e 

### G. 

### Ryan



### Envi**$0** 

### n

### m**8**

### ntal 

### Scie

## nc 

# ‘\L ____.__"

................... ..______..............._.__.___ - -... . .I___~__

### ORNL/TM-I1926

Environmental Sciences Division

ECOLOGICAL 

### EFFECTS OF CONTAMINANTS 

### IN MCGOY BRANCH, 1989-1990

Editor 

### M. G. Ryon

Contributors 

### R. L. Hinzman' 

### M. J. Peterson2 

### T. D. Richardson3 

### M. G, 

### Ryon J. 

### G. Smith G. R. Southworth A. 

### J. Stewart V. 

### R. Tolbert Environmental Sciences Division Publication 

### No. 3837 'Oak 

### Ridge Research Institute, 

### Oak Ridge, 

### Tennesscc 2AutomatedScicnces Group, Inc., Oak Ridgc, Tennessee 

### 3P0s tdootoral Associate, 

### Oak Ridge Associated Univcrsitics

Date of Issue-January 1992
Prepared for

S. Walker Environmental Restoration Program 

### Y-12 Plant 

### Oak Ridge, Tenncssec 37831


### Prepared by the OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY 

### Oak Ridge, Tennessee37831-6285 managed by 

### MARTTN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS,INC. for the 

### U.S. 

### DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under contract 

### DE-AC0.5-840R21400

MARTINMAAICTTAENERGY SYSTF#& LIBRIHIP'?

3 

### 4456 

### 0352812 7

### LISTOFFIGURES



## ................................................ V 

### LISTOFTABB


## ................................................. vii ACRONYMS



## ..................................................... **ix** ACKNOWLEDGMENT3



## ............................................ xi EXECUTITVESUMMARY



## ........................................... xiii
1



## . INTRODUCTION


## ............................................... 1-1 2



## .DESCIUPTlON 

### OFTHEMcCOY

### BRANCHWA'IERSHED 

### (RLH~IE~~II)



## ................................................. 2-1 2.1 

### GEOHYDROLOGY


## .......................................... 2-4 22 

### WATERQUALlTY


## .......................................... 2-4 22.1 

### Description 

### and History 

### of

### Discharges to 

### McCoy Branch and 

### Rogers Quarry



## ...................................... 2-4 222 

### Characterization

### ofthe ContaminantSource


## .................. 2-5 2.23 

### Temperature



## ........................................... 2-6 

### 22.4 

### Sediments

### and Groundwater


## ............................... 2-6 

### 3



## .IDXICITY

### MONITBRING (A



## .L Stew art 

### and 

### T


## .D



## .Richardson)


## ........... 3-1
3-1-1 

### Seven-DayToxicity

### Tests


## .................................. 3-1 3.1.2 

### Full 

### Life-Cycle Tests



## ............................... .'



## ..... 3-1 

### 3.1.3 

### In situ 

### Snail

### Tests



## ....................................... 3-2 3.1.4 

### Seven-Day

### Snail Tat


## .................................... 3-5 

### 3.1.5 ChemicalAnalyse, 

### ofWater Quality



## ......................... 3-5 

### 3.2 RESULTS



## .................................................. 3-6 3.2.1 

### Seven-DayToxicity

### Tests



## .................................. 3-6 3.2-2 

### Full-Life

### Ojcle 

### Tests


## ..................................... 3-6 3.24 Seven-DaySnail Test


## .................................... 3-10 

### 3.2.5 ChemicalAnalyses orWater 

### Quality


## ......................... 3-10 

### 3.2 MATERIAL§ AND 

### METHODS



## ................................. 3-1



### 3.2.3 

### In Situ 

### Snail Tat



## ....................................... 3-10

3.3 DISCUSSION


## ............................................... 3-14 3.4 

### FUTURESTUDIES



## .......................................... 3-16
4



### .

### BIOACCUNULATlON STUDIES (G



### .R Southworth 

### and M



## . J


## .Peterson)


## .... 4-1 

### 4.1 XN?*RODUCTEON



## ........................................... 4-1 4.2 METNODS



## ................................................. 4-1 4.3 

### REBULTS

### AND DISCUSSION



## ................................. 4-2 4-4 CONCLUSIONS


## ............................................ 4-9 4.5 

### FWTURESTUDIES



## ......................................... 4-10



## ... 111

### CBmm(Continued)



### NT (U 6



## .Ry~m)



## ..................... 5-1



## ........................................... 5-1



## .................................... 5-1 AND 

### DISCUSSION



## .................................. 5-4



## .................................... 5-4



## .................................... 5-6



## ...................................... 5-6



## ...................................... 5-8 CAOB


## ....................................... 5-8



## .................................. 5-8



## .................................... 5-10 

### 5.5 FU'TURESl'UDlES



### .......................................... 5-10
(V



### .It

### Tolkrt and J



## ..................................... 6-1 5.1 XNTRODIJ(JTXON



## ........................................... 6-1 6.2 

### MATERIALSAND~VETHODS



## ................................. 6-1



## ...................................... 6-3 

### ition



## .................................. 4-3 6.3



### . 2 Density 

### and Biomass



## ..................................... 6-3 6-4 

### DIrnSSION



## ............................................... 6-11 6-5 CONCLUSIONS



### ............................................. 6-15 6.6 p;UTcRESTJDES



## ......................................... 6-16 6-33 chammunity

### Structure



## .................................... 6-6

7



### . lxEm.EN(7m



### .................................................. 7-1 APPENDIX A WATER 

### QUALnrY DATA 

### FOR MCCOY 

### BRANCHWATERSHED FOR 19'74-1990



### ................. A-1
AJ?PEMNxB



### . I AND WHITE OAK

### CREE



## ....................... B-1

ivfigure
2-1 2-2



### 2-3

2-4

2-5

26



### 3-1

5-1



### 6-1



### 6-2

6-3

6-4

6-5

6-6 

### LET OF 

## FIGURES PaJg Map of the OakRidge area showing locations

### of

### the reference sites


## ....... 2-2 Map of the 

### McCoy Branch showing 

### the primary features and monitoringsites


## ............................................... 2-3
Mean weekly values 

### for sulfate in 

### thewater 

### from McCoy 

### Branch at Outfall 302, 

### belmvRogem Quarry, 

### hm 1!%% 

### to 1990


## ................ 2-8
Mean weklyvalues for arsenic 

### in the

### water 

### from McCoy 

### Branch at 

### Outfdl302,

### below Rogers Quarry, 

### from 1886to 1990


## ................ 2-9
Mean 

### wcekly

### values for selenium in water 

### from McCoy Branch at 

### Outfall 302, 

### Rogers Quarry, 

### from 

### 1986to 

### 1990


## ..................... 2-10 

### Weekly mean temperature for

### McCoy Branch, and for two 

### reference sites,

### upper White 

### Oak 

### Creek and upper 

### Frth Creek


## .......... 2-12
Plot showingthe

### number 

### ofsnails 

### recaveredversus distane

### from the point 

### ofrelease for two sites 

### in McCrry 

### Branch and anoncontaminated site in Whitc 

### Oak 

### Creek


## ........................ 3-11 Length-frequency histognams for bluegill.sunfish, green 

### suniish, and bluntnose minnow for May 

### 1989, October 1989,and May 1990

### fiom McCoy Branch site. 

### MCK 1.56


## .................................... 5-9
Mean scasonal densityand biomass 

### ofbenthic macroinvertebrates ' 

### in McCoy Branch and White 

### Oak Creek, April 

### 1989 to January 1990


## ...... 6-7
Mcan seasonal densityfor selectedtaxa in McCby Branch and White Oak 

### Creck, 

### April 1989 to January 199Q..


## ...................... 6-8


### Mean seasonal biomass 

### for sclected 

### taxa 

### in McCoy Branch and 

### White Oak Creek, April 

### 1389to 

### January 1990..


## ...................... 6-9
Mean seasonal taxonomic richness oEbenthic macrahmertebrates in 

### McCoy Branch and White 

### Oak Creek, 

### April 1989to January 

### 1990



## ...... 610
Mean 

### seasonal Ephememptcra, 

### Plmptera, and Trichoptera richness 

### in

### McCoy Branch and 

### White Oak 

### Crcck.,

### April 1989to January 

### 1990


# ...... 6-12
Mean seasonal diversityofbenthic macroinvertebrates in 

### McCoyBranch and Whitc Oak Crwk,

### April 1989to January 1991)



## .................... 613

V

### LIST 

### OF

### TABLES
Table &!.E?

2-1 

### Mean (standard 

### error) for 

### selsctedNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

### Systemwater 

### qualityparametersfor 

### Outfall302 for 

### 1986to 1990


# ......... 2-7 2-2 Arsenic levels

### in

### McCoy Branch **on**

### March 15,1990


## ................... 2-11
3-1 Results of 

### 7-6 toxicity (fathead minnow 

### 1-i~ 

### and Chidt~W 

### dubia) of

### water 

### from 

### MCCQY Branch at 

### MCK 

### 1.92


# .......................... 3-3
3-2 Results 

### of 

### 7-d toxicity tats (fathead 

### minnaW larvae 

### and Cetidzlaphnia)

### of water 

### from McCoy Branch at 

### thespringnear thebase 

### of the 

### ash pond

### dam (spring) and from McCoy 

### Branch below Rogers Quaq


## ................. 3-7
3-3 

### Means of Ceriodaphrria survival and reproduction

### parameters for lifecycle tests with wntrolwater, water 

### firom

### McCoy Branch at the inlet to Rogers Quarry, and water 

### fi-omEast 

### Fork Poplar 

### Creek at the outfall

### of

### Lake Reality



## ..................................................... 3-8
3-4 Analysis of variance 

### results for Cenicdaphnia

### xife-cycletests of

### control water 

### and water from McCoy 

### Branchat 

### MCK 1-92



## ......................... 3-8 

### 3-5 Analysis ofvariance 

### results for 

### Cetiudaphnia lif"-cycle tatsofwater 

### from 

### LakeRcality outfall 

### and McCoy Branch at

### MCK 1.92


## .................. 3-9 3-6 

### Mcans of

### pH, conductivity,alkalinity, and hardness for daily grab samples 

### ofwater 

### fromMcCi~y Branch at

### MCK 1-92?


## .......................... 3-12 

### 3-7 Means 

### ofnitrate, phosphate, 

### and sulfate concentrations

### in dailydrab samples 

### ofwater 

### from McCoy Branch at 

### MCK 1.92and the 

### springnear 

### the base 

### ofthe 

### ash pond dam


## ....................................... 3-13
3-8 

### Means of

### pH, conductivity,alkalinity, and hardness for daily grab 

### samples of water from McCoy Branch at 

### MCK 1.60 (July 30-August 

### 5, 1990) and the springat thebase of the 

### ash 

### pnddarn (April 

### !5-11,1990)


# ............... 3-15
4-1 Concentrations 

### ofmetals in individual

### fish collected

### in Rogcrs Quarry, 

### McCoy Branch 

### ernbaymcnt, and 

### a referensstream, 

### Hinds 

### Creek, July ......................................................... 4-3 4-2 Mctal wncentralions 

### in largemouth bass 

### (Mitenu sa-) 

### from Rogers Quarry and 

### McCoyBranch embayment 

### and sunfish 

### (Lepmkaurihts andL. macrochliius)

### from Hinds Creek, a reference stream 

## .............. 4-4

vii

### LIST OFTAIBLES (Continu Tablc



### 4-3 Concentrations

### ofchlorinatedpesticides and PCBs 

### in fish 

### from 

### Rogers Quarry, and Hinds 

### CreekJuly 1990


## ................................ 4-8 5-1 

### Length, meanwidth, mean depth, area, and pool-riEfle mtio of 

### sampling sites 

### on McCoy Branch and two referencc:stream, 

### Grassy

### Creek and White 

### Oak 

### Creek,for each 

### samplingdate



## ............. 5-3 5-2 Fish densities

### in McCoy Branch and in two reference stram 

### Creck and Grassy

### Creek,for April-May 

### 1989toApril-May 

### 1
5-3 Fish biomass 

### in McCoy Branch and 

### in two referencestream, 

### White Oak 

### Creek and Gray

### Creek, for April-May 1 to Apd-May 1



## ......... 5-7
6-1 

### Mean annual density, biomass, taxonomic richness, Ephemeroptcra, Plecoptera, and Trichopterarichncs, and diversity ofbenthic, macroinvertebratesin McCoy Branch and White Oak 

### Crexk, April 1989 toJanuary 1990



### ..................................... 6-4 

### 62 Statistical comparisonsof manannual benthic macroinvertebrate density, biomass, taxonomic richness, Ephemeroptera, Platoptera, and Trichoptera richness, and 

### species diversity in McCoy Branch and the referencc strcam, White Oak 

### Creek



### ......................... 6-5



### ... VlllACRONYMS AA 

### ACD ANOVA BMAP CPI 

### DDE DDT DEM 

### DO DOE EFK EWC EPA 

### EPT 

### ES ESD 

### FDA G GCK GCECD 

### GC/MS HESA HSRD 

### LCT LOEC 

### LR-0 MAF MCK 

### NOEC NPDES 

### ORNL ORR PAH P/B PCB 

### PGV PPM QA RCRA RFI RQ 

### SD SE 

### TDC TL TRC Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy Analytical Chemistry Division Analysis 

### ofVariation Biological Monitoring and Abatement Program Cohort production interval 

### dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene dichlorodip henyltrichloroethane Department 

### of Environmental Management Dissolved oxygen Department 

### of Energy East Fork Poplar Creek kilometer East Fork Poplar Creek US.Environmental Protection Agency Ephemeroptera,Plecoptera, and Trichoptera richness Emission Spectroscopy Environmental Sciences Division, ORNL 

### U.S. Food and Drug Administration Value derived from a median test for multiple samples Grassy Creek kilometer Gas chromatography/electron capture detector Gas chromatography/rnass spectrophotometry Department 

### of Health, 

### Safety, and Environmental Affairs 

### Health and Safety Research Division Life-Cycle Test Lowest observed-effect levcl 

### Lake Reality outfall Mean annual flow McCoy Branch kilometer 

### No observed-effectconcentration National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

### Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak 

### Ridge Reservation Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Productionlbiomass Polychlorinatedbiphenyl Preliminary guidancevalues Parts per million Quality Assurance Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct RCRAFacilities Investigation Rogers Quarry Standard deviation Standard error Tennessee Department of Conservation Total length Total rcsidual 

### chlorinc


### ix

### TRE Toxicity reduction evaluation TSCA Toxic Substances Control

### Act TSS Total suspended solids 

### TVA Tennessee Valley Authority 

### WCK White Oak Creek kilometer WQC White 

### Oak Creek

XWe thank 

### D. K. 

### Cox,W. 

### C.Kyker, 

### L. M. Stubbs, W. M. Harris, 

### B. 

### A. Carrico, 

### E. M. Schilling,

### R. D. Bailey, P. W. Braden, 

### L. 

### S. Ewald, 

### L. A. Kszos, G. 

### P. Morris, and 

### L. 

### E Wicker 

### €ortheir assistance in the laboratory and/or field. 

### We thank 

### M. Maskarinec, N. 

### M. Ferguson, and other staff of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Analytical Chemistry Division for sample analysis. We thank 

### B. 

### F. Clark, 

### W. 

### D. Dickinson, A. W. McWhorter, and J. A. Wojtowicz for processing the benthic macroinvertebrate samples. We are grateful to 

### W. 

### R. Hill 

### of

### The University

### of Tennessee, Steve Walker of the 

### Y-12Plant, and 

### R. R. Turner 

### of ESD who 

### reviewed an earlier draft 

### ofthis report and provided many helpful comments. This work was funded by the 

### Y-12Plant Environmental Restoration Program. The 

### Y-12 Plant and 

### Oak Ridge National Laboratory are managed by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., undcr contract DE-AC05-840R2140Q with the 

### U.S. Department 

### of Energy.

xi

### The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the 

### Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) required assessment 

### of all current and former solid waste management units. Such 

### a RCRA Facility Investigation 

### (RFI) was required 

### of the

### Y-12 Plant 

### for their Filled Coal Ash Pond onMcCoy Branch. Because the disposal 

### or coal 

### ash in the ash pond, McCoy Branch, and Rogers 

### Quarry was not consistentwith the Tennessee Water Quality Act, several remediation stepswere implemented 

### or planned 

### for McCoy Branch to address disposal problems. 

### The McCoy Branch 

### RFI plan included provisions for biological monitoring 

### ofthe McCoy Branch watershed. The objectives 

### of thebiological monitoringwere to: 

### (1) document changes in biological quality 

### of McCoy Branch after completion 

### ofa pipeline and after termination of all discharges to Rogers Quarry, 

### (2) provide guidance 

### on the need 

### for additional remediation, and 

### (3) evaluate the effectiveness

### of implemented remedial actions. 

### The data 

### from the biological monitoring program 

### will also determineif the classified uses, 

### as identified by the State 

### of Tennessee, 

### of McCoy Branch 

### arebeing protected and maintained.



### BACKGROUND
In connectionwith the coal ash disposal, McCoy Branch has been segmented into four basic areas: (1) the hcadwater sections

### of McCoy Branch and 

### a large coal ash pond created 

### by a 19-mearthen dam; 

### (2) a section of frec-flowing stream that 

### flows from under the dam into Rogers Quarry; 

### (3)Rogers Quarry, a deep, steep-sided 

### lake; and (4) a section 

### of free-flowing stream that flows from Rogers Quarry into Mclton 

### Hill Reservoir, with an associated cmbaymeiit area. Prior to May 

### 1990,the major source

### ofwater 

### for McCoy Branch was the coal-ash slurry pumped 

### from the 

### Y-12 Steam Plant. Initially (1955), the slurry was piped to the upper rcaches and was contained behind the earthen dam. 

### As the area behind the dam filled in 

### (1%5), the slurry was transferred by overflow to Rogers Quarry; at first through McCoy Branch and then in 

### 1989 via 

### a pipeline. Four measures were initiated in 

### 19% to reduce thcvolume 

### of coal ash discharged to 

### Rogers Quarry: 

### (1) the Y-12 Steam Plant switched to a higher grade 

### ofwashed coal; (2) the Steam Plant was converted to use natural 

### gas as theprimary fuel type in the winter of 

### 1988; (3) a dry ash handling 

### system was installed to collcct 

### fly ash in May 1990,after which, 

### fly ash was no longer discharged to Rogers Quarry;and (4) the Steam Plant is scheduled to install a bottom ash dewatering system 

### in 1993, at which time all discharges to Rogers Quarry will cease. 

### .

WATER 

### QUALITY
In 1986, coal ash slurry discharged from the Y-12 Steam Plant wds found to contain elevated amounts of aluminum, barium, hron,calcium, iron, magnesium, sodium, arsenic, strontium,potassium, total suspended solids, total phosphorous, sulfide, and 

### sulfatewhen compared to background water concentrations. 

### A comparison 

### of water quality data from



### ... XI11Rogers Quarry to data for the effluents from 

### 14 ash ponds associated with 

### WA coal-fired power plants revealed that Rogers Quarry effluent was similar to effluent from other coal ash disposal ponds in the Tennessee Valley. Water quality data collected from a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System site below Rogers Quarry show a decrease in mean weekly levels of sulfate, arsenic, and selenium after the

### Y-12 Steam Plant converted from coal to natural gas as the primary fuel source.



### Theresults ofthetoxicity tests ofwater from McCoy Branch did not showmuch evidence for toxic conditions in this stream. In 7-d laboratory tests, survival and growth of fathead minnow larvae and survival and fecundity of 

### C'eriodaphnin were generally high, although a few exceptionsto this trend were evident. Similarly, in full life-cycle tests, 

### Ceiioduphniu had significantly fewer broods and a slightly lower mean daily fecundity in McCoy Branch water than they did in the controls, but thenumber of neonates per brood tended to be greater than that in controls. Thus, the net effect of McCoy Branch water on 

### Cen'odnphnia fecunditywas small. 

### In the in situ tests, snails apparently experienced more stress in McCoy Branch at McCoy Branch kilometer 

### (MCK) 1.60(below 

### Rogers Quarry) than they did at either MCK 

### 1.92(above Rogers Quarry) or at White Oak Creek kilometer (WCK) 6.3 (reference stream). At 

### MCK 1.60,the net movement 

### of snails was downstream; whcreas, the net movement of the snails at the nther two siteswas upstream. Typically, upstream movement of snails occurs in noncontaminate streams, and thenet movement is downstream in contaminated streams. Snails may actively move downstream as an escapebehavior or may be passively transported downstream by flow. In 7-d laboratory tests, snails consumed less food when testcd in water from McCoy Branch at MCK 1.60 than they did in water from either 

### MCK 1.92or WCK 6.3,but this difference was not statistically significant. The results 

### of associated chemical analyses also suggest the stream 

### is riot highly perturbed.

BIOACCUMULATION

## srmm Concentrations of selenium, arsenic, and possibly thallium areelevated in 

### largemouth bass from Rogers Quarry relative tobass from Melton Hill ResenToir and sunfish from Hinds Creek. Imelsof selenium and possibly arsenic appeared to be elevated above background in bass from McCoy Branch embaymentof Melton 

### Hill Reservoir. Only arsenic exceeds conservatively based screening criteria; however, virtually all biological materials excecd this criterion for arsenic. Cessation of inputs 

### of 

### fly ash to the system, coupled with the rapid biological turnover 

### of selenium and arsenic, should result in continuing decreases in concentrations **of** these elements 

### In 

### fish. 

### Thevery low concentrations of mercury in fish from Rogers Quarry are consistent with findings of other research on interaction between selenium and thebioaccumulation of mercury, and suggest research arcas for possible remediation of local mercury-contaminated systems. Some fish from Rogers Quarry had deformedbony structures. 'I'hese effectswere not described in literature on effects of selenium or arsenic; although the age of the fish indicated they were exposed in the period of higher concentrations. Bioaccumulation of organic:contaminantswas not indicated in the McCoy Branch discharge.
xivThe fish community 

### ofMcCoy Branch was evaluatedusing qualitative samples above 

### Rogers Quarry and quantitativesamples below Rogers Quarry at 

### MCK 

### 1.56. Electrofishing sampleswere made in May 

### 1989, October 1989, and May 1990 to provide population estimates. Results from the fish assessments indicate that McCoy Branch was undcr severe stress. 

### No IisR populations wcre found above the quarry. 

### This suggests past ash disposal practices were lethal to fish; current conditions could not 

### be evaluated because repopulation ofthis section 

### of

### McCoy Branch is prevented by Rogers Quarry. 

### The community below Rogers Quarry, although permanent, appears stressed and greatly influenced 

### by the proximity 

### to Melton 

### Hill Reservoir, 

### The species composition 

### is not typical for a small stream, and those speciesthat Inhabit the stream aregeneralty more tolerant of degraded conditions. Additionally, abnormalities

### such as deformed heads and eroded 

### fins that are typically infrequent in a normal stream population occur in 

### a substantial percentage 

### of the sunfish population. These dcformities are the sametypes that were reported by thebioaccumulation studies.

The structure and composition of thebenthic macroinvertebrate community in McCoy Branch arc indicative of moderate strcss, 

### Maximum impact within this stream occurs upstream of 

### Rogers substantial incrcaseswere Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and 'I'richoptcra 

### (EPT) richness during 

### the October and January samplingperiods compared with 

### April and July 

### sampling, which suggests water quality improvement, but may also rctlech seasonal impacts. 

### Rogers Quarry acts as a settlingbasin for coal ash and rcduccs the impact 

### of ash osition on the benthic community downstream of 

### the quarry. Although 

### Rogers rry appears 

### to reduce these impacts, it 

### may also alter 

### the physical and chemical cazviroiiincjnt downstream,which in turn alters the invertebrate community. 

### Some improvement 

### in water quality was evident downstream 

### of thc quarry, as demonstrated

### by significantly fiighcr density 

### and biomass at MCK 

### 1.40. Howcver, taxonomic 

### richncss, 

### EPT richness, and diversity were significan

### tly lower at 

### this site, cornparcd to the reference site, indicating that the invertebrate community was impacted. The 

### benthic community at 

### MCK 1.40 did not exhibit the temporal increases 

### in density, biomass, 

### or taxommic and 

### EFT richness 

### shown by 

### MCK 2.03, indicating this community is not experiencingsimilar changes inwater quality. Thc stress on thc benthic macroiiivcrtehrate community 

### in McCoy Branch appears to 

### be habitat alteration as a result of ash deposition within the stream channel and possibly leaching of potential toxicants (e.g., arsenic and selenium) from the ash. As stresses to 

### McCoy Branch are further reduced or eliminated, a steadyrecovery 

### of thebenthic fauna at 

### MCK 2-03should occur;howevcr, thc rccovcry at 

### MCK 2.03 

### may be slowed by the loss arry as 

### is excrnplified by MCK 

### 2.03. At 

### MCK 2.03, wed in density, biomass, taxonomic richness, and



### of supplemental flow to McCoy Branch.

xvQuarterly ambient toxicity tests will continue at MCK 1.60 and MCK 

### 1.92 to monitor changes in water quality. Snail release studies areplanned to determinewhether snails can survive and 

### grow in upper McCoy Branch. Largemouthbass from 

### Rogcrs Quarry and McCoy Branch embaymcnt will be sampled and analyzed to determinewhether metal concentrations decrease as expected. 

### A more detailed investigation 

### ofbony structure deformities

### will also be conducted. Fish populationswill 

### be surveyed at MCK 

### 1-56twice a year,with qualitative surveys conducted annually in upper McCoy Branch. An additional reference sitewill be added for comparison with the 

### fish community data and additional qualitative surveyswill be made to assess immigration potential. Long-term plans will be made to reintroduce fish into upper McCoy Branch. Benthic communitieswill continue to be sampled quarterly at the current sites, and an additionalreference sitewill be added to evaluate differences related to the absence or presence of snails.

xvi1. 

### ON

The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendmcnts to the Resource Conservation and 

### RecoveryAct 

### (RCRA) required assessment of 

### all current and former solid waste management units. Such an asscssment 

### car 

### RC Facility Investigation 

### (RFI) was required 

### of the Y-12 Plant for their 

### Filled 

### Co h Pond (Murphy 

### 1988). TheFilled Coal 

### Ash Pond (referred to 

### as thc "ash pond" 

### in this report) 

### was constructed 

### in the 

### 1950s 

### on thcupper portion 

### of the McCoy Branch watershed. 

### It received coal ash through 

### a pipeline in 

### a slurry from the coal-fired steamplant at Y-12. Because disposal 

### ofcoal 

### ash in the ash pond, and later 

### In McCoy Branch 

### and 

### Rogcrs Quarry, was not consistent with the Tennessee Water QualityAct, several 

### rernedi Rogers Quarry) were implemented or planned 

### fo problems. Thc initial 

### RFI plan examined the as disposal concerns. An expanded 

### RRplan was also written to assess remediation in McCoy Branch and some downstream components

### of this waste management unit (e.g., 

### Rogers Quarry) (Murphy and bar 1988). 

### n steps 

### (e.g.,extending pipeline to 

### Coy Branch to address disposal

(Murphy 11988) and associated

TheMcCoy Branch 

### RH plan included provisions 

### forbiological monitoring 

### ofthe McCoy Branch watershed. 

### The objectives of thebiological monitoringwere to: "(

### 1)documcnt the degree 

### of ini~r~vcm~nt 

### in biological quality of McCoy Branch after completion 

### of thc pipeline and after a18 ash discharges to Rogcrs Quarry are terminated; 

### (2) provide guidance 

### on the need 

### for additionalre~e~iat~on~ and (3) evaluate 

### the effectivenessof the remedial aciions that arc implemented. Thedata 

### from thebiological monitoring program 

### will also be sufficicntto determine 

### if thc classified uses 

### of McCoy Branch, 

### as identified in the State ofTennessee Water Quality Management 

### Plan for the Clinch River Basin 

### (TDPN 1978),are bcing adequatelyprotccted and maintained" (Murphy and 

### Loar 1988). 

### The overall strategy 

### for the biological assessment was based 

### on four considerations: (1)Because remediation efforts are phased tem~o~al~y, 

### the biological monitoring would also 

### bc implemented 

### in stageswith increascd monitoring as the system recovered. 

### (2) The size 

### ofthe stream restricted the applicaticsn 

### of assessment techniques to ccrtain areas. (3) The fauna of McCoy Branch 

### appearcd dcpauperate;thcrcfore, somcconstraintswerc necessary on the paranieters 

### tobe mieasured, and the need was recognized 

### for a limited number 

### of reference sitcs. and (4) Because the time framc for rcaching hydrologic equilibrium following renxcdiation 

### is unhmw11, thebiological monitoring must consider changes in hydrologic regime and improvement 

### in water quality (Murphy and 

### bar1988). Therefore,to address these coiisiderations, thebiological monitoring 

### applied to McCoy Branch consisted 

### of an integrated multitiered program. 

### The program included four primary task: (1) toxicity monitoring, 

### (2) bioaccumulation assessments, (3) 

### Gsti community assessments, and 

### (4)benthic 

### community assessments. The initial results of these four task?;arc prcscnted in this report. Thc results focus on theperiod from 1989to 1 presented. 

### ,hut some previous data from 1974to 1989 are also

### 2 DES ON OF 

### Y BRANCH 

### WATERSHED

TheMcCoy Branch watershed is located south ofthe 

### Y-12Plant 

### (Fig.2-1) within the Department of Energy’s 

### (DOE) Oak Ridge Reservation 

### (ORR). The 

### ORR is located in the Valley and Ridge physiographic province, which is characterized by southwestnortheast oriented, parallel 

### ridgesof sandstone,shale, and cherty dolomite, separatcdby valleys 

### of 

### less resistant limestone and shale ~~urphy 1938). 

### The watershed drains Fanny’s 

### Knob 

### on the southern 

### slope of Chestnut Reservoir. Land use in thewatershed includes grass covered slopes and fields, selected marshy pockets 

### in the floodplain, agricultural buildings, roads, and heavily forested slopes. idge and supplicswater 

### to Melton 

### Hill

The easternbranch 

### of McCoy Branch 

### has been extcnsively modified 

### for coal 

### ash disposal purposes. 

### (This report 

### will deal 

### only with the eastern branch.) 

### In connectionwith the coal ash disposal, McCoy Branch 

### (Fig. 2-2) has been segmented into 

### four basic areas 

### (1)the headwater sections 

### of McCoy Branch and 

### a large 

### coal Wed ash pond created by a 

### 19-m high carthen dam; (2) a section 

### of free-flowing stream that 

### flows from under the dam into Rogers Quarry and that, after rain, is supplementedby flow over the top of the dam; (3) Rogers Quarry, a deep, stccp-sided lake; and 

### (4)a section 

### of free-flowing stream that flows from 

### Rogers Quarry into 

### ill Reservoir, wit an associated embayment area. Thewestern branch 

### of McCoy Branch also enters this cmbayment. Thcheadwaters of discharge (Turner et al, 

### Y-12 to the ash pond 

### is located betwccn thesc t these three sources combined in the ash pond, early years 

### of disposal. 

### The cban surface

### of the ash to 

### the earthen reached the dam and were transported downstream

### via the overflow spillway on the eastern 

### sidc of the dam. 

### Coy Branch consist of two intcrmittent 

### streamswith minimal 

## 1. A large 

### pipe that was used io transfer coal ash slurry from treams. 

### In the past, the flow from

contains the ash 

### slurry from thc 

### B in the 

### pond was shallow and meandered 

### over the m. During ash sluicing and high storm runoff, flows

Water in McCoy 

### Branch below the darn dcrives piimarily from sevcral large springs. The spring at thebase of the dam is headyvegetated and is fed by groundwater discharges. From the darn the stream 

### ilows 

### a ~r~~i~~a~~~y 0.9 km to Rogers Quarry and is typically narrow (about 

### 0.5 to 2.0 m in width) nd fast-flowing, consisting 

### of a series 

### of runs and riffles. Just above Rogers uarry lies a marshy 

### area with a large springbetween McCoy Branch (tu the east) 

### and thc municipal sludgc farm to the west. 

### This is whcre McCoy Branch flowed bcfore being diverted to fill.Rogers Quarry (Murphy and bar 1988). 

### Rogers Quarry 

### is a 4-hectare lake locatcd about 

### midway in McCoy Branch. It was used as a source of stone in thc 194 in the 1950s (Boglc and 

### Turncr 1989). After Icaving 

### Rogcrs Quarry the stream 

### flows through BethelValley, to the McCoy Branch Embaymen1

### on the Melton Hill Reservoir. The stream below the quarry is heavily vegetated and also receives flow from 

### several spring-fcd tributaries. and was abandonedwhen it began to fill with water

### 2-3

ORNL DWG 91M-109



### Fig. 2-2. 

### Map of 

### the McCoy

### Branch showing 

### the primary features 

### and monitoring sites.

### 2-4
McCoy Branch is geographically separated from the 

### Y-12 Plant by Chestnut Ridge. Thedistance from the ash slurry pipe on top 

### of the ridge to the discharge into Melton Hill Reservoir is approximately 1.5 km. 

### The elevation at the ash slurry pipe at the top 

### of the ridgc 

### is about 

### 335 m; elevation at the point whcrc McCoy Branch discharges into Melton Hill Reservoir isapproximately 244 

### m. The watershed has a drainage area 

### of about 

### 148 hectarcs above Rogers Quarry, 63 ha of which lie above the earthen dam located in the headwaters.

2.1 

### GEOHYDROIDGY McCoy Branch is underfainby the Knox group, a highly crystalline dolomite interbedded with shale and qudstonebeds, a few veiy thin sandstone beds, aphanitic limestone lenses, numerous calcite and quartzfilled fractures and cavities, and chertbeds and nodules (Murphy 

### 1988). Ketelle and Huff 

### (1984) found that water movemcnt inthe bedrock of the Knox Group on Chestnut Ridge 

### is controlled by the location and orientation of the cavities. Primary orientation of cavity systems arecontrolled by thc local bedding Orientation and orientation ofpenetrativejoints and fractures, which are widened by dissolution. The actual groundwater flow paths in thcbedrock areexpected to resemble trellis drainage patterns, flowing parallel to strike and diverted by shorter crossstrikechannels to other strike-controlled zones or ernanated in surface streams. Within both the soil and bedrock aquifers, flow is from the higher topographic areastoward the lower areas,with gradients indicating flow toward the nearest perennial surface water features (Ketelle and Huff 

### 1984;Murphy 

### 19%). The major source

### ofwater for the upstream reach 

### of McCoy Branch is spring flow and precipitation. Craig and Tschantz 

### (1986) estimated the combined base flow 

### of these springs to be in the range 

### of 0.42-0.53 million liters per day. 

### For a more comprehensive characterization of the geology and hydrology of the ash pond seeMurphy 

### (1988),Joncs and Mishu 

### (1986),and Turner et a]. 

### (1986).

2.2 

### WATER 

### QUALITY
Water quality 

### of McCoy Branch has been primarily affected by coal ash discharge. The ash sluice water was enriched with total suspended solids, sulfates, phosphorous, and various metals (Turner et 

### al. 1986). Sluicing of the ash was intermittent,with seasonal variation in the amount of ash discharged from about 

### 0.76million liters 

### per day in summer to 3.8 million liters per day in winter (Murphy 

### 1988;Rogle and Turner 

### 1989).
2.2.1 Description and History

### ofDischarges to McCoy Branch and Rogers Quarry Prior to May 

### 19W, the major source ofwater for McCoy Branch was the coal-ash slurry pumped from the, 

### Y-12 Steam Plant. The Steam Plant,built in 

### 1954,has undergone several renovations and upgrades including conversion to a baghouse-type fly ash collection system in 1985 (Turner et al. 

### 1986). The plant consists of four boiler units that 

### used pulverized coal 

### as the sole fuel source from 

### 1954 to 1988. In the winter 

### of 1988,the plant was converted to use natural gas as the primary fuel source and coal 

### as a secondarysource. When burning coal, thc steam plant produces 

### two types 

### of ash. Historically, 

### fly ash (dry ash) generated at the 

### Y-12 Steam Plantwas removed by a wet collection system, and bottom ash (ash collected 

### from the bottom 

### of

### the boiler in wet form)was removed by high pressurewaterjets. The ash was then 

### sluiced (pumped) in series: first.the fly ash and then the bottom ash, as a slurry over the crest 

### of Chestnut Ridge. 

### Gravity flow carried the effluent to the ash pond, a broad earthenretention basin 

### of about 8 hectares, which provided sedimentation for the ash 

### slurrybefore discharge into McCoy Branch (Turner et al. 

### 1986;

### M. A. Kane, 

### Y-12Plant, personal communication). 

### Tfne pond was expected to hold 

### 20 years 

### ofY-12 Steam Plant 

### ash, but was filled towithin almost 1m 

### of the 

### top of the dam by July 1967 ~~urphy 

### 1988). Subsequently,flow 

### from McCoy Branch was used to channel the slurry to

### Rogers Quarry. 

### Since 1962,

### Rogers Quarryhas been used for the disposal of ash 

### slurry from the 

### Y-12Plant. However, between 1965 and 

### 1981 the quarrywas also used 

### for the disposal ofweapons related and classified 

### items (Table 

### 5 in McCauley 1986;

### Bogle and Turner 29139). 

### For a wmpktedescription 

### of Rogers Quarry seeBogle and Turner 

### (1989). In November 1989, ash slurry dischargeto the uppcr reaches 

### of McCoy Branch was tcrminatcd 

### by cxtending thepipeline directly to Rogers Quarry, which has an estimated 

### life expectancy 

### for ash disposal 

### of 

### 65 to 11

### 5 years (Murphy 

### 19%;M. 

### A. Kane, 

### Y-12 Plant, personal communication). Discharges into McCoy Branch and uarry are in violation 

### of thc Tennessee Water Quality Act. Several interim actions have takcn place, or are anticipated, to assure complianceby July 3, 1993,when all discharges to Rogers Quarry must be terminated (Murphy and 

### Imir 2988). Four measureswere initiated 

### in 19%;to reduce thevolume 

### of coal ash discharged to Rogcrs Quarry. (1)The "-12 Stearn Plant switched to 

### a higher grade 

### ofwashed coal, increasing efficiency and decreasing the total volume 

### of coal utilized in 

### 19%. (2) 

### The StcamPlant was ccmverted in the winter of 1988to use natural gas as the primaiy fuel type. 

### The targeted yearly ratio 

### of energy derived from gas compared to that from coal is approximately 

### 5 to 1,with a highcr percentage of coalbeing used in winter months. (3)A dry vacuum systcm was installed in May 

### 1990to collect dry 

### fly ash. Fly ash 

### is now put in 

### a landfill, and all 

### fly ash sluice watcr discharge to 

### Rogek Quarry has been terminated. 

### (4) Present discharges to 

### Rogers Quarry include only bottom 

### ash sluice water and steam plant washdown bottom ash dewatering system in washdown water will be processed through the Stcam Plant's wastewater treatmcnt facility. r. 

### The Y-12 Steam Plant is scheduled 

### Lo install a

at which time bottom ash will be landfilled and

2.2.2 

### Characterization

### of the Cantaminant 

### Source
In a study by 

### Bulliam (198Sa,b)watcr upstream from Rogers Quarryhad higher levels or most metals than did water samples taken downstream of Rogers Quarry (Appendix A, Table A-1). These 

### data were supprtcd by results 

### in 

### ERDA 1975 (Appendix A, Table 

### A-2). In a study by Turner et 

### al. (1986),coal ash sluicc water discharged from thc 

### Y-12 Steam Plant was found to contain elevated amounts 

## bf aluminum, barium, boron, calcium, iron, magnesium, sodium, arsenic, strontium, potassium, total suspended solids, total phosphorous, sulfide, and sulfatewhen cnmparcd to background water concentrations (Appendix A, Tables A-3, A-4, A-5, and 

### A-6). Turner et 

### al. (1986) also noted that the filled ash pond providcd little or no treatment, did nut remove suspendcd solids, and the flow of McCoy Branch was so small that it was incapableOC providing appreciable dilution to the ash sluice water. Turner et al. (1986) also compared waterquality data from Rogers Quarry to data for the effluents from 14 ask ponds associated with Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) coal-fired power plants. 

### The comparison revealed that Rogers Quarry effluent was similar to effluent 

### from other ash disposal 

### ponds in the Tennessee Valley. Notable differences included higher concentrations 

### of total phosphorous and arsenic-,, and lower concentrations 

### of aluniinurn and iron, than 

### in effluent from the 'l"V.4 ash ponds. Turner et al. (1 compounds were below analytical detection limits 

### in all samples. ) also reported that nearly 

### all organic

AT part of the recent 

### RFI for McCoy Branch, more surface water quality data were taken from McCoy Branch during dry weather 

### (July 30, 1990) and duringwet weather (after 

### a 4.5-cm rain event) on October 8, 1990 (Appendix A, Tables 

### A-7 to A-13). Underboth conditions, lower levels of sulfate, selenium, and arsenic were seen 

### in comparisonwith historical watea quality data measured when the slurry was being discharged toupper McCoy Branch. More substantial decreascswere seen in levels 

### of suspended solids and lead, but increased levels 

### of magnesium arid potassium were also noted. Values for most volatile and semivolatile organic compounds in surface water were below detection limits.
Water quality data collected from a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) site below Rogers Quarry (Outfall 302) show 

### a decrease in mean weekly levels 

### of sulfate, arsenic, and selenium (Table 

### 2-1 and Figures 

### 2-3, 2-4, and 

### 2-5) after the

### Y-12 Steam Plant coriverted from coal to natural gas as the primary fuel source 

### (R. R. Turner, Environmental Sciences Division, QRNL, personal communication). At the time of publication, tlicrc are nowater quality data availablc for current ash sluice discharges into Rogers Quarry. Recent data collected by the Off-site Environmental Restoration Program indicate a peak in arsenic levels below thedischarge from Rogers Quarry and exhibit a dilution effect downstream in McCoy Branch embaymcnt (Table 

### 2-2).
2-23 Temprature Temperature data for McCoy Branch before December 1989 arelimited. Turner et al. (1986) reported that ash sluicing did not appear to affect temperatures in McCoy Branch,presumably because untreated (except for chlorination) Clinch River watch was used for sluicing. Current temperature data show little difference between temperatures in McCoy 'Branch above Rogers Quarry, 

### upper White Oak Creek (WOC), arid upper Fifth Creek (Table A-14 and Figure 2-6). Meanweekly temperatures in McCoy Branch below Rogers Quarry arc similar to rcfcrence streams in winter but up to 

### 10°Chigher in summer months. Elevated summer temperatures may be explaincd by thermal layering in, and epilimnetic discharges from, Rogers Quarry.

Ash deposits, which occurred when the crcck's flow overtopped its banks, vary greatly along the stream. In a preliminary study, Murphy (1988) found that immediately downstream of the ash pond darn, the deposits cover the entirc valley through which McCoy Branch flows. Further downstream,the deposits are limited to no 

### more than a couple of rnetcrs horizontally from the edge of the creek.

### Table 2-1. 

### Mean (standard emr)

### for selected National Pollutant

### DischargeElimination Systemwater 

### qualityparameters 

### for Outfall 

### 302 for 1986 to 

### 1990 (data 

### for 1990

### through

### week

### 26)”

Arsenic (mgiL) Flow (Us) 

### Iron (m&m 

### PH (pH units) Selenium 

# @wv
(mgiz) (mi$? Sulfate

Total Suspended Solids 

## p& 0.21 (0.007)



### 55.2 (8-5) (0.33) 

## (OW (0.002) 

### (12.5)



### 0.48

8.4

0.019

90.9



### 4.5 (0.36) 

### 1987 0.26 

# - (0.007)



### (3.7) (0.01 

### j 

## as 38.2

0.13



### (0.07) 0.025 

### (0.0008)

75.8 (1.2)



### 4.4 (0.59) 

# - 1988 0.19 

### (0.006)



### 33.9 (3.0) 

### 0.13 (0.02)

8.1 (0.07) 0.02 (0.001)



### (6.3) (0.43) 

### 92.0



### 3.6 

# - 1989 0.07 (0.006)



### (5.3 

### j 46.6

0.14 

### (0.04)

8.3 (0.07) 0.006 (0.W)

(2.5) 

### 50.6

4.4 

### (0.78) 

# - 1990 0.04 (0.003)

43.1 

### (6.1) 

### (0.02)
(0.06) 

### (O.oOO2)



### (0.9) (0.28)

0.10

8.3 

# z 0.004



### 32.3

3.3

?Data arederived 

### from mean weekly values. 

### Source:R. R. Turner, Environmental Sciences Division, 

### ORNL, personal communication.

### t

# 0.4



# 0.3



# 0.2

0.1



# 0-0 

# ORNL-DWGB1- 17422 

# i

1986 

## 19137 1988 

# YEAR 1989 1990

Fig- 2-4. 

### Mean

### weekly values 

### for arsenic 

### in thewater 

### from 

### McCoyBranch at Outfall

### 302,

### bekrw Rogers Quarry,

### hm 1986 to 1990. 

### Source: R. R. Turner,Environmental Sciences

### Division, 

### Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

### personal communication.

## 3

0.01



## 1

### 2-11



### Table2-2. Arsenic 

### levels 

### io McCoyBranch on 

### March 

### 15,lW Station Location Total

### As (Pa) MCK 1.92 

### Weir above Rogers Quarry 2.9 MCK 1.71 

### Below 

### Rogers Quarry 29.5 MCK 0.69 

### Upstream ofculvert 

### 5.3 MCK 0.65 

### Downstream of 

### culvert 1.2 

### MCK 0.30 

### McCoy Branch Embayment 0.05
Wata collected by the Off-site Environmental Restoration Program, Clinch River Remedial Investigation. Source: 

### James 

### T. Byrd, SkidwayInstitute of 

### Oceanography, Savannah Georgia, personal communication.0 U


# 2

1
E 

## 1



# 5

### 2-13



### Sediment analysis for McCoy Branch from 1974to 1975 

### (ERDA 1975) showed elevated levels of 

### some metals (Appendix A, 

### Table A-15). In accordance with the RCRA Facilities Investigation 

### (RFI), an assessment is 

### being conducted of the impact that coal ash deposits may have had in the area immediately adjacent toMcCoy Branch (Murphy 1988). 

### Phase 

### I ofthe assessment will 

### be to 

### determine the extent, both horizontal and vertical, 

### of coal ash deposits in the McCoy Branch floodplain from thepoint 

### ofdischarge at the dam to thepoint 

### ofdischarge ofMcCoy Branch into Rogers Quarry. Phase 

### If will include samplingthe ash and underlying soil to determine theextent contaminants from thecoal may have migrated into the soil. For a 

### more detailed description of

### themethodology 

### for the sediment analysis

### see Murphy (1988). 

### Initial analyses 

### ofthese ash and sediment samples collected during 1990

### from McCoy Branch show elevated levels of 

### Cd, Mn, 

### Ba, 

### Ca, 

### Fe, 

### K, Mg, Na, and Ni (Appendix A, 

### Tables A-16 and A-17) compared to data collected in 1974-1985 

### (Table A-15). The 

### only analyzed elements occasionally falling below detection limits were niobium and selenium. Levels of 

### oil and greasewere 

### ~0.1% for all 

### sediment sites. Lcvels of 

### radioactivity for each site arc given in Appendix A, Table A-18. Coal ashes typically exhibit leachability 

### of 

### ash constituents. Groundwater may be a receptor of contaminants from the 

### coal 

### ash disposal system and may act as a pathway for contamination migration near the 

### Y-12 Plant (Murphy 1988). Groundwater sampled in October 1987,February 

### 1988,May 1988

### (Murphy 1988,

### Table 

### 7-l),and October 1990 (Appendix A, Tables A-19 

### and A-20) 

### showed 

### no evidence 

### of contamination above regulatory standards or above expected background.3. 

### TOXICITYMONITORING
Biological tests can be used reliably to detect water quality problems that may not be evident with routine chemical analyses. 

### For this reason and because remedial actions are driven ultimately by the need to protect living organisms and ecological processes 

### from hazardous chemicals, biological tests are gaining acceptance 

### for making regulatory decisions about water quality and environmental remediation. 

### To obtain data 

### for such decisions, bioassays were used periodically to assaswater from three sites in McCoy Branch. 

### Four types 

### ofbiologica! tests were used: 

### (1) a series 

### of 7-d tests with fish larvae (the fathead minnow;

### Pimephalespromelas)and 

### a microcrustacean 

### (Ceriodaphniadubia);

### (2) a 

### full life-cycle test 

### (LCT) with C. 

### dubia;(3) an in situ test with snails 

### (Elimiu

### sp.);and (4) a 

### 74 laboratory test with 

### Elimia sp. The methods used 

### for each 

### of these tests and the sites evaluated with particular tests are described in Sect. 

### 3.1.

3.1 

### MATERIALS

### AND ME'"€IODS 3.1.1 Seven-Day

### ToxicityTests Seven-day tests with fathcad minnow larvae and 

### Ceriodaphnin are 

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

### (EPA) approved, static-renewalbioassays;tests with these 

### two organisms arc commonly used to estimate acute and chronic toxicity 

### of wastewaters and freshwater receiving systcms (Weber et al. 1989). The fathead minnow test estimates toxicityby comparing survival and growth 

### of larval fish in water samples being tested with the survival and growth of larvae in control watcr known to be 

### of high biological quality. Relative 

### to this control, reductions in fish survival

### or growth can be attributed to the presence 

### oftoxicants. 

### The 

### Cetioduphniatest is fundamentally similar lo the fathead minnow test but uses survival and fecundity, rather than survival and growth, as endpoints. Theprocedures used to conduct the 7-d minnow and 

### Ceriodaphnia tests 

### of water 

### from McCoy Branch are given in Stewart et al. 

### (1990) and 

### Kszos and Stewart (1991). This report gives thc results 

### of7-d minnow and 

### Cetiodaphnicr tests 

### for seven test periods; the first period started onJanuary 

### 5, 

### 1989,and the last ended 

### on August 

### 6, 

### 1990. 

### In the first test period, only 

### Ceriodaphninwas tested. In the remaining 

### six test periods, fathcad minnow larvae and 

### Ceriodophnia tests were conducted concurrently. 

### The 7-d minnow and 

### Cer-iod~iphnia tests were used to evaluate water from the outfall 

### of Rogers Quarry 

### (MCK 1.60),at the quarry's inlct 

### (MCK 1.92),and from a spring near the

### base 

### of the ash pond dam. 

### 3.1.2 

### Full Life-Cycle

### Tests The second type 

### ofbioassay consisted 

### of 

### Ceriodaphnia full 

### LCTs. LCTs are considered tobe more sensitive than 7-d tests because they substantiaily extend the exposure period, thereby providing more time for the organisms to accumulate and

### 3-2
respond to materials potentially present in solution. Relative to 7-d tests, 

### Ceridaphnia 

### LCTs arenot used frequently in water quality assessments. 

### LCTs are substantially more intensive and, thus, expensive than the 7-d tests; thcy require 35-40 d for completion and need more replicates (e-g., 50 versus 10) for satisfactory statistical analyscs, 

### The procedures used in the 

### Ceriodaphnia LCTs were identical to those in the 7-d 

### Ceriodaphnia tests, including feeding and daily renewal 

### of test solution. 

### HOW~V~K, the 

### LCTs differed from the 7-d tests in three

### ways: (1)Although water samples were collected fresh daily for the 

### 7-d tests, samples 

### for the 

### 1,C”IT”s were collected 

### on Tuesdays and Fridays. Between collection events, 

### ECTwater sampleswere stored 

### in a refrigerator at 

### 7°C;however, the daily subsampleswere warmed to 25 

# * 1°Cbefore use. 

### (2) 

### LCTs evaluated only full-strength water. Thc 7-d tests, in contrast, employed various concentrations 

### of McCoy Branch water; typically 

### 100, 80, 

### 60,and 40% 

### of 

### full strength (Table 3-1). (3) The

### LCTs used 50 replicate beakers 

### (1neonate per beaker) 

### for each watcr type, but the 7-d tests used only 10replicates per concentration.
An LCT to evaluate water from McCoy Branch at MCK 

### 1.92was started onJuly 28, 1990. Simultaneously, an 

### LCTwas initiated to evaluate water quality from East Fork Poplar Creek at the outfall of Lake Reality 

### (LR-0). Water from 

### LR-o provided 

### a contaminated reference suitable for establishing a contrast with McCoy Branch. ‘4 set 

### of SObeakers containing diluted mineral water was included as a negative control for these two 

### LCTs. The 

### LCTs continued until September

### 5, 1990 (a 

### 404period), when the last animal died. Analysis ofvariance (ANOMA) was used to analyze survival and reproduction data from the LCTs (SAS 1985a,b). Three sites [McCoy Branch at Rogers Quarry inlet (MCK 1.92), East Fork Poplar Creek at 

### LR-0, and controls] yyywere included in the analysis. Seven dependent variables were inspected to determinehow well their variance patterns could be attributed to site. Thevariables were (1) 

### Ceriodayhnia life span (in days); 

### (2)the total number of offspring produced by each animal for all animals that produced any offspring; (3)the numbcr ofbroods produced per female; (4) the mean number of offspring per brood (Lee7 brood 

### size);

### (5) the 

### number of offspring in the largest brood of each female; (6)the brood-to-brood variability (expressed as the coefficient of variation, CV%) in numbers 

### of offspring produced per female; and 

### (7) mean daily fecundity (the total number of offspring produced by 

### a female divided by that female’s reproductive life span). Ceriodnplzniadubia neonates are not reproductively active for the first 3 d of their life. Thus, a female’s reproductive life span was computed by subtracting 3 d from her total life span. 3.1.3 In situ 

### Snail 

### Tats
Prcvious studies have shown that pleurocerid sriails (cg.,

### Ehiaclavaefonnis) tend naturally to move upstream and that this behavior can be significantly affccted by the presence of contaminants (Burris et al, 15VO). Based on these findings, 150 snails 

### (E. clavaefomis)were collected from upper White Oak Creek (WCK 6.3) onJuly 23, 19%. Each animal was marked by placing a dot 

### offingernail 

### polish on the 

### shell. The animals were all of similar size and were acclimated, stepwise, over a 7-d period, from field tcmperature (about 

### 17°C)to testing temperature 

### (25°C)before use. 

### The snails were fed

### Table 3-1. 

### Results 

### of 

### 7-6toxicitytests 

### (fathead minnow

### larvae 

### and Ceriodaphniadubia) 

### ofwater

### from

### McCoyBranch 

### at 

### MCK 1.92 (inlet to 

### Rogers Quarry)”



### Date Concentration Minnow 

### Minnow 

### Ceriodaphnia Ceriodaphnia 

## (%I survival 

### growth 

### survival fecundity 

## (%I (mg dry

### wt/minnow) 

## (W (neona tes/female)



### 5 Jan 1989

6

### Apr 1989



### 7Jul1989 

### Control 100 80 60 

### 40 

### 20 

### Control 100 

### 80 60 40 

### Control 100 80 

### 60 40 

### Control 100 13 

### Oct 1989 80 

### 60 40 

### 72.5 

## * 18.9 47.5 

# * 5.0 52.5 

# * 9.6 65.0 

## * 12.9 32.5 

# * 17.1 100.0 

# * 0.0 

### 87.5 

# * 15.0 87.5 

# * 5.0 85.0 

### rt30.0 97.5 

# * 5.0 

### 97.5. 

# * 5.0 97.5 

# * 5.0 97.5 

# * 5.0 92.5 

# * 15.0 77.5 

# *26.3 0.30 

# * 0.03 0.48 

# * 0.05 0.39 

# * 0.05 0.32 

# * 0.05 0.53 

# * 0.24 0.51 

# * 0.05 0.52 

# * 0.11 0.51 

# * 0.04 0.45 rt: 

### 0.07 0.45 

# * 0.03 

### 0.48 

# * 0.09 0.47 

# * 0.06 0.59 

# * 0.07 0.50 

# * 0.08 

### 0.53 

# * 0.06 100 100



### 90 70 100 100 

### 100 100



### 90 100 100 

### 90 90 80 

### 100 100 

### 90 

### 90 90 80 

### 90 20.2 

# * 2.6 13.2 

# * 6.2 20.0 

# * 3.6 18.3 f 

### 4.0 

### 17.0 rt 

### 3.6 20.5 

# * 5.6 

## Y ‘4 

### 21.5 

# * 1.8 19.2 

# * 3.2 

### 22.2 2 

### 2.7 23.9 

# * 2.4 23.2 

# * 2.6 24.2 

# * 2.8 26.2 

# * 3.7 26.0 

# * 4.0 28.0 

# * 2.9 27.4 

# * 1.9 

### 24.7 

# * 2.2 23.0 

# * 1.8 22.1 

# * 2.7 24.4 

# * 3.0 24.1 

# * 3.4Date 

### Concentration. 

# iw

Control 

### 100 4 Jan 

### 1 80 60 40

5 Control 

### 100 80 # 

### 40
Control 

### 108 80 68 

### 40 52.5 1 5.6 

### 47.5 f 

### 25.0 

### 65.0 f 

### 25.2 60.0 rt 28.3 42.5 

### f28.7
90.0 f 10.7 

### 40.6) 

### s32.7 30.0 

## * 14.1 27.5 2 17.1 

## __- 0.49 -f 0.02 0.56 rt 0.88 0.56 f 0.03 0.50 f 0.10 

### 0.59 f 

### 0.15
0.55 I 0.09 

### 0.47 & 

### 0.10 0.44 

# * 0.11 0.52 

# * 0.13 22.5 i 

### 3.7 

### 26.3 f 

### 2.7 23.5 d 5.0 28.8 f 5.2 

### 25.4 ~t

### 3.3
19.7 

# * 2.3 

### 22.4 f 

### 5.7 22.4 f 

### 2.8 19.9 

# * 3.8 

# E

___ 24.0 

# * 3.4 

### 11.1 f 

### 8.1 11.5 f 

### 9.7 21.0 f 

### 9.0 15.6 a 

### 8.6 Values 

### are means 2 

### SD for four 

### replicates 

### (minnow test) 

### or ten 

### replicates 

### (Ceridapkirnia)

### in each test 

### period.

### 3-5

comrncrcial lcttuce leavcs during 

### the: ~~~li~~t~o~ 

### pc marked snails 

### wcre rcleased at cach 

### of thrcc sites: Quarry (MCK 1-92],McCoy Branch at 

### MCK 1.64) (below Rogers 

### Quarry), and 

### Whitc Qak Creek at WCK 6.3. Forty-eight hoi~rs 

### alter 

### the snails had been released, each site was 

### surveyed 

### for the 

### snails. 

### The searctmcswere 

### initiated 10an downstrcarn 

### of the release point and continued upstream beyond the release pint 

### for20 

### m. Theposition 

### of 

### each marked snail, rclative to the release point, was 

### nieaured to thcncarest centimeter. 

### A median test 

### for multiple 

### samples was used 

### to determine 

### if the median distance the snaiis 

### moved upstream differed 

### ammgthc thrce sites (Steel 

### and Torrie 1980).



### A 

### 7d static-renewal test with snails WBS used to determine if the snails' feeding rate

,and acclimated as described in Sect. 3.1.3. was affected 

### by water 

### frcdrn two sitcs 

### in McCoy Branch 

### (MCK 1.92and MCK 1.60). Snails were collected from WCM 6.3 

### on Test chambers consisted 

### of 600-mLbeakers.. Each bcakcr containcd 

### 12 snails and 250 

### mZ, ofwatcr; 4 

### replicate beakers were used for each treatment. Treatments consisted 

### of full-strength wt\t~ 'brr~m e~h 

### of 

### fh~~ sitas: 

### McCoy Branch at 

### MCK 1.92,McCoy hite 

### Oak Creek at 

### WCK 6.3. 

### Thc contents 

### of the beakcrs wcre maintain bath. Two ~r~-w~~~~~~,d Ic=tt~~c leafdi start 

### of the test. 

### After 24 h and daily thereafter, 

### She remains ofthe discs were removed, new discs were artdcd, and thcwater was 

### changed. 

### The remnants of the discs taken 

### lrom each beaker wcrc blotted dry with per tow& and weighed to the ncarcst 

### 0.1 

### mg. The diffcrence betwccn initial weight a final weight 

### of the discs 

### in each beaker was used to estimate the wct mass of Icttucc leaf eatcn aa'ity

### by the snails in that rcplicatc. the test by a water cd to 

### each beaker at the



### iffcrcnccs among feeding 

### rates 

### :mv.mg tseatncnts 

### were analyzed using 

### SAS-CLM with 

### a repealed-mcasurcs subroutinc

### (SA$ 198Sah).



### A majority ofwater sairiples collected for use 

### in 

### any oE tbc tests described abovc were 

### analyzed chemically for

### p 

### ,conductivity, ~~~~~~~~ty 

### (EPA method 

### 130.1), and hardness (EPA method 130.2). 

### Thc mcthods use 

### for cadiof 

### these analyscs 

### are described 

### by Mszos ct 

### al. (19%). 

### During one 7-d tcst period 

### (April 5-1 1. 1 

### (NCK 1.92 aidthe large spring at the base of orthophosphate and sulfate 

### (EPA methods 365.1 and 

### 375.2, respectively). 

### During another

were analyzed 

### for nilratc, 01 

### thopho hatc, and sulfiitc. two McCoy Branch sites ) was analyzed 

### for
7-d pchi~d (J1.d~ 7-13, 1989), SEUTI~~~ 

### COIICC~C~ &illy from McCoy Branch at MCK 1.923.2.1

### The results 

### of the 

### CePdodaphnia and fathead McCoy Branch at MCK 1.92are summarized in ‘I’ two species applied to water from McCoy Branch at 

### MCK 1.a and at the 

### spring near the base of the dam at the ash pond are summarized in Table 3-2. nnow toxicity tests of water fro 6- 3
-1;the results oftests with these

Overall, the 7-d tests provided little consistent evidence 

### for Pisxicity toeither species. On three occasions, specific problems with test conditions were suggested. First, 

### in the tcst started 011 January 

### 5, 1989, fecundity of 

### Ceridaphnia reared 

### in water from McCoy Brarich was unusually low and variable (13.2 

### + 6.2, 

### mean 

### + SD) relative tocontrols (20.2 f 

### 2-61. The high variability in fecundity for the animals in McCoy Branch water in this Lest 

### (C.V. = 

### 47%)is difficult to interpret biologically, Second, thc minnow test conducted during April 6
-13, 1989, appeared flawed. Survival and growth rates of 

### fish in the controls and in McCoy Branch water were both unusually low, suggesting inadequate food. Survival and reproduction of Cehduphnia in this test were high both 

### fix controls and for water from McCoy Branch. Third, survival (but not growth) of the 

### fish was low in McCoy Brznch water in the tests that started onJanuary 4, 1990, and 

### April 

### 5, 1 3
-1). During these two test periods no evidence of toxicity was detected using Ceiodaphnkz. Additionally, no conspicuous relationship between fish survival and concentration of McCoy Branch water in either 

### of thcse tests (Table 3
-1) was detected. These considerations suggest that the ‘toxicity’ in McCoy Branch during each 

### of these three test periods was probably artifactual. 

### ,

3-22Full
-Life @)rck Tests
Mean values for each of the 7 dependent variables for Cerioduphptin 

### in each of the three water types are given in Table 3-3. 

### The 

### ~nean tiumber 

### of broods by 

### Ceiiodaphnira tested in McCoy Branch water was lower than that 

### of 

### Cerbdaphnia in the control (10.1 versus 12.4offspring per female, Table 3
-3). Themean daily fecundity of 

### C~~daphnin in McCoy Branch water was also substantially lower than that of controls (5.3versus 6.1 offspring per female per day, Table 3
-3). 

### The overall difference in total fecundity 

### of Cenodaphnia in controls versus McCoy Branch water, though, was not very great (122 VerSiiS 109.3offspring per female,Table 3
-3)because 

### Ceiiodnphnia in McCoy Branch water tended to have slightly larger broods than Cen’oduphnia in the control (10.7versus 9.8 offspring per brood, Table 3
-3). Separate sets of one-way ANOVAs were conducted to contrast reproductive patterns of Cei-iodaphnio tested in MCK 1.92 to control water (Table 3-4) and water from EW-O (Table 

### 3-5). These analyses showed that the contrast in reproductive patterns of Ceriiodaphnia testcd in water from MCK 1.92versus 

### LR-ca (Table 3
-4) was similar in two important respects to the contrast between water from MCK 1.92versus control watcr (Table 3

-5). First, the number of broods and the mean number of offspring per brood tended lo be among the more dynamic parameters in both cnmparisons, based on the magnitude 

### of change in

### p (about 123

-fold for the number 

### of broods and 

### 8.6-fo1dfoe the number of offspring per brood, 

### Tables 3
-4 and 3
-5). 

### The number of broods and the mean

### Table3-2 

### Rsu1t.s

### of

### 7-6toxicity tests 

### (fathead minnow 

### larvae 

### and Cet.iodaphnia)

### ofwater 

### from

### McCoyBranch at 

### the 

### spring near 

### the base oE

### the 

### ashpond dam 

### (spring) 

### and from

### McCoy Branch 

### below Rogers Quarry

### (MCK 1-60)”



### Site 

### Dateb Concentration 

### Minnow Minnow 

### Ceriodaphnia Ceridaphnia 

## (%I survival growthc survival feeunditf 

## P> mg dry 

### wt/minnow 

## (W

90.0 0.55 

# *0.09 

### 100 19.7 

# * 2.3 100 

### 77.5 0.57 

# *0.09 

### 80 25.6 ~f: 

### 2.7 80 825 

### 0.59 f

### 0.03 

### 90 25.9 f 

### 2.5 Spring 

### 5 Apr 1990 

### Control



### MCK 1.60 30 

### July 1990 

### Control 100.0 

### 0.53 

# *om 90 24.0 

## * 3.4 100 100.0 

### 0.64 

# *0.04 

### 90 18.3 

# * 10.8 80 

### 97.5 **0.60** *0.11 

### --- 

## --- .b.3 

### “Values are 

### mean 

# * SI). ’When each 7-d test was 

### started. Tomputed 

### as increase in 

### weight. 

### dCeriodq$min fecundity is 

### computed using females 

### that survived 

### all 7 d, 

### and their 

### young.3-8

Control 

### LR-0 MCK 1.92 Parameter

Lifc span (days) Number of broods No. of offspringbrood Total No. 

### of offspring Largest brood Variability in fecundity Daily fecundity 23.1 25.6 24.3 12.4 9.7 10.1 9.8 12.0 10.7 122.0 114.7 109-3

17.8 19.7 18.5 56.7 51.8 56.2

6.1 5.5 5.3

Dependent variable Model Error 

### DF DF 

## w2 E; 

### P


### Lifc span Number 

### ofbroods 

### No. of offspringibrood Total No. offspring Largest brood Variability in fecundity Daily fecundity 1 98 0.0055 0.54 0.4634 1 96 0.0809 8.45 0.0045 1 96 0.0257 2.54 0.1146 1 96 0.0173 1.69 0.1967 1 96 0.0101 0.98 0.3240 1 95 0.0199 1.93 0.1685 1 97 0.0394 3.98 0.0489 Thcprobability (p)that the difference between means 

### ofparamcters

### for controlsversus McCoy Branch was due to chance alone is given for each parameter; the

### p values were obtained by onc-way analysis ofvariance tests. 

### K2is theproportion ofthetotal variation that canbe explained by the difference in water 

### iype.

### 3-9



### Table 

### 3-5. Analysis 

### ofvarianceresults 

### for 

### cc?Jiodaphrua

**e** 

### life-cycletests 

### ofwater 

### from 

### LakeReality outfall

### and McCoy Branch at 

### MCK 1.92 

### Dependent Variable Model Error DF 

### DF 

### R2 F 

### P
Life span 

### 1 

### 98 0.0070 

### 0.69 

### 0.4068 Number 

### ofbroods 1 

### 97 0.0036 0.35 0.5553 

### No. of offspringhrood 1 

### 97 0.0615 6.35 

### 0.0133 Total 

### No. offspring 1 

### 97 0.0054 0.52 0.4715 Largest brood 1 97 

### 0.0351 3.53 0.0634 Variability in fecundity 

### 1 96 

### 0.0203 

### 1-99 0.1620 Daily fecundity 1 

### 97 0.0023 

### 0.22 0.6366



### Theprobability @) 

### that the difference between means of parameters €or 

### Lake Reality outfall water versus 

### McCoy Branch water was due to chance alone is given for each parameter; thc

### p values were obtained by one-way analysis 

### of variance tests. 

### R2 is 

### the proportion of the total variation that can be 

### explained by the difference in water type.3-10

number 

### of offspring per brood were inversely related as well, whcreas, lifespan was more constant (cf 

### Tablc 3-3). Thesepoints suggest that these daphnids are flexible reproductively, in that they "trade off' brood size and number per brood, 

### This in turn suggests that reproduction is a major energeticexpense to these animals, which supports the idea that Ceriodnphnia reproduction (over a fured number ofbroods) should be a scnsitivc endpoint for toxicity assessments. It also suggests the hypothesis that reproduction may control longevity 

### of these animals inpredator-€ree situations. 

### The second, and perhaps more important finding from the two sets ofANQVAs,was that the differentwater types did not affect any 

### of the reproductive 

### parameters very strongly: 

### the proportion ofvariance in any parameter that could 

### be explained 

### by differences in water type never exceeded 8.1%(Tables 3-4 and 

### 3-5). This consideration, in conjunction with the tendency for the animals to trade off brood size and nun-nbctper brood, indicate that water from 

### MCK 1.92 was not toxic. It also strongly suggests that food-related aspects of testing ambient waters with 

### Ceriodaphnia 

### may need to be addressed more carefully, both in effluent and ambient testing situations. 3-23 

### kt Situ Snail Test Snail movement patterns differed significantly 

### among the threc sites (G = 22.95, 

### p < 0.001). Fcwer than 

### 25% of the snails released at 

### MCK 1.60 moved upstream, whercas, >'E% moved upstream at MCK 1.92 

### and WCK 6.3 

### (Fig. 3-1). In 48 h, the maximum downstream movcment of the snails at 

### MCK 1.60, 

### MCK 1.92,and WCK 6.3was 2.80, 0.60, and 1.88 

### n.respectively. Median distances that snails moved upstream did not appear to differ between 

### MCK 1.92and WCK 6.3 (G = 

### 4.045,0.05 

### >p > 0.020), but did differ between MCK 1.60 and 

### MCK 1.92 ((3 

## -- 22.132, 

### p < 0.001), and between WCK 63 and MCK 1.60 

### (G = 13.718,~ 

### < 0.001). Beeausc 

### of multiple testing, a conservative Type 

### I error rate (0.020) was used. More than 

### 58% of the marked snailswere recovered at each of thc 

### McCoy Branch sites;27% of the snails that had been marked and released were recovered from WCK 6.3.



### The feeding rates of the snails in water from 

### WCM 5.3 and McCoy Branch at MCK 1.92were quite similna (56.3 

### + 5.3 and 54.3 **f** 6.4 mg wet mass consumed per day, respectively; means f standard error); snails in water 

### from MCK 1-60,in contrast, had feeding rates that were about 25% lower than those tested in water from the other two sites (Le., 40.9 I 

### 5.3 rng wet mass per day). The feeding rates did not, however, differ statistically based on ANOVA 

### 0, = 0.215). Feeding rates differed among dates 

### (ANOVA, 

### p = O.OOOl), and the rates increased uniformly towards the en3of the experiment. The feeding rates showed no signilkantsite 

### X date interaction (ANOVA,

### p = 0.3222).

Daily analyses of 

### pM, conductivity, alkalinity and hardness were. conducted for six of the 7-d toxicity testing periods (Table3-6). Conccntrations of nitrate, phosphate, and sulfate were measured in water from McCoy Brarnch at 

### MCM 1.92during two 

### of the 7-d test periods (Tablc 3-7). During 

### April 5-11, 1 

### ,the phosphate levels at the upstream

### ORNL-DWG91-1 0155 

# 100



# 75



# 50

25

0 

# AB A' m0



# r I 

## I 

# /=

/ / 

## I 

# A 

# e

I 

# I MCK 

# MCK WCK

2 

# 1.60 

# 1.92 

# 6.3


# -3 -2 

# -1 0 

# 1 2 

# 3 4 

# 5 6 

# 7 

# DISTANCE UPSTREAM 

# (m) Fig. 3-1. 

### Plot showingthe number **of**

### snails reoovered 

### (cumulative 

### percent)versus distance 

### from the 

### point 

### ofretcaSe 

### for two sites 

### in McCoy Branch and a nomn&ated 

### site 

### inWhite 

### Oak Creek (MCK = 

### McCoy Branch 

### kilometer and WCK = 

### White Oak 

### Creek kilometer.)

### 21-E

### TabIe 

### 3-7. Means 

### (*SD) ofnitrate, 

### phosphate, 

### and sulfate

### croncentrations

### in 

### dailygrab samples 

### (7dperiod) 

### ofwater 

### from McCoyBranch at 

### MCK 1.92 

### and the 

### springnear the

### base 

### of

### the 

### ash

### pond dam

Test 

### Dates Nitrate 

### (ma) Phosphate 

## (d) Sulfate (mg/L)

~~~~ 

### MCK 1.92 

### MCK 1.92 

### Spring ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 

### July 

### 7-13, 1959 0.364 

# * 0.055 

### April 5-11. 1990 

### NAa April 5-11, 1990 

### NA" ~

### 6.1 

# * 1.6 8.3 f 1.6 

### 13.6 

# * 3.0 

### 27.9 

# * 10.2 40.9 

# * 9.2 

### 19.7 

### 2.9 

### "NA = 

### not analyzed. P CI W3-14
spring sitewere higher than those at 

### MCK 1.92,whereas, the sulfate values were lower (Table 3-7).
Water saniples during July 3Q-August 5, 1W,from McCmy Branch at MCK 1.60 were analyzed 

### for pH, conductivity, alkalinity 

### an hardness. During April 5-11, 

### 1990, samples from the spring at the base 

### of the ash 

### pond were also analyzed 

### for these parameters. 

### The results 

### of these ~WO sets

### of analyses arc summarized 

### in Table 3-8.

The resrnlts 

### of the biological tests ofwater 

### from McCoy Branch reported here did not show much cvidence for toxic conditions 

### in this stream. 

### In 7-d laboratory tests, survival and growth of fathead minnow larvae, and survival and Eeeundityof C~idaphnia was generally high, although a few exceptions to this trend were evident. Similarly, full 

### LCTs with 

### Cetiodnphnin,which should he considerably more sensitive than 7-d tests, also failed to 

### show much effect 

### of McCoy Branch water. 

### LcJps also showed 

### Ceriodaphnin had significantly fewer broods and a slightly loaves mean daily fecundity in 

### McCoy Branch water than they did in the controls, but the number 

### of neonates per brood tendcd to be greater than that in controls. 

### Thus, the net effect 

### of McCey 

### Branchwater 

### on 

### Ceriodaplinin fecundity was sinall. Longevity 

### of Ceriodaphnia in McCoy Branch waterwas also very similar to that for the controls (24.3 d for animals in McCoy Branch water versus 23.1 d for controls. Table 3-3).
In the in situ tests, snails apparently experienced more stress in McCoy Branch at 

### MCK 1.60than they did at either 

### MCK 1.92or at WCK 63. ,4t 

### MCK 1-60,the net movement of snails was downstream; whereas, the net movement of the snails at the other twc sites was upstrcam. Studies of snails in noncontaminated streams have indicated that an upstream msvcnient 

### of snails is typical (Crutchfield 19%; 

### Iloup 1970;

### Burris et al. 1990). Conversely, when healthy snails were placed in contaminated streams, thc nct movement was downstream (Burris et 

### al. 1990). Snails may actively move downstrcam as an escapebehavior or may 

### be passively transported downstream 

### by ilow.
In 7-d laboratory tests, snails consumed less food when tested in water from McCoy Branch at MCK 1.60 than thcy did in water from either 

### MCK 9.92 or WCK 4.3,but this diffcrcncc was not statistically significant. During the surnmer, the. water in McCoy Branch at MCK 

## 1.m is warmer than that at MCK 1.92 or WCM 6.3 (see TableA-S),primarily because MCK 1.60 receives epilimnetic flow 

### Irom the quarry. Bccausc

### Elimia are not very heat tolerant (Ross and Ultscla ISSO), warmer temperature could account for the difkrences in sirail behavior between 

### MCR 1.60, and MCK 1.92 and 

### WCK 6.3. However, heat stress is unlikely to account for differences seen in the laboratory where tcmperature was controlled. The mean ratio of alkalinity to hardness (AM)for 

### MCK 1.92 was 0.811, and the mean conductivity was 284 pV.m (Table 3-5). 'I'he 

### A:H and conductivity values for hlCK 1.92 arewithin the 95% coiifidence bounds 

### for those rcported for reference sites 

### in upper 

### WOC, First Creek, arid Fifth Creek (Stewart 1WO). Similarly, the 

### AHfor samples

### 3-15



### Table3-8. 

### Means 

### (* SD) 

### ofpH, amductivity,

### alkdinity, and 

### hardnessfor daily

### grab samples (74 

### periods) ofwater 

### fbmMcCayBranch 

### at MCK 1-60 

### (July 30-August 

### 5, 1990) and the 

### springat 

### the base 

### ofthe 

### ash pond dam (April 5-11,1990)



### Factor 

### MCK 1-60 

### Spring



### PH (standard units)

Alkalinity 

### (mg/L) 8.5 i 

### 0.1

233k 4

83* 2

125* 

### 6 7.5 f 0.2

351 i 54

151f 20



### 174* 113-14



### from MCK 1.60 was 0.664; whereas, 

### AHfor the spring at the base 

### ofthe 

### ash 

### pond dam was 0.868 (Table 3-8). 

### TIPUS, as for other streams, the overall trendwas for 

### a decline in A:M with distance downstream, but thc rate 

### and total extent of decline was not 

### very great. Phosphate,which tends to be biologically quite reactive, was also present at relatively ~QW concentrations in water 

### from the 

### spring at the base of the ash 

### pond dam 

### and from 

### MCK 1.92 (Table 3-7). 

### 9Xs element is often elevated 

### by a 

### factor 

### of 10 to 

### 100

### in streams that receive industrial effluents. 

### Thus, the results 

### ofthe chemical analyses suggest that the stream is 

### not highly perturbed. 

### This 

### conclusion 

### is in

### good general agrcerncntwith 

### the results 

### of toxicity tests. 3.4 

## mrCmE STrnFS 

### MCK 1.60 and 

### MCK 1.92 to monitor 

### possible changes 

### in water quality that occur in McCoy Branch. 

### Snail release studies will 

### alsobe continued to determine 

### ifthese grazers can persist and grow 

### if transferred into 

### McCoy Branch sites upstream 

### from Rogers Quarterly tests with 

### Cere'odaphniaand fatheadminnow larvae will 

### be conducted at

Quiarry.4. 

### BIOACcuMuLAnoN STUDEB

4.1 

### TNTRODUCITON McCoy Branch received discharges 

### of coal ash effluents From 

### Y-12 (Sect. 

### 2.2.1). Metals and hydrophobic organic chemicals in these discharges (Sect. 

### 2.2) may accumulate in the biota 

### ofMcCoy Branch, Rogers Quarry, 

### or downstream in Melton 

### Hill Reservoir to levels that may diminish thevalue 

### of these resources. Theprimary objectives 

### of contaminant monitoring in McCoy Branch biota 

### were to (1) identify any substancesthat accumulate tolevels exceeding those observed in biota from nearby, uncontaminated reference streams and 

### (2) evaluate theextent and significance 

### ofcontamination by those substances in McCoy Branch and downstream aquatic systems. Secondary objectiveswere to assist 

### in locating sources 

### of contaminants that accumulate to unacceptable levels, and to evaluate the relative importance 

### ofpresent vs. 

### past discharges in determining contaminant levels 

### ofbiota. Initial surveys of McCoy Branch indicated that only a 

### limited area 

### of the stream contained enough 

### fish to sample for 

### bioaccumuiation potential in aquatic biota, and this areawas open to immigration from Melton Hill Reservoir. 3ecause Rogers Quarry contained suitable fish populations that arevirtually isolated from immigration from Melton 

### Hill Reservoir, the collections were made from this site to 

### evaluate bioaccumulation concerns associated with the coal ash discharge. McCoy Branch embayment 

### ofMelton Hill Reservoir was sampled to 

### provide a basis 

### for evaluating 

### if fish 

### from the quarry contained elevated concentrations 

### ofcertain contaminants, and also to ensure that no public health concerns were associated with the ultimate discharge 

### of McCoy Branch water to that portion 

### ofthereservoir.

4-2 

### h4ETHODS Largemouth bass (Micropternssalmoides) 

### were collected 

### from Rogers Quarry and the adjacent McCoy Branch embayment of 

### Melton Hill Reservoir in July 1990 by angling and electrofishing. 

### The fish were placed 

### on ice and returned to thelaboratory where they were weighed and measured. 

### The bass wcre filleted and skinned, and samplcs 

### of the anterior dorsal portion ofthe 

### fillet was removed 

### for analysis for mercury, arsenic, selenium, other trace metals, chlorinated organic pesticides, and 

### PCBs at the 

### ORNL Analytical Chemistry Division 

### (ACD). Mercury was analyzed by cold vapor atomic absorption spectrophotometry after digestion in a 

### mixture 

### ofperchloric and nitric acids 

### (EPA Methods 3050 

### and 245.5 

### forpreparation and analysis, respectively, 

### EPA 1986). Following digcstion in nitric acid, arsenic, beryllium, and uranium wcre analyzed by inductively coupled plasma 

### mass spectrometry; and antimony, cadmium, chromium, 

### copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zincwere analyzed by inductively coupled plasma optical emission Spectrometry (EPA 

### Methods 3050 

### and 6010, EPA 1986). 

### A 10-g 

### sample ofthe fish fillet was extracted by ultrasonic disruption in methylene chloride, cleaned up by column chromatography, and analyzed for PCBs and chlorinated pesticides by gas chromatography with electron capture detection 

### (EPA method 8080, 

### EPA 1986).

### 4-2
Quality assurance (QA) was maintained using a combination of (1)blin analyses; 

### (2) split sample analyses between the 

### EPA Environmental SehvieesLaboratory, Athens, Georgia, and the ACD Laboratory; and (3) the analyses ofbiological reference standards and uncontaminated 

### fish. Recoveries of PCBs, selected metals, 

### and organics wereverified by spiking uncontaminated fish with 

### known amounts and 

### atialyzing them. Statistical evaluation of the datawas conducted ming linear regression, analysis 

### of variance (ANOVA), hvenestest 

### for homogenei (SAS 1985a,b). All comparisons used alpha 

## -- 0.05. ofvariances, and analysis of covariance

Concentratioirs 

### of elements

### in individual largemouth 

### bass from 

### Rogers 

### Quarry and McCoy Branch embaynrent are listed in Tablc 4-1. Mean concentrations of most metals (antimony, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper,lead, mercury, nickel, silver, uranium, and zinc) in bass from Rogers Quarry. and McCoy Branch embayment were similar to concentrations 

### in reference stream sunfish (Table 4-2). 

### The concentrations in McCoy Branch bass were also similar to those found in various species from other sites both locally and nationwide (WA 

### 1985;Dycus and Hickman 19%;Dycus 1989;bweet al. 1985). The mean concentrations of elements were all below concentrations used by 

### EPA (EPA,personal communication) and others (Hoffman etal. 

### 1984;@. 

### C. Travis, Health and Sa€etyDivision, 

### ORNL,personal communication) to screen 

### for levels of contamination that pose no threat for human consumption (Table 4-2). Only arsenicwas present at concentrations above screening criteria; however. the screening concentration for arsenic is below the detection limit fnr arsenic in 

### fish, and 

### alsowell below coilcentrations typical of most biological materials (Bowen 1979). Thallium was dctected in seven of eight bass from Rogers Quarry, but not in fish from McCoy Branch embayment. However, the concentrations were at or near the analytical detection limit and, therefore, must be regarded cautiously. 

### hlthough data suggest that thallium 

### may be elevated above background levels 

### in Rogers Quarry, evaluation 

### with nicsre sensitive analytical methods is needed 

### for verification. Cormmtrations

### of two elements, selenium and arsenic, in bass from Rogers Quarry were significantly (ANOVA) elevated above concentrations in bass from McCoy Branch einbayment (Tablc 4-2). The mean concentration 

### ofarsenic in bass Crom the quarry was 0.29 I 0.02 

### pg/g, about twice the amount (0.14 

# * 0.02

### pdg)found in fish from the reservoir. Selenium was also substantially higher in the bass from Rogers Quarry, averaging 3.00 in bass from the quarry; however, concentrations were too near the detection limit to regard this result as conclusive. Mercury concentrations in fish from the quarry were among the lowest observed in largemouth bass in the United States and substantially lower than concentrations in fish from Melton Hill Reservoir. 0.11 pg/g versus 1.00 

### + 0.29

## pdg. Thallium also appeared tobe elevated



### The mean concentrations of arsenic in the bass from McCoy Branch embayment may bc elevated above typica! background levels. Arsenic has never been found to exceed the detection limit (0.05 p,dg)in sunfish analyzed forbiological monitoring programs atROGQUA ROGQUA ROGQUA KOGQUA ROGQUA ROGQUA ROGQUA ROGQUA ROGQUA
MCYBRU MCYBRD MCYBRD MCYBRD MCYBRD MCYBRD MCYBRD MCYBRD MCYBRD LMBASS LMBASS LMRASS LMBASS LMBASS LMBASS LMBASS LMBASS LMBASS
LMBASS LMBASS LMBASS LMBASS LMBASS LMBASS LMBASS LMBASS LMRASS 5578 5879 5494 5495 5496 5497 5498 5499 878Sd
5477 5478 5479 5480 5481
5484 5455 084SC 5482 M F M F F M M F 467 299 217 515 180 193 315 194

BO8 292 135 582 452 328 547 303 51.4 29.1 26.2 32.2 24.2 25.0 29.2 25.3 0.30 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.24 0.37 0.36 0.34
41.0 0.09 31.4 0.11 22.4 0.23 36.4 0.09 32.6 0.13 30.5 0.14 36.4 0.19 30.3 0.15 0.09 <0.003 10.003 c0.003 C0.003 <O.DoJ

0.004 C0.003 <0.003 **c**0.003
c0.003 <0.003 ~0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 **c**0.003

0.007 0.003 3.2 2.9 3.3 2.4 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.7 3.6 0.03 0.02 0.03 CO.02

0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
3.0 CO.02 1.0 **c0.02** 0.54 c0.02 0.65 c0.m 0.54 e0.02 0.64 <0.02 0.77 <0.02 0.83 e0.02 0.72 <0.02 0.005 <0.003 <0.003 <OM3 c0.003 e0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <OB03
<0.003 <0.003 ~0.003 e0.003 <0.003 <OB03 <0.003 c0.003 C0.003 4.8 **0.024** 5.2 0.011 5.4 0.010 5.0 0.027 6.1 0.010 6.0 0.009 5.7 0.010 6.7 0.008 4.8 0.028
5.O 7.7 6.1 6.5 6.8 4.8 5.8 6.9 6.1 0.069 0.079 0.027 0.058 '4 0.083 0.109 0.038 0.134 0.118 

# e

HINDSCR BLUGIL 5464 F 81.2 16.8 C0.05 **0.004** 4.43 **e0.02** CO.003 63 0.054 <0.02 c0.003 4.8 0.075 HINDSCR REDBRE 5469 M 82.5 16.6 <0.05 0.005 **<0.46**

lllefollowing metalswere below the respectivelimits of detection: **Ag,**e0.18; 

### a, eO.18; Cr, ~0.44; Cu, <0.44;Ni, CO.41; Pb, ~0.44; Sb, <0.44. bROGQUA =RogersQuarry,MCYBRU =McCoy Branch embayment upstream from culvertat BullBluffRoad,MCYBRD =McCoyBranchembaymentdownstreamfrom
ZMBNS = largemouthbass (Microptencssulmoik)BLUGIL = bluegill sunfish (kpmismucrrohirus)REDBRE = redbreast sunfish (f..epm&awincS). dDuplicate for 5878. auplicateCor 5480. culven at Bull BluffRoad, HINDSCR = Hinds Creek, Anderson **Co.,** TN.4-4

Rogers McCoy Branch Hinds Metal ~~arayb Embaymentb CreeV IVk 

### usmsc PGVf EPM
~.. Antimony
Arsenic
Rcrjillium

Cadmium
Chromium (=opp"i
Lead Mercury

Nickel.
Selenium

Silver
'Thalliuiii

Uranium
Zinc <0.44
0.29 (0.02)
<0.003

CO.18
<0.44
<0.44
<0.44

0.014 (0.002)
<0.44

3.00 (0.11)
<0.18

0.03 (0.00)
~0.003

5.6 (0.22) <0.44
0.14 (0.02)
<0.003

~0.18 q0.44
~0.44
<0.44

0.073 (0.011)
<0.44

1**.00** (0.29)
<0.18
<0.02

<0.003

6.2 (0.35) <0.44 q0.05

0.005 (0.005)
<0.18

e0.44
<0.44
<O.M

0.065 (0.011)
<0.44
c0.45

<0.18
<0.02

<0.003

5.6 (0.80) c2
0.14

<0.02

0.02
0.82
1.2
0.06
0.30

<l.O

**0.28**

<0.2
<1



### ___ 9.2 ---
0.16

-__

**0.04**



### ___ 0.86
0.19
0.11

.._ 0.46



### ___

.__

_-_
25.6 5.2
0.0007

0.004

1 

### .o
1.8
36

1.8
0.42

5.2
12

0.29
0.66

1.6 ' 180 43.1
0.0062

0.0025

10.8
10800

---

.-.
1 

### .o

215

5.4

2.48
5.71

---~_

.... .... Tabularvalues for these sites are mean and SE (in parentheses). Additional data arerefeience concentrationsfrom other studies('Tennessee Valley Authority, United States Fish and Wildlife Seavice) and risk hascd criteria (Preliminary GuidanceValue, Environmental Protection Agency). bN = 8. 'N := 2. 'kompositc largemouth bass, N = 10 (Dyciis 1989 Uycus and Hickman 1986). ?~we et al. 1985. fPieliminary Guidancc Values (Hoffman et al. 1984; C. C. Travis, Health and SafetyDivision, ORNL, personal Environmental Protection Agency, pe'sonal communication. comuiunication).4-5


### ORNL, Y-12, and K-25 (Southworth 

### 1999; @. 

### R. Southworth, Environmental Sciences Division, ORNL,pcrsonal communication); however, all the largemouth bass collected from McCoy Branch embaymcnt contained measurable arsenic concentrations (Table 4-1). 

### The 

### mean concentration 

### of arsenic found in 

### McCoy Branch embayment 

### basswas 

### similar tothenationwide mean concentra

### Lion found 

### in the National Cantaminant Biomonitoring Program (Lawe et al. 1985) 

### samplingvarious species (Table 

### 4-2). The

### McCoy Branch mean was 

### also similar to the mean concentration found in composite largcmouth bass 

### samples from sewnsites in the 

### TVA region 

### (Table 4-2) in screening studies conducted by 

### TVA (Dycus and Hickman 

### 1%; Dycus 1989). 

### The criterion 

### wed

### to indicate 

### a need For follow-up sampling in 

### the TVA screeningstudies 

### is 0.5 &g 

### for arsenic. 

### Themean selenium concentration in bass 

### from McCoy Branch embayment exceeded themean concentrations observed in both the National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program (hweet 

### al. 1985) 

### and the 

### TVA investigations (Dyeus and Hickman 1986;

### Dycus 1989) 

### (Table 4-2). Typical concentrations observed in 

### sunfBh in thc 

### ORR Biological Monitoring Programs were 

### 0.4 to 0.6pg/g 

### (Southworth 1991; 6.

### R. Southworth, Environmental Sciences Division, 

### ORNL, personal communication). 

### Thus, selenium concentrations in bass 

### from McCoy Branch embayment are clearly clevated. Although they arewell below concentrations used to screen 

### for human health concerns in 

### fish consumers (Table 4-2),

### the mean concentration 

### is equal to the criteria used by 

### TVA to initiate follow 

### up studies (Dycus 1989). 

### Thepresence of 

### elevated concentrations or selenium and 

### arsenic in 

### fish from Rogers Quarry was not surprising, because surface water in McCoy Branch contained high concentrations of 

### these substances for several years 

### prior to 

### the reduction 

### of coal burned at the 

### Y-12 

### Steam Plant in 1988and 

### subsequent elimination 

### of fly 

### ash discharges to Rogers Quarry in 1990 

### (Fig. 2-5). Average concentrations 

### of these elements measured by 

### NPDES monitoring in McCoy Branch were much lowcr, averaging 

### 46 pg/Larsenic and 4.3 &L selenium in theyear preceding the fish sampling (Sect. 

### 2.2.2, Figs. 2-4 

### and 

### 2-5). Several recent studieshave suggested that adding selcnium towaters in which mercury bioaccumulation in fish is 

### excessivecould amcliorate the problem (Rudd et al. 1980,

### Turner and Rudd 1983,

### Turner and Swick 1983, 

### Bjornberg et al. 1988). 

### However, 

### a recent studyby 

### Curvin and 

### Furness (1988)

### found that simultaneous exposure 

### ofminnows 

### to dissolved mercury and seknium resulted 

### in more 

### rapid accumulation 

### of mercury than was observed 

### in the absence 

### of selenium. Thcy also note the positivc 

### corrclation be

### tween tissue concentrations 

### ofmercury and selenium in large oceanic fish. 

### The mean mercury concentration in largemouth bass 

### from Rogers Quarry, 0.014

# * 0.002 &g, was much lower lhan that in 

### fish from the adjacent reservoir, 0.073 i 0.011 &g 

### (Table 4-2). 

### A positivc correlation betwcen 

### fish size 

### and mercury concentration is commonly 

### found in fish 

### from the same site, which complicates comparisons of

### mercury concentrations 

### among fish from difFerent sites, because the mean weight of

### the fish 

### sampled from 

### Rogers Quarry was 

### smaller 

### than that of fish from McCoy 

### Branch embayment. 

### In this 

### case, fish from Rogers Quarry exhibited a 

### statistically significant relationship between fish 

### weight and 

### mercury concentration:4-6


### [Hg] = 

### 5.48 x 

### (w@) 

## - 0.002 (4-1) A similar relationship was found 

### in the McCoy Branch ernbaymerit 

### fish,but the slopeof the relationship did not differ significantly from 

### zero: 

### [Hg] = 8.11 x 

### (wg) 1- 0.038 

### (4-2) Because slopes of the two relationships 

### did 

### not differ significantly 

### from each other, mercury concentiationscould be compared 

### in a straightforward fashion 

### using analysis 

### of covarimce. The results 

### of such a comparison 

### in icaaed that the 

### di€fcrem@s: 

### in mercury concentrations in 

### fish between the two sites was indeed statistically significant. 

### If 

### Eq. 1is used to estimatethe mercury concentration in 

### Rogers Quarry 

### fish 

### of mean weight 

### (430 

### g> equal to the mean weight 

### in the Melton 

### Hill Reseavoir collection, the difference remains very large, 0.025 versus 0.073 ,ug/g. 

### Mercury conceritrations in largemouth bass 

### from Rogers Quarry are amongthe lowest reported for this species. Concentrations measured 

### by 

### TVA in 

### bass from 11 other sites 

### in the upper Tennessee Valley all equaled or exceeded 

### 0.2 pg/g (Dycus and Hickman 1986;Qcus1989). 

### The lowest mean concentrations observed 

### in an extensive survey (95 sites) 

### of lakcs and streams in Florida were 

### 0.04 

### and 0.07 &g in two highly eutrophic lakes (Hand and Friedman 1990). Concentrations at other locations typically excceded 0.2pg/g 

### in that study, with most exceeding 0.5 pg/g. Only one of 39 composite largemouth bass samples analyzed in theNational Contaminant Riomonitoring Program, 1978-1981, contained 0.02 ,ug/gor less 

### of 

### mercury (Lowe et al. 

### 1985). Although mercury conccgntrations in 

### fish 

### from Rogers Quarry were far lower than those typically found in largemouth bass, similar concentrations have been observed previously in bass from Melton Hill Reservoir. Largemouth bass collected in 1975 averaged 0.02 

### pg/L (Elwood 1984). Monitoring conducted from 1979to 1983 by 

### ORNL found 

### mercury concentrations in single composite 

### samples 

### of largemouth bass 

### to range 

### from 0.01 to 

### 0.10 pgJg, averaging 

### 0.05 pglg (Martin Marietta 

### Energy Systems 

### 1985). Analyses 

### of individual fish were conducted 

### in 1984 and 

### 1985, and reported 

### mean concentrations of 0.02 and 0.05 pg/g9respectively (Martin Marietta Energy Systems 1986). Sampling by 

### TVA in 1984 reported a mean conccntration 

### of 0.12 pg/g for 

### 10 fish 

### (TVA 1985). Bass collected in fall 1989 from two sites on Melton 

### Mill Reservoir averaged 0.10 fig/g (n = 8) (S. 

### M. Adam, Environmental Sciences Division, 

### ORNL, personal communication). ‘Ihus, it appears that mercuiy concentrations measured in bass from Melton 

### Mill Reservoir 

### in the past have been quite low and not unlike those observcd 

### in fish from Rogers Quarry. However, it also appcars that measurements of mercury in Melton 

### Hill Reservoir bass made since 1984 indicate that concentrations much higher than those observed in fish from Rogers Quarry are now typical gf this lake. The fact that very low concentrations of mercury have been observed in Melton Hill Reservoir 

### fish in the past suggest that the low concentrations found in?Rogers Quarry fish may result not from the presence of elevated concentrations of selenium in water and biota, but rather from unusually low concentrations 

### of mercury 

### in the water or some other factor limiting the production of methylmercury in this system. While it 

### is impossible to disprove this hypothesis with the limited monitoring data presented here, 

### NPDES4-7
monitoring 

### of aqueous mercury co~~~~~~at~~~~~ 

### in Branch suggest that this stream 

### has occasionally contained elevated 

### niercury conc ns in 

### the past 

### (Rogers et al. 1988, 1989). Thus, it is 

### unlikcly that the low ~~n~n~ra~~~n~ 

### of mercury in 

### Rogers Quarry 

### fish are 

### a 

### result of unusually 

### low concentrations 

### of

### mercury in the quarry water, 

### and it 

### is 

### likeIy that the quarry 

### actually containshigher cmccntr f 

### mercury than 

### unmntaminated natural waters. It appears that 

### the 

### presence of selenium En Wlltcr jn 

### Rogers Quarry reduced the 

### natural 

### ~cc~~u~a~~~~ sa1bstantiaP 

### ami~unt, in agreement with speculation 

### of

### Turner and 

### The measurements 

### of~~~~~~u~ 

### and ascnicc~~~~~~~~~~o~is 

### in 

### fish andwater 

### from Roger Quarry can also be used to 

### calculate ~~o~~~~c~~~r~t~~n factors for 

### these 

### two elements. Although a 

### simple ratio cannot ade 

### ately describe 

### or predict bi~~~~u~ul~tio~ 

### ofinorganic substances 

### such as these because homeostatically regulated 

### in fish, (2)

### may not 

### exhibit a linear relationship between aqueous 

### phasc and biotic concentrations, and (3) may bc accumulated significantlyvia food as well as direct aqueous uptake; ~~~ert~e~~ss, 

### such ratios can 

### be useful in extrapolating to similar circumstances and 

### pcrhaps in providing additional indices

### for evaluating thepotential 

### of~~~~rni~ant~ to 

### ~~~~~~c~~~la~~. Bioconcentration factors were calculated 

### for thesc two 

### compounds 

### by di quarry by the mean aqueous 

### phase coface prceeding year. 

### Results of this calculatio 

### ~i~~~~~~~~~~r~~i(~~ factors 

### for selenium and 

### arsenic oC

### 940 

### and 6.3,respectively. aris~j~, ~~~~~~~~e~t~~~~~n 

### factors used 

### in I'cmnulatingEI'A water quality criteria 

### for thcsc two elcnacnts were 6 and 

### 44 for selenium and arsenic, respectivcly. The 1 

### e lo 

### the fact that ingestion 

### of selenium-contamina accumulation 

### sE this element 

### in fish 

### (H quality criteria arebas : 

### (I) "'$y tQ Some

the 

### mcan ~~~~ce~~~~t~~~~s 

### in fish 

### in the 

### n in thc 

### quarry measured over 

### the

screpahncy far selcni factors 

### as used 

### in 

### EPA water irect 

### uptake frrrsm 

### ayeacsus Concentrations 

### of pcsticides and 

### CBs in ~~~~~v~~~~~~ bass 

### from 

### Rogers Quarry are listed 

### in Table 

### 4-3. 

### In all 

### cases, the ice^^^^^^^^^ were far below 

### the estimatkd detection 

### limits (Table 4-31,

### but extrernciy tow c~~~~~~~r~~~~~5 

### of

### four pcsticidcs and pesticide 

### metabolites (heptachlor, 

### DDT, 

### DDE, and chlordane) werc, 

### nevcrthelcss, estimated in 

### some individual 

### fish. 

### These cstimated c~r~~~nt~~~t~~~~s were well below 

### EPA water 

### quality critcria screening levels 

### (EPA 1990) listed 

### i EPA Integratcd 

### Risk ~~for~a~iQ~ System ( concentrations 

### of organic ~nta~~~~a~~s ca compounds arc in 

### fact prcscnt in the 

### Cis khwere calculated using 

### thc 

### remcly low estimated y infer that these



### Two 

### of eight 

### fish collccted 

### in sgers Quarry 

### hr contwaniaant analysis

### were deformed. Observed 

### abnormalities i1nuoPved bony sts-uct tires 

### of the 

### €ishincluding skull, 

### gill opercula, 

### fins, and scales. 

### Each fish had s~verc 

### erosion or 

### incomplete development oCthe 

### skull, giving it il misshapen, concave head. The bony 

### portions of most 

### fins wcrc 

### missing or eroded, and 

### pclvic fins were 

### missing. Tbe 

### bony 

### portion of 

### the outer gill covccswas malformed orincotnplcte in both fish. Lateral line scalcswcre missing in one fish;in the other, somc latcral line scales werc atsscnl, and the rcrnaining scales had a pronounced ridge. 

### Both deformed fish weie older than the remaining six 

### fish collcctecti in 

### Rogers Quarry, 

### with age estimated 

### from scale annuli at 

### 2 and 4 years, vemis 

### I 

### year for 

### the normal appearing 

### [ish ('Table 4-2). A~~it~~~~a~ 

### fish werc captured 

### anid rcleased 

### in Rogers 

### Quarry4-8

ROGQUA KOGQUA ROGQIJA ROGQUA ROGQUA KOGQUA KOGQUA ROGQUA ROGQUA LMRASS XMBASS LMDASS LMBASS LMRASS LMBtiSS LMBASS LMBASS LMBASS 5878 5879 54?4 5485 54% 5497 5499 54% 8785d M F M F F M M F 467 299 217 515 180 193 315 194 .____I_ 34.4 0.0002 29.1 O.ooo11 26.2 0.0003 32.2 <0.012 24.2 <0.012 25.0 <0.012 29.2 <0.0!2 25.3 <0.012 <0.012 0.0084 0.0010 <0.022 <0.024 <0.024 <0.024 <0.024 CO.024

0.0016 <0.018 0.0007 3.86K)§ 0.W2
O.OOO4 0.W <0.024 <0.024 0.0001 0.0003 0.O002 <0.012 10.012 c0.012
<0.012 <0.012

0.0004

F 82.7 17.0 <0.025 <0.049 4.049 20.025 HINDSCR BLUGII, 546.5 EPA IRIS SCREENING CRITERIA' 0.0024 0.032 0.032 0.008

"All otherpesticides and PCBs below limit of defection. Compound ALPHA-BHC <0.012 BETA-RHC <0.012 DELTA-BHC <0.012 GAMMA-BHC <0.012 HEPTACHLOR <0.012 ALDRIN C0.012 I-?EPTACHl,OR EPOXIDE C0.012 ENDOSULFAN I <0.012 DIELDRIN <o.ozA
ENDRIN <0.024 ENDOSULFAN I1 <0.02% 4,4'-DDD <0.024 ENDOSULFAN SULFATE <0.024 4,4'-DDT <0.024 ENDRIN KETONE <0.024 ME1'HOXYCHLOR ~0.024 TOXAPHENE. <0.024 ARCHLOR 1016 <0.024 ARCHLOR 1221 <0.024 ARCHLOR 1232 <0.024 ARCHLOR 1242 <0.024 ARCllLOR 1248 c0.024 ARCHL,OR 1254 <0.024 ARCHl,OK 1260 <0.021 Detection limit (j@g wet wt.)

4,4'-DDE <0.024

When analytes arenot detected, the Oak Ridge National I-aboratory, Analytical Chemistty Division Organics Analysis lab reponsvalues as Im than the quanlitation limit. Concentrations bWehthan the quantitation limit can be detected, hut with lower accuracy and precision than is required todefine the quantification limit. The detection limit used in this tablewas estimated by dividing thc reported quanlification limit by a factor often. In some **cases,**the laboratory reported even lowerconcentrations to be dctectcd. Thesevalues are reported, but are unlikely to actually indicate the presence **of** the specified analyte. bLMBASS = largemouth bass; BLUGITa= bluegill sunfish. "Sum **of** alpha and gamma chlordane. dDuplicate for 5878. '%PA, person:11 communication.

### 4-9

because 

### the collection 

### efhst was ~~t~~~t~~~ to collect ~n~~v~du~~s 

### rcpresentixag a broad range of sizes and ages. 

### All fish released 

### appearance to 

### the

### six undeforrned 

### fish in 

### or observed 

### in 

### McCoy Branch 

### embaymen4-10

Largemouth bass 

### in Rogers Quarry and McCoy Branch embayment 

### will be 

### sampled and analyzed for metals again 

### in 1991 to ascertainwhether 

### or not concentrations **of** arsenic, sclenium, and thallium decrease as expected. Largemouth bass will 

### also be collected from a reference site more similar toRogers Quarry, such as Lambert 

### Quarry. At thesame time, 

### a more extensive survey 

### ofthe incidence 

### ofbony structure deformities will be carried out. Further review 

### of thescientificliterature for possible 

### agents that cause abnormalities similar to those found 

### in Rogers Quarry bass 

### will be conducted.5.1 

### XNTRODUCTlCTiON 

### Fish populatiran and community studies 

### can be uxx.i ta 

### assess the 

### ecologicd effects of water quality and habitat. 

### ncscstudies offer several a~~a~ta~es 

### wer ot 

### er indicators of cnvironmental quality (Karr et al. 

### I and are 

### relevant to any evaluation 

### of the biotic integrity of streams such 

### h. 

### Fish ~~~~un~t~~~, 

### for example, comprise 

### several trophic 

### levelswith 

### species t at, 

### or near, 

### thc end 

### of foodchains. Consequently, they integratc the direct effects 

### ofwater quality 

### and habitat changes 

### on primary producers 

### ~~ri~h~~~) and 

### ~~~~~er~ ~~n~~~~ ~~~~rte~~ate~), 

### which are used fnr 

### food. Because of thesc trophic 

### interrelationships, the 

### ng 

### affish ~~~~~~~~011s has often 

### been 

### used as an 

### index ofwater quality 

### (Weber 1 eesmet 

### at. 1977;

### Karr et 

### ai. 1986). hioreover, statements about the condition 

### of thc

### fish ~~~~un~ty are

### better understmd by 

### the general public 

### (Karr 1981).


### Theinitial objectives 

### of the 

### fish ~~)rn~~~n~t~ mtmitoring 

### task were to 

### (1) characterize spatial 

### and temporal patterns 

### in distrihution and abundance 

### offishes

### in 

### McCoy Branch, and 

### (2) document myefkcets 

### on 

### fish ~~~rn~~~~~y structure and function rcsulting 

### from implementation **of** the remedial actions as discicusse and 

### Loar 1988). cCoy Branch 

### RFI (Murphy

5.2 

### DS 

### The 

### fish community in 

### McCoy Brarnc was evaluated at 

### one area upstream and one 

### area downstream 

### from 

### Rogers Quarry 

### (Fig. 2-2); both 

### areas 

### arc p~~te~~~~~~y 

### impacted by coal ash effluent (Sect. 2.2.3). The 

### upstream area 

### was ~a~i~~~~ qualitatively over a 

### lung stream reach to dctermine absence 

### or presence ol fish. e ~~own~~re~~ 

### arm was sampled quantitatively at 

### McCoy Branch kilonietcr ( 

### CK) 1.56 to 

### measure population parameters. Similar 

### quantitative 

### saniples were made Creek 

### kilometer (GGK) 2.4 and White 

### Oak Creek klliometcr ( 

### CK) 6.81 Ibr comparison ofpopulation parameters 

### (Fig. 2-1). 

### No 

### attemptwas macle to survey 

### the quasay itsell. two nearby 

### rerererace sitcs [Grassy



### Both qimalitativc and quantitative samplingwas epamducted 

### using a **~~~~~“~00** t 

### Model



### c pulse frequency 

### and the 1SAbackpack 

### electrofishcr. The unit has a ~~~f-c~~t~i~~~, ~~~~~~~n~-power~~ generator capable of delivering 

### up to 

### 120 V of

### pulsed, direct. current. output voltage can bc varied, but 

### generally a pulse f1hequenc-y

### of 90-120 

### Hz and ti 

### voltage of less 

### than 400 V was used. 

### For yualitativc sampling, 

### oncclcctsofisbcr and 

### onc nchter made 

### a 

### single electrofishing survey 

### upstream through 

### the stream, A majority **of** the 

### stream and all major tributaries were sijmplcd. 

### Two surprey~ (1 1 May 

### 998 the upstream. Anothcr, supvcy 

### (14 Decernhes 1987)w the earthen darn. Stunncd 

### fish were tobe 

### kcpt an stream from thc Rogers 

### Quarry inkt (MCK 1.92) t 2.65) 

### e of 

### the strcam scctiorrs above 

### Ificd to

### specks.5-2

For quantitative sampling, a 0.64-cm mesh seine waq placed across the upper and lower boundaries of the fish sampling site torestrict 

### fish movement. 

### The sampling site 

### (MCK 1.56)varied between 46-50 

### m in length (Table 5-1) for the three 

### sampling surveys. 

### A quantitative sampleinvolved one electrofisker and oneor two netters, 

### This sampling team electrofished upstream through the site, collecting stunned fish for three separate passes. The fish were separatedby pass inbuckets prior to processing. Depending

### upon the turbidity of the water, the consecutive passes could not alwaysbe made immediately. Rather, fish were processed after each pass to 

### allow sufficient time for thewater to clear before another pass was started. 

### Following the electrofishing, fish were anesthetized with 

### NS-222 (tricainc methanesulfonate) and processed. ‘Toprocess the 

### fish,they were identified, measured to the nearest 0.1 cm (total length), and weighed to the nearest 

### 0.1 

### g (for fish 

### < 100

### g) or grain (for fish 

### > 100 g>using Pesola spring scales. At 

### siteswith high fish densities, individuals were recorded by l-cm size classes and species. After 

### 25 individuals of a species-size class werc measured and weighed, additional members of that size class 

### were only measured. Length-weight regressions were later used to estimate weight for unwcighed fish (Railsback et ai. 1989). Other data recorded (if possible to determine), included sex, reproductive state,disposition 

### @e.,dead orkept for laboratory idcntification and inclusion in a reference collection), and the presence of any abnormalities 

### (e.&, external parasites or skeletal deformities). After processing fish from all passes, the fish were allowed to fully recover from the anesthetic and were returned to the stream within the sampling site. Any additional mortality occurring as a result 

### ofprocessing was noted at that time.
In addition to data on individual fish, data 

### on selected physical and chemical parameters and the sampling effort were recorded. An Moriba Model 

### U-7 Water Quality Checkcr was used to measure 

### pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity. An 

### €IFInstruments Model 

### DR’T-15turbidimeter was used to measure turbidity. 

### The duration of the electrofishing effort was recorded for each pass, and a visual cstimate was made 

### of percent cloud cover. Following completion 

### of fish sampling, the length, widt intervals), and depths (at 3 points on the width transect) 

### of the sampling reach were measured at each site. Species population estimates were calculated using the three-pass removal method of Carle and Strub (1978). Biomass was estimated by multiplying the population estimatc by the mean weight per individual. ‘rota1numbers and biomass wcre divided 

### by the surface arca 

### (m2)of the sampling site to calculate values per unit arca. 

### For each sampling date, surface area was estimated by multiplying the length of sampling reach 

### by the mean width based 

### on measuremcnts taken at 

### 5-mintervals (Fable 

### 5-1). The population structure of the three most abundant species was examined by length frequencies. 

### The lengths ofthe estimated fish population were separated into 

### 1-or 2-cm size classes, depcnding onthe maximum size of the species. These frequencies indicatcd whether the population included young and adult individuals and 

### if any unusual mortality had affected a size class.

### 5-3



### Table 5-1. 

### Length, 

### meanwidth, 

### mean depth, mea, 

### and pl-rBkratio 

### (PiR)offish sampling sitcs 

### on 

### McCoy 

### Branch and two

### referencestream, Grassy

### Creek and White Oak Creek, for 

### each samplingdate



### MCK 1.56 

### 05/1

### 1/89 **4.6** 

### 1.6 18.6 

### 74 0.4 18/27/89 

### 50 0.9 

### 10.5 45 

### 0.4 05/16/90 

### 50 0.9 13.6 

### 45 0.5 

### GCK 

### 2.4 04/06/89 

### 60 1.9 13 

### 114 0.8 10/23/89 61 1.4 9 

### 85 1.8 04119/90 

### 61 1.6 8 

### 98 0.8 

### WCK 6.8 04/20/89 

### 60 2.3 6.3 

### 138 0.4 101'3

### 1/89 fio 

### 2.0 8.1 1

### 2Q 0.7 94/03/90 

### 55 2.5 7.7 138 

### NMb
"MCK = McCoy Branch kilometer; 

### GCK = 

### Grassy Creek kilometer; 

### WCK = 

### White

b~~ = not metisured. 

### Oak Creek kilometer.5-4

The procedures used for calculating density, biomass, and length frequency arc given in inore detail in Railsback ct al. (1989). Condition factors nieasure the degree 

### of

### plumpness **of** a 

### fish as a measureof relative health (Bennett 1970). A condition factor 

### (K) was calculated 

### for individual 

### fish by site using the following formula:

whcre theweight is in grams and total length 

### in centimeters (Hile 

### 1936). 

### Fish without measured weights were not used 

### in the calculation of condition factors" 

### A comparison 

### of condition factors bctween sampling periods was mads:with an analysis 

### ofvariance 

### (ANOVA) on untransformed data (SAS 198%) because the condition factors 

### exhibited homogeneity ofvariance (SAS 19853). 

### If the 

### ANOVA indicated significant differences in condition factors between groups, thc Tukey test was performed to identify those groups that were significantly different (alpha = 0.05).

Suweys 

### of upper McCoy Branch above Rogers Quarry failed to locate any 

### fish. 

### 'fie threesurveys at MCK 1.56 indicated the stream below the quarry 

### had a permancnt 

### fish community. At 

### MCK 1.56,

### species richness (total 

### numbcr of species) ranged from 9 to 11 specics for the three surveys made from May 1989to May 1990 

### (Table 5-2). The total number of species taken during this period was 

### 14, but only 4 species 

### were taken 

### in 

### all surveys. Specksrichness in McCoy Branch was considerably higher than the 3-5 species found 

### in the reference sites. 

### 'Ihe variability in species number and composition 

### in 

### McCoy Brarich is related to proximity of the site to Melton 

### Hill Reservoir. 

### The closeness of the reservoir allows species to be found in 

### McCoy Branch that are atypical 

### for a stream the size of 

### McCoy Branch. Only blacknose dace 

### (Rhiniciithysatratulus), central stoneroller 

### (Cumpostomn 

### nnamnlum),redbreast siirifish 

### (Lepomis nurifus),and saaubnosc darter 

### (Etheostomn sirnoterum)are typical inhahitants of similar-sized streams in this area (Kyon and LBar 1988). Comparisons with the reference streams indicate that sevcral species expected to occur in streams of this size wcre missing. These species include creck chub 

### (Semotihs ntromaculntus).striped shiricr 

### (Luxilus

### chrysocephalus),white sucker 

### (Catostonzus 

### conzmcrsotzi),and banded sculpin (Cottus

### cnroliaae). The absence of these species may reflect past extermination by coal ash discharges and prevention of recolonization from Melton Hill Reservoir. The variable association offish species and the presencc of 

### fish atypical for a stream of this size suggest that the comtnunity contains many individuals that move in and out from the reservoir.
'Ihc fish community at 

### MCK 1.56 contained four species [green sunfish 

### (L. cyanellus),carp 

### (Cyprfnus

### cmpio),ycllow bullhead (,4nreiumsnatnlis), and spotfin slminer 

### (Cyprirzelln

### spiloptrrn)]that are considered to

### be insensitive to 

### many habitat and water5-5

Table 5-2 Fish densities (number 

### fiSWrn3 inMcCoy Branch and 

### in two reference slreams, White Oak Creekand Grassy Cnxk, for April-May 1989toApril-May 1990
Species April-May October April-May 1989 1989 1990

Blacknose dace Bluntnose minnnow Spotfin shiner Stoneroller Bluegill sunfish Green sunfish Largemouth bass 

### Redbreast sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth Greenside darter Snubnose darter Yellow bullhead

Total number species Total density

Blacknose dace Creek chub Stoneroller Banded sculpin

Total number of species Total density

Blacknose dace Creek chub Striped shiner Grecn sunfish White sucker Banded sculpin

Total number of species Total density 0.5 0.1 0.1 

## <o.1

5.2 0.3 0.1 <O.l
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1
11 6.4

1

.O 0.1
**0.2** 3 1.3

0.1 0.1 c0.1 cO.1

4 0.2 K0.1" 0.7 0.1

0.4 0.9 0.1 0.2 <0.1

0.1
0.1 0.2 10 2.7 1.4 0.8 c0.1 <0.1
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1

0.1 9 2.6

1.9 1.1 0.2 <0.1 0.3 0.3 <0.1

4 3 2.4 1.4

2.2 0.9 0.5 0.3 <0.1 co.1 KO.1 c0.1 cQ.1 c0.1

5 5 2.8 1.3

"Value of <O.l indicates specieswas present at very low densities.5-6
quality stressors. They would be considered tolcrant species 

### in an impact assessment methodology such as the Index 

### of Biotic Integrity 

### (Mar et 

### a]. 19%). 

### Only two species were found that woiild bc considered slightly intolerant or sensitive 

### to stress, the Tennessee snubriose darter and greenside darter 

### (E,BIenazE'des), and thesc speckswere represented 

### by only a few individuals. Thispattern suggests that McCoy Branch is a stressed system. Trophic composition of the community can indicate furtherstress on the system. 

### A noaimpacted stream will have mailgr benthic insectivores, few gcneralist feeders, and a stablepiscivore population. The fish community ofMcCoy 

### Branch included many omnivores 

### or generalist feedcrs, few benthic insectivores, and kwes piscivores. 

### Generalist feedersare readily able to switch prey items and are 

### more successful 

### in stressed stream systcnas (Leonard arid Orth 1986). In McCoy 

### Branch the generalist feeders included the blacknssc dace, carp,blucgill sunfish 

### (L.macrmhin~s). warmouth 

### (L. $EC~OSW),and ycll~w bullhead. 

### Bcnthk insectivores are specialized feeders that are limited in tine prey items they 

### can eat, are more successful in undisturbed streams (kmnard and 

### Orth 1986), and in McCoy Branch, included 

### ody the two darter species, 

### The largemautbbass 

### (Mzcropten~s salmoidcs) was the mlypiscivore; it was present 

### in low numbm ('I'able 

### 5-2) and only at small sizes.

Densities at MCK 6.56 for the three: sampling periods ranged from 2.6 to 64 

### fish/m2 (Table

### 5-2). The density in May 1989

### of 6.4 fish/m2, included 

### 5.2 blucgill/m2. Later samples did not have such a strong component ofbluegills, and the densities were much lower. Compared with reference strcarns, MCK 

### 1.56 densities were gcnerally higher than either dcnsities at 

### GCK 2.4 or

### WCK 6.8. 'The 

### high densities 

### may be affected by immigration 

### from Meltsn Hill Reservoir and/or 

### Rogcrs Quarry. Thedensities of individual species were p~ropnrtionally similar for each 

### sar~pling pcriob. The community density was dominated by blumtnose minnow, bluegill, and 

### green sunfish; however, none of these species occurred in the reference streams. Conversely, thc dominant species in the referefice streams, blacknose dace and creek ch~h, were 

### present 

### in low numhcrs 

### oi absent altogether 

### from McCoy Branch.



### Fish bioriiass values 

### (g wet wt/m') paralleled the trends obscwed icp population density (Table 5-3). The initial sample in May 1989 had a11extremely 

### high biomass of 107.5

### g wet wt/m? and was due to the presence of several large carp 

### and a substantial numb@;- of sunfish. The sample in October 1989had a much lower biomass (17.4 g wct wh/rn2)than in May due to the abscncc of 

### many large sunfish. However, the 

### mmmunily bio~nass reboundcd in May 195%(50.3 g wet wt/m2),when more large sunfish returned to the site. 

### The biomass 

### in McCoy Branch was 2-100 timcs 

### higher than thevalues found 

### in the refercace streams (Tablc 

### 5-31at comparahlc sampling dates. 

### The domirnant species (excluding carp), in tcrms of biomass, were bluegill, green, and redbreast sunfish. 

### Most ofthe biomass for bluegill and green sunfish 

### came from large numbers of several intcrmcdiate size classes,while the biomass of the redbrcast sunfish5-7

Table 5-3. Fish biomass (g kh/m2) 

### in McCoy Branch and 

### in tw,referencestreams, White Oak Creekand GrassyCreek, for April-May 1989toApril-May 1990
Species April-May October April-May 1989 1989 1m

Blacknose dace Bluntnose minnnow Spotfin shiner Stoneroller Bluegill sunfish Green sunfish Largemouth bass Redbreast sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth Greensidedarter Snubnosc darter Yellow bullhead Carp

Total biomass

Blacknose dace Creek chub Stoncroller Banded sculpin

Total biomass

Blacknose dace Creek chub Striped shiner Grcen sunfish White sucker Banded sculpin

Total biomass 1.7 73.6

0.5 0.1 20.1

3.9
6.1 0.2
0.1 c0.1

0.2 107.5

White OakCmekk3onmer 6.8 1.3 0.4

2.7

0.2 0.4 0.1
0.2

0.9 0.1 **0.9**

3.1 1.8 0.8 6.7 0.5 0.9 0.2 2.4 17.4

8.4 0.3 <0.1

1.2
9.9

1.5 2.3 0.7 0.2 0.6
5.1 0.2

35.8

6.2 0.3 2.3
0.6 0.3 0.1 4.5
50.3

1.2 0.1 0.9 2.2

1.1 1.6 0.5 0.3 €0.1

3.55-8

was based on a few large individuals. The dominance by sunfish of the community biomass reflected the influence 

### of Melton 

### Hill 

### Reservoir.

The length-frcqucncy histograms for the three most abundant species reflected their reproductive patterns and any potential stress 

### from coal ash 

### on these patterns. 

### Themost abundant spies,thebluegill sunfish, showed 

### a 

### strong dominance by the 4- to 

### 7.9-cm size classes 

### in the spring 1989 sample 

### (Fig. 5-1). However,thc fall 

### 1989

### sample 

### docs not show any small 

### size classes, suggesting a lack 

### ofbluegill reproduction in McCoy Branch Also the general bluegill population declined. 

### In 1980,the population remained 

### smallwith a shift towards more large individuals in the site. Thegreen sunfish showed 

### a morc balanced pattern,with large numbers of

### small- to medium-sized individuals and 

### a few large individuals at all sample dates 

### (Fig. 5-1). In 

### Eke fall 

### 1989sample, 

### the two smallest size classes had substantial numbers 

### of fish. 

### This suggests 

### a relatively stable reproductive effort. Thebluntnose minnow had a much narrower size range, which was dominated by 

### larger size 

### classes in 

### the spring samples (Fig. 5-1). Thesmaller individuals in the fall 1989 sample are an indication of some reproduction (or immigration from nearby embayment areas).

Comparisons of condition factors 

### (M)should provide information on therelative wellbeing 

### of the fish, because thosewith more weight 

### per length have a higher condition factor (Everhart et al. 1975). Data were not available for 

### a statistical comparison 

### of condition factors between 

### MCK 1.56 and the reference sites because therewas 

### so little species overlap. Whcn compared with condition factors of redbreast andbluegill sunfish in other areas of 

### WOC (M. 

### G. Ryon, Environmental Sciences Division, 

### QRNL, personal communication), condition factors of these species at 

### MCM 1.56werewithin thc range 

### of values. Scasonal comparisons of condition factors in McCoy Branch werc made for 

### nine species. Three species, bluegill sunfish, green sunfish, andbluntnose minnow demonstrated statistically greater condition factors in spring samples than 

### in fall samples. Six other species did not show any significant differences.

As part 

### of the normal processing procedure for population estimates, observations 

### of abnormalities or attachedparasites are madc of the 

### fish specimens. Usually, these abnormalities are limited to less than 1-596 of the population in a minimally stressed system; a highly stressed system would have 

### 5% ormore abnormalities (Karr et al. 1986). Suck abnormalities may include spinal deformities, open skhlesions, fin rot or erosion, or distended eycs (‘popeye’). The number 

### of such observations made in McCoy Branch seemed unusually high.5-9

ORNL-DWG91-17425

250

-I d w **200** w
m 

## 8 150 LT W 

### 3

$100 P 50

02-3.9 4-5.9 6-7.9 8-9.9 10-17.912-13.9 14-15.916-17.9 18-19.9 25 =j' 20 G **z** 3 fn **Z** 15 w w [r **8** 

## B 10 

## 5 **U** W m 25

02.39 4-59 6-79 8-99 10-11 912-13914-15916-17918-199

4-49 5-5.9 6-6.9 7-7 9 8-8.9 9-9.9 10-10 9 LENGTH 

### (cm) 

### Fig. 5-1. 

### Length-frequencyhistograms for

### bluegill

### sunfish, green 

### sunfish, and 

### bluntnoseminnow for 

### May 1W,

### October 

### 1989, 

### and 

### May 1990

### frcirn 

### McCoy

### Branch site 

### MCK 

### 156.

### 5-18



### In the May 1989sample, 27% oE the green sunfish (6.3-15.7 

### rnrn 

### TI,) and 73% 

### of the redbreast sunfish (10.9-17.5 

### mrn 

### TI,) had one abnormality, extremely eroded fins. 

### The pelvic, pectoral, and anal fins were often 

### missing or reduced to mere fin rays without any membrana and tipped 

### by an enlarged 

### knob. 

### The occurrence

### of abnormalities decreased substantially 

### in the October 1989 

### fish population sample 

### (2%). However, 

### the May 1996)sample again demonstrated severe abnormalities. Eroded finswere found in 8%

### of the green sunfish (9.1-14.5 mm 

### TL) and 13% 

### ofthebluegill sunfish. Also, 11%

### of thebluegill (9.2-18.1 

### rnrn 

### TL)showed anothcr abnormality. 

### a misshapened 

### head that appeared tobe a skull deformity. Similar deformities were noted in largemouth 

### bas taken 

### in bioaccumulation sampling 

### of Rogers Quarry (Sect. 4.3). 

### The reference streams did not have any specimenswith either 

### erode 

### fins or dcformed heads during these ds. "lie presence of the deformities suggests an extremestress in 

### McCoy s related to the high levels 

### of arsenic 

### or selenium in McCoy Branch water (Sect. 2-22 and 4.3).

5.4 

### CON@EUSIONS
Data on the 

### fish populations of McCoy Branch demonstrated the stream has received considerable stress from the coal ash operations. Thetotal lack of species above the quarry indicate that conditions were lethal to 

### fish in that section. Thecessation 

### of the coal ash sluicing through that section after November 1989should have reduced that stress. However, Rogers Quarry effectively acts as a migration barrier to species that might repopulate upper McCoy Branch. The 

### fish community below Rogers Quarry, although permanent, demonstratesa lesser degree of impact than that of upper McCoy Branch. 

### Thestress is related to both coal 

### ash discharges and the impacts 

### of Melton Hill Reservoir. 

### The speeics composition, and the most abundant species, reflect conditions inappropriatefor a streamthe size of 

### McCoy Branch. Species that should occur in such a stream are missing and have been replaced by those from the adjacent reservoir. Even those 

### species demonstrate several degreesof stress. The species occurring 

### in the stream include those most tolerant of degraded conditions. This applies to both tolerance of physical and chemical stress and a flexibility 

### in feeding requirements. Finally, substantial numbers 

### of individuals within the community demonstrate severe physical abnormalities only rarely found in other systems.

The future plans for assessing the fish community in McCoy Branch will continue the twice a year (spring and fall) sampling schedule. Until fish populations arc found in upper 

### McCoy Branch, sampling in that area will be restricted to qualitative surveys. An additional reference site will be sampled quantitatively. This selected site will more closely approximate the species and the conditions of 

### MCK 1.56. 

### For example, the site will be situated close 

### to an embaynient or main section ofMelton Hill Reservoir. During the quantitative processing, additional attentionwill be given to assessing abnormalities.5-1

### 1

Because immigration 

### of individualsand species into 

### McCoy Branch from Melton Hili 

### Reservoir is occurring, further qualitative 

### sampling will 

### be conducted to assess immigration. 

### Ifpossible, additional qualitative sampling will 

### include the quarry; this may be 

### a 

### cooperative efFortwith sampling for the bioaccumulation task. 

### Long-term plans 

### for McCoy Branch studies may include the reintroduction 

### of fish species into upper McCoy Branch above Rogers Quarry. 

### The fish would be 

### species expected to occur in such 

### a stream (e.g., 

### blacknose dace) and population dynamics would be monitored after the 

### reintroduction,

### 6.1 

### INTRODUCIlON Benthic macroinvertebrates arc those organisms which live on or in thesubstrate of 

### flowing and nontlowing bodies ofwater and are 

### large enough tobe 

### seen without the aid 

### ofmagnification. Their limited mobility and relatively long 

### life spans (a few months to more than a year) 

### ofmost taxa 

### make them ideal for evaluating the ecological effects of effluent discharges to 

### streams (Platts et al. 1983). 

### Thm, thecomposition and structure of the benthic community reflect therelativcly recent past, and they can be 

### considerably more informative than alternativc methods that rely solely on water quality analyses but miss the potential synergistic effects often associated with complex effluents. The objective of 

### the initial phase ofthis study is toprovide a 

### detailed spatial and temporal characterization 

### of the 

### benthic invertebrate community oE 

### McCoy Branch. 

### These data will be used as a baseline from which the effectiveness 

### ofmajor remedial actions within the McCoy Branch watershed can be 

### assessed. Thedata will also 

### be used toprovide direction for future studies.

6.2 

### MA'l33UAI-S AND 

### iMETHODS Benthic macroinvertebrates were 

### sampled at 

### approximately quarterly intervals beginning in April 1989 

### through January 1990

### at two sites 

### in McCoy Branch 

### (Fig. 2-2). Because an unimpacted reference site 

### was not available on 

### McCoy Branch, a relatively unimpacted reach of 

### upper 

### WOC served as 

### a rcference site. Upper 

### WOC 

### is similar 

### in size to McCoy Branch, and 

### is locatedjust 

### north of 

### ORNL, approximately 3 

### Km west of 

### McCoy Branch 

### (Fig. 2-1). Three random quantitative sampleswere collected from a 

### permanently rnarkcd 

### riffle at 

### each sitewith a 

### Surber bottom sampler (0.09 

### m2)fitted with a 

### 363-pm-mesh collection net. 

### To obtain additional information on taxonomicrichness, a 

### qualitative 

### sample consisting 

### of collections from riffle and nonriffle habitats (e.g.,

### pools, leaf packs, detritus, and snags) was taken from each site 

### in spring 1989. Qualitative 

### sampleswere collected with a D-Erame aquatic dip net (mesh 

### of 

### 800

### pm x 

### 900 pm). 

### All samples were placed 

### in prelabcled, polyurethane-coated glassjars and preserved in 

### 80% cthanol; the ethanol was 

### replaced with fresh ethanol (80%)

### within 10

### d of collection. Supplemental 

### information 

### on water quality and stream characteristicswas recorded at thc time of 

### sampling. Temperature, conductivity, dissolvcd oxygen, and 

### pH wcre measured with an Horiba Model 

### U-7Water 

### Quality Checker. Water depth, location within the riffle area 

### (distance from permanent headstakes on the stream bank), visual determination of relative strcam 

### velocity (very slow, 

### slow, moderate, or fast), and substrate type [visual 

### determination based on 

### a 

### modified Wentworth particle size scale (Loar 1985)] 

### were recorded for each sample.
All samplcs 

### were washed 

### in 

### the laboratory using a 

### U.S. Standard Scries No. 

### 60sievc 

### (250-pm 

### mesh) and placed 

### in an 8-x 

### 10-inch white, plastic tray 

### fox sorting. Organisms werc removed from thedcbris with forceps and placed in labeled vials 

### ccmtaining 80% 

### ethanol. Organisms were idcntified to the lowest practical taxonomic level using a

### 6-2
stereoscopic dissecting microscope. After chironomid larvae were sorted into groups based on morphological similarities, one 

### or more representativcs 

### of each groupwere mounted 

### on a slide in CMC-10 mounting medium and identified using a compound microscope. The remaining chironomid larvae erethen identified at a magnification of 

### 5OX to 

### lOOX with a dissecting microscope. '4 blotted wet weight 

### of all individuals combined 

### in each tamn was determined to the nearest 0.01 mg on 

### a Mettler analytical balance. Slides 

### of mounted chironomid larvae were retained in slide 

### boxes, and individuals of the remaining taxa from a given site and sampling datewere preserved 

### in separate

### vials containing 

### 80%ethanol. A reference collection 

### ofthese specimens 

### will be maintained at 

### ORNL. The Shannon-Weincr index 

### (W') was used to calculate the taxonomic diversity 

### of benthic macroinvertebrates at each site (Pielou 

### 1977):

where 

### P* is the proportion 

### of thebenthic invertebrate community made up 

### of species

### j. 

### H' values of3 or greater are typical 

### ofclean water, whilc values of 1-3 areusually associated with moderate pollution, and values of less than 

### 1characterize heavily polluted water (Platts et al. 1983). 

### J



### All data analyses were donewith the Statistical Analysis System (SAS 

### 1985a,b). Mean values for density'; biomass'; number 

### of taxa per sample (taxonomic richness); number 

### of Ephemeroptera,Plecoptcra, and Trichoptera taxa per sample 

### (EPTrichness); and taxonomic diversity were compared separately with a one-way analysis ofvariance 

### (ANOVA) on quarterly sampling period-specific data with 

### site as the main effect; 

### all analyses were based on three replicatcs per site and date. 

### Prior to performing the 

### ANOVA, data were transformed 

### log10(X+d) (6-2) where

### X = individual values 

### for density, biomass, etc. 

### (Elliott 1977). Where significant differences were found betwecn sites, treatment means were compared using 

### a Tukey standardized range test (= = 0.05) to discriminate these differences.

'Comparisons between sites in density and biomass were made both with and without Mollusca (snails and mussels) and Decapoda (crayfish) since these taxa arc typically very heavy but numerically unimportant and can 

### thus suppress the importance of the weight changes

### ofthe other organisms. Therefore,unless otherwise noted, trends presented 

### in both spatial and temporal patterns in density include both Decapoda and 

### Mollusca,while trends in biomass exclude these two groups.

### 6-3

6.3.1 

### Taxonomic Composition
A checklist 

### ofthebcnthic invertebrates collected from McCoy Branch and a reference site at 

### WCK 6.8 from 

### April 1959through January 1990,is prcscnted in Appendix 

### B, Tablc 

### B-1. A total 

### of 163 distinct taxa, 

### 145 of which were insects, were collected in quantitative samples from the designated sampling sites in the two streams. Nine ordcrs 

### of insects, including Collembola (springtails), Ephemcroptera (mayflies), aleoptera (beetles), Diptera (true 

### flies),Kemiptcra (true 

### bugs), Mcgaloptcra (alderflies, 

### fishflies,and dobsonflies), Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies),were collected from these streams. Thcorder Diptera was themost taxonomically

### rich group with 76 representative taxa, 

### 50 ofwhich were from the family Chironomidae (truc midgcs). 

### Ofthe remaining insect orders, Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera, and Plecoptera had the greatest number 

### of taxa with 23, 20, and 

### 16 taxa, respectively. Thcnumbers 

### of taxa from 

### thcse three orders wcre greater from the reEerence sile than 

### from either of thetwo McCoy Branch sites. 

### Ofthe nine insect orders rcpresented in the quantitative samples, Megaloptera wcre ahscnt from 

### MCK 1-40,and Hemiptera were absent from MCK 

### 2,OX 

### In addition to insects, taxa representing 

### ken other major taxonomic groups wcre collected including 

### Amphipodi~ (siduswimmers),

### Copepoda (copepods), Decapoda (crayfish), Gaslropodd (snails), Hydracarina (water rnitcs), Ncmatoda (roundworms), Oligochaeta (aquatic earthworms), Ostracoda (wed shrimp), Bivalvia (mussels and clams), and Tricladida (planaria or flatworms) (Appendix €3, Tablc 

### B-1). Copcpoda and Ostracoda were collected only

### from McCoy Branch. Twenty-seven additional taxa were collected from McCoy Branch and 

### 25 from WOC in qualitativc samples (Appendix 

### B, Table 

### B-1). Decapods, amphipods, and water mites were found 

### in McCoy Branch 

### only in the qualitative 

### samples (Appcndix 

### B, Table El). 

### Of the additional taxa collected from McCoy Branch, only one

### belonged tothc order Ephemcroptcra. 

### In the 

### WCK 6.8sample, there were 

### 11 additional taxa 

### of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera. 

### The 

### group containing the greatest number 

### of additional taxa was the dipterans 

### (7 from 

### WCK 6.8and 

### 23 from the MCK sites). 

### 6.3.2 Density 

### and Biomass The annual means for density and biomass of the benthic macroinvertebrates at each sampling site are presented 

### in Table 6-1. The density of invertebrates (including and excluding mollusks and 

### decapods) at 

### MCK 1.40 and 

### WCK 6.8 was almost twicc that at 

### MCK 2.03 (Table 6-1);these differences were statistically significant (Table 

### 6-2). Thc 

### biomass 

### of macroinvertebrates (all taxa) at 

### WCK 6.8was 

### more than 

### 13 times higher than at MCK 

### 2.03, and almost 6 times higher than at 

### NGK 1.40 (Table 6-1). 

### When mollusks and decapods were excluded, the 

### biomass at 

### WCK 6.8was similar to the biomass at MCK 1.40but still was almost 2.5 limes higher than at 

### MCK 2.03. Statistical comparisons showed that the biomass at 

### MCK 2.03was significantly lower than at 

### MCK 1.40and 

### WCK 6.8 (with 

### or without the 

### mollusks and decapods), while 

### the biomass at 

### NCK 

### 1.40 differed 

### from 

### WCK 6.8 only whcn all taxa wcre considered (Table 

### 6.2).

### Taxonomic 

### EPT ~iornassq ~iomassJ 

### richnessg richness' Diversity" Sitesb Densitpd Density



### MCK 1.40 669.5 

### 662.7 473.1 442.6 

### 25.6 4.9 

### 2.90 (186.7) 

### (185.0) (104.2) (109.3) 

### 43.0) (0.8) 

### (0.08) 

### MCK 2.03 388.9 385.0 

### 206.8 187.4 

### 23.8 

### 5.5 3.02 (248.9) (247.0) 

### [112.5) 

### (57.2) (7.01 (3- 

### 4 (0.24) 

### WCK 6.8 714.1 675.1 

### 2751.2 452.0 

### 45.8 

### 15.7 3.98 (194.1) (194.2) 

### (568.3) (117.8) (2.3) 

### (1.41 (0.20) 

# e a 

### 'Values in parentheses are I1 

### SE. 'MCM = 

### McCoy Branch kilometer; 

### WCK = 

### White 

### Oak Creek kilometer. TQ. 

### of indivictuaW8.1

### m2. dZncludes 

### all taua. 'Excludes Mollusca 

### and Decapoda. &pressed as 

### mg wet wti0.P 

### m2. %pressed as 

### No. of 

### tasra/sarnple. 'Expressed as 

### No. of 

### EPT taxa/sarnple. 'E?rpressed as 

### H'; the Shannon-Weiner index 

### (H') was 

### used to calculate 

### the taxonomic 

### diversity 

### using the equation 

### P-log:! 

### Pj, where 

### P. 

### is the 

### proportion of 

### the benthic invertebrate 

### mmmunity made 

### up of species

### j. 

### H' 23 indicates values 

### tyyical 

### o



# iclean water, 1 s 

### H' <3 

### aremoderate pollution, and €3' 

### <Iindicatesheavily polluted 

### water. 1

### 6-5



### Table 

### 6-2Statistical oornparisrans“ **of**

### meam 

### annualbenthicrnacmhvertcbratedensity, 

### biomass, taxonomic 

### richness, 

### Ephemeroptera, Plectopte~~ 

### and Tricboptcra (EPT) richness, 

### and 

### species diversity

### in McCoyBranchband 

### the reference stream, 

### Wbite Oak 

### Cree

___~ - 

### Eliensity 

### (4 

## -1
WCK 6.8 

### MCK 1.40 

### MCK 2.03


### Density 

### (excludingMollusca and Decapods)
WCK 6.8 

### MCK 1.40 

### MCK 

### 2.03

~~~ 

### (dttaxa) 

### WCK 6.8 

### MGM 1.40 

### MCK 2.03



### Biomass (excludingMollusks &

### hpoda)
WCK 6.8 

### MCK 1.40 

### MCK 2.03



### WCK 6.8



### WCK 6.8 €&hness 

### MCK 1.40 

### MCK 2.03



### EPTRichness MCK 1.40 

### MCK 2.03


### Divetsity
WCK 6.8 

### MCK 1.40 

### MCK 2.03 “Sites not joined by 

### lines are significantly different **(a** = 0.05), based on Tukcy’s 

### bMcGoyBranch kilometer = MCK 

### White 

### Oak 

### Creek kilometer = 

### WCK. studcntizedrange test (HSD). n = 

### 12 

### for each sitc.6-6
Temporal patterns in density of macroinvertebrates at 

### MCK 1.40and 

### WCK 62 werc similar with thehighest density at both sites occurring in July 1989 

### (Fig. 6-1). 

### In contrast, the greatest density at 

### MCK 2.03occurred in January 

### 195% when the density 

### was four times grater than during thc previous three sampling 

### periods. During 

### each sampling period, chironomids and 

### colcopter2ns were generally the most alxmdant taxa at MCM 

### 1.40,although a July peak in density 

### was primarily the result aE

### a substantial increase 

### in the numbers 

### of trichopterans and rmonchironomid dipterans. Chironomids, ephemeropterans, and plecopterans were consistently the most a~~~~~~t taxa at 

### WCK 6.8. 

### 'I'he July peak in density at this site resulted primarijy from an increase 

### in the nu~n pterans and nonchironomid dipterans and to a lesser 

### extent plecopteran 

### ds (Fig-4-2). Chironomid densities were 

### generallyhigher than the dcmities of other taxa at MCK 

### 2.03;however, ephemeropterans (primarily

### Baelis) 

### were 

### responsible for a dramatic increase in density at this site in January. Seasonal trends inbiomass were similar to those 

### of density, with the 

### highest values for biomass at 

### MCK 1.40

### and 

### WCK 6.8 occurring 

### in July, and 

### the highest value at 

### MCM 2.03 occurring 

### in January 

### (Fig. 6-1). Seasonal changes in biomass at MCK 

### 1.40 largely reflected the seasonal changes 

### ofTrichoptera, while at MCK 

### 2.03 and 

### WCM 6.8 several taxa, particularly Trichoptera 

### and Diptera, contributed to the seasonal 

### chan-~ges (fig. 6-3).



### 'nenumber of taxa collected per sample at 

### WCM 6.8was almost two times greater than at either 

### McCoy Branch site; this difference was statistically significant (Tables 6-1 and 6-2). Taxonomic richness at the two McCoy Branch sites was similar, although the much higher standard error at MCK 

### 2.03dcmonstrated that fluctuations 

### in richness between sampling periods were considerablc. In contrast, richness at MCK 

### 1.40 and 

### WCK 6.8remained relatively stable. Temporal changes 

### in taxonomic richness were similar at 

### MCK 1.40 and 

### ZVCK 6.8 with each site exhibiting both increases and decreases 

### throyh time 

### (Fig. 6-4). 

### In contrast, taxonomic richness at 

### MCK 2.03 increased considerably through tirnc with 

### the January 1990value being four times as high as the value than in April 1989. Notwithstanding these between-site differences, all three sites exhibited peaks 

### in richness in January.

Mean Ephemcroptera, Plecoptera, and 'I'richsptera 

### (EPT) richness 

### for all sampling periods was significantlygreater in 

### WOC than in either McCoy Branch site 

### (Tables 6-1 and 6-2). The mean number of EPT taxa at the WCK 6.8 site was three times that of either McCoy Branch site. Mean 

### EPT richness at the two McCoy Branch sites was similar, although variabilitybetween sampling periods was considerably greater at 

### MCK 2.03.

### 6-7



## 1200

800 -

II 

# -
" 

## 400 

## -



# -


# - 0 ORNL-DWG9 1- 17426 

### 0 MCK 1.40 

### 0 MCK 

### 2.03 

### V WCK 

### 6.8 

# T 1500

- 

### 0 MCK 1.40 

# - 0 MCK 

### 2.03


# - V WCK 6.8


# -

_------


## MONTH Fig. 6-1. 

### Mean 

### seasonal density (all 

### taxa) andbiomass (excluding

### Mollusca and 

### Decapoda) ofbenthic 

### macroinvcrtcbrates

### in

### McCoy Branch and White 

### Oak 

### Creek,April 1989 to January 1990- Vertical bars are f 1

### SE. 

### MCK = 

### McCoy Branch kilometer and 

### WCK = Whitc Oak 

### Creek kilornetcr.6-8
ORMC--OW691- 17427

MCK 1.40 Ckironomidat v Other Diptera 

### v Coleoptera 

### a Trichoptera

700

**c** b

1

### QO **6**hironomidae MCK 2.03 **0 8**  Ephemeroptero 

### a Trichoptera

908 

# - 6610 

### E N Chirononidae $" Other Diptera V Coleoptera **0** Epherneroptera A Plecoptera **0** irichoptera WCK 6.8

-4 

# .

MONTH Fig 6-2. Mean se 

# m3 for s'ated ma 

### McCoy Branch and White 

### Oak Greek, Ap Branch kilornetcr and WCK = White Oak Creek kilometer. 

### MCK =z McCoy6-9

MCh 1.40

Chironomidce Other Diptera 0 Trichoptero N"E

0 **0** Ephemercpte-c MCK 2.03



# - 200 m -. fA =l 

# 3 100 m .a \- 

# ".

.i /

JUL OCT JAN APR

0 Chironomidoe t Other Oiotcro V Coleoptera **0** E hernewptero A P

## LCO pte KY **0** Trichoptero WCK 6.8



### MONTH Fig 6-3. Mean 

### seasonalbiomass 

### (mgwet wt.B.1 

### m2) for selected 

### taxa

### in McCoy Branch and White 

### Oak Creek, 

### April 1989to January 

### 1990. MCK = 

### McCoy Branch kilometer and WCK = 

### White Oak Creek kilometer.

........... ....................... ....................... ...........-. .- . .

## 0 aMCK

### 2.03 WCK 

### 6.8

T i T 

# T

PW JUL 

## QCT T

### 6-11



### EPT taxa were collected from 

### all sites during all sampling periods (Fig. 

### 6-5). The richness 

### of these taxa was particularly low 

### at MCK 

### 2.03in 

### April and July when an average 

### of fewer than 

### two 

### EPT taxa were collected 

### in each sample. 

## As with taxonomic richness,the mean number of 

### EPT taxa 

### from 

### WCK 6.8 

### was always higher than at either McCoy Branch site. Thenumber of

### EPT taxa remained relatively stable through time at 

### WCK 6.8 and 

### MCK 1-40,

### while the greatest variabilitybetween sampling periods was exhibited at 

### MCK 2.03.
6.3.3.3 

### Species Diversity Spatial patterns in 

### taxonomic diversity 

### (H') were similar to those observed 

### for taxonomic and 

### EPT richness (Table 

### 6-1);diversitywas 

### significantlyhigher at 

### WCK 6.8 than at either McCoy Branch sitewhile at the two 

### McCoy Branch sites diversity was similar (Table 6-2). 

### Also, as 

### for taxonomic and 

### EPT richness, diversity was highest at 

### WCK 6.8during all samplingperiods (Fig. 6-6). 

### Temporally, MCK 1.40 

### exhibited less dramatic fluctuations in diversity than the other two sites, staying close to3.0 

### in all sampling periods 

### (Fig. 6-6). The 

### other two sites exhibited similar magnitudes of fluctuation between each sampling period although not thesamepatterns.

6.4 

### DISCUSSION Thebenthic invertebrate community of McCoy Branch, which historically

### has received fly ash and bottom ash sluiced from the steam plant at the Oak Ridge 

### Y-12 Plant, exhibited evidence 

### of moderate degradation 

### ofwater quality and/or physical habitat. Relative tothercference site onWhite Oak Creek (WCK G.8), both McCoy Branch sites exhibited significantly lower values for 

### taxonomic and 

### EPT richness, and diversity. Additionally, both density and biomass were significantly lower at MCK 2.03 than at WCK 

### 6.8 and MCK 

### 1.40,suggesting that a greater degree ofdegradation exists 

### upstream 

### of Rogers Quarry- The most notable differences between the reference site and both McCoy Branch siteswere in taxonomic and 

### EPT richness; taxonomic richness was two timcs higher and 

### EPTrichness at least three times higher at 

### WCK 6.8. 

### Thegreater number 

### of 

### EPT taxa at WCK 6.8is indicative 

### of the overall health 

### of this site, because 

### EPT taxa generally tend to hevery sensitive to alterations in 

### water quality and physical habitat (Wicdcrholm 1984;Lenat 1984;Lenat 

### 1988). Smith (1991a) found 

### that the most highly-stressed invertebrate comrnunitics in streams 

### on or near the 

### ORR are almost exclusivelycomprised 

### ofchironomids and/or oligochaetes, while less pollution-tolcrant 

### EPT taxa arevirtually absent. While 

### EPT richness was reduced in McCoy Branch relative to 

### WCK 6.8,

### EPT taxa were collected during each sampling period from both sites. Although the 

### EPT values from the McCoy Branch sites are consistently lower than for sites in other 

### relatively undisturbed streams that drain thesouth slopc of 

### Chestnut Ridge near ORNL (J. 

### G. Smith, Environmental Sciences Division, 

### ORNL, personal communication), the EPT 

### values are comparable 

### to those of a 

### relatively undisturbcd reach of

### Mitchell Branch (MEK 1.43) 

### locatedjust 

### east of 

### the Oak Ridge K-25 Site (J. 

### G. Smith, Environmental Sciepces Division, 

### ORNL, personal communication). 

### This suggests that thedegrec 

### of 

### stress to the benthic macroinvertebrate community in McCoy Branch is 

### relatively moderate. Greater stress at 

### MCK 2.03relative

### GRNL-DWGSI 

### -17430



## MCK 1.40 

## MCK 

## 2.03 WCK 

## 6.8 

# T
T

### mMCK1.40 aMCK2.03 

### mWCK6.8 

## 5 ORNL-DWG91-17431

n 

### I W 

### >-I

## m E 

### w ). 

## -



# - n I T



## APR T



## JUL T



## OCT 

## MONTH JAN

Fig. 6-6. 

### Mean seasonal diversity (I%') 

### ofbenthic macroiuvertebrates

### in 

### McCq

### Branch and White 

### OakCreek,

### April 19$9 to

### Jmuargr 

### 1990. Vertical bars are 

# * 1 

### standard error. 

### MCK = 

### McCoy Branch 

### kilometer and 

### WCK = White 

### Oak Creek kilometer,6-14

to MCK 

### 1.10 **is** implied by the significantly lower values for density and biomass. However, all.parameters exhibited substantial increases at

### MCM 2.03 during the last two sampling periods which suggests that 

### recovery related 

### to improvements in water quality and/orphysical habitat may have begun. These community changes may have 

### bccn the result of several measures taken at the

### Y-12 steam

### plant sine 1988

### which have improved thewater quality and reduced the quantity ofcoal 

### ash discharged to McCoy Branch (Sect. 2.2.1 and 2.2.2). Continued monitoring should determine 

### if this trend at MCK 

### 2.03 is the 

### rcsult of remedial actions or is a response t other unidentified environmental factors, Relatively high conductivity measurements, 

### > 500 fi/crn, 

### in McCoy 

### Branch (J. 

### G. Smith, Environmental Sciences Division, 

### ORNL, personal rmnmunication) 

### in April 1989 suggcst that the concentration of dissolved solids may have been clcvated. Lower conductivity values in McCoy Branch after April may reflect a reduction 

### in the use 

### of coal and subsequently, the quantity of ash produced at the

### Y-12 steam plant starting during


### upon the flow, some flushing af deposited ash may have occurred downstream of the ash pond 

### such that the concentration in thc stream

### has decreased with time. Further 

### sampling will verily if a trend toward lower conductivity exists. with a further seasonal reduction by April 1989 

### (Sect, 2.2.2), Depetding

Thecomposition and structureof thebenthic 

### mmmunity in McCoy Branch downstream of the ash pond appear to be responding toboth physical and chemical stress, Suspcnded solids resulting from ash transport downstream of thc ash 

### pond may 

### be a major pcrturbation at MCK 2.03. Within Rogers Quarry, settling occurs so that 

### the downstream load 

### of suspended solids is reduced. Consideraklc deposits 

### of coal ash were evident along and within the streambed at MCK 

### 2.03 at thebeginning 

### ofthis project, while the presence of coal ash in lower McCoy Branch was much less evident (Sect. 2-24.;

### J. 

### G. Smith, Environmental Sciences Division, 

### ORNL, personal observation). Deposited solids can adversely affect organisms either directly by obstructing food collection and/or respiration, 

### or indirectly by reducing food availability (Hynes 1990). Suspended solid depdsition and sediment accumulation havc been shown toboth decrease the density andbiomass 

### of bcnthic invertcbrates by as much as 60%(Gammon 1970) and reduce diversity by eliminating stress-sensitive 

### taxa (Mackenthun 

### 1973;Wiederholm 

### 1984). 

### Thc dcposition 

### of finegrained inaterial also can provide a substrate favorable 

### for coloriization by taxa tolerant 

### of thcse conditions such as chironomids (Wiederholm 

### 1984). 

### This may partially explain the prevalence of chironomids at 

### MCK 2.03 compared to the other two sites.
In addition to deposited solids, some metals have historically occurred in elevated concentrations in 

### McCoy Branch with higher levels above Rogers Quarry (Scct. 2.2.2, TablesA-3,A-4, A-5, and A-6, Fig. 2-4 and 2-5). Ofthe metals measured, arsenic and selenium have the greater potential for impacts on aquatic life. Studies by Elwood in the 1970s 

### (R. 

### R.Turner, Environmental Sciences Division, OMNL,personal communication) showed elevated levels of arsenic 

### in aquatic insects in McCoy Branch. Water quality samples taken between July 1986 and July 1Wlsliow that levels of arsenic in McCoy Branch exceeded the recommended maximum Concentration 

### (50**p@)** for protection of aquatic life 

### (EPA 1976) from July 

### 19% until approximately6-15


### July 

### 1989. Levels 

### of arsenic 

### in McCoy Branch above 50 ClglL also 

### occurred periodically from January 

### 1990through approximately May 1990 

### (Fig. 2-4). 

### Levels of selenium in McCoy Branch consistently exceeded 

### 10 pgjL, 

### from July 1986 through approximatelyJanuary 1989. Maximum levels 

### for protection of aquatic life are 260 pg/L

### for acute exposure and 

### 35 yg/L for chronic exposure; however, concentrations of 

### 5pg/L

### have been shown to adversely effect 

### hh production 

### (RFI1987). 

### From April 1989 toJanuary 1990 

### levels of 

### selenium in McCoy Branch ranged from near zero to 

### 10 pg/L 

### with an average of approximately 5 

## &(Fig. 2-5). 

### It 

### is possible that oneorboth 

### of these metals could have an adverse effect onthe benthic community in McCoy Branch. 

### The low density and richness 

### of sensitive taxa, particularly mayflies, which 

### are generally very sensitive to metal pollution (Wiederholm 

### 1984), and therelatively high percent composition 

### of chironomids indicate thebenthic macroinvertebrate community in McCoy Branch may be 

### responding to long-term exposure to elevated levels 

### of these 

### or other potential toxicants. Finally, themagnitude of seasonal change of 

### all parameters was most similar between MCK 

### 1.40 and the reference site (WCK 6.8). 

### This implies that environmental conditions were more stable at 

### MCK 1.40than at 

### MCK 2.03,which may be a reflection 

### of

### Rogers Quarry functioning as a 

### settling basin for both sediments and associated chemical contaminants. However, impoundments have 

### been shown to alter chemical and physical conditions 

### of streams, which in turn, alter the benthic invertebrate community (Ward and Stanford 1979). Thus, while rcducing theimpacts associated with coal ash, thequarry itself alters natural conditions which lead to alterations in thebenthic invertebrate community. 

### Future changes in the benthic community at 

### MCK 1.40

### in response to remedial actions may be mediated by the presence of the quarry.

6.5 

### CONCLUSIONS The 

### structure and composition ofthe benthic macroinvertebrate community in McCoy Branch are indicative 

### ofmoderate stress. Maximum impact within this stream occurs upstream of 

### Rogers Quarry as was exemplified by the significantlyhigher density and biomass at 

### MCK 1.40

### compared to 

### MCK 2.03. Somc improvement 

### in water quality was 

### evidcnt downstream 

### of the quarry, as 

### demonstrated by significant increases in density and biomass of

### the benthic community at MCK 

### 1.40. However, significantly lower values for taxonomic and 

### EPT richness, and divcrsity at this site compared tothereference site, indicate somc impact. At 

### MCK 2.03,

### substantial increases were observed in density, biomass, and taxonomic and 

### EPT richness, particularly during the October and January sampling periods, suggesting that improvements in water quality may be occurring. The cause 

### of the stress on the benthic macroinvertebrate community 

### in McCoy Branch, at least upstream 

### of Rogers Quarry, is 

### most 

### likely thcresult 

### of several factors related to the long-term discharge of 

### coal ash from the Y-12 steam 

### plant. 

### The bcnthos, particularly upstream of

### the quariy 

### (MCK 2.03), 

### appears to be 

### responding to 

### habitat alteration as the 

### result of ash deposition 

### within the stream channel 

### and possibly to leaching of

### potential toxicants (e.g.,

### arsenic and selenium) from 

### the ash. The benthic community at 

### MCK 2.03 

### should recover 

### as coal 

### fines 

### arc removed from the streambed; however, recovery may be

### 6-16

slowed by the loss of supplemental 

### RQWin the 

### upper reaches of McCoy Branch 

### which may increase 

### the time required for natural cleansing of thestream. Rogers Quarry acts 

### as a settlingbassin 

### far coal ash trans 

### reed downstream 

### from time ash pond, thereby diminishing the impact.

### ofash deposition 

### on the benthic community downstream 

### ofthe quarry. 

### The benthic mmmunity at 

### MCK 1.40 did not exhibit the temporal trends in increased 

### density, biomass, 

### or taxnxarmornk and 

### EPT richness 

### shown 

### by MCK 2,03, suggesting this community may 

### not 

### be experiencing similar changes 

### in water quality. Although Rogers Quarry appears to reduce the impacts associated deposition, this impoundment likely alters 

### the physical 

### and chemical environment downstream, which in turn alters the invertebrate community. Finally, the direct discharge of ash 

### to the quarry (initiated in May 1990)may cause the quarry 

### to act as an immediate source of toxicants through leaching 

### of metals from the ash. This may 

### impact the 

### benthic community at 

### MCK 1.40.

The current sampling program 

### for benthic rnacrainvertebratcs 

### will continue. As 

### for 

### WCK 6.8,

### the snail

### EIitnia is a 

### prominent membcr 

### of thebenthic macroinvertebrate communities of several streams that drain the south slope of Chestnut 

### Ridge and the 

### ORR (Smith 1991b). However, SQKE relatively undisturbed strcams in these same areas donot contain snails (Smith 1991b), and nohistorical data on thebenthic macroinvertebrates of McCoy Branch exists. Thus it is not known if

### Ehiahave ever occurred in this stream. Therefore, an additional refercnce stream without 

### snails (Fifth Creek, 

### F'lX 1.0) will be included in future analyses that will allow 

### comparisons 

### ofMcCoy Branch to reference streams with and -without snails. 

### This sampling rograrn will 

### provide a comprehensive characterization of thebenthic community in 

### McCoy Branch and an extensive data base that will allow documentation 

### of the response of thc.benthic comm~mity as water quality changes occur as a result 

### of remedial actions. 

### The continued sampling program will provide further comparison of the benthic corrnmunity at 

### MCK 1-40 before and after direct discharge 

### ofbottom ash to Rogers Quarry and 

### will document the response of the benthic community at 

### MCK 2.03 to the absenceof ash discharge Eroni the 

### Y-12 Plant.

### Bennett, 

### G. W. 1970. 

### Management ofLakes and Ponds. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New Bjomberg, A,

### L. Hakanson, and 

### K. Lundberg. 1988. 

### A theory on the mechanisms Bogle, 

### M. A., 

### and 

### R. R. Turner. 1989. 

### Rogers Quarry water balance January 1, 1987 

### York. regulating thebioavailabilityof

### mercury 

### in natural waters. Envirm. Pollut. 4953-61. 

### through June 30, 

### 1988. 

### YITS-506. 

### Oak Ridge National Laboratory for Y-12

### Plant, Oak Ridge, Tenn. Bowen, 

### H. J. 

### M. 1979. 

### Environmental Chemistry of 

### the Elements. Academic Press, London. Burris, J. 

### A., 

### M. S. Bamford, and A. J. Stewart. 

### 1990. Behavioral responses ofmarked snails as 

### indicators of

### water quality. Environ. Tox. 

### Chem. 959-76. 

### Carle, 

### F. L., and M. 

### R. Strub. 1978. 

### A 

### new method for estimating population size 

### from removal data. Biometrics 34:621-630. 

### Craig, P. 

### M., and B. 

### A. Tschantz. 1986. 

### Preliminary seepageresidual study by water balance method for Rogers Quarry. Y/SUB/86-1819/2. Y-12

### Plant, Oak Ridge, Tenn. Crutchfield, 

### P. J. 

### 1966. 

### Positive rheotaxis in 

### Goniobasis proxima. Nautilus 79930-86. 

### Cuvin, 

### M. L. A.,

### and R. 

### W. 

### Furness. 1988. 

### Uptake and elimination of 

### inorganic mercury and selenium by minnows,Phoxinus

### phoxinus. 

### Aquat. Toxicol., 13205-216. 

### Dycus, D. L. 1989. 

### Results of 

### Fish tissue 

### screening studies from sites in theTennessee and Cumberland Rivers in 1987. 

### TVA/wR/AB- 89/5. 

### Tennessee Valley 

### Authority, Chattanooga, Tenn. 

### Dycus, D. 

### L., and G. 

### D. Hickman. 1986. 

### Concentrationsof PCBs, DDTr, and metals in 

### fish from Tellico Reservoir. TVA/ONRED/AWR-S7J25. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, 

### Tenn. invertebrates. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, England. Sci. 

### Pub. No. 25. 

### Elwood, J. W. 1984.

### Mercury contamination in Poplar Creek

### and the Clinch River. ORNLKM-8893.

### Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak 

### Ridge, Tenn. ERDA (Energy Rescarch and Development Administration). 1975. 

### Preliminary draft environmcntal analysis report. Oak 

### Ridge Operations, Volume VI. Oak 

### Ridge, Tenn. Everhart, W. 

### H., A. W. 

### Eipper, and 

### D. W. Youngs. 1975. 

### Principles ofFishery Science. Cornel1 University Press, Tthaca, New 

### York. Gammon, J. 

### R. 1970. 

### The effect 

### of 

### inorganic sediment on stream biota. Water Pollution Control Research Series, 18050DWC12/70,

### Water Quality Office, US.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

### D.C. for collection 

### and 

### analysis of aquatic biological and microbiological samples. Book 

### 5, Chapter 4A, 

### pp. 1-332. 

### In US. 

### Gcological Survey,Techniques of

### Water-Resources Investigations 

### or the United States Geological Survcy. 

### U.S. 

### Government Printing Office, 

### Washington, D.C. 

### preliminary report. Florida Department of 

### Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, Ha. 

### Elliott, J. 

### M. 1977. 

### Some methods For the statistical analysis of samples of

### benthic

Greeson, 

### P. 

### E., T. 

### A. Ehlke, G. A. 

### Irwin, 3.

### W. 

### Lium, and 

### K. V. 

### Slack. 1977. 

### Methods

Hand, 

### J., and M. 

### Friedman. 1990. 

### Mercury, largemouth bass, and water quality: A

### Hilq 

### R. 1936. Age and growih 

### ofthc 

### cisco,Leueich'hys a#qedi

### (LeSeur), 

### in the lakes of the northcastem highlands, Wisconsin. 

### U.S. Bur. 

### Fish. Bull. 482I 1-317. Wodsow, 

### P. V. 1990. Indicators ofecosystem health at the species 

### lewl and the example 

### of selenium effects 

### on fisk. 

### Environ. Monitor. 

### Assess, 15:241-254. Hoffman,

### F. 0, 

### B. 

### G. Blayllock, C. 

### C. Travis,

### K E. Daniels, 

### E. 

### L. Etnicr, 

### K E. COWS~F, and 

### C. W. Weber. 1984. Preliminary screening of contaminants 

### in sediments. OWNE/TM-9370. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

### Oak Ridge, Tenn. 

### Houp, 

### K. 

### W. 1978. Population dynamics of

### Pfeurocemmufa 

### in a central Kentucky limestone stream. Am. Midl. Nat. 83814. Hynes, 

### H. B. N. 1978. The Ecology of Running Water. University 

### of Toronto Press, Toronto. Protection Agency, Office 

### of Research and Development, Washington, 

### D.C. coal ash dam. Y-SUBi86-479701-1,prepared by Geotek Englnecring 

### Co. for the 

### Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant. OakRidge, Tenn. 

### Karr, 

### J. 

### R. 1981. Assessment of biotic intcgaity using fish communities. Fisheries. 621-27. Karr, 

### J. 

### R. 1987. Biological monitoring and assessment: A conceptual framework. Environ. Manage. 113249-256. Karr, 

### J. 

### R., K. D. Fausch, 

### P. 

### L. Angermcier, P. 

### R. Yant, and 

### I. J. Scldosscr. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running wateis: 

### A method and its rationale. Illinois Natural 

### History Survey Special Publication 5. Urbana, 111. Site. ORNLRM-9229. 

### Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

### Oak 

### Ridge?Tenn. minnow 

### (Pkephales promelas) and 

### Ceriodaphnindubia toxicity tests. Ernvironmcntal Toxicology Chemistry (in press). Sciences Division 

### Toxicology 

### Haboratory standard 

### operating procedures. 

### OWN?,/TM11194, 

### Oak Ridge National 

### I.aaboratory,

### Oak Midge, Tenn. Tmat,

### D. 

### W. 1984. Agriculture and stream water quality: 

### A biological evaluation 

### of erosion control practices. Emviron. Manage. 8333-344. Tznat, 

### D. R. 1988. Watcr quality assessment of streams using 

### a qualitative collection method for benthic rnacroinvertebratcs. J. North hpn. 

### Bemthol. 

### Soc. 7222-233. Lxonard, 

### P. M. and 

### D. J. 01th. 1986. Application and testing of an Index of Biotic Integrity in small, coolwater streams. Trans. 

### Arner. Fish. Soc. 115401-414. Lmar, J. 

### M. (ed.). 1985. Application of habitat evaluation models in southern Appalachian trout streams. ORNL/llR.I-9323. Oak 

### Ridge National 

### I.aboiatory, 

### Oak Ridge, Tenn. biomonitoring program: Concentrations of seven elements in freshwater fish, 1978-1981. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 14363-388. Printing Office, Washington, 

### D.C. States Department ofEnergy, Oak Ridge facilities, calendar year 1384. ORNL-6209. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

### Oak Ridge, Tenn. 

### . Integrated Risk Information System (data base). 

### U.S.Environrncntal Jones, 

### R. A., and 

### R. Mishu. 1986. Geotechnical and hydrologic @valuation of

### Y-12 Plant

Ketelle, 

### R. M., and 

### D. 

### D. Huff. 1984. Site characterizaikn of the West Chestnut 

### Ridge Rs~os, I,. A., and 

### A. J. Stewart. 1991. Effort-allocationanalysis of the 7-d fathead


### Kszos, 

### L.A.,A. 

### J. Stewart, 

### L. 

### IF. Wicker, and 

### G. 

### M. IBgsdon. 1989. Environmental

lawe,

### T. P., T. W. May, W. G. Brurnbaugh, and 

### D. A. Mane. 1985. National contaminant

Mackenthun, 

### K. M. 1973. Toward a Cleaner Aquatic Environment. 

### US. Governinent Martin Marietta F,nergy Systems, Inc. 1985. Environmental monitoring report, United

### 7-3



### Martin Marietta Energy Systems, 

### Inc. 1986. Environmental surveillanceof the Oak Ridge Reservation and surrounding environs during 

### 1985. ORNL-6721.. 

### Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. the Rogers Quarries. 

### Y/SUB/85-00206C/4R1. Prepared by Geraughty and 

### Miller, Inc. for thc Oak Ridge 

### Y-12 Plant, April. 1986. Oak Ridge, Tenn. Murphy,

### 3. 

### L. 1988. 

### RCRA Facility investigation plan filled 

### coal ash pond 

### (D-112) 

### Oak Ridge 

### Y-12 Plant Oak Ridge, Tennew. 

### Y/TS-411. 

### Oak Ridge 

### Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tcnn. Branch Oak 

### Ridge 

### Y-12 Plant 

### Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Y/TS-488. 

### Oak Ridge 

### Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tenn. McCauIey,Lo L. 

### 1986. Proposed ground-water monitoring plans for 

### the Ken-Hollow 

### and

Murphy,J. 

### L., and 

### J. M. Loar. 

### 1988. Expanded RCRA facility investigation plan McCoy
Pielou, E. 

### C. 1977. 

### Mathematical Ecology- 

### John Wiiey, 

### New 

### York. Platts, W. 

### S., Megahan, W. 

### E,and Minshall, G. W. 

### 1983. 

### Methods for 

### evaluating stream, riparian, and biotic conditions. 

### U.S.Forest Service General Technical Report INT-138. Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Ogdon, Utah. Plant, the Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee. 

### USGS 85-

### 165. 

### Nashville,Tenn. Plant, thc Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessce. USGS 85-553. 

### Nashville,Tenn. estimating [ish population sizes and annual production rates. 

### ORNLA’M-11061. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge Tenn. RFI. 

### 1987. RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) guidance. Vol. 

### III. Air and surfacewater releases. 

### EPA 53O/SW-87-4#)1.

### Waste Management Division, Office of 

### Solid 

### Waste, US.

### Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,D.C. 

### Rogers, J. 

### G., 

### K. L. 

### Daniels, S. T. 

### Goodpasture, 

### C. W. 

### Kimbrough, and E. 

### W. Whitfield. 

### 1988. Environmental surveillanccof 

### the U.S. 

### Department of 

### Energy Oak Ridge Reservation and surrounding cnvirons 

### during 

### 1987,Vol. 1: 

### Narrative, summary and conclusions. 

### ES/ESH4/Vl.Environmental and Safety

### Activities, Mart% Marietta Energy Systems,Inc., Oak Ridge, Tenn. Rogers, J, 

### G., 

### K. L. 

### Daniels,S.

### T. 

### Goodpasture, 

### C. W. Kimbrough, and 

### N. 

### L.Prince. 

### 1989. Oak Ridge 

### Rescrvation Envitonmental Report €or 

### 1988,Vol. 

### 1: Narrative, Summary and conclusions. ESESH-8Nl. 

### Environmental and SafetyActivities, Martin Marietta Energy 

### Systems, Inc., Oak 

### Ridge, 

### Term. Ross, 

### M. J. 

### and 

### G. 

### R.Ultsch. 

### 1980. Temperature and substate influence on habitat selection in 

### two pleurocerid snails (Goniohasis). 

### Am.Midl. Nat. 

### 103:209-217. Rudd, J. W. 

### M., M. A. 

### Turner, B. 

### E. Tmmsend, A. 

### Swick, 

### and A. 

### Furutani. 

### 1980. Dynamics of 

### selcnium in mercury-contaminated experimental freshwater ecosystems. Can. J. Fish. 

### Aquat. Sci. 37:848-857. 

### Ryon, 

### M. G., and J. 

### M. Loar. 19%. 

### A 

### checklist of 

### fishes on

### the Departmcnt of 

### Energy Oak Ridge Reservation. J. 

### Tenn. Acad. Sci. 

### 58(4):97-102. SAS 

### Institutc, Inc. 1985a. 

### SAS User’s 

### Guide: Basics, Version 5 

### edition. Sas Institutc, Inc., Cary, N.C. SAS 

### Institute, Inc. 1985b. 

### SAS User’s Guide: 

### Statistics, Version 5 

### edition. 

### SAS Institute, Inc., Cary,

### N.C. 

### Pulliam, 

### P. J. 

### 198%. Water quality data for 

### 34 sites, April and June 1984,

### near the 

### Y-12 Pulliam, 

### P.J. 198%. Water quality data for 

### 35 

### sites, September 

### 1984,near the 

### Y-12 Railsback,S.

### F., B. 

### D. Holcomb, and M. 6.

### Ryon. 1989. 

### A computer program 

### for

### 7-4
Smith, 

### J. G. 1991a. Benthic 

### mPr,hoinver‘Lebrates.In S. 

### M. Imar, (ed.), First 

### annual report 

### on the 

### U-12Plant Biological Monitoring and 

### Abatemerit Program, 

### OWNLPTM-10861. 

### Oak Ridge National 

### Laboratory, 

### Oak Ridge, 

### Term (in press)). 

### effects of 

### contaminants and 

### remedial actions 

### in Bear Creek, 

### OWNL/TM-10370. 

### Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

### Oak 

### Ridge, 

### Term. (in 

### press). chronically exposed 

### to selenium-laden 

### effluent. 

### Arch. Emiron. Contam. 

### Toxicol. Smith, 

### J, G lW?b. Benthic macrsinvertebratm- 

### In G. 

### R,Southworth, 

### (ed.), Emlogical
Sorensen,

### E. M. R., and 

### T. I,. Bauer. 

### 1983. IIcmatolsgical dyscrasia 

### in telsosts 

### 12:135-l46. Sorenscn, 

### E. M. B.? **9.**M. Curnbie, 

### T. 

### L. Batter, 

### J. S. 

### Bell, and C.W. Hax’lan. 1984. 

### Histopathological, hematological, condition 

### €actor, 

### and organweight changes associated with selenium accumulation in fish 

### from Beleva 

### Lake, North Carolina. Arch. Envircsn. Gontam. 

### Toxicol. 13:153-262. Southwortk, 

### G. 

### R. 1391. 

### Accumulation ofc,ontaminanPs 

### by biota 

### in East E’ork

### Poplar Creek. 

### In J. 

### M. har,

### (e&), Fiist annual report on 

### the

### Y-12 Plant Biological Monitoring and ‘4baterncnt 

### Program. 

### QRNIJIM-lO%l. Oak 

### RidgeNational Labcratory, Oak 

### Ridgc, 

### Tenn. (in press). Steel, W. 

### G. 

### D., and 

### J. 

### H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics, 2nd Ed. 

### McGraw-Ilill. New 

### York. Stewart, A. J. 1990. 

### Monitoring of 

### conservative water 

### quality factors 

### in ORNL streams may be 

### operationally advantageous. In Environmental Sciences 

### Division Annual Progress Report for 

### Period Ending Scptensber 30, 1989. ORNL-6602. 

### Oak Ridge 

### National Laboratory, Oak 

### Ridge, Tenn. 

### Stewart, A. J., 

### L. A. Kszos, B. 

### C. Harvey, L. F. Wicker, @. J. 

### Maynes, and 

### R. D. Bailey. 

### 1990. Ambient 

### toxicity dynamics: Assessments 

### using Ceri’sdapkraiadubids 

### and fathead minnow 

### (Pi~a’mephnks 

### promebas)larvae in short-term 

### te:,ts. Environ. 

### Tsx-Chcm. 

### S’DPII (Tennessee Department ofPublic Iicalth). 

### 1978. Water quality management 

### plan 9367-379. for the 

### Clinch 

### River Basin. Division of Water Quality Control, 

### Tennessee Departrnent of Public Ekalth,Nashville, Tenn. TVA 

### (TennesseeValley Authority). 1985. 

### Instream cnntarninant study, 

### Task 

### 4: Fish sarnplhg and 

### analysis. Report to U.S.

### Department **of**

### Energy, 

### Oak Ridge Operations 

### Office. Tennessce

### Valley Authority, 

### Office of Natural Resources and 

### Economic Development,MHIoxviilC, Tenn. 

### Turner, M. 

### la.,and 

### J. W. M. Rudd. 1983. 

### The 

### English-Wabigoon River system: 

### 111. Selcniirin in 

### lake enclosures: Its geochemistry, bioaccumulation, and ability to reduce mercury bioaccumulation. 

### Can. J. 

### Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40:2228-2240. 

### Interaction between mercury and selenium 

### accumulated from waterborne and dietary 

### sources by 

### northern 

### pikc (Emx 1i~riz.u). 

### Can. 

### J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 

### 402241-2250. Y-12 Plant coal ash 

### discharge to McCoy Branch. 

### Y/TS-17%.Oak Ridge 

### Y-12 Plant, Oak 

### Kidge, Tenn. 440/9-76-023,U. S. 

### Environmental Protection Agency,Washiwgtori, D.C.
waste. SW 846, 3d ed. 

### Office of Solid Wastc 

### and 

### Emergency Rcspons&, Washington, 

### D.C. Turner,

### M. 

### A., and 

### ‘4. 1,. Swick. 1983. 

### The: English-Wabigoon River system: iV.


### Turner, R. 

### R., M. A. Bogle, M. A. 

### Kane, and 7”. 

### M. Mercer. 1986. 

### Characterizatkm 

### of

EP.4 (U. S. 

### Emvironmental Protection 

### Agcacy). 1976. QiraBiiy 

### Criteria for Water. 

### EPA EPA (U. S. 

### Environmental Protcction Agency). 19%. Test niethods for 

### evaluating solid7-5



### EPA 

### (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. 

### Region 

### IVtoxic substances spreadsheet. U. 

### S. 

### EPA, Region IV,

### Atlanta, Georgia. July 1990. 

### Unpublished mimeo, 8

### pp. Ward, J. 

### V. and J. A. 

### Stanford (eds.). 1979. 

### The Ecology ofRegulated Streams. Plenum Press, New York. Weber, C. 

### I. (ed.). 1973. 

### Siological field 

### and laboratory methods for 

### measuring the quality of 

### surface waters and effluents. 

### EPA 670/4-73-001. 

### National Environmental Research Ccnter, U.S. 

### Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati. Weber, 

### C. 

### I., W. 

### H. Peltier, T. J. 

### Norberg-King, W. 

### B. 

### Horning, F. 

### A. Kessler, J. 

### R. Mendedick, 

### T. 

### W. Neiheisel, P. 

### A. Lewis, 

### D. J. 

### Klemm, 

### Q. H. Pickering, 

### E. L. Robinson, J. 

### M. Lazorchak, 

### L. 

### J. Wymer, 

### and 

### R. W. Freyberg. 2989. 

### Shortterm methods For estimating the chronic toxicity of

### effiuents and 

### receiving waters to 

### freshwater organisms. EPA/600/4-89/002,Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati. Wiederholm, T. 1984. 

### Responses of 

### aquatic insects to 

### environmental pollution. 

### pp. 508-557. InV. 

### H. Resh and D. 

### M. Roscnberg, (eds.), 

### Theecology of

### aquatic insects. Praeger Pubiishers, New 

### York.

### APPENDIXA 

### WATER QUALITY

### DATA 

### FOR MCCOY

### BRANCHWATI3RSHED 

### FOR 1974-1990

### A-3

TableA-1. Waterquality data collected in 1984 for twosites 

### in the McCoyBranch watershe@
April & June Sept. 1984 1984
site site site Parameter Upstream Downstream Downstream

Alkalinity,lab (m@ as CaCO,) Alkalinity, field (mgLas CaCO,) Arsenic, total (& as As) Barium, total recoverable (& as Ba) Beryllium, total recoverable (@ as Be) Cadmium,total recoverable (pg/L as 

### Cd) Calcium, dissolved (mg/L as **Ca)** Carbon, organic total 

### (ma as C) Carbon, organic dissolved 

### (mgL as C) Chloride, dissolved 

### (ma as C1) Chromium, Total recoverable 

# (a as Cr) Cobalt, total recoverable (p/Las Co) Cobalt, total recoverable 

# (a) Copper, total recoverable (pa as Cu) Cyanide, total (m@ as CN) Gross Beta, dissolvcd (pCi/L as (3-137) Gross Alpha, susp. total **(pg&** as U-NAT) Gross Beta, susp. total (pCi/Las 0-137) Gross Beta, dissolved (pCiLas Sr/Y-90) Gross Alpha, dissolved (pgLas U-NAT) Gross Beta, susp. total (pCi/Las Srfl-90) lnstantaneous discharge (L/s) Iron, total recoverable (fig&as Fe) Lead, total recoverable (fi@ as Pb) Lithium, total recoverable **(pa** as Li) Magnesium,dissolved (mgiL as Mg) Manganese, total rccoverable (lLg/Idas Mn) Mercury, total recoverable (p@ as Hg) Molybdenum, total recoverable (fig/L as No) Nickel, total recoverablc (pgLas Ni) Nitrogen, NO,+NO, dissolved (rnc as N) Nitrogen, ammonia 

## + organic total (m@ as N) Nitrogen, ammonia dissolved (mgLas N) Oxygen, dissolved (rng/L) Phosphorus, dissolved (mg/L as P) Phosphorus, ortho-dissolved (m& as P) Phosphorus, total (mgiL as 

### P) Potassium, dissolved 

### (ma as Na) Selenium, total (pg/L 3s Se) Sodium, dissolvcd 

### (ms/I., as Na) Solids residue at 180 ' C, dissolved 

### (m&) 143 NA NA 100 

### c10

e1 41

0.40 NA 2.7 3 NA

10

1 40.01 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.7 1600 5 90 13 loo0

<0.1

11 NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
231 0.100

0.030

4.5 2.5 111 NA NA 100 c10

<1 40

0.70 NA 3.8 7 NA 1 4 <0.01 c2.6

2.4 1.9 <2.2 ~4.6

1.7 87.8 290 5 90

9.7 50 €0.1 32 NA <0.1 NA NA

12.6 0.080 NA NA NA 204

3.1 3.3 NA 78 110 100 <10

c1 32 NA 2.7 3.6 <1 <1 NA 1 <a01

2.6 0.8 0.7 2.2 <4.3

0.6 50.9 390 3 70

7 20 <0.1 35

1 3.2 0.50 co.01

9.5 co.01

0.02 0.04 3.2 8 3.3 1(jjA-4

Parameter April & June Sept. 1386 1984 _l_l_.._. ." 

# - Upstream Downstream Downstream site site ste
Specific condrictance (pS/cm) Strontium, total recovcrable (& as Sr) Sulfate,dissolved (mg/L as SO,) Temperature(" C) Uranium, natural dissolved (& as U) Vanadium, dissolved (pg/L.as V) Zinc, total reWvCiable (pgLas Zn) 360 324 250 '770 230 ,250

34 4s 50 12.5 12.0 19.0

1.0 2.5 2.2 <1 30 23 20 20 10

Theupstream site is locatcd between the ash pond and Rogers Quarry. The downstreamsite is located below Rogers Quarry. Data for somesiteswere not available (NA). Sources: P. 9. Pblllium (198% and 1985b).

### TableA-2 

### Water analyses 

### forMcCoy

### Branch, November 1974-March 1975"


### Samplemontwstation
- 

### Parameter Nov NOV 

### Nov 

### Dec Dee 

### 1 2 2 

### C 2 

### Jan Mar 2 

### 2


### Temp ("C) Turbidiv 

### Sus solids Dis 

### solids 

### Dis oxygen Alkalinity 

### Hardness" 

### Al 

## - Dis 

### AI 

## - sus 

### Cd 

## - Dis Cd 

## - SUS Cr 

## - Dis Cr - 

### Sus Cu 

## - Dis cu

# - sus 

### Mn 

## - Dis 

### Mn 

## - Sus Pb 

## - Dis
Zn

## - Dis Zn

## - Sus 

### U 

### PH

Pb 

## - SUS
Hg
NO3 11 

### 17500 

### 253 6.4 7.53 

### 48 151 0.15 171.0 

### <0.002 <0.002 <0.01 CO.01 

### <0.004 

### 0.500 0.020 

### 0.580 <0.010 0.16



### 0.008 10
13 

### 182 9.1 

### 7.74 80 

### 126 

### <0.05 0.24 

### <0.002 

### <om2 <0.01 <0.01 

### <0.004

0.004 0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <OB1



### <0.005 12 

### 5.0 27 159 

### 7.2 7.39 

### 82 121 

### c0.05 0.52 <0.002 c0.002 

### dI.01 KO.01 

### <0.004 CO.004 0.020 <O.OlO 

### 0.020 <0.01 0.07 <OB2 ~0.005 

### <om 

### <1.0 12 

### 15.0 100 101 

### 10.5 6.73 81 

### 81

<0.002 

### <0.002 <0.01 <0.01 

### <0.004 

### <0.004 <0.010 

### 0.055 0.017 <0.01



### c0.005 c0.01 

### 1.4 10 6.0 

### 37 130 10.6 7.43 

### 55 90



### <0.002 €0.002 

### c0.01 <0.01 

### <0.004 <0.004 0.019 0.010 

### 0.021 co.01



### <OB05 4.01 0.7 

### 9 12.0 40 188 9.2 

### 7.65 6 113 ~0.05 

### 0.49 

### <0.m <0.002 CO.01 

### eo.01 

### <O.W 

### c0.004 0.015 0.018 

### 0.010 

### co.01 0.07 c0.02 <0.005 

### <0.01 <0.9 

### 9 

### 9.5 22 118 11.2 8.02 101 <0.05 

### 0.20 <0.002 

### <0.002 <0.01 c0.01 

### <

0.004 

### co.004 

## rf Ul



### <0.010 c0.01

4.005 

### c0.01 

### 2.4

### Parameter 

### Sample month/starion NOV NOV Nav 

### Dec DeC 

### Jan 

### Mar

I 

### 2 M 9 C 

### 2 

### 2 L 1

0.10 0.02 6 

### I-0 1

## .o 0.50 

### <0.04 

### 0.20 0.06 0.01 6 0.4 1

# .o 0.20 

### <0.04 

### 3.00 1.1


### 0.06 0.01 6 0.4 

### 1



## .o CO.01 

### <0.04 8.40 2. ii 33 0.10 0.01 10 6

### 0.2 2.0 

### 0.15 

### <0.04 1.08 

### 2.2 94 

### 0.15 0.01 

### 2 

### c0.2 

### 0.4 0.08 

### <8.W 0.15 1 

## .o fi8 8-06 0.01 3 0.6 

### 1.8 

### <1.80 

### <0.04 

### 0.416 1.3 

### 32 0.06 

### 0.01 

### 6 0.4 

### 1.5 0.30 CO.04 0.40 

## ? a

'Stations 1 

### (200 

### rn above 

### Rogers Quarry), 

### 2 (200 

### rn below 

### the quarry) and 

### C (Control site 

### on weslern 

### branch 

### of 

### McCoy 9urbidicq as 

### SiO,. 'Wardness as CaCO,. 

### Branch). Dis = dissolved; 

### Sus = suspended; 

### all parameters 

### in

### ma.Sauce:

### ERDA 

### 1975.TableA-3. ConcenUdtions(mean values) and mass loadings ofnonmetalpollutants. Zess than' prefixes havebeen ignored 

### incalculating mean concentrationvalues. Sourcflurner et al. 1986

Nonmetals Intake water Concentration Mass 

### (ma> (1 b/d) Spring MBK 1.17 (Ash sluice)" Concentration Mass Concentration Mass (m!YL> (Ib/cl) (m&) (Wd)
Ammonia nitrogen Biological o.qgen demand (BOD) Bromide Chemical oxygen demand (COD) Chloride Chlorine, total residual Cyanide, total Fluoride Nitrate-nitrite nitrogen Oil and grease Phenols, total Phosphorus, total (as P) Sulfate (as SO,) Sulfide (as S) Sulfide (HACH HS-7) Sulfite (as SO,) Total alkalinity Total kjeldahl nitrogen Total suspendedsolids Total organic carbon (TOC) 0.100 5.OOO 1.00 6.333 6.730 1.150 0.002 0.500 0.330 2.000 0.001 0.240 26.333

0.133 O.Oo0 0.500 108.333

0.220 18.667

1.600 0.690 34.500

6.900 43.700 46.437

7.335 0.011 3.450 2.277 13.800 0.007 1.656 181.700

0.920 0.OOO 3.450 747.500 1.518 128.800

11.040 0.15 6.00 1.00 4.90 6.33 0.07 0.00 1.05 0.15 2.44 0.00 16.75 253.90

22.24

0.00 0.53 40.00

.

0.98 9919.20 0.50 1.0 41.4

6.9 33.8 43.7

0.5 0.0 7.3 1.1 16.9 0.0 115.6 1751.9

153.5

0.0 3.0 276.0 6.8 68442.5 2.7 0.100 5.000 LOO0 3.000 4.026 0.000 0.m1 0.500 0.010 2.250 0.001 0.380 57.600

0.100 0.0oO 0.400 135.000

0.200 39.400

0.500 0.080 3.984 0.797 2.390 3.208 0.000 0.001 0.398 0.008 1.793 0.001 0.303 45.8%

0.080 0.000 0.319 107.568

0,159 31.394

0.398 

### Fp 4

~ ~ ~~ "Siteis equivalent to MCK 2.65.Auminm hrimony Arsenic (US) Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Gallium Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury (AAS) Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium (AAS? Silicon Silver Sodium Strontium Thallium (AM) Tin Titanium Uranium Vsnadium
Zirconium ZiRC 0.1oOo 0.0200 

### 0.ooso 0.0440 c1.0002 O.OU80 O.uCKl5 3S.OOQO

0.0040 0.0010 0.0350 0.0300 0.3300 0.0200 0.0250 9.1m 0.0360

NMb 0.0040 0.W 1.7ooO 0.0050 1.m 0.0050 6.6oc#) 0.0470 0.0010 @.W50 0.w20 0.010e3 O.W% 0.0020 0.0020 0.690 0.138 0.034 0.304 0.OOIc)i 0.055 0.003 241.500

0.028 0.007 0.24 I 0.207 2.277 0.138 0.172 42.790

0.248 NM 0.023 0.04L 11.930 0.034 13.110 0.034 59.340

0.562 0.007 0.034 0.014 0.069 0.017 0.014 0.014 31o.m 0.260 4.933 0.533 0.057 1.5w 0.010 142.667

0.253 0.141 0.983 0.420 133.333

0.367 2.533 32.667

0933 0.009 0.167 0.353 43-SOO

0.243 2.417 0.087 20.OO0

7.m 0.120 0.105 8.033 0.010 I.447 0.453 0.091 2 139.00 1.93 34.04

3.68 0.40 10.35 0.07 934.40 1.75 0.98 6.78 2.90 920.M)

2.53 17.48 225.40

6.23 0.06 1.15 2.4 300.15 1.68 16.67 0.60 138.00 54.5i

0.83 0.72 55.43

0.07 4 1.34

3.13 0.63 0.0200 3.0209 0.03OcI 0.0740 0.0002 0.3300 0.m5 48.m

0.0040 0.0032 0.0020 0.0300 0.4300 Q.0200 0.3m 14.oc##) 0.53410 Q.Oo01 0.0100 0.W60 6.2W 0.0050 4.4m 0.0050 4.m 0.9100 0.m10 0.0050 O.w 0.01M3 0.0024 0.0020 0.W20 0.0153 0.8159 0.0239 0.0590 O.ooO2 0.2629 O.ooo4 38.2464

o.003:2 0m25 0.0016 0.0239 0.3426 0.0159 0.2390 4 1.1552

19.4223 03 43.ooo1 o.Oo80 0.m 4.9402 0.m 3.5059 O.m 5.4152 0.m1 P9. 0.w 0.0035 0.W) 0.m19 0.003016 0.00 16 

## ?

"Site is eqJivaleni :o MCK 2.55. 'NM = not measured.TableA-5. Cowentratiws (meanvalues) anxfmass loadings of total remverabie metals. ‘Lessulan’prefixeshave been ignored in calculatingrtxan amcentrationvalues Source: Turner et al. 1986

Total recoverable metals Intake water MBK 1.17 (Ash sluice). Spring Concentration Mass Concentration Mass Concentration Mass {lb/d) 

### (ma) (Wd) 

### (ma) ( Wd)
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic (US) Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Gallium Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury @AS) Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Selenium (M) Silicon Silver Sodium Strontium Thallium (AAS) Tin Titanium Uranium Vanadium %inc Zirconium Copper 0.1905 0.1100 0.0050 0.0300 0.0011 0.0440 0.0027 37.oooo

0.0220 0.0055 0.0133 0.1650 0.2250 0.1100 0.1100 9,7000 0.0755 

### o.ooo1 0.0220 0.0330 1

### .m 0.0050 0.8600 0.0275 6.2000 0.1025 0.0010 0.0275 0.0110 0.0100 0.0061 0.0170 0.0110 1.3 14 0.759 0.034 0.207 0.008 0.304 0.019 255.300

0.152 0.038 0.092 1.138 1.552 0.759 0.759 66.930

0.521 0.001 0.152 0.228 12.420 0.034 5.934 0.190 42.780

0.707 0.007 0.190 0.076 0.069 0.042 0.117 0.016 228.857 0.187 2.97 1 3.086 0.038 1.814 0.005 151.429

0.224 0.098 0.720 0.280 141.571

0.2.63 2.650 29.7 14

0.616 0.010 0.233 0.260 60.400

0.189 19.214 0.049 33.143

5.033 0.057 0.047 5.767 0.023 1.321 0.396 0.061 1579.11 1.29 20.50 21.29

0.26 12.52 0.03 1044.86 1.55 0.68 4.97 1.93 976.84 1.81 18.28 205.03

4.25 0.01 1.61 1.79 416.76 1.30 132.58

0.33 228.69

34.73

0.39 0.32 39.79

0.16 9.12 2.73 0.42 0.1607 0.1100 0.0265 0.0722 0.0015 0.2750 0.0040 45.5000

0.03 17 0.0080 0.0155 0.1650 0.5275 0,1550 0.2050 13.5000 0.4825 o.Oo01 0.0323 0.0465 4.9750 0.0050 5.2350 0.0387 4.1500 **0.9700** 0.0010 0.0275 0.0110 0.0.550 0.o080 0.0169 0.01 10 0.1281 0.0876 0.021I 0.0576 0.0012 0.2191 0.0032 36.2544

0.0252 0.0064 0.0124 0.1315 0.4203 0.1235 0.1633 10.7568 0.3845 o.Ooo1 0.0257 0.0371 3.9641 0.0040 4.1712 0.0309 3.3067 0.7729 O.OOO8 0.0219 0.0088 0.0438 **0.0064** 0.0135 0.0088 

### 9 b

“Siteis equivalent to MCK 2.65.Total dissolved metals lnrakewatzr MBK 1.:7 (Ash s1u;iz)" Spring Concentration Mass Concentration Mas§ Concentration Mass (mglL,) (!bid) (mg/Li (lb/d) jm@) (Ib,Gj -

Auminum Antimony
Barium Bcrj41um Boron Cadnxum Calcium Chroniurn ArSCI?iZ (AAS)

Cobalt Copper Gallrum Iron Lithium Magnesium Manganese Mercury (AAS) Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Se!enium (AAS j Silicon Siiver S&ium Strontium Thaliium (MS) Tin Titanium Uranium Vanadium Zinc Zirconium 0.290 0.2063 0.m5 0.034 0.002 0.080 0.005 37.K?O

0.040 0.010 0.020 0.300 0.200 0.200 1i.Oo0 0.005

NMB 0.040 0.060 1.700 0.005 1.200 0.050 7.300 0.120 0.001 0.050 0.020 0.010 0.010 0.020 0.020 1.380 1.3m 0.034 0.235 0.014 0.552 0.034 255.309

0.276 0.049 0.138 2.070 1.380 1.380 7s.m

NM 0.276 0.414 11

.I30 0.034 8.280 0.345 50.370

0.828 0.007 0.345 0.138 0.069 0.069 0.138 0.198 

### o.eu G.8667 0.2m 0.3567 0.1767 0.8020 0.07113 0.C6)SO 89.6567

0.04m 0.0200 0.02w 0.9000 0.2000 1.4200 12.3333 0.0203

NM 0.3033 0.m 17.m 0.0227 1.5647 0.0500 15.6667 0.8167 a.w1o 0.0508 0.0200 0.0100 0.0873 0.02CBcI 0.02ftG S.980 1.38:3 2.461 1.219 0.014 6.716 0.034 618.700

0.276 0.069 0.138 2.070 1.3811 9.798 85.100

0.140

NM 2.093 0.414 I 17.308

0.156 10.810 0.345 1%3.100

5.635 0.007 0.345 0.133 0.069 0.603 0.138 0.138 0.200 0.2m 0.020 0.082 0.002 0.400 0.005 55.000

0.040 0.0lG 0.020 0.300 0.200 0.206) 16.m 0.480

NM O*MO 0.060 5.400 0.005 7.700 0.050 3.m I

### .m 0.001 0.050 0.020 0.010 0.011 0.

## om 0.020 8.1594 0.1594 0.01S9 d.m53 0.0016 0.3187 0.0040 43.8240

0.03 19 0.0080 0.8159 0.23% 0.1594 0.1554 12.74B

NM 0.0319 0.0478 4.3027 0.0040 6.1354 0.0398 3.1075 0.7965 0.00198 0.0358 0.0158 0.m 0.m 0.019 0.0159 0.3825 

## B + 0

'Site is equivaienr to MGK 2.55. %" = n3t measured.A-11



### TableA-7. 

### Sample 

### tM)es and 

### locations 

### for surfacewater, groundwater, coal 

### ash, and 

### floodplain 

### sedimentsamplesofMcCoy 

### Branch, Jdy

### WOctober 17,1990. Source: 

### CH2M Hill, 

### personal communication Dry Weather Surface Water 

### Sampling, July 30, 1990 

### Sample No. 

### Approximate stream Sample type 

### location S3 

### s4 s5 S6 

### MCR 2.62 

### Environmental 

## - Aqueous 

### MCK 2.52 

### Environmental 

# - Aqueous 

### MCK 1.92 

### Environmental

# - Aqueous 

### MCK 1.92 Duplicate of S5



### Wet Weather Water 

### Sampling, October 8, 

### 1W Sample 

### No. 

### Approximate stream Sample 

### type location ww-SI 

### MCK 1.92 

### Environmental 

# - Aqueous ww-s3 

### MCK 2.62 

### Environmental 

## - Aqueous ww-s4 MCK 

### 2.52 Environmental 

## - Aqueous 

### WW-S6 --- 

### Field 

### Blank 

## - Aqueous ww-s7 --- 

### Equipment Blank 

## - Aqueous

~~ 

### Groundwater sampling Sample No. 

### Location 

### Approximate stream 

### Sample date loca

### tionb 5000 5001 5002 5003 5004 5005 5006 

### 5007 

### GW-321 GW-672 

### GW-673 

### GW-674 GW-676 GW-676 

### GW-676 G

### W-672 

### MCK 2.62 MCK 2.61 

### MCK 2.40 

### MCK 2.38 MCK 2.14 MCK 2-14 

### MCK 2.24 

### MCK 2.61 16 

## om90 15 

### OCT 90 

### 16OCT90 16 

### OCT 90 

### 17 

## om9c) 17 

## om90 

### 17 

### OCTW 15 OCT 

### 90

### A-12

AsWSoil Sampling Sample No. Location Approximate Sample 

### :.e' stream locationb 

### Al-S4 A1-52 

### A2-A AZSI A.3-A AM1 Ax32 

### A4-A A431 A4S2 AS-A A5-Sl A5S2 

### A6-A ASS1 Af;-S'& 

### A7-A A7-Sl A732 

### A1 A1 

### A2 A2 '$3 

### A3 A3 

### A4 A4 A4 

### '45 AS A5 

### A6 A4 

### A6 A3 A3 A3 

### MCK 2.38 

### MCK 2.38 

### MCK 2.62 

### MCK 2.62 

### MCK 2.52 

### MCK 2.52 

### MCM 2.52 

### MCK 2-40 

### MCM 2.40 

### MCK 2-40 

### MCK 2.10 

### MCM 2.10 

### MCK 2.10 

### MCK 1.97 

### MCK 1.97 

### MCK 1.97 

### MCK 2-52 

### MCK 2.52 

### MCK 2.52 Environmental 

### Soil Ermvirotirnentd 

### Soil Environmental 

### Soil Environmental 

### Soil Environmental Soil Environmental 

### Soil Environmental Soil Environmental 

### Soil Environmental Soil Environmental Soil Environmental Soil Environmental 

### Soil Environrncntal 

### Soil Emkonmental Soil Environmental Soil Environmental Soil Environmental Soil Environmental Soil Environmental Soil 

### (0-B" 

### BE) (6-62"

### BL)

**(8-6"** 

### Bh) (ASH) 

### (ASH)

(0-6''

### BA) (6-

### 12"B

### A) (ASH) **(8-6"** BA) (6-

### 12"

### BA) (ASH) 

### (0-6" BA)


### (ASW (6-12"

### BA)

(0-6" 

### BA) (6-12"

### BA) (ASH) (0-6" 

### €3'4) (6-12';

### BA)
"Wet weather sample taken after a 4.5-cm rain event, measured at the 

### gage at bLmation in terms of stream kilometers; actual sample sites are located in floodplain '%A = Bclow ash; BL = Below !and. Rogers Quarry.
and may be sevcral meters cast orwest from stream kilometer.

### A-13



### Table

### A-8. Concentrations

### ofvolatile 

### organic compounds measured 

### in 

### surface water 

### samplesof

### McCoyBranch, July 

### 30,1990-

Source: 

### CH2M Hill, personal communication 

### Compound Site (PE/L) 

### MCK 2.62 

### MCK 2.52 

### MCK 1.92 

### MCK 1.92" 1,1 -Dichloroethane 1,l-Dichloroethene l,l,l-Trichloroethane l,l,Z-TrichIoroethane 

### 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,ZDichloroethanc 1,ZDichtoroe thane4.l" 1,2-Dichloroethene (Total) 

### 1,2-Dichloropropane 

### 2-Bu tanone 2-

Herdnone 4-Methyl-2-Pen tanone Acetone Benzene Bromodichloromethane Bromofluorobenzene" Bromoform Bromomethane Carbon disulfide Carbon tetrachloride Chlorobenzenc Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Dibromochlorome thane Ethylbenzenc Methylene chloride Styrene 

### Tetrachloroethem Toluene Toluene-d8" 

### Total xylenes 

### trans-l,-?-Dichloropropene 5 5 

### 5 

### 5 UJb 5 

### 5 49.5



### 5 5 10 20 10 

### 7 UJ



### 5 5 53.9 

### 5 

### UJ

10 

### 5 5 5 10 

### 5 10 5 UJ 

### 5 UJ



### 5 5 

### 5 5 5 54.4



### 5 5 

### UJ 5 

### 5 5 

### 5 

### UJ

5 

### 5 48.5

5 5 

### 10
10 

### 10 

### 6 UJ

5 5 

### 57.4 

### 5 UJ

10 5 5 

### 5 10 

### 5 10 

### 5 UJ 5 UJ



### 5 5 5 5 

### 5 54.9



### 5 5 UJ 5 5 

### 5 5 

### UJ

5 5 49.1



### 5 

### 5 10 

### 10 10 

### 19

### UJ

5 

### 5 

### 53.6 

### 5 UJ

10 

### 5 5 

### 5 10 5 10 

### 5 

### UJ
5 

### UJ



### 5 5 5 

### 5 5 53.8



### 5 5 UJ 

### 5 5 

### 5 5 UJ



### 5 5 49.2

5 5 10 10 

### 10 5 UJ

5 

### 5 52.5 5 

### UJ

10 

### 5 5
5 10 5 10 

### 5 UJ 5 

### UJ

5 

### 5 5 5 5 

### 53.5



### 5 5 UJ

### A-14

Site


### MCK 2.62 

### MCK 2.52 MCK 1.92 

### MCK 1.9T I I_ Coinpound (WglL)
-_ Trichloroethene 

### Vinyl chloride Vinyl acetate 5 

### 10 2 UJ 

### 5 10 2 UJ 

### 5 10 

### 2UJ 

### 5 10 2 UJ
%uplicatc samples, 

### bS = estimated value;U = undeteeted-below method detection level. ‘Tentatively identified compounds.A-15



### TableA-9. 

### Concentrations 

### ofsemivolatileorganic 

### compoundsmeasuredin surface water 

### samplesfrom

### McCoy Branch,July 30,19Po. 

### Source: CH2M Hill, personal communication Compound 

### MCK 2.62 MCK 2.52 

### MCK 1.92 MCK 1.92" (Pa) 

### 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlroben~ene 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Me t hylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimcthylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophcnol &ti-Dinitrotoluene 3-Nitroaniline 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 4-B romophen 

### y1

-

### p

### henylether 4-Chloro-3-me thylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chiorophenyl-phenyle ther 4-Me thylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophen01 

### 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol Acenaphthenc Acenaphthylene Anthracene 

### Benzo(a)pyrenc Benzo(a,h)anthraccnc 

### Benzo(h)fluorantbene 

### Benzo

### (g,h,

### i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoran

### thcne 10 

### 10

# u 10

# u

10 

### 10

# u Rb 30

# u

R 50 

### R R 

### R R 10 

### R R 10

# u 50 

### U

20 

### 10 

### R 10 10 

### R 50 

### R 

### R 10

# u

10 10 

### 10 10 10 

### 10 10 10

### UJb 

### 10UJ 10

### UJ 

### 10UJ 10UJ



### R 10

### UJ



### R 50 UJ



### R


### R 

### R R 10UJ



### R R 10

### UJ 

### 50 UJ 20 

### UJ 10

### UJ



### R 10UJ 

### 10UJ



### R 50 UJ



### R R 10 UJ 10UJ 10

### UJ
10

### UJ 10

### UJ 10

### UJ 10

### UJ 10 UJ 10

### UJ 10UJ 10

### UJ 

### 10UJ 10

### UJ 10UJ 10

### UJ 10UJ 50 

### UJ 10

### UJ
10

### UJ 10

### UJ 50 UJ 10UJ 

### 50 UJ 10UJ 10 

### UJ 

### 50 UJ 20 UJ 10

### UJ
10

### UJ 10

### UJ 

### 10UJ 10

### UJ 50 

### UJ
50 

### UJ 50 

### UJ 10UJ 10UJ 10

### UJ
10UJ 10

### UJ 10

### UJ 10 UJ 10UJ 

### 10UJ 10

### UJ 

### 10UJ 10 UJ 

### 10UJ 10UJ 10

### UJ 

### 10UJ 

### SO UJ 10

### UJ
10 

### UJ 10

### UJ 

### 50 UJ 10

### UJ 50 UJ
10

### UJ 10UJ 50 

### UJ 20 

### UJ 10

### UJ
10

### UJ 10

### UJ 10

### UJ 10

### UJ 50 

### UJ 50 UJ 50 UJ 

### 10UJ 10 

### UJ 10UJ
10

### UJ 10 IJJ 10UJ 10 

### UJ 10UJA-16

Conmpollnd 

### MCK 2.62 

### MCK 2.52 

### MCK 1.92 

### MCK 1.9Y (Pa)

-__I



### Bca-rzoic Acid bIs(2-elPloroeBPioxy)methaase bis(2-Chloroetlnyl) 

### Ether bis(2-ckil~rsisopropyl)ether BGIIlZjd AkQhOl

bis(2-Ethylhe~cyl)pht~~~a~~ Butylbenzylphthalate Chrysewe Di-n-butylphthalate Di-n-octylphthalate Dibenzqa,h)an~hracene Dibenzsfaasaii Diethylphthalate 

### Dimetby1

### p

### hthalate Huoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorethane Hexachlorobenzene Mexachlorocydobutadienc: flcxachlorocyclo yentadierie


### IEcxanc, 3-methoxy Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 

### Isophsrone 

### N-Nitrosc-Di-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (1) Napthalerae Nitrobenzene Phenanthrene Phenol E~cntachZorophenol

ryrcne Unknown Unknown 

### R 10 10

# u 10

# u 10 UJ
10UJ 10

### UJ 10UJ 10UJ 10 UJ
10 

### UJ 10UJ 10UJ 10UJ 10 UJ
10UJ 10UJ 10UJ 10UJ 10UJ

10UJ 10 UJ 

### 10UJ 10 UJ
10

### UJ 10 UJ



### R 10UJ



### R 10UJ 4.92 UJ 7.06 UJ 

### I% 10UJ 10 UJ 10UJ 10UJ
10UJ 10UJ 10UJ 10UJ 27 J 10UJ 10UJ 10UJ 10UJ 10 UJ
10UJ 10

## us 10UJ 10UJ 10UJ 4.87 

### UJ

10 UY 10UJ 10UJ 10UJ
10 UJ 10UJ



### R 10UJ



### R 10UJ 4.79 UJ 

### 50 UJ 

### 10

### UJ 10UJ 10 UJ 10

### u9
10 IJJ 10 UJ 10UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ
10 UY 10 UJ 10UJ 10UJ 10UJ
10UJ 10UJ 10UJ 

### 10UJ 10UJ

10 UJ 10UJ 10UJ 10UJ
10 UJ 10

### UJ 50 UJ 10UJ 10UJ
10UJ 4.91 UJ 50 UJ 10UJ 

### 10 UJ 10

### u9 10UJ 10UJ 10UJ 10

### UJ 10 UJ 10UJ
10

## us 10IJJ 10 

### UJ 10 UJ 10UJ 10UY 10UY 10 UJ 10UJ 10UJ

10 UJ 10UJ 10UJ 10 UJ
10UJ 10UJ 50 UJ 10UJ 10UJ 10UJ 4.87 UJ 9.33 UJ “Dupkatesample taken at 

### MCM 1.92. bJ = estimated value; 

### R = rejected value; U = undetccted-below nmcthod detection levcl.

### Table

### A-10. Water 

### quality

### data for surface

### water 

### samples

### ofMcCoy

### Branch, July 30, 

### 1990. Source: 

### CH2M Hill, personal communication Parameter mgiL unless 

### otherwise noted 

### MCK 2.62 MCK 2.52 

## MCK 1.92 

### MCK 1.92" Alpha activity 

### (pCi/L) Beta activity 

### (pCi,rL) Alkalinity Chloride 

### IC Conductivity(pmho/cm) Dissolved solids Fluoride 

### IC Nitrate Phenols Sulfate Suspended solids Total organic carbon 

### (TOC) Total organic halides 

### (TOX)**(p&)** 

### Uranium-fluorometric 

### PH 378.67 **i** 

### 67.2 

### 936.17 

### + 114.7 

### 148 3 

### 340 180 0.2 <1 

### UP



### 7.4 0.03 

### J



### 24 5 

### <1 10J 0.001 352.13 

# * 64.9 

### 580.17 f 

### 99.6 

### 159 

### 2 339 

### 180 0.2 

### <I 

### UJ

7.8 

### C0.03 

### UJ 26 8 

### <1 <10 

### UJ

0.001 -143 

# * 160

### UJ
164 

### 2 335 168 

### 0.2 

### 1J 7.9 ~0.03 

### UJ 14 1 

### c1 <lo

### U3 

### <0.001 -22.35 

# * 350

### U ~ ~- 

### -1.27 

# * 160UJ 161 

### 2 334 174 

### 0.2 1J 

### 8 <0.03 

### UJ 14 

### 2 <1 

### 16 

### J <0.001 

### -33.53 f 

### 330

# u

?
**c-r** 4

- 

### "Duplicate sample taken at 

### MCK 1.92. 'J = estimated value; 

### R = 

### rejected value; 

### U = 

### undetected4elowmethod detection level.

### A-18

Ju$ 3031990- Sites EabW

1_1 Source: CII2M I-IiII,pcrsonal communication
Element MCK MCK MCK MCK MCK MCK iMCK MCK

(PHI>) 2.62 2.62-F 2.52 2.52-F 1.92 1.92-F 1.92 1.92-P
Aliirnioum Antimony Arsenic Flanum B~~-J~IIu~ Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury
Nickel Niobium Phosphorous Pot assium Selenium
Silvcr Sodiiirn Vanadium Linc 129 Jb 50.0 84.8 60.6 0.30
3.0 43900

10.0 5.0 4.0
1360 0.80 UJ

13600 5 13 1.0
10.0 7.0 UJ 200 UJ

4940 2.0UJ

6.0 2780 5.0 3.3 J 32.0 50.0 32.0 65.6 0.30
3.0 43200

10.0 5.0 7.1
316 0.80 UJ

13200 lo00

1 

### .o
10.0 7.0 UJ 200 UJ

4430 2.0 UJ

6.0 2740 5

### .o 6.0 J 39.4 J 50.0 21.0 49.6 0.30
3.0 45500

10.0 5.0 4.0
5.8 0.80 UJ

13500 16.8 1 

### .o
10.0 7.0 IJJ 200 UJ

4530 2.0 UJ

6.0 2920 5

### .o 2.9 J 38.2 50.0 19.9 48.9 0.30
3.0 44200

10.0 5.0 4.5
14.7J 0.80
12m 29.6 1 

### .o
10.0 85 200 UJ

4450 2.0
6.0 3160 5.0 3.1 J 39.4 J 50.0 2,l 78.5 0.30
3.0 44700

10.0 5.0 4.1
4.0 6.80UJ

14700

1.0 1.0
10.0 7.? 200 UJ

2070 2.0 UJ

6.0 1850 5.0 3.6 J 38.2 50.0 2.1 78.2 0.30
3.0 45300

10.0 5.0 4.9
18.3 J 0.80
14400 28.1 1.0
10.0 7.0 UJ 204) UJ

2130 2.0
6.0 1730 5

### .o 5.0J 48.7 J 50.0 2.1 70.2 0.30
3.0 32300

10.0 5.0 4.0
4.0 0.80 UJ 13600

1 .0 1 .0
10.0 7.0 IJJ 200 UJ

2040 2.0 UJ

6.0 16W 5

### .o 2.1 J 50.5 50.0 2.1 71.9 0.30
3.0 44800

10.0 5.0 4.0
15.1 J 0.80 J
14200 28.8 1 .0
10.0 7.0 UJ 200 UJ

2000 2.0
6.0 1720 5.0 5.6J “Duplicate sample taken at MCK 1.92. bJ = estimated value: R = rejected value; U = undetected-klow method detection level.

### TableA-12. 

### Water 

### qualitydata 

### for surfacewater 

### samplesofMcCoyBranch, October 

### 8,1990,after a 45-m

### rain event. Source: 

### CH2M Hill, personal communication 

# - Parameter 

### mg/L unless otherwise noted ~~~ 

### MCK2.62 

### MCK 2.52 

### MCK 1.92 Field Blank
Alpha activity 

### (pCi/L) -1.28 

# * 3.5 UJ" 

### 2.37 

# * 4.0 -0.60 

# * 3.6 

### UJ 0.69

# * 3.8J 

### Alkalinity 

### Chloride 

### IC Conductivity (pmho/cm) Dissolved 

### solids 

### FIouride IC 

### Nitrate 

### PH 7.63 8.15 7.99 6.55 

### Phenols <0.03 

### UJ 4.03

### UJ C0.03 

### UJ e0.03 

### UJ Sulfate Total organic carbon 

### (TOC) Total organic halides 

### (TOX) (pa) 

### e10 UJ <10 

### UJ <10

### UJ <10 

### UJ Uranium- fluorometric 3.03

# * 7.7 J 

### -8.61 

## * 7.1 

### U Beta activity (pCi/L) -5.35 rt 

### 7.3 

### UJ -3.49 f 7.4 

### 155 

### 152 171 

### 2 3 

### 3 

### 2 c1 342 

### 340 

### 350 1.2 226 

### 214 1.94 

### <1 0.1 0.1 

### 0.2 <0.1 <1

### UJ 

### c1 UJ <1 

### UJ <1 

### UJ 

## ? Suspended

### solids C1 

### c1 <1 

### <1 

### 5; 24 26 18 

### <1 

### c1 1 

### 1 2
0.001 

### 0.001 

### <O.Ool €0.001 

### "J = estimated value; 

### R = 

### rejectedvalue; 

### U = undetected-below method detection level.A-20

Table A-113. we in M 8; 45 Source: CI 12M Hill, personal communication Element MCK MCK MCK MCK MCK MCK Field Equip 2.62 2.62-F 2.52 2.52-F 1.92 1.92-F blank blank (rBIJ,)

~ Alumiiium

Antimony
Barium Arscnic Beryllium
Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt collpcr
Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel
Niobium Phosphorous Potassium Selenium Silver
Sodium Vanadium Zinc '79.8J" 50.0 35.4 71.1 0.30
3.0 46'700

10.0 5.0 4.0
550 0.80 [JJ

14400 1090 0.10 10.0
9.5 J 200 UJ

4700 2.0 UJ

6.0
2960 5.0 7.0J 48.7 J 50.0 20.9 67.2 0.30
3.0 45900

10.0 5.0 4.0
97.3 0.80 UJ

14100 940 0.10 10.0
8.7 J 20 UJ 4510 2.0 UJ

6.0
2800

5.0 5.4 J 76.7 J 50.0 20.8 53.4 0.30
3.0 46100

10.0 5

### .o 4.0
170 0.80 UJ

13W 204 0.10 10.0
7.0 UJ 200 UJ

4720 2.0 UJ

6.0
2'780 5

### .o 15.3 26.9 J 50.0 23.9 48.9 0.30
3.0 45600

10.0 5.0 4.0
4.0 0.80 UJ

13700

1 .0 0.10 10.0
7.0 UJ 200 UJ

4920 2.0 UJ

6.0 2890 5.0 4.7 J 76.7 J 50.0 2.4 84.1 0.30
3.0 5 1200

10.0 5.0 8.9
122 0.80 UJ

14500 53.3 0.10 iO.0
7.0 UJ 200 UJ

2410 2.0 UJ

6.0
2020

5.0 9.1 J 61.1 J 50.0 2.4 82.8 0.30
3.0 50400

10.0 5.0 4.0
60.8 0.80 UJ

14200 41.4 0.10 10.0
8.1 J 200 UJ

2490 2.0 UJ

6.0
1890 5

### .o 5.1 J 33.2 J 50.0 2.1 1.3 0.30
3.0 93.6 J

10.0 5.0 4.0
4.0 0.80 UJ

12.2 J

1 

### .o 0.10 10.0
7.0 US 200 UJ

600 2.0 UJ

6.0
248 5.0

' 2.4J 20.0 50.0 2.1 1.3 0.30
3.0 133 10.0 5.0 4.0
4.0 0.80 UJ

11.6J 2.2 0.10 10.0
7.0 UJ 200 UJ

600 2.0 UJ

6.0
274 5.0 6.3 J
"J = estimated value; R = rejected value; U = undetected-kloav method detection level.TabkA-14. Monthly means **(stamlard**deviation) and range (number **of**measurements) **of** water tempmature **(‘C)** inMcCoy Branch (MCK), in upperWhite Oak **creelr** (WCK 6.8) and in upperFdh (3reek (FFK l.Q), two re€ermcc sites Datawere obtain4with aRyanTempMentordigitaltemperature recolcteTwilhvalues recotdedeveryhour. NA=tempture data not avaiIable SamplingPen& MCK 1.60 MCK 1.92 WCK 6.8 FFlc 1.0 

# - Year Month Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range 1989 December

1990 January
February

March
April

May

June
July
August
September

October

November

December 9.53 (1.15)
8.36 (0.58)

**(0.92)** 10.38

12.17 (1.62) 13.64 (2.06) 17.90 (1.57) 23.26 (1.97) 26.40 (0.76) 26.32 (0.82)
24.67 (1.85)
20.55 (2.15)
15.04 (1.2) 12.42 (0.63) 7.5-11.5 (5041
(744)
(672)
(744)

(733)
(6%)
(720)
(744)
(744)
(576)
(744)
(720) 10.0-13.8

(453) 6.3-10.0

8.1-12.6

9.2-16.5

10.3-19.6

15.2-21.6

19.6-27.4

24.0-28.9

17.6-29.0

20.2-28.1

15.2-23.8

12.8-17.8 9.71 (1.25)
NA

NA

NA

NA

14.41 (1.01)
15.08 (0.73)
15.89 (0.72)
16.29 (0.90)
(1.23) 15.87

14.35 (1

69)
12.27 (1.33)
11.19 6.7-12.3 (500) NA

NA

NA

NA

12.0-18.4

(6%)
(739
(744)
(744)
(576)
(744)
(7%) 8.9-13.8

(453) 13.4-17.0

14.7-19.8

11.1-199

12.6-18.7

10.5-18.4

9.4-15.9 8.76 (1.95) 9.96 (0.94)
10.25 (2.10)
(1.22) 11.65

12.76 (1.95)
13.83 (0.89
15.23 (1.07)
16.24 (0.99) 16.19 (0.78)
15.76 (1.51)
13.84 (2.07)
11.37 (1.52)
10.59 3.9-12.7 (672)
(744)
(672)
(744)
(720)
(7%)
(720)
(744)
(744)
(576)

(744)
(720) 7.2-1 2.6

2.2-15.2

9.2-15.3

8.6-18.1

116-16.3

12.6-183

14.4-19.3

14.7-19.4

11.6-18.8

8.6-18.2

8.0-15.9

6.8-133 NA

12.53 (0.39)
12.71 (0.53) 13.15 (0.63)
13.57 (0.75)
15.66 (2W 14.76 (0.63) 15.22 (0.68)

(0.66)
(0.85)
(1.11)

**(OW** 1539

15.02

14.24

13.14

1219 (1.20’1 (4541 NA

11.1-13.4

(192)
(672) 11.5-14.0

11.6-15.0

(744)
(718) 11.8-15.4

8.1-24.1 

### 9

(7201 

# k
13.5-19.0

(720)
(744) 14.4-20.0

11.8-19.7

(744)
(576)
(744) 12.6-18.4

11.3-16.8

10.2-16.1

(733) 9.8-14.2

(455)

### A-22

le A-15. Sediment an

= emission : 

### ERDA 1975

-_c_. 

### Sample month/station



## - Parameter OCt Nov 1 Nov DeC 

### Dec Jan 2 

### 1 

### 2 

# c 2 1



### Al 

### (US Cd (AA) 

### Cr (AA) 

### cu 

### Mn 

## (AN (AN 

# m (AN 

# u (AA) (ES) (ES) 

### Zn (AA)

PCR (AA)



### Ba (ES) Ca 

### (ES) Cs 

### (ES) E'e 

### (ES) K 

### (ES)
Mg (ES) Li 

### (ES)
Mn 

### (ES) Mo 

### (ES) Na (ES) Ni 

### (ES) Si 

### (ES) 

### Ti (ES)
Zr (ES) 

### Y (ES) 11000 1.4 12 12 520
21 6% 4.00 

### 0.4 <0.1

0.025 0.04 20.0 

### <0.6 11.0 1.2
0.10 2.50

0.30 <0.01 20 0.8 0.015 7300 

### <2.0 6 23 

### 62
8
0.14 2.2 0.3

<0.01 0.08 

### 0.5 <0.6 5.0 0.3

0.30

0.02 0.01 15 0.3 0.005 

### 4550 4.0 10 

### 8 579
18 34 <0.20 

### <1.0 

### <0.1

<0.01 

### 0.04 

### 2.5 <Oh 

### 1.2 0.6
0.03 

### 0.15

0.0% 0.01 20 0.3 0.00s <2.0 

### 20 13

34 

### <0.20 

### c1.0 <0.1 4.0 <0.01 0.04 0.6 

### <0.6 

### 2,5 0.3
402 0.30 0.15
0.04 tO.O1 20 0.3 0.010 

### <2.0 16 16

22
<0.20 

### <1.0 

### <0.1 5.0 C0.01 0.04 10.0 <0.6 1.2 0.3


### 0.06 0.80 

### 0.15
0.04 <0.01 

### 15 0.3 0.010 <2*0 

### 14 34



### 46
0.40 

### <1.0 

### <0.1 2.5 c0.01 0.04 1.2 <0.6 2.5 0.6 

### <0.02 

### 0.30 0.15 <0.02 

### 0.04 <0.01
20 0.3 0.010 0.02

### Table

### A-16. Concentrations ofelements

### measured 

### in coal 

### ash samples

### ofthe McCoy 

### Branch floodplain, 

### October 17,1990. Source: CH2M 

### Hill, personal communication
Element 

# - Site" 

# hm AlSl A1S2 A2A 

### A2S1 

### fdA 

### A3s1 

### A3s2 Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryilium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt 

### Copper 

### Iron Lead 

### Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Niobium Phosphorus Potassium Selenium Silver 

### Sodium Vanadium Zinc 9030 

### Rb 2.2 

### J 89.0 0.60 

### 2.1 2230 25.0 18.0 6.1 

### 19200 33.4 597 2240 0.10 6.7 1.7 

### UJ 326 J



### 544 0.24 

### UJ 1.4 

### 49.6 J



### 39.4 34.4 9550 

### R 2.2 

### J

118 0.71 0.88 

### 684 17.4 

### 25.0 5.5 16900 

### 36.2 525 2600 

### 0.12 8.3 1.7 UJ 211

### J

65

### 1 

### 0.24 

### UJ 1.5 

### 88.8 

### J

34.3

. 

### 33.9 18600 

### R 54.5 

### J



### 684 3.2 1.0 

### 3460 15.5 12.0 74.9 18300



### 13.0 1140 81.3 0.73 29.1 2.4 

### UJ 2180 J



### 3570 9.1 

### J 2.1 326 83.7 39.3 15300 

### R 24.3 J



### 109 1.2 1.5 1880 12.0 27.5 24.1 19800 26.0 970 

### 1830 0.11 34.2. 

### 2.0 

### UJ 272 J

1960 

### 2.2 J



### 1.7 141

### J 50.0 102 20800 

### R 46.2 

### J

548 2.9 4.2 

### 5130 18.2 21.9 53.5 64300

15.4 1 690 

### 672 0.66 

### 40.7 2.7 

### UJ 1060J 3670 5.3 

### J 2.3 

### 384 74.2 75.7 5830 10.6 

### J 28.3 

### J

71.4 0.49 

### 1.2 

### 858 5.6 

### 13.0 11.8 20100



### 125 473 %5 

### 0.05 

### 22.3 1.5 

### UJ 129

### J 91

### 1 0.47 

### J

1.3 141

### J 

### 22.1 56.1 7480 

### R 22.0 

### J

77.1 0.56



### 1.7 906 10.1 11.1 11.5 19600

6.5 

### 614 

### 702 0.06 

### 15.5 1.6 

### UJ 145J 1310 

### 0.23 

### UJ 1.4 135

### J 

### 33.4 

### 43.5 'Approximate stream kilometers for sites 

### are given in Table

### A-7. 

### bJ = 

### estimated value; 

### R = 

### rejected value; 

### U = undetected-below method detectionlevel.TableA-17. Conmtrations of elements rneaswedin **coal** ash samples **04**the McCoy Branch floodplain,Ocbber 17,1y90. Source: CH2M Hill,persona1communication
Site* Element 

# - (Pgk) A4A A4S1 A4S2 MA ASS1 Ass2 A6A A6S 1 A6S2 A7A A7S1 A7S2
Aluminum Antimony menic Barium Beryllium
Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury
Nickel Niobium Phosphorus Potassium Selenium
Silver Sodium Vanadium Zinc 20200
54.2 3 355 2.3
1.6 3210 16.4 15.7 37.7
29900

14.3 1620 575 0.19
32.3 2.2 UJ 757 J 3900 1.7 3
1.9 355 52.7 66.5 Rb 11200 R 15.3J 18.1 0.72
1.2 620 8.6 18.5 11.2
14500

8.6 977 2030 0.07
22.I 1.6UJ 97.3J 1780 0.23 UY

1.3 95.9 J 27.7 90.2 9500 R 10.6J 39.3 0.59
1.2 518 8,6 21.4 10.7
13600 15.1 732 1050 0.07
18.0 1.6US 47.0 UY

I320 0.24 US

1.4 45.4 J 25.2 79.6 12300 R 53.2 J 250 1.:
4.2 3300 9.1 12.5 27.6
51500

10.4 Im 577 0.13
26.4 2.1 UJ 262 J 2100 2.7 J

1.8 257 37.7 46.2 6060 R 10.3J 71.0 0.86
22.8 12400 50.6 29.5 70.2
372000

14.5 3740 2360 0.09
40.4 20.1 UJ 575 UJ

I720 0.309

17.2 626 94.0 81.7 16600 R 11.5J 196 1.4
2.3 17800 21.5 10.2 4.9
21300

13.8 3320 248 0.09
15.3 2.0 u3 269 3 2190 0.30 u3

1.7 125 3 29.4 46.6 15000 K 15.6J 252 1.2
1.4 6950 14.3 20.0 26.0
25200

15.1 1610 3200 0.19
21.0 2.4 UJ 375 J **2800** 1.5 9
2.1 290 40.2 72.3 9210 

### n 3.2 J 79.5 0.69
7.0 **25oooo**

22.9 11.4 9.1
13700 21.7 112w 425 0.05
22.9 16.0U3 457UJ 2140 1.2US
13.7 177 12.7 84.5 9460 K 3.0 J 71.6 0.69
1.5 22oooo

8.9 8.6 23.1
1m 27.1 7880 320 0.05
9.9 1.6 UJ 227 5 1990 0.24

### us

1.4 189 16.2 79.3 14905 R 59.2J

425 2.4
2.6 3830 11.5 11.9 40.8
**36600** 16.6 1210 194 0.30 21.8 2.2 u3 IO00 3 2930 1.4 J

1.9 332 55.8 34.2 6670 R 43.6 J 96.0 0.56
1.6 IO30 6.8 17.0 15.1
24900 11.4 653 820 0.07
21.9 1.6UJ

143 1070 0.89 J

1.3 86.0 -I 26.0 59.1 8540 

### n 41.9 J 74.6 0.62
1.2 963 7.4 18.9 11.9
16700 11.9 694 1020 t3 0.07 

## ?
A
18.4 1.6 UJ

17h 1370 0.50 9

1.3 106 3 **26.0** 55.3 “Approximate siream kilsmelers for sites aregiven in Table A-7. bJ = astimetedvalue; R = rejected value; U = undetected-below method detection level.TableA-1B Radioactivityand percentoil and grease

### in **coal** ash samples

### from the McCoyBranch floodplain,October 17,1990. Source: CH2M Hill, personal communication Alpha Beta Uranium Oil and Site' activity activity Cesium-137 fluorometric grease Uranium-235 (pCi/g) (PCW 

### (PW> 

### (Wg) 

## (%I (Weight %) Misc! 

### (PCW AIS1 A1S2 A2A A2s 1 A3A A3s1 A3s2 A4A
A4S1 A4S2 A5A A5s1 A5s2
A6A A6S1 A6S2 A7A A7S1 A7S2 0.04 

## * 2.3

### J' 0.46 

## * 2.4 U -0.38 f 2.3 UJ

0.62 

## * 2.4 J 1.35 

## * 2.5 J 2.82 f 1.7 3.44 f 1.7 -0.20 f 2.3 UJ

2.78 f 1.7 **5.99** 

## * 2.0 2.39 **f** 1.6 1.21 r 1.4J 3.38 f 1.7
5.75 

## * 2.0 0.60 L 1.3J

1.6 f 1.5 1.21 

## * 2.4J -1.44 f 2.2

6.30 f 2.1 -1.79 f 4.2 UJ -3.13 

## * 4.2 UJ -0.67 f 4.3 UJ -3.13 

## * 4.2 UJ -1.12 f 4.3UJ

2.46 f 3.3J 2.91 f 3.4 J -2.35 i 4.2UJ

0.78 f 3.2J 3.24

## * 3.4J 2.01 Q 3.3J -0.78 

## * 3.2 UJ

3.13 Q 3.4J 7.27 f 3.6
0.11 f 3.2 J 4.14 f 3.4 -4.14 

## * 4.1 UJ

5.59 f 3.4 

### R 1.68 

## * 3.33 7.30"' f 2.ZE' 3.30E1

## * 1.7&' 1.52&' f 2.0E1J 2.07&' f 1.9"' 1.39&lf 2.0"' J 6.45E2f lSE1 J 8.SE2 f 2.3"' J 2.65&' i 1.5%' l.WF" lSE1 J 8.25"' k 1.5&'J 9.3P2f 19' 3 2.68%'f 19' 5.WE2

## * 1.651J
6.95"2 1.5E1 J -5.6SL2 Q 1.5"' UJ -6.80E2f 2.0E' UJ

5.05"2 2 1.5"' 

### J 4.47"2 f 1.5"' 

### J 1.03"' f 12iE' J 4 3 7 5 8 4 3 7 3 3 6 3 7 8
2 2 13 3 3 

### <O.l eo.1 co.1 <0.1 <O.l co.1 

## <o.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 co.1 C0.1 <0.1 co.1
<0.1 0.1 c0.1 €0.1 <0.1 LOWU*xxx Lowufxxx INSUFFU 

## * 0.0 LOWU*xXx 0.76

## * 0.01 LOWU*xXx LOWUkxXx 

### INSUFFU 

# * 0.0 LOWU*xxx LOWU*xxx INSUFFU r 0.0 LOWU*xxx 

### INSUFFU f 0.0

LOWU*xxx LOWU*xxx LOWU*xxx LOWU*xxx 3.32&' f 2.4Eb

5.15 

## * 1.3

6.30

## * 1.4 5.10 1.3

9.2 f 5.5''

~ ~- 'Approximate stream kilometers for sites are given in Table A-7. bUranium-235 at site A4& Th-234at sites A452, A64and A651. 7 = estimated value; R = rejected value; U = undetected-below method detectionlevel. %-223.Table A-19. GrouwtsPatm&ta fOrMcQ €3- Lktd~X 15-17,1998. Source: CH2M IHi& personal communication
Parameter Siteu 

# - m& unless otherwise noted 50002 5000

-F 5001 5001

-F 5002 5002-E GW

-321 GW

-321 GW-672 GVi

-672 GW-673 GW-673 Alpha acliviry (pCirL)

-14.51 2 29.8 UJb 27.10 f 35.4 21.08 2 14.9 J 11.45 i 33.3J 91.34 i 43.0 1.61 _+ 32.2 3 25.61 i 75.8 U

-35.57 2 76.5 UJ Beta activity (pCi/L) -60.53 t 75.4 UJ

-72.17 2 74.8

-11.64 s 77.9 UJ

-83.80 2 74.2 U Alkalinity 119 115 262 279 121 143 Chloride 1C 1 1 3 3 2 2 Conductivity (urnhokm) 228 225 622 632 375 376 Dissolved solids 148 138 332 374 222 226 Flouride IC C0.1 co.1 0.1 0.1 1 I Nitrate
PfI Phenols 1J 1J 35 4J 1J c1 UJ 8.2 8.2 7.7 7.6 9.9 10.0 

## ? 

# s 4.03UJ <0.03UJ ~0.03 UJ c0.03UJ <a03u3 <0.03 hlJ Sulfate 2 2 37 37 27 27 Suspended solids 38 <I 1170 2 <1 C1 Total organic carbon (TOC) 4 2 2J 2J 10 9 Total organic halides (TOX) (p&) <I0 UJ <10UJ 54J 120J 351 J <I0 UJ Uranium-fluorometric <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 5.002T&k A-19 (conlinued)

Parameter Site mgLunless otherwise 5003FCAP 5003 FCAP-F 5004 FCAP 5004 FCAP-F **500s** FCAP 5005FCAP-F 5006 FCAP 5007 FCAP noted GW-674 GW-674 GW-676 GW-676 GW-676 GW-676 GW-676 GW676 Alpha activity (pCi/L) Beta activity (pCi/L,j Alkalinity Chloride IC Conductivity (gmho/cm) Dissolved solids Flouride IC Nitrate PH Phenols Sulfate Suspended solids Total organic carbon 

### floc>
(TOXI **@g/L)** Total organic halides 46.07 t 37.8 -90.79 -+ 73.9

### u **224** 2 450

260 0.2 <1 UJ

7.8 c0.03UJ 27 <l 7 

### <loUJ -27.23 127.6UJ -93.12 f 73.8 U 226

2 462

268 0.2 c1 UJ

7.6 <0.03 UJ 27 2 8

<10UJ

Uranium-fluorometric 0.002 0.002 -0.19 +- 36.0 UJ 15.65 74.3J 185 5 504

336 0.2 73 7 c0.03UJ 10 526

1

<IO UJ

0.001 R -37.25 t 76.6 216

4 535

314 0.2 5J 7.9 4.03UJ 8 <1 2

13J

0.002 70.56 f 40.9 **128.04** t 54.6 208 5 525

298 0.2 7J 7.7 <0.03UJ 10 408

1

<loUJ

0.2 11-04t 33.6 J -65.18 t 75.2 UJ **230** .4 540

318 0.2 5J 7.8 <0.03UJ 8 3 2

40 UJ

0.002 58.83 2 39.7 J 76.82 f 82.2J 3 <I 2.6

28 e0.1 <1UJ

7.2 <OMUJ <1 <1 18

<IO UJ

<0.001 24.14 f 27.6 UJ -97.77 

## * 73.5 

### u 3 <1 2.1

14 <0.1 

### 5. <IUJ 

### tL 4 7.3 <0.03 UJ <l <1 <1 UJ

<loUJ

<0.001 .Approximate streamkilometers for sites aregiven in Table A-7. bJ = estimated value; R = rejected value; U = undetected-below method detection level.TableA-20. Ceacentratbnsof elementsmeasured in groundmlerfrorn McCoyBranch, October 15-17,199[). Source: CH2M Hill,personal communication
Site. Element 

# - So00 5000-F 5001 5001-F 5002 5002- 5003 5003-F GW-321 GW-321 GW-672 **~~472** GW473 GW673F GW-674 GW-674 PgR.

Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Niobium Phosphorus Potassium Selenium 42.9 50.0

43.3 0.30 3.0 24300

10.0 5.0 4.0 22.8

13900 5.2

10.0 5.4 200 UJ

775 12000 50.0 2.0 2.7 255 1.3 3.0 114000

24.9 21.1 30.1 16100 3.9 3 6.5 J 33900 2150 0.20 0.26 25.4 7.0 UJ 200 UJ

4960 2.0 8.0 910 50.0 2.0 133 0.30 3.0 95200

10.0 5.6 11.1 1110 2.4 J 25500 1380 0.20 10.0 7.0 UJ 200 UJ

3960 2.2 1060 50.0 2.0 46.9 0.30 3.0 8310 74.7 5.0 52.5 2110 15.4J 12100 44.6 0.20 32.9 7.0 UJ 200 u3 67900

2.0 48.7 Jb 50.0 2.0 29.6 0.30 3.0 5290 10.0 5.0 6.3 37.1 **R** 11200

3.8 0.20 10.0 7.0 UJ 200 UJ 65500

2.0 21800 50.0 3.2 674 4.0 8.0 93200 31.4 27.6 73.5 33500 52.9J 37400 2460 0.33 41.1 7.0 UJ 200 UJ

7710 4.0 70.4 J 50.0 2.0 236 0.30 3.0 62200

10.0 5.0 6.6 20.6

R 21105 224 0.20 10.0 8.8 200 UJ 4230 2.0 Silver 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 **6.0** 6.0 6.0 Sodium 660 3870 4200 16800 17000 3510 3540 Vanadium 5.0 34.3 5.O 5.0 5.0 62.7 5.0 Zinc 50.0 244 56.2 134 46.3 2010 73.5TabieA-20(cwtinued)

Element 

# - Site 5005-F 5006 5006-F 5007 

### rgn 5004 5004-F 5005 GW-676 GW-676 GW-676 GW472 GW-676 GW-676 GW-676
Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Niobium Phosphorus Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Vanadium 11700 50.0 2.0 179 0.50 3.0 159000

22.0 13.1 15.0 17700

8.1 21200 1610 0.20 13.4 7.0

### u 530 4100 4.0 6.0 8250 18.5 52.1 50.0 2.0 62.8 0.30 3.0 7m 10.0 **5**.O 4.0 26.3 3.1 16400 680 0.20 10.0 7.0 U 200

### u 1470 2.0 6.0 7720 5.0 1620 50.0 2.0 66.3 0.30 3.0 77800 10.0 5.0 4.0 1030 3.7 19OOO 361 0.20 10.0 7.0U 200

### u 1950 2.0 6.0 10500

5.0 73.5 50.0 2.0 61.8 0.30 3.O 77100 10.0 5.0 4.0 23.9 2.2 16500 682 0.20 10.0 7.0 U 200

### u 1410 2.0 6.0 7- 5.0 30.6 50.0

5.0 0.30 3.0 250 10.0 5.0 4.0 13.1

15.0 1.5

10.0 10.2 200

### u

600 **20**

0.20 20.7 50.0 2.0 2.0 3.1 0.30 3.0 152 10.0 5.0 4.0 14.6 2.0 23.4 2.2 0.2 10.0 7.0 U 200

### u

**600** 20 6.0 378 5.0 2.0 6.0 448 5.0 18.2 4.8 14.6 Zinc 87.1 32.3 17.2 8Approximate stream kilometers for sites are given in TableA-7. *J = estimatedvalue; R = rejectedvalue; U = undetected-belaw method detection level.

### APPENDM:

### B CHECKILISTOFBENTHIC

### MACROINVEXTEBRATETAXAFROM MCCOYBRANCH

### AND WMTE 

### OAKCREEK,

### APRIL 1989-JANUARY 

### 1990

### B-3



### TableB-1. 

### Checklistof

### benthicmarroirlveffebrafe

### taxa 

### mkcted 

### &om 

### McCoy Branch (MCK)andWhite 

### Oak

### Creek (WCK), a 

### referencestream,

### April 1989-January 1990. 

### The ‘Xindicates that the 

### taxnu w8cf 

### mllectedat 

### least once 

### in quantitative

### samples

### duringthe

### sampling

### period

TIE ‘Qindicatesthat the 

### taxon

### was mWtd 

### ia qualitative

### samplesonly



### Taxon Site 

### MCK 

### MCK WCK 1.40 

### 2.03 6.8

Coelenterata (hydras) Hydridae 

### Hydra Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae (flat worms) Copepoda (copepods) Nematoda (roundworms) Annelida Oligochaeta (aquatic 

### earthworms) Ostracoda (seed shrimp)
Crustacea Amphipoda (sideswimmers) Gammaridae 

### Crangonyx Decapoda (crayfish) Cambaridae 

### Cambanis Hydracarina (water 

### mites)


### Insecta Collembola (springtails) Anthropleona Entomobryomorpha Smint

### huridae 

### X 

### X X



# x X

Q

X 

### X 

### X

X X

Q 

## Q X



### X 

### X

X

X



### X

X X 

### X 

### Q 

### X

XB-4



### Table B-1 

### (Continued)

Site MCK 

### WCK 6.8 MCK 

### 1.40 

### 2.03 ‘Taxon
Ephemcroptera (mayflies) Baetidae? Baetidae 

### Baetis Baetis Pluto Baetis tricaudatus Pseudocloeon Ephernerellidae 

### Ephemerella Ephemerella? 

### Ephemerella 

### invaria Eurylophella Euiylophella doiisltemporalis Ephemeridae 

### Ephemera Heptageniidac 

### Stenacron Stenacron inteipunctatum Stenonema Stenonema? Leptophlebiidae 

### Hahrophlehiodes 

### Paraleptophle bia Oligoneuriidae 

### Zsonychia
Odonata Anisoptera (dragonflies)

Aeshnidae 

### Boyeria Cordulegastridae Cordulegnster Gornphidae 

### Srylogornphus Stylogomphus albistylus Stylogomph us? Zygoptera (damselflies)

Libellulidae 

### X 

### x
v

n 

### Q L! 

### X

X

X

X 

### X

X 

### X X 

### X 

### Q Q X 

### Q
X 

### X X Q 

### X X 

### X X 

### X X X

Q
X 

### X X

X X 

### Q X

### B-5

Table

### B-1 

### (continued)

Taxon Site 

### MCR MCK WCK 1.40 

### 2.03 6.8


### Calopterygidae Calopteryx Calopteryx? Ckenagrionidae Ischnura 

### Plecoptera (stoneflies) Chloroperlidae Haploperla SweEtsa Sweltsa? 

### Leuctridae Leuclra Leuctra? 

### Nemouridae

Amphinemura Amphinemura delosa 

### Peltoperlidae Tallaperla Viehoperla? Eccoptura Perlesta 

### Perlodidae Isoperla 

### lsoperla holochlora? 

### Isoperla? 

### Perlidae xanthenes



### Hemiptera (true bugs) 

### Veliidae 

### Microvelia Microvelirr 

### nmericnno? 

### Hydrometridae Hydrometra Mesovel

### iidae? Corixidae Sigam 

### X X 

### X 

## X

X 

## X X X 

### X

X



### X 

## X

X

X X X 

### X 

### X

X X



### X X X X 

### Q

X X X X X 

### Q X



### Q

Q

### B-6



### Table

### B-1 (Conhucd)

Site 

### MCK MCK WCK 1.40 

### 2.03 6.8 Taxon
Megaloptera 

### Nigronia Nigronia Nigronia Corydalidae (dobsonflies, 

### fishflies)


### fasciatus
serriconzis Sialidae (alderflies) 

### Sialis Trichoptera (caddisflies) Glossosornatidae



### Agapetus Glossosomn Hydropsychidae 

### Cheumatopsyche Diplectrona rnodesta Hydropsyche IYydropsyche? 

### Hydroptilidae 

### Hydroptiln Limnephilidae 

### Neophylax Pycnopsyche Pycnopsychegentilis Pycnopyche luculenta Pycnopsyche scabiipennis Odontoceridae 

### Psilotretn Philopotamidae Chiman-n 

### Dolophilodes distinctus Wonnaldin 

### Molannidae 

### Molanna 

### X

X X

X



### X X X

X 

### X X X X

X

X X 

### X X
X



### X X X

X



### X X 

### X X X X 

# x
X X 

### X X 

### Q Q Q X
X 

### X 

### X

### €3-7



### Table 

### El 

## (continued)

Site 

### MCK 

### MCK WCK 1.40 

### 2.03 6.8 

### Taxon
Polycentropodidae Polycentropus Polycentropus? 

### Psychomyiidae Lype 

### diversa 

### Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 

### Goeridae Goera Lepidostoma 

### X 

### X X

X
Lepidostomatidae 

### X X 

### X Coleoptera (beetles) 

### Dryopidae Elmidae 

### Q Q X 

### X X X Helichus fastigiatus Dubiraphia Optiosewus 

### Stenelmis Stenelmis? Microcyllloepus

pusilIus 

### X



### X
Eubriidae Ectopna 

### Hydrophilidae Hydrobius 

### Psephenidac Psephenus henicki 

### Ptilodactylidae

Anchytarsus bicolor 

### X Q X



### X
Diptera (true flies) 

### Muscomorpha Cera

### topogonidae

A

### trichopogon 

### X 

### X X 

### X X



### X

X



### X X 

### X 

### X

X 

### X X X

### B-8



### Table

### B-1 (Co~tin~ed)



### Site 

### MCK MCK WCK Taxon 

### 1.40 2.03 6.8

Chironomidae 

### Tanypodinae 

### Labrundinia Natarsia Nilotanypus Nilotanypus? Paramerina Pa**M**

### merinn'? 

### Thienemannirnyia gp 

### Thienemannimyia? 

### Trissopelopia ogemawi 

### Trissopelopia ? 

### Zavrelimy**in** 

### Zavrelirnyin? Diamesinae 

### Diarnesa Orthocladiinae 

### Brillin Chaetoclndius Chaetocladius? Corynoneu rn 

### Corynoneurn ? 

### Cricotopus bicinclus Cricotopus tremulus Cricotopusl Cricotopusl Orthockrdius Orthocladius? 

### Diploclndius EukieSferiella Eukieffenella claripennis Eukieffeelielladevonicn Eukieffenelln? Helenielln Heleniella? 

### Heterottissocladius HeterorriSsocladiusmarcidus Heterotnssoclndius? Limnophyes 

### Q Q Q 

### X X X 

### X 

### X X X 

### X 

### Q Q 

### X X X 

### X X X 

### X 

### X X 

### X 

### X Q 

### X 

### X X Q 

### X 

### X

X 

### Q

Q 

### X 

### X X 

### Q Q 

### Q X



### X Q X 

### X X 

### X

X X

X 

### X X X Q 

### X X 

### X Q X X

### €3-9



### Table

### B-1 (Chutind)



### Taxon Site 

### MCK 

### MCK WCK 1.40 

### 2.03 6.8
Lopescladius Nanocladius Parukiefferiella Parametriocnemus Psectrocladius 

### Rheocricotopus Smittia Symposiocladius Thienemannielln Tvetenia 

### Tvetenia bavmica Chironominae Chironomini



### ChironamuslEinfeldia Cyptochironomus Dicrotendipes Microtendipes Microtendipes ? 

### Paralauterborniella Paratendipes Paratendkes

### ? Polypedilu 

### rn Stictochironomus Micropsectla Micropsectra? 

### Paratanytarsus Para

### tanytarsus? 

### Rheotanytaisus Rhea f

### onyta

### rsus? 

### Stempe flinn Stempellineiln Sternpellinella ? Culicidae



### Anopheks Dixidae 

### Dixa Dolichopodidae 

### Sciom yzidae Tanytarsini 

### X X 

### X

X X X 

### X 

### Q X

X 

### Q Q



### X X Q 

### Q X X Q 

### X

X

X


### Q 

### X 

## X X Q 

### X X 

### X Q 

# x X



### X X X 

### X 

### X X 

### X 

### X X X 

### X

X 

### Q 

### X X

X X



### X X 

### Q X

X 

### X X 

### Q

X

X 

### X

X 

### X 

# x X 

### X

X 

### Q

.. ~~ .... ......... ..........~ I..l.........._____....... *

~ .........

### B-10



### Table 

### El (Continued)

Site MCK 

### WCK 5.8 

### MCK 1.40 2.03 Taxon

Simuliidae 

### Simulium Simulium? Muscidae Empididae 

### Chelifera Clinocera Hemerodromia Hemerodromia? Psychodidae 

### Pen'coma Stratiomyidae 

### Ca 

### loparyphus Myxosargus Nemotelus Odontomyia Tabanidae 

### Chrysops Tubanus Antocha Hexatoma Limnophila Limnophila? Polymera Pseudolimn

### nphila Pseiidolimnophila? 

### Tipula Tipula abdominalis Tipulidae

Mollusca

Gastropoda (snails)

Lymnaeidae Lymnaeidae? Physidae 

### Physella Planorbidae 

### Gyrtrulus 

### Pseudosmcinea colu.mella 

### X X X X

X X X

X 

### X



### X X 

### Q X 

### X 

### X X X



### Q Q X



### X X Q



### Q X

X 

### X

X Q 

### X X 

### X Q



### X X X X X

X X 

### Q X X X 

### X X X 

### X

### B-11



### Table €3-1 

### (coatinued)

Site

Taxon 

### MCK MCK WCM 1.40 

### 2.03 6.8

Pleuroceridae 

### Elimia 

### Bivalvia (clams) 

### Sphaeriidae 

### Pisidium Pisidium? 

### Sphaerium 

### Corbicula ffuminen 

### X

X 

### X X 

### X X 

### X X

### ORNLm-11926

1. 

### 2. 3. 4. 5. 

### 6. 

### 7. 8. 9. 

### 10. 11. 

### 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 

### 18. 19. 

### 20. 21. 

### 22-29. 30. 31.

73. 74.
75. 

### 76.
77. 78. 

### 79.

80. 

### 81. 

### L. J. 

### Allison 

### T. L. Ashwood 

### B. G. Blaylock W. R. 

### Brown G. 

### F. 

### Cada 

### S. 

### W.Christensen R. B. 

### Clapp 

### R. B. Cook 

### M. E P. 

### DeLozier 

### M. L. Frank C.W. 

### Gehrs 

### S. G. Hildebrand 

### C. C. Hill 

### R. L. Hinzman M. A. 

### Huston P. 

### Kanciruk B. 

### L. Kimmel J. 

### M. Loar 

### R. 

### B. McLean 

### L. W. 

### McMahon M. J. 

### Peterson 

### M. 6.

### Ryon J. A. 

### Shaakir-Ali 

### F. E. Sharples 

### lNTERNAL

### DISTRIBUTION 32. 

### E. M. Schilling 33. 

### L. R. Shugart 34. J. 

### G. 

### Smith 35. 

### G. 

### R. Southworth 36. 

### C. 

### L. 

### Stair 

### 37. A. J. 

### Stewart 38. J. 

### E. Stone 39. 

### G. 

### W.Suter 

### 40. D. W. 

### Swindle 41. 

### V. 

### R. Tolbert 42. J. 

### R. 

### Trabalka 43. 

### R. R. Turner 

### 44. W. 

### Van Winkle 45. 

### L. D. Voorhees 46. 

### S. Walker 47. 

### R. K. White 48. 

### Central Research Library 49-63. 

### ESD Library 64-67. 

### ERDocument Management Ctr 68-69. 

### Laboratory Records Department 70. 

### Laboratory Records-RC 71. ORNL 

### Patent Office 72. 

### ORNLY-12 

### Technical Library



### EXTERNALDISTRIBUTION 

### S. Ahlstedt, Division 

### of Water Resources, Tennessee Valley Authority,'Norris, 

### TN 37828 

### D. S. 

### Day, Environmental Division, US.Department of 

### Energy, Savannah River Operations 

### Office,Box A, Aiken, 

### SC 29802 P. 

### H. 

### Edmonds, Radian Corporation, 120

### South Jefferson Circle, Oak Ridge, 

### TN 37830 W. 

### Fisher, Department of 

### Zoology, 

### Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, 

### OK 74078 

### J. F. 

### Franklin, Bloedel Professor of Ecosystem Analysis,College of

### Forest Resources, University of 

### Washington, Anderson Hall (AR-lo), 

### Seattle, WA 98195 

### C. S. Gist, Environmental Protection Division, SE-31,

### DOE Oak Ridge Field Office, 

### Oak Ridge, P.O. 

### Box 2001, 

### Oak Ridge, TN 37831 

### H. W. Hibbitts, Deputy Assistant Manager, Department of Environment, Safety and Quality, SE-30, 

### DOE Oak Ridge Field 

### Office, P.O. 

### Box 2001, 

### Oak Ridge, 

### TN 37830 D. R. Hopkins, U.S. 

### Environmental Protection Agency, 345 

### Courtland Street, NE.,

### Atlanta, GA 

### 30365 

### G. M. 

### Hornberger, Professor, Department of 

### Environmental Sciences, University ofVirginia, Charlottesville,VA 22903

### 82. 

### G. 

### Y. Jordy, Director, Office of Program Analysis, Office of 

### Energy Research, ER-30, G-226, 

### US. Departmcnt of Energy, Washington, 

### DC 20545 83. 

### T. Joseph, Environmental Remediation Branch, Environmental Protection Division, SE-312, DOE Oak Ridge Field Office, P.O. 2001, Oak Ridge, 

### TN 37830 84. R. 

### A. Jump, Environmental Restoration Division, EW-91, 

### DOD Oak 

### Ridge Field Office, 

### P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, "4 

### 37830 85. 

### W. h 

### Mocker, 1219Riverbend Drive, Kingston, 

### TN 37763 

### 86. 

### E. C. Leming, Director, 

### DOE Oversight Division, 761 

### Emory Valley Road, 

### Oak idgc, 

### TN 37830-7072 87. 

### G. J. Marciante, Environmental Protection Division, SE-31,DOE Oak Ridge Field Office, 

### P.O. Box 2001, Oak 

### Ridge, Oak Ridge, 

### TN 37830 88. A. 

### D. McKinney, Chief, Environmental Serviccs,

### TWRA, 

### P.O. Box 40747, Ellington Agricultural Center, Nashville, 

### TN37204 89. 

### W. G. 

### McMillan, Environment and Protection, DOE Oak Ridge 

### Ficld Office, 

### P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN 37830 

### 90. 

### C.R. Olsen, Environmental Sciences Division, Office of 

### Health and Environmental Research, ER-74, U.S. Department ofEnergy, Washington, 

### DC 20585 91. R. 

### H. Olsen, Vicc President for 

### Research, University of 

### Michigan, Medical Science Building 11, #5605, 1301East Catherine Street,

### Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0620 

### 92. A. 

### Patrinos, Acting Director, Environmental Sciences Division, Office of 

### Health and Environmental Research, ER-74, 

### U.S. Department of 

### Energy, Washington, 

### DC 20585 

### 93. S. 

### S. Perkins, c/o Labat-Anderson, Inc., Information Resource Center, Administrative Record File, 105 Broadway, Oak Ridge, 

### TN 37830 94. 

### 'I'. D. Richardson, Department of Biology, Box 504-A, University 

### ofNorth Alabama, Florence, 

### AL 35682-0001 95. S. 

### P. Riddle, Environmental Restoration Division, EW-91, DOE Oak Ridge Field Office, 

### P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, 

### TN 37830 96. 

### W. Schacher, Aquatic Habitat Protection Biologist,Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, 6032 W. Andrew Johnson Highway, Talbot, 

### TN37877 97. 

### R. C. 

### Sleeman, Environmental Rcstoration Division, EW-91, 

### DOE Oak Ridge Field Office, 

### P.O. Box 2001, 

### Oak Ridge, 

### TN 37830 98. 

### D. Turner, 1201Tuskegee Drive, Oak Ridge, 

### TN 37830 99. 

### F. J. Wobber, Environmental Sciences Division, Office of Health and Environmental Research, ER-74, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585 100. Office 

### ofAssistant Manager for Energy Research and Development, 

### DOE Oak Ridge Field Office, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, 

### TN 37831-8600 101-110. Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. 

### Box 62, 

### Oak Ridge, 

### TN 37831