022
Page S of 8

APPENDIX G
SCREENING OF SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Constituent CASRn TEC° PEC°
r. • � "®®�
Region 4 Location: WC-5
Freshwater Sediment Screening Values° Depth Int.: 0-0.5
Table 2A (nonnarcotic) Table 2B (narcotic) Sample Date: 01/06/21
ESV ESV-WL RSV RSV-WL ESV` Units Result Lab Qual
r r r•
WC-6
0-0.5
01/06/21
I Result I LablQuall
r r
WC-7 WC-8
0-0.5 0-0.5
01/06/21 01/07/21
Result I Lab Qual Result I LablQuall
r r r
WC-9
0-0.5
01/07/21
Result I Lab Qual
r
���������
r r
r r
r r r•
-®
''
Notes:
°-httns://www.eoa.gov/sites/Dmduction/files/2018-03/documents/ere regional suoolemental guidance report-march-2018 uodate.odf
° - MacDonald et al 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus -based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environ. Toxicol. 39:20-31
° -These ESVs are based on 1% (50,000 mg/kg) tOC. The adjusted ESV on a sample -specific basis appears under each result.
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
(Dup) - as part of the location, indicates a duplicate sample
Depth Int. - depth interval in feet below sediment surface
ESV - Ecological Screening Value
ESV-WL- Ecological Screening Value,wildlife-based; Table 2A: Non -narcotic effects; Table 2B:narcotic effects
RSV - Refined Screening Value
RSV-WL- Refined Screening Value, wildlife -based
Brown --Caldwell
Appendix G_Table_4DRAFT SEDIMENT TABLE\Sediment
2/10/2022
Page 6 of 8

APPENDIX
SCREENING OF SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Constituent
General Chemistry
Freshwater Sediment Screening Valuesarr
CASRn
TOC mg/kg 12800
TS PERCENT 91.3
AEL__
7429-90-5 25000 58000 mg/kg 18300
Total Organic Carbon
Total solids
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
7440-36-0
2
25
mg/kg
0.182
J
Arsenic
7440-38-2
9.79
33
9.8
33
mg/kg
4.48
Barium
7440-39-3
20
60
mg/kg
133
Beryllium
7440-41-7
--
--
mg/kg
0.814
J
Cadmium
7440-43-9
0.99
4.98
1
5
mg/kg
0.0936
U
Calcium
7440-70-2
mg/kg
6240
Chromium
7440-47-3
43.4
111
43.4
111
mg/kg
100
Cobalt
7440-48-4
50
mg/kg
46.6
Copper
7440-50-8
31.6
149
31.6
149
mg/kg
28
Iron
7439-89-6
--
--
20000
40000
mg/kg
51600
Lead
7439-92-1
35.8
128
35.8
128
mg/kg
--- 9.8r___
Magnesium
7439-95-4
--
mg/kg
Manganese
7439-96-5
--
--
460
1100
mg/kg
1420
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.18
1.06
0.18
0.17
1.1
0.17
0.0795 EU: - -
Nickel
7440-02-0
22.7
48.6
22.7
--
48.6
--
mg/kg
Potassium
7440-09-7
--
--
--
--
--
--
mg/kg
-_Toli
803
Selenium
7782-49-2
0.72
0.8
2.9
1.2
mg/kg
0.408
J
Silver
7440-22-4
1
--
2.2
--
mg/kg
0.0947
U
Sodium
7440-23-5
mg/kg
632
Thallium
7440-28-0
mg/kg
0.0748
J
Vanadium
7440-62-2
--
--
mg/kg
110
Zinc
1 7440-66-6
121
459
121
459
mg/kg
84
SVOCS
I
I
.2-Chloronaphthalene
1 91-58-7
--
--
--
--
mg/kg
0.0051
U
I Low Molecular Weight (LMW)
I I-Methyinaphthalene 1 90-12-0
1
1 --
I --
--
I --
0.141
mg/kg
0.00492
1 U
I Brown --Caldwell '
Appendix G_Table__4DRAFT SEDIMENT TABLE\Sediment
2/10/2022
Page 7 of 9

APPENDIX G
SCREENING OF SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
r, i i
0.18048
1Freshwater Sediment Screening
-- -- -- --
Val UeSait
ESl!
2-Methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
--
--
0.0202
Result:
mg/kg
0.00468
U
ESK
0.025856
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
0.0067
Result:
mg/kg
0.00229
U
ESK
0.008576
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
0.0059
Result:
mg/kg
0.00237
U
ESl
0.007552
AMhracene
120-12-7
0.0572
1 0.845
--
--
--
--
0.057
Result:
mg/kg
0.0136
ESIM
0.07296
Fluorene
86-73-7
0.0774
0.536
0.077
Result:
mg/kg
0.00225
U
ESK
0.09856
Naphthalene
91-20-3
0.176
0.561
--
--
--
--
0.176
Result:
mg/kg
0.00447
U
ESK
0.22528
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
0.204
1.17
--
--
--
--
0.204
Result:
mg/kg
0.062
ESYl
0.26112
TOTAL UMW-PAHS (R4)
--
--
--
--
--
--
0.6
Result:
mg/kg
0.0756
ESK
0.768
High Molecular Weight (HMW)
Benzo(a)anthracene
56-55-3
0.108
1.05
0.108
Result:
mg/kg
0.0737
ESK
0.13824
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
0.15
1.45
0.15
Result:
mg/kg
0.0716
11 ESY,
0.192
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
205-99-2
--
--
--
--
--
--
0.19
Result:
mg/kg
0.1
ESK
0.2432
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
191-24-2
--
--
--
--
--
--
0.17
Result:
mg/kg
0.0552
ESK
0.2176
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
--
--
--
--
--
--
0.24
Result:
mg/kg
0.0384
ESK
0.3072
Chrysene
218-01-9
0.166
1.29
0.166
Result:
mg/kg
0.0821
ESK
0.21248
Di benz(a,h)anthrecene
53-70-3
0.033
--
0.033
Result:
mg/kg
0.0117
ESK
0.04224
BrownµoCaldwell
Appendix G_Table_4DRAFf SEDIMENT TABLE\Sediment
2/10/2022
Page 8 of 9

APPENDIX G
SCREENING OF SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS
WARREN CREEK WATERSHED
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Region 4
Freshwater Sediment ScreeningValueSa
Table 2A (nonnarcotic) Table 2B (narcotic)
Constituent CASRn TEC° PEC° ESV I ESV-WL I RSV I RSV-WL ESV`
Location: WC-10
Depth Int.: 0-0.5
Sample Date: 01/07/21
Units Result I LabQual
Notes:
°-httDs://www.eoa.Lov/sites/Dmduction/files/2018-03/documents/em regional suoDlemental guidance report-march-2018 uodate.odf
° - MacDonald et al 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus -based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environ. Toxicol. 39:20-31
-These ESVs are based on 1% (50,000 mg/kg) tOC. The adjusted ESV on a sample -specific basis appears under each result.
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
(Dup) - as part of the location, indicates a duplicate sample
Depth Int. - depth interval in feet below sediment surface
ESV - Ecological Screening Value
ESV-WL- Ecological Screening Value, wildlife -based; Table 2A: Non -narcotic effects; Table 2 B: narcotic effects
RSV -Refined Screening Value
RSV-WL- Refined Screening Value, wildlife -based
Brown --Caldwell
Appendix G_Table_4DRAFT SEDIMENT TABLE\Sediment
2/10/2022
Page 9 of 9