I



# -. 

# EPA 905-R96-008 September 1996



# CALCULATION AND EVALUATION 

# OFSEDIMENT EWECT CONCENTRATIONSFOR THEAMPHIPOD 

# HYALELLAAZTECA AND THE

# MIDGE CHIRONOMUSRIPARIUS National Biological ServiceFinal Report for

the 

# U.S.EnvironmentalProtection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) Assessment and Remediation of 

# Contaminated Sediment (ARCS) Project

Ingersoll, C.G., P.S.Haverland,E.L. Brunson, T.J.Canfield, 

# F.J. Dwyer, C.E. Henke, 

# N.E. Kemble Midwest Science Center National Biological Service 4200New Haven Road Columbia, MO 65201 and D.R. Mount Mid-continent Ecology Division 

# U.S.Environmental Protection Agency 6201Congdon Boulevard Duluth, MN 

# 55804
Project Officer: Richard G. 

# Fox Great Lakes National Program Office 

# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

# 77 W.Jackson Chicago, 

# IL 60604

S W-A-005280

# Disclaimer Alth ugh the sedimenteffect concentrations 

# (SECs)can be [sed

# as guidance for evaluating contaminated sediment, thereis 

# no intent expressed or implied that these 

# SECsrepresent USEPA or National Biological Service 

# (NBS)criteria. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsementorrecommendation foruse. The informationin this report has been funded in part by the 

# USEPAunder Contract Number 

# DW14933874with the 

# NBS Midwest Science Center, Columbia, 

# MO.

### - 

# Abstract Procedures aredescribed for calculating and evaluating sediment effect concentrations (SECs) using laboratory data on the toxicity of contaminants associated with field-collected sedimentto 

# the amphipodHyalella azteca 

# and the midge 

# Chironomus riparius. SECs are defined as the concentrationsof individual contaminants in sedimentbelow which toxicity is rarely observed and above which toxicity is frequently observed. Only a limited number of SECshave been published for freshwater sediments. Theobjective ofthe present study was to 

# develop SECsto 

# classifytoxicity data for Great Lake sediment samplestested with 

# HyaZeZZa azteca 

# and 

# Chironomus

# riparius. This SECdatabase included samples from additional sites across the United Statesin orderto make the database 

# as robust as 

# possible. Three types of SECswere calculated fromthese data: (1)Effect Range Low (ERL) and Effect Range Median (ERM), 

# (2) Threshold Effect Level (TEL) and Probable Effect Level (PEL), and (3) 

# NoEffect Concentration (NEC).The SECswere calculated using: (1)dry-weight concentrations, (2) dry-weight concentrations normalized 

# to total organic carbon concentrations (for non-ionic organics), or (3) 

# dry-weight concentrations normalized to acid volatile sulfide concentrations (for divalent metals). Wewere ableto 

# calculate SECsprimarily for total metals, simultaneously extracted metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The ranges of concentrations in sediment were too narrow in our database to adequately evaluate .



# SECsforbutyltins, methyl mercury, polychlorinated dioxins and furans, orchlorinated pesticides. About 

# 60 to 

# 80%

# ofthe sediment samplesin the database are correctly classified as 

# toxic ornot toxic depending on type of SECevaluated.The SECscalculated for the entire database were generally asreliable as SECscalculated for the GreatLakes database at classifying both toxic and non-toxic GreatLakes samplesin our database. ERMs and Ems calculated using the entire database are generally as

# reliable as 

# paired PELS and TELs at classifying both toxic and nontoxic samples in our database. Reliability of the SECsin terms of correctly classifying sediment samplesis similar between 

# ERMs andNECs; however, 

# ERMs minimize Type

# Ierror (false positives) relative to ERLs and minimize Type 

# 11error (false negatives) relative to NECs. Correct classification of samplescan be improved by using only the most reliable individual 

# SECs for chemicals (i.e., those with ahigher percentage of correct classification). When SECs areused to conduct apreliminary screeningto predict the potential for toxicity in the absenceof actualtoxicity testing, a 

# low number of SECexceedances should be used to minimize the potential for falsenegatives; however, the risk of accepting higher false positives is increased. Calculating SECsusing dry-weight concentrations vs SECscalculated using sediment concentrations normalized to 

# TOCconcentrations for PAHs and total PCBs resulted in 

# similar correct classification of toxicity and similar Type 

# I and Type 

# ITerror. Therange ofTOC concentrations in our database was relatively narrow compared to the ranges of contaminant concentrations. Therefore, normalizing dry-weight concentrations 

# to a relatively narrow range 

# of TOC concentrations had 

# little influence on relative concentrations of contaminants among samples. 

# e

... Ill

# Our 

# SECswere calculated from toxicity tests with field-collected samples. 

# Lf a 

# chemical concentration exceeds an SECgenerated using data from these tests with field-collected samples, it does not necessarily mean the chemical caused the observed effect. Rather, the SECis the concentration 

# of a chemical that is associated with the effect. Field-collected sedimentstypically contain complex mixtures 

# of contaminants. Additional information is needed 

# to identify the specific contaminants that were actually responsible for the toxicity. Confirmation of sediment toxicity due to individual orgroups 

# of contaminants can be determined by using Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) procedures 

# orby conductingtoxicity tests with spiked sediments. Once the probable cause(s) of sediment toxicityhas been identified, better decisionscan be made regarding remediation options.

iv

## contents



# ... 111 

# Abstract..


# ...........................................................................................................

.................................................................................................... V 

# List 

# ofTables List ofFigures


# ................................................................................................... ... List 

# of Acronyms 

# x Acknowledgments


# ............................................................................................. xi v 

# List 

# ofAppendices Vlll


# ............................................................. 

# ................................



# ...............................................................................................
Introduction..


# ..................................................................................................... li 

# Results and Discussion


# .............. ................................................... 10 

# Conclusions and.Recommendations..


# ................................................................ 22 Tables..


# ................................................................................................................ 29. 

# 4 Methods


# .............................................................................. ..:.

# ...........................



# .......:. 

# .:...
.......; References:


# ......................................................................................................... 24 

# Figures Appendices

# Table 1
Table 2

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

___ 

# Figure 

# 4
Figure 

# 5
Figure 

# 6 Figure 7 Figure 

# 8 

# List 

# ofTables Percentage 

# of whole-sediment samples identified as toxic in Chironomus riparius 

# 14-d (CR14),Hyalella azteca 

# 14-d (HA14), or

# H.azteca 

# 28-d (HA28) tests. Percentage 

# ofpaired 

# tests

# orpaired endpoints identifying samples 

# as toxic in Chironomusriparius 

# 14-d (CR14),Hyalella azteca 

# 14-d (HA14),

# or

# H. azteca 28- 

# d 

# (HA28) tests.


# List ofFigures Comparability and reliability ofERMscalculated using the Great Lakes database (EM-G)

# vs ERMscalculated using dry-weight concentrations and the entire database (ERM). Comparability and reliability of PELs calculated using the GreatLakes database (PEL-G) vs 

# PELS calculated using dry-weight concentrations and the entire database (PEL). Comparability and reliability of 

# ERLs calculated using the Great Lakes database (Em-G)

# vs Ems calculated using dry-weight concentrations and the entire database 

# (ERL). ComparabiIity and reliability of

# TELs calculated using the

# Great Lakes database (TEL-G) 

# vs TELscalculated using dry-weight concentrations and the entire database (TEL). Comparability and reliability of NECs calculated using the Great Lakes database (NEC-G) vs

# NECs calculated using dry-weight concentrations and the entire database 

# (NEC). Comparability and reliability of ERMs and PELs calculatedusing dry-weight concentrations and the entire database. Comparability and reliability 

# of ERLs and TELs calculated using dry-weight concentrations and the entire database. Comparability and reliability of ERMs and 

# ERLs calculated using dry-weight concentrations and the entire database.



# vi.. 

# Figure 

# 9 

# Figure 10 Figure 11 

# Figure 

# 12

Figure 

# 13

Figure 14


# Figure 

# 15

___ 

# Figure 

# 16 Figure 

# 17 Figure 

# 18 Figure 19 Figure 

# 20 Figure 

# 21 Comparability and reliability of

# PELSand 

# TELs calculated using dry- weight concentrations and the entire database. Comparability and reliability of

# NECs and 

# ERMs calculated using dry-weight concentrations and the entire database. Comparability and reliability of

# NECs and 

# ERLs calculated using dry-weight concentrations and the entire database. Reliability of

# ERMs calculated using dry-weight concentrations and using sediment concentrationsnormalized to total organic carbon 

# (TOC; ERM-T) concentrations for the entire database. Reliability of

# ERLs calculated using dry-weight concentrations and using sediment concentrationsnormalized 

# TOC 

# (Em-T)concentrations for the entire database. Reliability of NECs calculated using dry-weight concentrations and using sediment concentrationsnormalized to 

# TOC (NEC-T)concentrations for the entire database. Reliability of

# ERMs for metals calculated using dry-weight concentrations and pore-water 

# (EM-PW)concentrations for the entire database. Reliability of

# ERLs formetals calculated using dry-weight concentrations and pore-water 

# (Em-PW)concentrations for the entire database. Reliability of 

# NECs for metals calculated using dry-weight concentrations and pore-water 

# (NEC-PW)concentrations for the entire database. Reliability of ERMs calculated using total-metal 

# (ERM-BT)concentrations and simultaneously extracted metal 

# (EM-BS)concentrations for the entire database. Reliability of 

# ERLs calculated using total-metal 

# (ERL-BT)concentrations and simultaneously extracted metal 

# (ERL-BS)concentrations 

# for the entire database. Reliability of 

# NECs calculated using total-metal 

# (NEC-BT) concentrations and simultaneously extracted metal 

# (NEC-BS) concentrations 

# forthe entire database. Observed and expected toxicity of samples based on the minimum number of 

# ERM exceedances using dry-weight concentrations for the entire database.



# vii

### - 

# Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24

Figure

# 25

Figure 26

- 

# Figure 27 Figure 

# 28 Figure 29
Figure 30 

# Observed and expected toxicity of samplesbased on the minimum number of 

# ERLexceedances using dry-weight concentrations for the entire database. Observed and expected toxicity of samplesbased on the minimum number of 

# NEC exceedances using dry-weight concentrations and using all individual

# NECs regardless of thepercent correct classification forthe entire database. Observed and expected toxicity 

# of HA28 samplesbased on the minimum number ofNEC,EM, and

# ERLexceedances for the entire database using dry-weight concentrations regardless ofpercentage correct classification by these individual ERMs. Observed and expected toxicity of 

# HA28 samplesbased on the minimum number of

# ERM exceedancesfor the entire database using individual 

# EMS for PAHs or PCBs calculated using dry-weight or using sediment concentrations normalized 

# to total organic carbon concentrations. Observed andpredicted toxicity of Clark Fork River samples based on the minimum number of Great Lakes 

# ERM exceedancesusing dry-weight concentrations. Comparability of our SECsfor the entire database to 

# published SECs for benzo[a]pyrene (BaP)based on dry-weight concentrations. Comparability of our

# SECs to published SECsfor copper based on dry-weight concentrations. Observed and predicted toxicity of HA28 samples based on dry-weight concentrations and the minimumnumber ofexceedancesof published freshwater PELS,

# HyaZeZZa azteca 

# AETs, EQP, and SLCs. Relationshipbetween the frequency of

# ERM exceedances and the sumof the 

# ERM toxic quotient for toxic and non-toxic HA28 samples using dry-weight concentrations.


# List of

# Appendices N0TE:The entireversions of Appendices 2a, 2b, 4a,4b, and 

# 5 are not printed in the report. 

# The computer disk that accompanies the report containselectronic versions of these appendices. See the 

# filenamed “read.me” for a further description of these files.


# viii,,- 

## . 

# Appendix 1 Appendix 2a Appendix 2b Appendix 2c Appendix 2d Appendix 3a
Appendix 3b


# Appendix 3c .- 

# Appendix 3d
Appendix 4a Appendix 4b
Appendix 5



# Appendix 

# 6 Summary of

# biological, chemical, and physical characterization performed on sediment samples from each site. - 

# Biology database.

. 

# Chemistry database. Chemistry codes. J 

# Sample codes. Summary 

# of sediment effect concentrations (SECs)calculated using dry-weight concentrations and listed by chemical,test type, and sampletype for the entire database. Summary 

# of sediment effect concentrations (SECs)calculated using dry-weight concentrations and listed by chemical,test type, and sample type for the Great Lakes database. Summary of 

# sediment effect concentrations (SECs)calculated using sediment concentrations normalized to total organic carbon (TOC)concentrationsand listed by chemical, test type, and sampletype for the entire database. Summary 

# of sediment effect concentrations (SECs)calculated using sediment concentrations normalized 

# to total organic carbon (TOC)concentrationsand listed by chemical, test type, and sampletype for the GreatLakes database. Data grouped by chemical,test type, sample type, toxicity response, and sediment concentrations normalized to 

# dry weight (in ascending order). 

# PAH orPCB data grouped by chemical, test type, sampletype, toxicity response, and sediment concentrations normalized to

# TOC concentrations (in ascending order). Other published toxicity data groupedby chemical, test type, sampletype, toxicity response, and sediment concentrations normalized to 

# dry weight (in ascending order). Other published sediment effect concentrations 

# (SECs; dry-weight concentrations) used to evaluate the comparability of our calculated 

# SECs.

IX

# Acronyms AET

. 

# Apparent Effect Threshold AOC Area of Concern ARCS AVS Acid Volatile Sulfide CR14 Chironomus riparius 

# 14-dtest EQP Equilibrium Partitioning ERL Effect Range Low ERM Effect Range Median HA10 Hyalella azteca 

# 10-d test HA 14 Hyalella azteca 

# 14-dtest HA28 Hyalella azteca 

# 28-dtest HS28 Hexagenia 

# spp. 28-d test LOEC Low 

# ObservableEffect Concentration MATC Maximum AcceptableToxicant Concentration NEC NoEffect Concentration NERH No Effect Range High NERMNo effect Range Median NOEC No Observable Effect Concentration PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon PCB PolychlorinatedBiphenyl PEL Probable Effect Level SEC Sediment Effect Concentration SLC Screening Level Concentration TEL Threshold Effect Level TOC Total Organic Carbon TT28 Tubifex tubifex 

# 28-d test Assessment and Remediation of ContaminatedSediments

X

# .- . .



# '

.. 

# Acknowledgments We would like to thank following members of the USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS)Toxicity-Chemistry Work Group for assistancein designing the study and interpreting the results: G.A. Burton, Jr., Wright StateUniversity, Dayton, OH; D.C. Cowgill, USEPA-GLNPO, Chicago, 

# IL;E.A. Crecelius, Battelle, Sequim, WA; J.C. Filkins, USEPA-LLRS, Grosse ne, MI; R.G. Fox, USEPA-GLNPO, Chicago, 

# IL; J.P. Giesy, Jr., Michigan StateUniversity, East Lansing, MI; P.F. Landrum, NOAA, Ann Arbor, MI; M.J. Mac, NBS, Washington, DC; T.J. Murphy, DePaul University, Chicago, 

# IL; J.E. Rathbun, AScI, Grosse 

# Ile, MI; P.E. Ross, The Citadel, Charleston, SC; V.E. Smith,AScI, Grosse ne,

# MI; and 

# H.E.Tatem, USCOE, Vicksburg,MS. \.



# We would like to thankthe following individuals for insight and guidance in 

# developing procedures to evaluate SECs:E.R. Long and J. Field, NOAA, Seattle,WA; D.D. MacDonald, MacDonald Environmental Sciences, Ladysmith, BC; F.D.Calder and G. Sloane, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, 

# FL; R.S. Can,

# NBS, Corpus Christi, 

# TX; and S.

# Smith,Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec. We thank the following individuals for providing helpful review comments on the report: G.T. Ankley, USEPA, Duluth, MN;W.G. Brumbaugh, 

# NBS, Columbia, 

# MO; F.D. Calder and G. Sloane, Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection, Tallahassee, 

# FL; R. Fleming, WRc, Marlow, Bucks, United Kingdom; P.F. Landrum, NOAA, Ann Arbor, MI; E.R. Long and J. Field, NOAA, Seattle,WA; D.D.MacDonald, MacDonald Environmental Sciences, Ladysmith, BC; M. Reiley:, USEPA, Washington, DC; and 

# S.Smith,Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.



# xi

# Introduction 

# In support of the United States commitment to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Section 118(c)(3) of the Clean Water Act (CWA; added by the Water Quality Act of 1987) authorized the USEPA GLNPOto carry out a 5-year study and demonstration project relating 

# to the control and removal of toxic pollutants in sediments of the Great Lakes. TheWater Quality Act of 1987 specified five GreatLakes Areas of Concern (AOC) as requiring priority consideration in conductingdemonstration protects: Saginaw Bay, 

# MI; Sheboygan Harbor, WI; Grand Calumet River, 

# IN; Astabula River, 

# OH; and Buffalo River, 

# NY. Results from this Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediment (ARCS)project have been used to 

# develop: (1)methods for evaluatingeffects of contaminated sediments, (2)Remedial Action Plans (RAPS)for AOCs, and (3) Lake-wide Management Plans 

# (Ross et al., 

# 1992;USEPA, 1994; Fox, 1996). Over the past decade, a variety studies have reported toxicity associated with field-collected sediments (USEPA, 1994;ASTM, 1995;Burton et 

# al., 1996). However, it is often difficultto 

# evaluate relationships between levels of contamination and toxicity in these and other studies because the sediments typically contain a variety ofboth organic and inorganic contaminants. Procedures are described in this report for calculating and evaluating a variety of sediment effect concentrations (SECs) using laboratorydataon the toxicity of contaminants associated with field-collected sediment to 

# the amphipodHyaZeZZa azteca 

# and the midge Chironornus riparius. 

# We define SECs as the concentrations of 

# individual contaminants'in sediment below which toxicity is rarely observed and above which toxicity is frequently observed. -_


# Only a limited number of SECshave been published for freshwater sediments (Persaudet al., 1992;Batts and Cubbage, 1995). The objective ofthe present study was to develop SECsto classify toxicity data forGreat Lake sediment samples tested with HyaZeZZa azteca 

# and 

# Chironornus riparius. 

# This SECdatabase included samples from additional sites across the United States in order to 

# make the database asrobust as possible. Three different approaches were used to calculate SECsincluding: (1) Effect Ranges Low andMedian (ERL and ERM; Long and Morgan, 1991), (2) Threshold Effect and ProbableEffect Levels (TEL and PEL; MacDonald, 1994,MacDonald et 

# al. 1995; Smith et al., 1996),and (3)

# No Effect Concentrations 

# (NEC;Kembleet al., 1994).The SECswere calculated using: (1) dry-weight concentrations, 

# (2) dry-weight concentrations normalized to total organic carbon concentrations (for non-ionic organics) or 

# (3)dry-weight concentrations normalized 

# to acid volatile sulfide concentrations (for divalent metals). For the ARCS project, whole-sediment toxicity tests were conducted with the amphipod HyaZeZla azteca 

# (14- and 28-d tests) and the midges Chironornus riparius 

# (14-d test) and Chironomus tentans 

# (10-d test; USEPA, 1993; Burton et 

# al., 1996;Table 1and Appendix 1). Only a limited number of 

# samples were successfully tested with 

# C. tentans;

# therefore, we did not use these data to calculate 

# SECs. Chemistry, benthic community analysis, elutriate toxicity, and mutagenicity 1

# Our SECswere calculated from toxicity tests with field-collected samples. 

# If a chemical concentration exceeds an SECgenerated using datafrom these tests with field-collected samples, it doesnot necessarily mean the chemical caused the observed effect. Rather, the 

# SECis the concentration of a chemical that is associated with the effect. Field-collected sedimentstypically contain complex mixtures of contaminants. Additional information isneeded to 

# identify the specific contaminants that were actuallyresponsiblefor the toxicity. Confirmation of sediment toxicity due to 

# individual or groups of contaminantsortheinteractive effects of sediment toxicants can be evaluatedby using 

# TIE procedures (Ankley and Thomas, 1992; Ankley et al., 1996)or by conducting toxicity tests with chemicals spiked into sediments (Lamberson and Swartz, 

# 1992). Once the probable cause(s) of 

# sedimenttoxicity has been identified, better decisionscan be made regarding remediation options. of sediment samples were also evaluated as part 

# of the ARCS project (USEPA, 1993;Burton et al. 1996). Sediments were collected from three GreatLakes Areas of Concern: Indiana Harbor, 

# IN; Buffalo River, NY; and Saginaw River, MI. 

# In addition 

# to the ARCS data, we evaluated toxicity and chemistry data generated with sediments collected from the following sites: (1) Waukegan Harbor, 

# IL(Ingersoll and Nelson, 1990);(2) the upper Mississippi River, MN (Appendix 2);

# (3) the upper Clark Fork River, MT(Kemble et al., 

# 1994); 

# (4)the Trinity River, TX(Appendix 2);

# (5) Mobile Bay,

# AL (Appendix 2); and (6) Galveston Bay, TX (Roach et 

# al., 

# 1993).

~ 

# Ingersoll et al. (1996) described the major findings of thsreport 

# as part 

# of a series ofpapers describing results fromthe ARCS project including: sedimentchemistry, benthic community analysis (Canfield et al., 1996a), toxicity (USEPA, 1993; Hall et al., 1996), mutagenicity (Papoulias and Buckler, 1996;Papoulias et al., 1996), and toxicity ranking (Canfield et al., 1996a;Wildhaber and Schmitt, 1996). Procedures in this series of papers are also described for confirming the cause of sediment toxicity (e.g., ToxicityIdentification Evaluations,

# TIE; Ankley et al., 

# 1996). Smith et 

# al. (1996) also used our data and additional datafrom North America as part of this series of papers tocalculate and evaluateTELs and PELSfor freshwater sediments. 

# Cause and Effect vs.

# Associationand Effect

I


# Application

# of SedimentEffect Concentrations Ideally, 

# SECscould be used to: 

# (1)interpret historical sediment chemistry data, (2)identify chemicals or areas 

# ofconcern, (3) identify the need formore detailed studies before an action is taken, (4) identify a potential problembefore discharging a chemical, 

# (5) establish a link between a contaminant source and sediment quality, (6) triggerregulatory action,or 

# (7)establish target remediation objectives. The strength of SECs generated using data fromstudies with individual chemicals spiked into sediment or with an equilibrium partitioning 

# (EQP) approach is that cause and effect relationships can be established (Di Tor0 et al., 1991; USEPA, 1992). While, all seven of the uses listed above for 

# SECs could be satisfied with either of these approaches, both 2-. 

# the spiked-sediment and 

# EQP approaches were developed primarily for evaluating the effects of individual chemicals. However, contaminated sediments typically contain complex mixtures of chemicals which could act independently, additively, synergistically,or antagonistically. Therefore, the applicationof SECs developed using these two approaches is often uncertain in field-collected sediments (Swartz and Di Toro, 1996). One of the main strengthsof SECs generated using data from tests conducted with field-collected samples is that the potential effects of mixtures of chemicals are explicitly addressed (Long and Morgan, 1991; USEPA, 1992; MacDonald, 1994; Long et al., 1995; MacDonald et al., 1995). However, there are a number of limitations associated with the co-occurrence-based approaches that have been used to generate 

# SECsincluding cause and effect is difficult to establish and use 

# of these SECsmay be restricted to the geographical area where the sediments were collected. Hence, the

# last four uses for SECslisted above are difficult to accommodate using cooccurrence-based approaches such as a weight-of-evidence approach (Long and Morgan, 1991). For example, these SECs should not be used independently to establish trigger levels for clean up of 

# sediment. One ofthe major strengthsof SECsdeveloped with data on field-collected sediments is in their use forpredicting the potential for toxicityin field-collected sediment samples. A primary use of SECs developed with field-collected sediments should be to provide guidance for determining siteswhich may require further investigation (Long and Morgan, 1991; MacDonald, 1994). Moreover, the ability of any sediment toxicity test or SEC

# to predict benthic community effects shouldbe considered before any approach is used to 

# routinely evaluate sediment quality (Canfieldet al., 1994; 1996a,b). Regardless of the intended use, SECs should be evaluated relative to their potential to: (1) (2) 

# (3) 

# (4) correctly classify toxic samples as toxic (toxic sample that exceeds SEC [hit]), correctly classify non-toxic samples as not toxic (non-toxic sample that does not exceed SEC [no hit]), incorrectly classify non-toxic samples as toxic (Type 

# I error; false positive; non-toxic sample that exceeds SEC [hit]), and incorrectly classify toxic samples asnot toxic (Type 

# IIerror; false negative; toxic sample that does not exceed SEC [nohit]).



# 3

# Methods Thefollowing steps were taken to develop the database: (1) chemistry and toxicity datawere generated, (2) sampleswere classified as "toxic"or "not toxic" based on statistical analyses ofthe toxicity tests, (3) 

# toxic samples were classified as "effects" or "no concordance" based on chemistry, (4) minimum datarequirements were established, and 

# (5) SECs were calculated. SECs were calculated for the following tests: (1) 14-d 

# C. riparius 

# [CR14], (2) 14-d

# H.azteca 

# [HA14], and (3) 28-d 

# H. azteca 

# [HA281(Table 1). Chemical concentrations were used to calculated SECswere normalized to: (1)dry weight, (2) total organic carbon (fornon-ionic organics; Di Tor0 et al., 1991),or 

# (3) AVS (for divalent metals;Di Tor0 et al., 1990). Calculations and graphics wereperformed using SASversion 

# 6.08 (SAS, 1992). i


# Toxicity Testing Toxicity tests with the amphipod HyaZeZZa azteca 

# were conducted for 10

# to 32 

# d following procedures outlined in Ingersoll and Nelson (1990),USEPA (1994), and ASTM (1995). Tests were generally started within 3 

# weeks of sediment collection. Thecontrol sedimentwas afine silt- and clay-particle size soil obtained from an agricultural area. Twenty amphipods (less than 14-dold at the start ofthe tests) were exposed in 200 ml

# of sediment with 

# 800 rnl 

# of overlying water in l-Lbeakers. Four replicate beakers were tested at 20°C on 

# a 16L:8Dphotoperiod at a light intensity of about 50 

# to 100foot candles. Overlying water was renewed daily and the amphipods were fed a suspension of 

# Purina@ Rabbit Chow three times a week. Endpoints measured at the end of the amphipod tests were survival,growth (as length), or sexual maturation. Toxicity tests with the midge Chironomus riparius 

# were conducted for 13to 14d using similar procedures to 

# those used in thetests with amphipods exceptmidges were ~48-h old at the start 

# of the tests and midges were fed a mixture of algae, Cerophyl@, and Hartz Dog Treats@ daily. Endpoints measured at the end of the midge tests were survival and growth (as length).

# aStatistical analyses were conducted using one-way analysis of 

# variance with mean separation. For responses in which variance among treatments were heterogenous, rank analysiswas performed and differences between means were determineusing a t-test on ranked means. Percent survival and maturation data were arcsin transformed before analysis. A samplewas designated as "toxic" in a replicated treatment if there was a significantreduction in survival, growth, ormaturation relative to the response in the control sediment (p 

# ~0.05). A samplewas designated as toxic in a non-replicated treatment if there was over a 

# 50%reduction in the response relative

# to the control sediment 

# (IO- to 13-d

# H.azteca 

# or 

# C. riparius 

# tests with sediments from Waukegan Harbor and the Trinity River). SECs were calculated for the following tests: 

# (1) 14-d 

# C. riparius 

# [CR14], (2)14-d

# H. azteca 

# [HA14], and 

# (3)28-d

# H. azteca 

# [HA28]. For calculation of 

# SECs,the followingdata were 

# a 4'' 

# combined: (1) 10-dwith 14-d

# H. azreca, (2)29- to 32-d with 28-d

# H.azteca, 

# and (3) 13-d with 14-d 

# C. 

# riparius. Appendices 1and 2b lists the physical and chemical measurements made on each set of sediment samples. Physical characterizations included organic carbon content, water content, and particle size. Chemical 

# characterizations'includedtotal metals 

# (Ag, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, 

# Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Se,Zn), organometals (butyltins and methyl mercury), acid volatile sulfide (AVS) and simultaneously extracted metals (SEM), chlorinated pesticides, total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated dioxins and furans, orpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Metal concentrations in pore water were also measured in selected samples (USEPA, 1993). Sediment toxicity data were obtained forthe siteslisted below (Table 1and Appendices 1and 2b). Suspected toxicants were mixtures ofmetals and organic compounds except for the samples fromthe upper ClarkFork River where suspected toxicants were primarily As, Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn. Great Lakes ARCS: Sediments were collected from three Great Lakes Areas of Concern: Indiana Harbor (upto 8 samples tested in August 1989), Buffalo River (up to 11samples tested in October 1989),and Saginaw River (up to 8 samples tested during Survey 1in December 1989 and up to 16samples tested during Survey 3 in June 1990). Toxicity tests were conducted with 

# H. azteca

# (14- and 28-d tests) and C. 

# riparius 14-d test). All of the Indiana Harbor samples were extremely toxic to amphipods in the 14-d test. Therefore, a 28-d test with amphipods was not conducted. We assumed for the calculation of SECs that Indiana Harbor samples toxic to amphipods in a 14-dtest would also be toxic in a 28-d test.

# eWaukegan Harbor: Toxicity tests were conducted with 4 sediment samplesfromWaukegan Harbor, 

# ILin 

# November 1987

# (H.azteca 

# 10- and 29-d tests, 

# C. riparius 13-dtest). UDperMississippi River: Toxicity tests were conducted with 

# 5 sediment samples from the upper Mississippi River near Minneapolis, 

# MN in September 1987

# (H.azteca 32-d test). Upper Clark Fork River: Sediment samples were collected fromMilltown Reservoir 

# (8 samples tested in July 1991) and the Clark Fork River, MT 

# (7 samples tested in September 1991). Toxicity tests were conducted with 

# H. azteca 

# (28-d test) and 

# C. riparius (14-d test). , 

# Trinity River: Toxicity tests were conducted with 

# 5 sediment samples fromthe Trinity River, near Dallas,TX in June 1988

# (H.azteca 

# 10-and 32-d tests). Mobile Bay: Toxicity tests were conducted with 

# 6 sediment samples fromMobile Bay, AL 

# in March 1988

# (H.azteca 

# 28-d test). The test was conducted under static conditions with 10%0 

# salinity 

# in the overlying water.
5

I

# Galveston Bay: Toxicity tests were conducted with 5 sediment samples from Galveston Bay, TX 

# a
in July 1990

# (H. azteca 28-d test). The test was conducted under static conditions with 10%0 salinity in the overlying water: 

# Classification

# ofEffects and Minimum Data Requirements for ReportingSECs To increase the likelihood that associationsbetween sediment chemistry and toxicity would be observed, the data were screened 

# to determine if at least a 10-folddifference in concentration for at least onechemical among the samples was met fromeach site (Long and Morgan, 1991; MacDonald, 1994). Thechemicals measured in each sample were classified interms of their association with the observed toxicity. Each of the chemicals in the toxic samples were classified as an "effect" or "no concordance" depending on whether theratio ofthe concentration in the sample to the mean concentration in the non-toxic sampleswas >1or

# 51. Concentrations of chemicals in non-toxic samples were designated as "no effects". Samples designated with the no 

# concordance descriptor were also included with the no-effect samples for calculation of SECs. Long and Morgan (1991), MacDonald (1994), Long et al. (1995), MacDonald et al. (1995), and Smith et al. (1996) used a similar designation; however, they considered a chemical to be associated with a toxic effect only if the mean concentration in toxic samples at a sitewas at least 

# twofold greater than the mean concentration in non-toxic samples at a site. Wechose to 

# use a ratio of >1 instead of >2toclassify a sample as an "effect"in orderto minimize 

# Type 

# IIerror (toxic sample classified as not 

# toxic). Wereported an SECof a chemical in Appendices 3 

# and 4 

# only if (1) five ormore of the samples were toxic for the chemical and (2) 

# the number oftoxic samples with concentrations above the SEC.was greater than the number oftoxic samples with concentrations below the SEC. 

# @

Calculation of

# Effect Range Low (Em)and Effect Range Median (ERM): WecalculatedERLs and

# ERMs using procedures describedby Long and Morgan (1991) and Long et al. (1995). Our 

# ERLs and 

# ERMs are calculated for individual tests (e.g., the

# H.azteca 

# 28-dtest) in orderuse consistent endpoints for determining a toxic response. In 

# contrast, Long and Morgan (1991) merged data from about 75 sources. These sourcesincluded marine and freshwater field surveys, spiked-sediment tests, and EQP. Effect ranges were calculatedby Long et al. (1995) for 9 metals, 13individual PAHs, 3

# groups of PAHs, and 

# 3 synthetic organic contaminants. Strengths of the Long et 

# al. (1995) approach include: (1) ranges instead of absolutes (e.g., 

# AET)are calculated, (2) a preponderance of evidence from diverse sources is used to 

# generate the ranges (e.g., weight of evidence), and 

# (3)probability of observingeffects can be estimated. Limitations to 

# the 

# Long et al. (1995) approach include: (1) the quality of the data was variable, (2)different types of data were merged (e.g., acute lethality and benthic community structure were combined to 

# calculate effect ranges), (3)

# concentrations were calculated on a dry-weight basis (data on sediment organic carbon and AVS 

# concentrations were not available for all data sets),and (4)

# noeffect data are not used in the 

# calculation of ERLs or 

# ERMs.

6

# Long et al. (1995) calculated ERLs and ERMs using the following procedure. Concentrations 

# a observed or predicted by different methods to be associated with effects were sorted in ascending order, and the lower 10

# percentile (ERL) and 

# 50percentile (ERM) effect concentrations were calculated. An ERL was definedby Long and Morgan (1991) and Long et 

# al. 

# (1995)as the 

# concentration of a chemical in sediment below which adverse effects were rarely observed or predicted among sensitive species. An ERM was defined as the concentration of a chemical in sediment abovewhich effects are frequently or always observed or predicted among most species. Use of percentiles minimized the influence of single datapoints (e.g.,potential outliers associated with AETs) on SECs. No-effect data were used to evaluate the reliability ofERLs and ERMscalculated using only effect data (Long et 

# al., 1995). We chose to calculate ERLs using the 15percentile rather than using the 10 percentile of effects toreduce the potential for Type 

# II error (false negatives; MacDonald et al. (1995; seebelow)). Calculation ofThreshold Effect Level (TEL) and Probable Effect Level (PEL): We calculated TELs and PELs usingprocedures described by MacDonald (1994) and MacDonald et 

# al. (1995). Our TELs and PELs are calculated for individual tests (e.g., a

# H.azteca 

# 28-d test) in order use consistent endpoints for determining a toxic response. MacDonald (1994) and MacDonald et al. (1995) calculated TELs and PELSby expanding two to three fold the database originally developed by Long and Morgan (1991) and by excluding freshwater data. Effect ranges were calculated by MacDonald et 

# al. (1995) for 

# 9 metals, 7pesticides, 13 individual PAHs, 3 

# groups ofPAHs, total PCBs, and onephthalate ester. A similarprocedure was used to calculate freshwater TELs and PELs for 

# 8metals, 6 individual PAHs, total PCBs, and 8

# pesticides (Smith et al., 1996). Strengths and limitations to this approach are similar to the

# EWRM approach. However, calculation of TELs and 

# PELs take both effect and no-effect data into consideration. MacDonald et 

# al. (1

# 995) and Smith et al. (1996) calculated TELs and PELs using the following procedure. Concentrations observed or predicted by different methods to be associated with effects were sorted and the lower 15percentile (ERL) and 

# 50percentile (ERM) concentrationsof the effects data set were calculated. 

# In addition, the 50percentile (NoEffect Range Median; NERM) and 85percentile (No Effect Range High; NERH) concentrations ofthe no effects data set were caIculated. The

# TELwas calculated as the geometric mean of the ERL and NERM, whereas the PELwas calculated the geometric mean of the ERh4 and NERH. The geometric mean was used rather than the arithmetic mean because the two data sets are typically not normally distributed. An analogous procedure has been used to calculate Maximum Acceptable Toxicant Concentrations (MATCs)from the geometric mean of the no-observable- and lowobservable-effect concentrations (LOEC and NOEC; MacDonald, 1994). For each of the values (ERL,

# ERM,NERM, and NERH), a series of percentiles was evaluated to optimize correct classification of toxicity using the 

# TELs and PELs (MacDonald, 

# 1994). A 

# TEL (or ERL) is assumed 

# to represent a concentration below which toxic effects are rarely observed. A 

# PEL (or 

# ERM) is assume to represent aconcentration above which toxic effects are frequently observed. The range between the TEL and 

# PEL (orbetween the ERL and ERM) 

# is 7

# assumeto represent the

# range in which effects are occasionally observed (MacDonald, 1994). Probability of toxic effects can be calculated within each range. For.example, only 6% of the cadmium (Cd)concentrations reported by MacDonald (1994)below the TEL of0.68ug/g were associated with adverseeffects,whyeas over 71 % 

# of the Cd concentrations above the PEL of 4.21 ug/g were associated with toxic effects. These Cd data indicate that exceeding the PELmay be associated with unacceptable effects. 

# In contrast, 3%

# of the nickel (Ni) concentrations below theTEL of 15.9ug/g and 9% of theNi concentrations above the PEL of42.8 ug/g were associated with toxic effects. These Ni data indicate that it 

# may be more difficult to adequately determine unacceptable levels of 

# Ni using this approach (e.g., toxic concentrations of Ni were not observed the 

# MacDonald (1994) database). '



# The approaches describedby Long et al. (1995) and MacDonald et al. (1995) have been used by NOAA (Long and Morgan, 1991),Environment Canada (CCME, 1995),and the state of Florida (MacDonald, 1994)to derive sedimynt quality guidelines. Additional organizations that are considering the use of these approaches to derive sediment quality guidelines include the state of California (Lorenzatoet 

# al., 1991), the Intemational Council for Exploring the Sea, and the National Rivers Authority 

# inthe United Kingdom 

# (R.Fleming, WRc, Marlow, Bucks, United Kingdom, personal communication). Calculation of NoEffect Concentration (NEC): We also

# calculated No Effect Concentrations (NECs) which are analogous to Apparent Effect Thresholds (AETs). An AET is defined as the sediment concentration of a given chemical above which statistically significanteffects (e.g., sediment toxicity) are always observed (Barrick et al., 1988). 

# If any chemical exceeds its AET for a particular response, an adverse effect is expected for that response. If 

# all concentrations of chemicals arebelow their 

# AET for a particular response, then no adverse effect is expected. The AET approach has been applied to contaminated sediment in marine environments (e.g., in the Puget Sound,Barricket 

# al. 

# (1988) and in California, Becker et al. 

# (1989)); however,the AET approach has rarely been used to evaluate freshwater sediments (Kemble et al., 1994). A NEC is calculated as the 

# maximum concentration of a chemical in a sediment that did not significantly adversely affect the particular response (e.g., survival, growth, or maturation) compared to the 

# control. We chose to use the term NEC instead of AET because: (1) we calculated NECs for whole-sediment or pore-water concentrations; while AETs are typically calculated forjust whole-sediment concentrations; (2) a minimum of 25 to 

# 50 samples is recommended forcalculating an AET and we used <25 samplesto calculate some of ourNECs; and 

# (3)we calculatedeffectsrelative to acontrol sediment,whereas AETs are typically calculated relative to reference sediments. 

# Evaluation ofSedimentEffect Concentrations 

# L€the concentration of achemical measured in 

# a toxic sample exceeded an SEC,

# the chemical in that 

# sample was classified as a 

# "hit"for that SEC. Our SECs were then evaluated relative to their 

# *

_.

# potential to: (1) correctly classify toxic samples as toxic (toxic samplethat exceeds 

# SEC [hit]), 

# *

(2)correctly classify non-toxic samplesas not 

# toxic (non-toxic samplethat does not exceed 

# SEC [nohit]), 

# (3)incorrectly classifynon-toxic samples as toxic (Type

# I error; false positive; nontoxic sample that exceeds 

# SEC [hit]), or 

# (3) incorrectlyclassify toxic samples as not toxic (Type 

# lIerror; false negative; toxic samplethat doesnot exceed 

# SEC [nohit]). The 

# SECswere evaluated relative to their: (1)reliability in terms of correctly classifying the toxicity 

# of sediment samples within the data set, 

# (2)predictive ability forcorrectly classifying the toxicity of sediment samples from independent data 

# sets,and (3)

# comparability within the data set 

# or to 

# other published SECs such as

# AET,

# ERM, PEL, or EQP values.

9

# Results 

# and Discussion

growth, or maturation relative to 

# the control) in each sediment test 

# are listed in Table 1. Survival orgrowth 

# of C. 

# riparius in 14-d tests (CR14) were significantly reduced in 26% 

# of the 42 samplestested. 

# In the CR14tests when both survival and growth were measured, survival (24%) was reduced more frequentlythan growth 

# (9%). Sediments from the Clark Fork River (7%) were less toxic in the CR14test than sediments from the GreatLakes (37%). Survival,growth, or maturation of

# H. azteca in 14-d tests (HA14) were reduced in41% 

# of the 32 samples tested. 

# In the HA14 test, survival 

# (25%), growth (20%),and maturation (24%) were reduced in a similar percentage of 

# samples. None of the TrinityRiver samples were toxic; however, 48% of the Great Lakes sampleswere toxic in the HA14test. Survival, growth, ormaturation of

# H. azteca inthe 28-d tests (HA28)were reduced in 

# 39% of the 62 samples tested. 

# In the HA28 test, survival (26%) and growth (34%) were reduced in ahigher percentage 

# of samples compared to maturation (11%). None of the upper Mississippi River, TrinityRiver, orMobile Bay samples were toxic; however, 48 to 60%of the Great Lakes, ClarkFork River, or Galveston Bay samples were toxic in the HA28 test. Thepercentage ofpaired tests orpaired endpointsidentifying samples as toxic are listed in Table 2. The 

# CR14 test seldomidentified toxic samplesthat werenot identified as toxic in the HA14 or HA28 tests. When CR14and HA28tests were conducted concurrently, both tests identified 24% of the samples as toxic and 48% of the samples as not toxic (N=42). An additional 26% of the samples were toxic onlyin the HA28 test and only an additional 2% of the samples were toxic in the CR14test. Survival (N=42)orgrowth (N=34) endpoints identified a higher percentage of samples as toxic in the HA28 test comparedto 

# the CR14test. 1



### I 

# e’- I 

# ToxicityofSediment Samples



# e When HA14 and CR14 tests were conducted concurrently,both tests identified 37% of the samplesas toxic and 52% of the samples as not toxic (N=27). An additional 10%of the samples were toxic only in the HA14 test and no additional samples were toxic in the CR14 test. The survival endpoint (N=27) identified a similar percentage of samples as toxic in both tests. The growth endpoint (N=19) identified ahigher percentage of samplestoxic in the HA14 test (21%) compared to the CR14 test (5%). The HA28 test seldom identified toxic samples that were not identified as toxic in the HA14 test. When HA14 and HA28 tests were conducted concurrently,both tests identified 34% of the samples as toxic and 53% of the samplesas 

# not toxic 

# (N=32). Both tests identified an additional 

# 6% of the samples as toxic. Survival or growth endpoints identified a similar percentage of samples as 

# toxic in 

# both tests. However, the majority of the 

# samplesused to make these comparisons were highly contaminated. We have not compared responses in 

# HA 14

# vs HA28 tests using moderately contaminated samples. Additional exposures conducted with 

# moderately ’ 

# 10

# contaminated sediment may exhibit a higher percentage of sublethal effects in the HA28 test compared to HA14 test (Kemble et al. 1994). When both survival and growth were measured in the CR14test (N=34), 

# 6%of the samples reduced both survival and growth, 6% reduced survival only, 3% reduced growth only, and 85% did not reduce survival or growth. When both survival and growth were measured in the HA14 test (N=25), only 6% ofthe samplesreduced both survival and growth;however, 20% reduced survival only, 16%reduced growth only, and 

# 60% did not reduce survival or growth. Hence, if survival was the only endpoint measured in a HA14test, 16%of the toxic samples would be missed. Similarpercentages are 

# also evident for the HA28 tests. When both survival and growth were measured in the HA28 test (N=44), 16% of the samplesreduced both survival and growth, 14%reduced survival only, 18% reduced growth only, and 

# 52% did not reduce survival or growth. The endpointcomparisons in Table 2represent only samples where both survival and growth couldbe measured. If a sample was extremely toxic, it would not be included in this comparison sincegrowth could not 

# be measured. Moderatelycontaminated sedimentsthat did not severely reduce survival or maturation could have-reduced growth. For example,in the HA28test with sediments from the Clark Fork River, growth was a more sensitive endpoint compared to 

# survival or maturation. Only 13%ofthe samplesreduced survival and 20% 

# of the samples reduced maturation; however,growth was reduced in 53% of the samples. 

# In summary,both survival and growth endpoints can provide unique information for assessing sedimenttoxicity and should be measured in either HA14or HA28 tests. Using CR14test, only one additional sample was identified as toxic compared to responses in the HA14 or HA28 tests. A primary consideration in selecting an organism for toxicity testing should be its ability to identify toxic samples (Burton et al., 1996). 

# In future evaluations, it 

# may be a more efficient use ofresources to test additional samples with 

# H.azteca 

# alone rather than testing fewer sediments using both 

# H. azteca 

# and C. riparius. 

# Calculation and Evaluation

# of 

# SECs The SECscalculated from our database are listed by chemical, test type, and sample type based on dry-weight concentrations (Appendix 3a for the entire database or Appendix 3b for the Great Lakes database) orbased on sediment concentrations normalized 

# to total organic carbon concentrations (TOC;Appendix 3c for the

# entire database or Appendix 3d for the Great Lakes database). Data are grouped by chemical, test type, sample type, toxicity response, and concentration 

# (in ascending order) calculated using dry-weight concentrations (Appendix 4a) or to sediment concentrations normalized to TOC concentrations,(PAHs or PCBs; Appendix 4b). We were able to calculate 

# SECs primarily for total metals, simultaneously extracted metals 

# (SEM metals),total 

# PCBs (forthe HA28 test), and PAHs. The ranges of concentrations in 

# the samples 

# 11

# were too narrow or there were too few measured concentrations in our database to 

# adequately 

# e
evaluate SECs forbutyltins, methyl mercury, polychlorinated dioxins and furans, PCBs (for the CR14

# or HA14 tests), or chlorinated pesticides (i.e., not reported (NR) in Appendix 3a to 

# 3d)

. 

# An unreliable SECfor individual chemicals listed in Appendices 

# 3 and 

# 4is denoted with an "@" 

# (e.g., less than five of the sampleswere designated as toxic for the chemical or the number of toxic samples with concentrationsbelow the SECwas greater than the number of toxic samples with concentrations above the SEC). Seefor example the unreliable 

# NEC for total copper denoted with an @ 

# for the CR14test in Appendix 3a. TheSECs for a particular chemical listed in Appendix 3

# vary considerably in ability tomake correct or incorrect dassifications 

# oftoxic or non-toxic samples. For example, correct classification of sampleswith individual SECs typically clustered at 

# 60to 80% correct. Type

# I (false positives) and Type 

# II(falsenegatives) error for individual SECsranged from 

# 0to 50% depending on the type SEC(Le., Figure 1to 5). Thefollowing section discusses some applications ofthe database for deriving SECS for classifyingthe toxicity of samples: (1) Great Lakes vs the entire database, (2) 

# ERMs and ERLs vs PELs and TELs, (3) NECs vs other SECs, (4) dry-weight vs TOCnormalization for PAHs and total PCBs, (5)whole-sediment vs pore-water metal concentrations, 

# (6)total metal vs SEMmetal concentrations, and (7) 

# calculation of observed and predicted toxicity based on the minimum number of exceedances of SECs. Additional sections of the report evaluate: (1) predictive ability of our 

# SECs, (2) comparability of our SECsto 

# published SECs, and (3) confirming causality of SECs. Additional applications of the database may beof 

# interest to thereader. A copy of the SAS (1992) programs used to manipulate the databasecan be obtained fromthe authors. 

# 0-

GreatLakes vs 

# the Entire Database:Initially, the objective of this report was to 

# develop SECs to classify toxicity datafor Great Lake sediment samples tested withHyalellu azteca 

# and Chironornus riparius 

# (Appendix 3b and 3d). However,the databasewas expanded to 

# include samplesfrom additional locations (Appendix 3a and 3c). This section of the report evaluates the comparability and reliability of SECscalculated usingjust the 

# Great Lakes databasevs SECs calculated using the entire database (Figure 1

# to 5). Comparability was evaluated by plotting the ratio of concentrations for two similar types of

# paired SECs (e.g., Figure lato 

# 5a). Reliability was evaluated by plotting the ability of two similar types ofpaired SECs to: 

# (1)correctlyclassify samples (e.g.,Figure lbto 

# 5b), (2) 

# incorrect classify non-toxic samples as toxic (hit; Type 

# I error; false positive; Figure 

# ICto 5c), and (3) incorrectly classify toxic samples as not toxic (no hit; Type 

# 11error; false negative;Figure Id to 5d). TheERM-Gs, PEL-Gs,ERL-Gs, and TEL-Gs calculated usingjust the Great Lakes database (GL SECs in Appendix 3b)tended to 

# be higher than the paired ERMs, PELs, ERLs, and TELs calculated using the entire database (all-data

# SECs; Appendix 3a; Figure lato 

# 4a). However, these GL SECs were within 

# 2X of the paired all-data SECs. This indicates that the toxicity observed in 

# the additional samples (Le., outside the Great Lakes) occurred at lower sediment concentrations. An 

# exception to 

# the trend of 

# higher GL SECs was the HA14 ERMs and ERLs 12 _-

# which were identical using the two databases (Figure laand 3a). This was expected since the 

# additional HA14 data were non-toxic samples from the 

# Trinity River (Table 1) and ERLs and ERMs are calculated using only toxic samples. For the HA28 test, the all-data NECs were often higher than the paired GLNECs (NEC-Gs; Figure 5a). This is not surprising sinceNECs by I definition can only increase with 

# additional data. Even though the 

# concentrations of the paired SECs differed (Figure lato 5a),the percentage of the Great Lakes samples correctly classified by paired GL SECs and all-data SECswere similar (Figure lbto 5b). Ahigh percentage (277%) of these paired comparisons of correct classifications were within arange of +20% 

# for all three toxicity tests. For the CR14 and HA14 tests,Type

# Ierror (Figure 

# ICto 5c) and Type 

# 11error (Figure Idto 5d) were generally consistent between paired SECs. For the HA28 

# test, Type 

# Ierror tended to be higher and Type 

# 11error tended to be lower for all-data SECs compared to paired GL SECs. Exceptions to these trends in the HA28 test were Type 

# I error tended to 

# be lower (Figure 5c) and Type

# IIerror tended tobe higher (Figure 5d) for all-data NECs compared to paired NEC-Gs. 

# In summary, these analyses indicate the all-data 

# SECs are generally asreliable as the GL SECs at classifying both toxic and non-toxic Great Lakes samples in our database. Therefore,the remaining sections of

# the report evaluate SECs calculated using the entire database: 

# ERMs and 

# ERLs vs 

# PELs and 

# TELs:The ERMs or ERLs for the entire database tended to be higher than the paired PELs (Figure 6a) or TELs (Figure 7a) for the 

# entire database. This resulted from a lower distribution of concentrations in non-toxic samples (e.g., low NERM or NERH) relative to the 

# ERM or ERL. An exception to this trend was uniform distribution 

# of 

# ERMs and PELs forthe HA28 test (Figure 6a). The SECswere typically+2X 

# of their paired 

# SEC (Figure 6a and 7a). Although the concentrations ofthe paired ERMs and PELs differed, the percentage of 

# samples correctly classified by paired SECs was similar for all three tests (196%; Figure 6b). ERLs tended to correctly classify a higher percentageof samples compared to paired TELs (Figure7b). Type I

# error was generally lower and Type

# IIerror tended to be higher with 

# ERMs and 

# ERLs compared to paired PELs (Figure 6c and 6d)or TELs (Figure 7c and 7d). These analyses indicate the ERMs and ERLs are generally as reliable asthe PELs and TELs at classifying both toxic and non-toxic samples in 

# our database. The 

# ERMs and PELs were higher than their respective paired ERL (Figure 8a) or TEL(Figure 9a). This was expected since ERMs and PELs by definition can onlybe higher than paired ERLs or TELs. The percentage of samples correctly classified by ERMs and PELs (Figure 8b and 9b) and the T,ype'II error (Figure 8d and 9d) were higher compared to 

# the paired ERLs and TELs. 

# In contrast, the 

# Type 

# Ierror was higher for ERLs and TELs compared to their respective paired ERM (Figure 8c) or PEL (Figure 9c). These analyses indicatethe ERMs and PELs are more reliable than ERLs and TELs at correctly classifying samples,but ERLs and TELs minimize Type 

# U error (toxic sample classified as no hit).



# 13

# NECs vs 

# other

# SECs:TheNECs were typically higher than their respective paired ERM (Figure .loa)orERL (Figure 1la). Again, this was expected sinceNECs (thehigh no effect concentration) would typically be 

# greater than the 50- 

# (e.g., ERM) or 15- (e.g., ERL) percentile effect concentration. The percentage of samples correctly classified by NECs were similarto paired ERMs (Figure lob) and higher than paired ERLs (Figure 1lb). Type 

# I error associated with NECs were typically lower compared to the paired ERMs (Figure 10c) or ERLs (Figure 1IC).However, Type 11error (toxic sample classified as 

# no hit) were typically higher with NECs compared to either paired ERMs (Figure 10d)or ERLs (Figure 1 Id). These analyses indicate the overall reliability of EMS is similar to NECs; however, ERMs and ERLs both minimize Type 

# II error compared to NECs. 

# Dry-weightvs 

# (TOC)Normalization for 

# PAHs and Total

# PCBs:The SECs for PAHs and total PCBs were calculated using dry-weight concentrations (Appendices 3a, 3b, 4a) or calculated using sediment concentrations normalized to TOC concentrations (Appendices 3c7 3d7 4b). The percentage of samples correctly classified using SECscalculated using dry-weight concentrations tended to be higher than the paired SECscalculated using sedimentconcentrationsnormalized to TOCconcentrations (Figure 12ato 14a). Type

# I error (Figure 12b to 14b)and Type 11error (Figure 12cto'l4c) were generally consistent between paired SECs. Exceptions to these trends were Type 

# Ierror was generally lower for

# ERMs calculated using dry-weight concentrations compared to paired ERMs calculated using sediment concentrations normalized to 

# TOC concentrations (Figure 12b) and Type 11error was generally lower forNECs calculated using dryweight concentrations compared to paired-NECscalculated using sediment concentrations normalized to TOCconcentrations forthe HA14 test (Figure 14c). 

# .-

Whole-sedimentvs 

# Pore-water Metals:Thepercentage ofthe samples correctly classified by ERMs, NECs, and Emscalculated using pore-water concentrations ofmetals tended to be 

# slightly lower than paired SECs

# calculated using total metal concentrations (Figure 15a, 16a7 17a) or calculated using SEMmetal concentrations (Appendix 3a). No consistent trends was evident for Type I 

# error between paired SECs among tests (Figure 15b, 16b, 17b). 

# Type 11error was generally lower for 

# total-metal SECs compare to 

# paired pore-water metal SECs (Figure 15c, 16c, 17c). Exceptions to 

# this trend were lower Type 

# It error associated with pore-water NECs for the CR14 test. 

# In summary, these analyses indicate for metals, SECs calculated using pore-water concentrations did not improve reliability compared to SECs calculated using total-metal concentrations. 

# Total Metals vs 

# SEMMetals:The percentage of the samples'correctly classified by ERMs, NECs, and ERLs calculated using total-metal concentrations tended to be higher than paired SECs calculated using SEM-metal 'concentrations (Figure 18a, 19a,20a). No consistent trends were evident for Type 

# I error associated with paired SECs 

# among the tests (Figure 

# 18b, 19b, or 20b); however, Type P[ 

# error was 

# generally lower for total-metal SECs compare to paired SEM

# metal SECs (Figure lSc, 19c, 

# 20c). 

# In summary, 

# these analyses indicate for metals, 

# SECs
14

# 0



# ee calculated using SEM-metalconcentrations did not improve reliability compared to SECs calculated using total-metal concentrations. c 

# Acid-volatile sulfide (AVS)has been demonstrated to 

# control pore-water concentrations and bioavailability of divalent metals in IO-d toxicity and bioaccumulation exposures. Divalent metals in sediment with a molar SEWAVSratio 51 

# .O would not be predicted to be toxic orto be bioaccumulatedby aquatic organisms (Di Toro, 1990). Concentrations of AVS were determined for only 18 samples from the Great Lakes and 

# 13samples from the ClarkFork River (CFR; Appendix 4a). Ratios of SEWAVS were well below 1 

# .O for all Great Lakes samplesand only 

# 5 of 13CFR samplesexceeded SEWAVSratios of 1.0. Of the 

# 5 CRF sampleswith SEWAVS ratios >1.0, only 

# 1 sample was toxic in the CR14 test and 4 samples were toxic in theHA28 test. Hence, there was an insufficient number of samples in the database to 

# calculate SECs for exceedances of SEM/AVS ratios. Samples were often toxic at SEM/AVSratios <1.0 suggesting contaminants otherthan metals may have caused the toxicity. SECscalculated using total-metal concentrationsoften correctly classified >60% of the samples. Theseresults indicate metals may have been associated, but did not cause the toxicity observed in the Great Lakes sampleswith SEWAVSratios <I

# .O. 

# Calculationof

# the Minimum Number of

# Exceedancesof 

# SECs:A second approach used to evaluatereliability of SECs was to 

# plot 

# observed and expected toxicity of samples based on

# the minimum number of exceedances of SECs. For example, Figure 21a is a plot of the percentage 

# of samplescorrectly classified as a function of 

# the minimum number ofindividual ERMs exceeded. 

# In the CR14test, if 

# an exceedance of an 

# ERM for only one chemical is used to 

# classify a sample as a hit, about 65%of 

# the samples were correctly classified astoxic ornot toxic and about 

# 30%of the non-toxic samples were classified as hits (Type 

# Ierror;falsepositive). However, the Type 

# IIerror was only 5%(toxic samples classified as no hit; false negative). As the criteria for ahit isincreased to 

# 2 or moreERM exceedancesper samplein the CR14test, the percentage of samples correctly classified increased to 

# about 80%,Type 

# IIerror increased to almost 20%,

# and Type 

# Ierror decreased to <5%. In 

# the HA14 test, the highest correct classification of 

# about 75to 

# 85% occursin the range of about 2 to 

# 4

# ERh4 exceedances (Figure 21a). 

# In this range, Type

# I and Type 

# IIerrors are equal (Le., cross over of the not toxichit line with the toxicho hit line). 

# In contrast, the highest correct classification of about 70%for the HA28 test occurs across 3 

# to 10exceedances with Type I 

# equal to Type 

# IIerror at about 7 exceedances. Figure 21bplots correct classification of samplesas a 

# function ofERMexceedances using only those chemicals for which individual 

# EMS correctly classify 260% 

# of the samples (Figure 21a used all the individual 

# ERMs listed in Appendix 3a regardless of 

# percentage correct classification). The number of 

# ERMs used in the calculations remained the same for 

# the CR14 and HA14 tests (Figure 21a 

# vs 2

# lb);however, selecting a criterion of 60% reduced the number of ERMs used in the calculations from 25 to 20 in 

# the HA28 

# test. As a 

# result, correct classification

# 1

-

, 

# increased by about 

# 5 to 10% across 1to 

# 10exceedancesin the HA28 test (Figure 21a vs 21b). 

# e
This increased correct classification resulted from a reduction in Type 

# Ierror (not toxichit). Selecting a criterion 

# of 70% correct classification for individual 

# ERMs reduced the number of 

# ERMsused in the calculation from 22to 

# 21in the CR14 and HA14 tests, and from 25 

# to 

# 9 in the HA28 test (Figure 21a vs 

# 21c). At 1exceedance,correct classifications increasedin all three tests by about 10to 

# 20% and both Type

# I and Type 

# IIerror were only about 10%(Figure 21a vs 2IC). However,increasing the minimum number of exceedancesdecreased correct classifications of samplesin the HA28 test (Figure 21c). This drop in correct classification results fromincreased Type 

# IIerror (toxichohit) when fewer

# ERMs are used in the calculation -(Figure21a 

# vs 21c). 

# In summary, correct classification of samples can be improved by using individual 

# ERMs with a higher percentage of correct classification. 

# For example, using a 70%

# criterion for selection of 

# Ems, only 1

# ERM had to be exceeded in any of the three tests to achieve about 80to 90% correct classification of samples with only about 10% Type

# I and Type

# IIerrors. By lowering the criterion to 

# 60% for selection of 

# ERMs, exceeding 2 to 

# 5 ERMs still resulted in about 70to 

# 80% correct classification of samples. Figure 22a plots correct classification of 

# samples as a function ofERLexceedances (regardless ofpercentage correct classificationby individual

# ERLs in Appendix 3a). Type 

# IIerror (false negatives) remains relatively low (~10%) across the range of 1to 10

# ERLexceedances. The highest correct classification of about 60 to 

# 70%

# occurs at 

# >5 to 

# 6ERLexceedances. However, Type

# Ierror (false positives) was always higher 

# (>20to AO%) 

# compared to Type 

# IIerror resulting in lower percentage correct classification with ERLs compared to 

# ERMs (Figure 21a vs 

# 22a). Selecting a criterion of 60% did not substantially improve classificationby 

# ERLs in the CR14 or HA14tests, but correct classificationincreased about 10

# to 

# 30%in the HA28 test (Figure 22a vs 22b). Using a 70% 

# criterion for selection 

# of

# Ems,70 

# to 

# 90%of the sampleswere correctly classified with 

# 8 to 10exceedances in 

# the CR14 and HA14 tests and with 1to 

# 2 exceedances in the HA28 test (Figure 22a vs 22c). However, in the HA28 test only non-toxic samples are correctly classified at 

# 3 or 

# more 

# ERLexceedances because of the high Type 

# IIerror (toxichohit) resulting fromusingjust 2ERLs (Figure 22c). 

# In summary,correct classification of samples can be improved by using multiple ERLs with a high percentage of correct classification. However, samples which exceeded multiple ERLs were typically sampleswhich also exceededERMs. Hence, exceeding a few 

# ERMs or 

# multiple 

# ERLs resulted in similar correct classification of samples. For 

# NECs, about 70 to 

# 90% of samples are correctly classified at 1

# to 10

# exceedances regardless if all the 

# NECs (Figure 23a), the 

# 60%criterion (Figure 23b), or the 70% 

# criterion (Figure 23c) are used. Type 

# I and Type 

# ITerrors are generally equal at 

# about 1 

# to 3 

# exceedances. However, Type 

# 16 

# I

# IIerror (false negatives) often starts at 5 to 

# 10%with only 1 exceedance. Increasing the 

# e,
minimum number of exceedancesdecreased correct classification of samples. This drop in correct classification results from increased Type 

# IIerror if multiple exceedances of 

# NECs are required to classify a sample as toxic. Figure 24 directly compares correct classification,Type 

# I error, and Type

# IIerror as a function 

# of the minimum number of ERL, ERM, or NECexceedances for the HA28 test. ERLs only classify about 

# 40 to 60% of the samplescorrectly. 

# The higher Type 

# Ierror associated with ERLs compared to eitherERMs orNECs results in this lowercorrect classification by 

# Ems. ERMs and NECscorrectly classify a similarpercentage of samples;however, Type 

# IIerror is consistentlyhigher with NECs comparedto 

# either ERMs or Ems. In summary,these analyses indicate the reliability of correct classifications is similar between ERMs andNECs; however, 

# ERMs minimize Type 

# I error relative to ERLs and minimize Type

# IIerror relative to NECs. The high Type

# Ierror typically associated with 

# ERLs is the primary reasonLong et al. 

# (1

# 995) and MacDonald et 

# al. (1995)recommend

# ERMs and PELs, but not ERLs or TELs should be used 

# to predict toxicity 

# of samples. However,

# ERLs and TELs can be used to 

# efficiently identify concentrations below which toxicity is rarely observed. ReliabilityofERMs for PAHs and total PCBs calculated using dry-weight concentrations (Appendix 3a)and calculated using sediment concentrations normalized to 

# TOC concentrations (Appendix 3c) are plotted in Figure 25. 

# None of the individual 

# ERMs calculated using sediment concentrations normalized to 

# TOCcorrectly classified 270% 

# of the samples. Therefore, Figure 25 plots correct classification of samples as a function of 

# EM exceedances using only individual

# ERMs which correctly classify260%of the samplesin theHA28 test (n = 

# 11SECs). Correct classification of 

# samples ranged between 60 

# to 70% and Type 

# I and Type 11errors were similar based on exceedances of 

# Ems using either dry-weight concentrations or sediment concentrations normalized to TOC concentrations. Correct classifications were also similar using PELs andNECs calculated using dry-weight concentrations or calculated using sediment concentrations normalized to 

# TOC concentrations.

# aOne would expect SECscalculated using sediment concentrations normalized to TOC concentrations to be more reliable than SECs calculated using dry-weight concentrations since TOCreportedly controls the bioavailability of 

# non-ionic organic contaminants such as PAHs and PCBs in sediment (Di Tor0et 

# al., 

# 1991). Therange of TOCconcentrations in our database was relatively narrow compared to the ranges of 

# contaminant concentrations. The mean concentration

# ofTOC was 2.7% with a 

# 95% confidence interval of only

# 20.65% (n=62). 

# In contrast, the concentration ranges 

# of contaminants calculated using dry-weight concentrations typically varied by several orders of magnitude. Therefore, normalizing dry-weight concentrations to a relatively narrow range 

# of TOC concentrations had little influence on relative concentrations of contaminants among samples. Similar findings were reported by 

# Barrick et al. (1988) for AETs and Long et al. 

# (1995) for 

# ERMs calculated using sediment concentrations normalized to 

# TOC concentrations. However, it 

# is surprising that there was not at least a 

# trend of 17

# - 

# increased reliability with 

# SECscalculated using sediment concentrations normalized to 

# TOC concentrations. The lowerreliability of 

# SECscalculated using sediment concentrations normalized to 

# TOC concentrations may indicate PAHs and 

# PCBs were not causingthe toxicity, but were only associated with the toxic chemicals. Use 

# of sedimenttoxicity identification evaluations 

# (TIE)or studies using spilung

# of sediment areneeded to establish these cause and effect relationships (Ankley and Thomas, 1992; Lamberson and Swartz, 1992; Ankley et al., 

# 1996).

”



# 18

# - 

# PredictiveAbility 

# of

# SECs i 

# Thepredictive ability of SECs (ability to estimate toxicity in an independent database) was evaluated by first calculating SECsusingjust the Great Lakes (GL)portion of the database (n = 

# 27 samples). We were abletocalculate GL SECs primarily for total metals, simultaneously extracted metals (SEM metals), andPAHs (Appendix 3b). These GL SECswere then used to predict responses in independent HA28 and CR14tests with Clark Fork River (CFR) sediments (n = 

# 15samples). TheCFR sedimentscontained elevated concentrationsof As, Cd, Cu, Pb, and 

# Zn. Concentrations 

# of 

# PAHs,PCBs, and'chlorinated pesticides were not elevated in these samples (Kembleet 

# al., 1994). 

# In the CFR tests, 

# 7%of the sediments were toxic in the CR14test and 

# 53% of the samples were toxic in the HA28 test (Table 1). .



# Figure 26 plots correct classification of CFR samples as a function of the number of exceedances 

# of individual GL

# ERMs which correctly classified 270%of the GLsamples. For the CR14 test, about 80to 

# 90%of the CFR sampleswere correctly classified at 1to 

# 2 exceedances of GL 

# ERMs. Themajority of

# the sampleswere not toxic and did not exceed GLERMs for the CR14 test. Type 

# IIerror (toxicho hit) was always <lo%and Type

# Ierror (nottoxichit) was 20% at 1 exceedance dropping 

# to <lo%with >2 GLERMexceedances. For the HA28 test, about 70% of the CFR samples were correctly classified, Type 

# IIerror was <lo%, and TypeI 

# errorwas 20 

# to 30% at 

# 1to 2 GL

# ERM exceedances. Above 2 GL

# ERM exceedances in the HA28 test, Type 

# II error increases more than the decrease in Type

# Ierror,resulting in a substantial drop in correct classification of samples. Evaluationsusing GLPELSand GLNECs resulted in similar predictive ability compared to GL

# ERMs for the CR14 and HA28 tests with CFR sediments. TheCFR sediments primarily containedhigh concentrations of 

# Cu and Zn resulting in exceedances of 

# GL

# ERMs for these two metals. Requiring more than 2 exceedances of GL 

# ERMsresulted in a high Type 

# 11error (toxic samplesmisclassified asnot toxic). Hence, classificationbased on multiple exceedances of SECs in a preliminary screeningof sediments which contain a limited number of contaminants may result in high Type 11error. For example, Type 

# 11error was <lo%and Type 

# Ierror was 10to 30%

# at 1to 2 GLERM exceedances in both the CR14and HA28 tests with CFR sediments, but Type 

# IIerror was high with multiple exceedances in the 

# HA28 test (Figure 

# 26). Therefore, a low number of SECexceedances should be used to conduct a preliminary screening to 

# predict the potential for toxicity in the absence of actual toxicity testing. Thiswould minimize the potential for false negatives (Le.,Type 

# IIerror) at the risk of accepting higher falsepositives (i.e.,Type 

# I error).

# 'eWehave included this one example of how the predictive ability 

# of SECscan be evaluated using an independent data set. We are currently in 

# the process of using our SECscalculated from the entiredatabase 

# to predict the response of Hyalella azteca 

# and Chironomus riparius 

# in a variety of independent data sets.generatedby other laboratories (Appendix 5: Field and Cairncross, 1994; McGee et al., 1994; Schlekat et 

# al., 1994;Day et ai., 1995;Hoke et al., ,1995;

# M.D. Sprenger, 

# 1) 19

# USEPA, Edison, NJ, unpublished data). Data sets described by Pastorok et 

# al. (1994)and Batts and Cubbage (1995)are also being evaluated. 

# Comparabilityto Published

# SECs Example comparisons are plotted of our SECsrelative to other published SECs for benzo[a]pyrene (BaP; Figure 27 and Appendix 6) and copper (Figure 28 and Appendix 

# 6). Our SECs are typically lower than the AET (Figure 27 and 28) and EQP values (Figure 27) and are relatively similar to paired marine Ems,ERLs, PELs, or TELs and freshwaterPELs or TELs (Figure 27 and 28; Smith et al., 1996). The SECs based on EQP and 

# AET approaches are typicallynear the maximum concentration for the particular chemical in our database. This is not surprising since EQP values represent concentrations of single chemicals predicted to be toxic whereas the other SECs listed in Figure 27 and 28 represent concentrations of a chemical associated with toxicity in mixtures of chemicals in field-collected sediments (Hoke et al., 1995). Smith et al. (1996) reported 14of their 23TELs and 15of their 23 PELs were within a factor of 

# 3for at least two other published SECs. These results indicate SECs developedusing a variety of approaches and data sets are often comparable. The SECscalculated by Smith et 

# al. (1996) were also comparable to our SECs listed in Appendix 3 

# for HA28 tests. However, reliability of the SECs in Smith et al. (1996) was generally lower than the reliability of our SECs. The database used by Smith et al. (1996) to calculate SECsincluded our data and a variety of additional data sources fromNorth America. This lower reliability of SECs reported by Smith et 

# al. 

# (1996) resulted from including data for additional species from studies reportingno effects without matching effect data &e., intolerant species or short exposure duration) or by including data from benthic community surveys (Le.,

# difficult to compare sediment chemistry to distributions ofbenthos). Additional comparisons are ongoing to 

# further evaluate comparability and predictive abilityof published SECs to our SECs using additional independent data sets (Appendix 

# 5; Pastorok et 

# al., 1994; Batts and Cubbage, 1995). Ultimately, the best measure of comparability among SECs is 

# not to compare similarityin absolute concentrations, but to compare how different types of 

# SECs correctly (or incorrectly) predict toxicity in independent samples. For example, Figure 29 plots predictions of toxicity in our HA28 tests as a function of exceedances of freshwater PELs (PELF; Smith et al., 1996); Hyalella azteca

# AETs (AET5; Batts and Cubbage, 1995; assuming 2%TOC);EQP (USEPA, 1988;Hoke et 

# al., 1995; assuming 2% TOC); and SLCs (SLCl; lowest effect level for Screening Level Concentrations; Persaud et al., 1992). At 

# 1

# to 6 exceedances of these published PELs, AETs, and EQP values, toxicity is correctly predicted in 

# about 60to 80% of the samples whereas SLCs only correctly predict toxicity in 

# about40 

# to 60% 

# of the samples. The higher Type 

# Ierror (false positives) associated with SLCs compared to the other values results in 

# this lower correct prediction by SLCs. The PEL, AET, and EQP values correctly predict toxicity

# in a similar percentage of samples; however, Type 

# II error (false negatives) is consistently higher with AET and EQP values compared to either PELs or SLCs. In summary, these analyses indicate predictive ability is similar between published PEL, 

# AET, and EQP values; however, these PELs 20

# minimize Type

# Ierror relative to 

# SLCs and minimize Type 

# IIerror relative to 

# AET and EQP 

# 0,
values. 

# In addition, the predictive ability of these published SECs is comparable-to

# the reliability of our SECs listed in Appendix 

# 3. ConfirmingCausalityand Developmentof Sediment Management Decisions with 

# SECs Exceeding an SECfor a particular chemical in a field-collect sample does not necessarily mean the chemical caused the observed effect. Rather, the SECis the concentration of a chemical that is associated with the effect. Sediment samples typically contain complex mixtures of contaminants. Additional information is needed to 

# identify the 

# specific contaminants that were actually responsible for the toxicity. Confirmationof the cause of sediment toxicity canbe accomplished using sediment spiking or toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) procedures. Oncethe probable cause(s) of sedimenttoxicity has been identified, better decisions can be made regarding potential remediation options. Spikingevaluations could be conductedby adding contaminants to a non-toxic sediment (e.g., BR-01) or control sediment (USEPA, 1994;ASTM, 1995). This information could be used to establish dose-response and cause-effect relationships between individual chemicals and adverse responses. Select metals or organic contaminantscould be evaluated individually and in combination to determinetoxic concentrations in sediment. Sediments spiked with concentrationsbracketing various SECscould be used to generateLCSOs or a minimum concentration at which effects are observed (e.g., low-observable-effect concentration, LOEC). TheLC5Os and LOECs could then be used to 

# determine if the toxicity associated with exceeding an 

# SECwas caused by contaminantsin sediment (Swartz and Di Toro, 1997). 

# 0-
Equilibration and mixing conditions vary widely in sediment spiking studies (ASTM, 1995). Theduration of contact between the chemical and sedimentcan affect partitioning and bioavailability of Contaminants. Therefore, spiked sediments should be aged long enough to establish a steady state between contaminants and the various sedimentphases. USEPA (1994) recommends holding spiked samples for at least one month before testing. Furthermore, a range in sedimentTOC, DOC, and AVS could also be evaluated depending on the chemicals(s) under consideration. Data from sediment spiking tests should be compared 

# to field data on chemical concentrations in natural sediments and observed effects. This information could be used to better determine cause-effect relationships between contamination and toxicity. Approaches such as

# TIE could alsobe used to 

# evaluate the cause of acute toxicity of sediment pore-water samples (Ankley and Thomas, 1992;Ankley et al., 1996). 

# For example, sodiumthiosulfate or EDTA couldbe used to chelatetoxic metals and pH adjustments could be used to evaluate ammonia toxicity. 

# SECs generated with 

# laboratory toxicity data should be confirmed relative to the responses observed in 

# benthic community assessments. Canfield et al. 

# (1994, 1996a,b) used to sediment quality triad (Triad) to 

# evaluate benthic communities in 

# the Great Lakes, in 

# the Clark Fork River, Montana and the upper 

# Mississippi River. TheTriad approach integrates data from: (1)
31

# laboratory exposures (e.g., sediment toxicity), (2)benthic community structure (e.g., number of 

# 0 - genera), and 

# (3) chemical and physical analyses (e.g.,metals, grain size)to 

# provide strong, complementary evidence for the degree ofpollution-induced degradation in 

# aquatic communities. Good concordance was evident between laboratory toxicity, sediment chemistry, andbenthic invertebrate community structurein extremely contaminated samples in our database (Canfield et al. 1994, 1996a,b). However, less concordance was observed between benthos and either laboratorytoxicity or chemistry in the moderately contaminated samples. Laboratory toxicity tests were better at discriminating chemical concentrations in sedimentsthan the many commonly used measures ofbenthic invertebrate community structure likely because benthic organisms may be responding 

# to factors such 

# as habitat alteration as well as contaminants. We are 

# in the process ofcalculating 

# SECsfor a variety ofbenthic indices and plan to evaluate the reliability, comparability, and predictive ability ofthese SECsfor benthos compared to 

# SECs for laboratorytoxicity tests. Throughout this report we have evaluatedthe reliability using the frequency of exceeding individual SECs. Canfield et al. (1996a,b) and Kemble et al. (1996)evaluated the reliability of our 

# Ems using a toxic quotient approach. A 

# toxic quotient was calculated for each sampleby first dividingthe concentration of 

# individual chemicalsby their respective 

# ERM and then summing each of these individual values. Figure 30

# plots the relationship between the frequency of ERMexceedances and the sumof the ERMtoxic quotient for HA28 

# samples using all ERMs regardless of the percent correct classification. Thefrequency of observed toxicity in samples increases at either a sumERMtoxic quotient of about 10to 20 

# or 

# at a frequency of 

# ERM exceedances of about 3 

# to 7. A similarrelationship is evident if only individual ERMs are used that correctly classify 260% or270% 

# of 

# the samples;however, a lower number ofERM exceedances or lower sum

# ERM toxic quotients are needed to 

# consistently estimate observed toxicity. In summary, either the sumtoxic quotient approach or the frequency of 

# SEC exceedances are equally reliable at classifying samples as either toxic or not toxic in ourdatabase ((Canfield et al., 1996a,b;Kemble et al., 1996). 

# 0-

22

# Conclusions and Recommendations ERMs and ERLs are generally as reliable as paired PELS and 

# TELs at classifying samples as either toxic and not toxic in our database. Reliability ofthe 

# SECs in terms of correctly classifying sediment samples is similar between 

# ERMs and NECs; however, ERMsminimize Type 

# I error (false positives) relative to Emsand minimize Type 

# IIerror (false negatives) relativeto NECs. ERMs and NECs rather than 

# ERLs should be used to predict toxicity of samples due 

# to the lowerThe 

# I error associated with them. However, Ems canbe used to 

# efficiently identify concentrations below which toxicity is rarely observed. Correct classification 

# of samplescanbe improvedby using only the most reliable individual 

# ERMs or 

# NECs for chemicals (i.e., thosewith a higher percentage of correct classification). When SECs are used to conduct a preliminary screening

# to predict the potential for toxicity in the absence of actual toxicity testing, a low number of SECexceedances should be used to minimize the potential for false negatives (i.e., Type 

# 11error); however, therisk of accepting higher false positives @e., Type

# I error)is increased. Calculating SECsusing dry-weight concentrations

# orusing sediment concentrations normalized to 

# TOC concentrations for PAHs and total PCBs resulted in similar correct classification of toxicity and similarType 

# Iand Type 11errors. Therange ofTOC concentrations in our database was relatively narrow compared to the ranges of contaminant concentrations. Therefore, normalizing dry-weight concentrations to a

# relatively narrow range of

# TOC concentrations had little influence on relative concentrations of contaminants among samples. SECsgenerated using data from field-collected samples should not be used independently to establish trigger levels forclean up of sediments. The strength of SECsdeveloped using data from tests with field-collected sedimentsisin their use in predicting the potential for toxicity in independent field-collected sediment samples. A 

# primary use of SECs 

# developed with fieldcollected sediments shouldbe toprovide guidancefor determining sites which may require further investigation. Theability of 

# any 

# SECor sediment toxicity test to predict benthic communityeffects shouldbe considered before either of these approaches are used to routinely evaluate sediment quality. Our SECs were calculated from toxicity tests with field-collected samples. If a chemical concentration exceeds an SEC generated using data fromthese tests with field-collected samples, it does not necessarily mean the chemical caused the observed effect. Rather, the SECis the concentration of a chemical that is associated with the effect. Field-collected sedimentstypically contain complex mixtures of contaminants. Additional information is needed to identify the specific contaminants that were actually responsible for the toxicity. Confirmation of sediment toxicity due to individual or groups ofcontaminants

# or the interactive effects of sediment toxicants can be evaluated by using 

# TIE procedures orby conducting toxicity tests with chemicals spiked into sediments. Once the probable cause(s) of 

# sediment toxicity has 

# been identified,better decisions can be made regarding remediation options. 

# 23

# Ideally, multiple approaches should be used to develop 

# SECs and evaluate sediment quality. An integration ofmethods using a weight of evidenceis the most desirable approach for assessing or confirming effectsof contaminants associated with sediment. Sediment evaluations integrating data from laboratory exposures, chemical analyses, and benthic community assessments (the Sediment Quality Triad) provide strong complementary evidence of the degree

# of pollutioninduced degradation in aquatic communities.

,



# 24

# References American Society for Testing and Materials. 1995. Standard test methods for measuring the toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. E1706-95b. 

# In Annual Book ofStandards,

# Vol. 11.05,Philadelphia, PA. Ankley, 

# G. and Thomas, N. 1992.Interstitial water toxicity identification evaluation approach. In Sediment classification methods compendium,

# pp. 5-1to 5-

# 14. EPA 823-R-92-006, Washington, DC. Ankley, G.T., Schubauer-Berigan,

# M.K., and Dierkes, 

# J.R. 1996. Application of toxicity identification evaluation techniques to 

# pore water fromBuffalo River sediments.J. Great Lakes Research: 

# In press. Barrick, R., Becker, S.,

# Brown, L.,Beller, 

# H., and Pastorok, 

# R. 1988.Sediment quality values rejinement: 

# 1988 Updateand Evaluation of 

# Puget SoundAET,

# Vol. I. PTI Contract C7 17-01, PTIEnvironmental Services, Bellevue, WA. Batts, 

# D. and Cubbage, J. 1995. Summary guidelines for contaminated freshwater sediments. Washington Department of Ecology, publication no. 95-308, Olympia, WA. Becker, D.S., Barrick, R.C., and Read, L.B. 1989.Evaluation of 

# theAET approach forassessing contamination in sediments in California.

# PTI Contract C739-01, PTIEnvironmental Services, 

# e

' 

# Bellevue, WA. Burton, 

# G.A., Ingersoll, C.G., Burnett, L.,Henry, 

# H., Hinman, 

# M., Klaine, S.,

# Landrum, P., and 

# Ross, P. 1996.Acomparison of sediment toxicity test methods at three Great Lakes Areas of Concern. J. Great Lakes Research: 

# In press. \ 

# Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1995.Protocol forthe derivation of Canadiansediment quality guidelines fortheprotectionof

# aquatic life. 

# Prepared by the 

# CCME Task Group on water quality guidelines, Ottawa, 

# ON. Canfield, T.J., Kemble,

# N.E., Brumbaugh, W.G., Dwyer,F.J., Ingersoll, C.G.,and Fairchild, J.F. 1994. Use ofbenthic invertebrate community structure and the 

# sediment quality triad to 

# evaluate metal-contaminated sedimentin the 

# upper Clark Fork River, Montana.Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 

# 13: 1999-2012. Canfield,

# T.J., Dwyer,F.J.,Fairchild,

# J.F., Ingersoll, C.G., Kemble,

# N.E.,Mount, 

# D.R., La Point, T.W.,Burton, G.A.,and Swift,

# M.C. 1996a. Assessing contamination of Great'Lakes sediment using benthic invertebratesand the sediment quality triad approach.

# J. Great Lakes Research: 

# In press. 25

# Canfield, T.J., E.L.Brunson, F.J. Dwyer, C.G.'Ingersoll, and

# N.E. Kemble. 1996b. Assessing upper Mississippi river sediments using benthic invertebrates and the sediment quality triad. Manuscript in review. .


# Day, K.E.; Dutka, B.J., Kwan, 

# K.K.,Batista,

# N., Reynoldson, T.B., and Metcalfe-Smith, J.L. 1995.Correlations between solid-phase microbial screening assays, whole-sediment toxicity tests with macroinvertebrates and in situ benthic community structure.

# J. GreatLakes Research: 

# 21:192-206. Di Toro,D.M., Mahony, J.H., Hansen, D.J., Scott, K.J., Hicks, M.B., Mayr, S.M., and Redmond, 

# M. 1990. Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: Therole of acid volatile sulfides.Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 

# 9: 1487-1502. I



# Di Toro,D.M., Zarba, C.S., Hansen, D.J., Berry,W.J., 

# Swartz,R.C., Cowan, C.E., Pavlou, S.P., Allen, H.E., Thomas, N.A., and Paquin,P.R. 1991. Technical basis for establishing sediment quality criteria for nonionic organic chemicals using equilibrium partitioning. Environ. Tuxicul. Chem. 

# 10:1541-1583. Field,L.J. and Cairncross, C.S. 1994. A sedimenttoxicity database for 

# Superfund: EPA Region 

# IIIpilot project. for EPNOffice of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of 

# Research and Development, Washington, DC, April 1994.20p. 

# +appendices. 

# 0 ' Fox, R.G. 1996. An overview ofthe Assessment and Remediation.of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS)project. 

# J. Great Lakes Research:

# In press. Hall,N.E., Fairchild, J.F.,LaPoint,

# T.W., Heine, P.R.,Ruessler, D.S., and Ingersoll, C.G. 

# 1996. Problems and recommendations in using algal toxicity testing to evaluate contaminated sediments. J. GreatLakes Research:

# In press. Hoke, R.A., AnkIey, G.T., and Peters, J.F. 1995.Use of a freshwater sediment quality database in an evaluation of sediment quality criteriabased on equilibrium partitioning and screening-level concentrations.Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 

# 14:451-459. Ingersoll, C.G.and Nelson, M.K. 1990.Testing sediment toxicity withHyalella azteca 

# (Amphipoda) and Chironomusriparius 

# (Diptera). InAquatic Toxicology andRiskAssessment: Thirteenth Volume,

# ASTM STP 1096,eds. W.G.Landis andW.H.van der Schalie, pp. 93-109. American Society forTesting and Materials,Philadelphia, PA. Ingersoll, C.G., Haverland, P.S., Brunson, 

# E.L.,Canfield, T.J., Dwyer,

# F.J.,Henke, C.E., Kemble, N.E., Mount, 

# D.R., and Fox, R.G. 1996. Calculation and evaluation of sediment effect



# . 26/

.. 

# concentrations for the amphipodHyalella azteca 

# and the midge Chironomusriparius. 

# J. Great Lakes Research:

# In press. Kemble, N.E., Brumbaugh, W.G., Brunson, E.L., Dwyer, F.J.,Ingersoll, C.G., Monda, D.P., and Woodward, D.F. 1994. Toxicity of metal-contaminated sediments from the upper Clark Fork River, Montana to aquatic invertebrates in laboratory exposures.Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 

# 13: 1985- 1997. Kemble,N.E., E.L. Brunson, 

# T.J. Canfield, F.J. Dwyer, and C.G. Ingersoll. 1996. Laboratory toxicity test with Hyalella azteca 

# exposed to whole sediments from the Upper Mississippi River. Manuscript in review. Lamberson,J.O. and Swartz, R.C. 1992. Spiked-sediment toxicity test approach.In Sediment classificationmethods compendium,

# pp. 4-1 to 4- 

# 10. EPA 823-R92-006, Washington, DC. Long, E.R. and 

# Morgan, L.G. 1991. The potentialfor 

# biological efsects of

# sediment-sorbed contaminants tested in theNational Status and Trends Program.

# NOAA Technical MemorandumNOS 

# OMA 52, Seattle,WA. Long, E.R.,MacDonald, D.D., Smith, S.L., and Calder,F.D. 1995. Incidenceof adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. 

# a- Environmental Management 

# 19:8 1-97. Lorenzato, S.G., Gunther, A.J., and O'Conner, J.M. 1991.Summary of

# a workshop concerning sediment quality assessment and development of

# sediment quality objectives, 

# 32p. California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA. MacDonald,D.D. 1994.Approach tothe assessment ofsediment quality of 

# Florida coastal waters. Volume

# I 

# -Development and evaluation of 

# sediment quality assessment guidelines, 

# 126 p. Report prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, 

# FL. November 1994. MacDonald, D.D.; Cam, 

# R.S., Calder, F.D.,Long, 

# E.R., and Ingersoll,C.G. 1995. Development and evaluation of sediment quality guidelines for Florida coastal waters. Ecotoxicology: 

# In press. McGee,B.L., Schlekat, C.E., Boward, D.M., and Wade, T.L. 1994.Sediment contamination and biological effects in 

# a Chesapeake Bay marina. Ecotoxicology 

# 4: 39-59. Papoulias,

# D.M. and Buckler, D.R. 1996. Mutagenicity of Great Lakes sediments. J. GreatLakes Research:

# In press.

27

# Papoulias, D.M., Buckler, D.R., andTillitt, D.E. 1996. Optimization of the Ames/Salmonella mutagenicity assay foruse with extracts of aquatic sediments. 

# J. Great LakesResearch:

# In press. Pastorok, R.A., Peek, D.C., Sampson,J.R., and Jacobson, M.A. 1994. Ecological risk assessment forriver sediments contaminated by creosote.Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13:1929-1941. Persaud,D., Jaagaumagi, R., and Hayton, A. 1992.Guidelines for theprotection and management of

# aquatic sediment quality in Ontario.ISBN 0-7729-9248-7. Ontario Ministry of the Environment,Water Resources Branch, Toronto, 

# ON. Roach,R.W., Cam, R.S., Howard, C.L., and Cain, 

# D.W. 1993.Assessment ofproduced water impacts in Galveston Bay System. 

# U.S. Fish and Wildlife Report, ClearLake Ecological Services Office, Houston, TX. Ross, P.E., Burton, G.A.

# Jr., Crecelius, E.A., Filkins,J.C., Giesy,J.P. Jr., Ingersoll, C.G., Landrum,P.F., Mac,M.J., Murphy, T.J., Rathbun, J.E., Smith,V.E., Tatem, H., and Taylor, 

# R.W. 1992.Assessment of sediment contamination at Great Lakes areas of 

# concern: The ARCS program. J.Aquat. Ecosystem Health 1:

# 193-200. . 

# Schlekat, C.E., McGee, B.L., Boward, D.M., Reinharz, E., Velinsky, D.J., and Wade, T.L. 1994. Tidal river sediments in the Washington, D.C. area.

# III. Biological effects associated with sediment contamination. Estuaries.17:334-344. Smith, S:L., MacDonald, D.D., Kennleyside, K.A.,

# Ingersoll, C.G., and Field, J. 1996. A preliminary evaluation of sediment quality assessment values forfreshwater ecosystems. 

# J. Great LakesResearch:In press. Statistical Analysis Systems. 1992.SAS Users Guide.Cary, SC: SAS Institute, Inc. Swartz, 

# R.C. and Di Toro, D.M. 1997. Sediments as completex mixtures: An overview of 

# methods to assess ecotoxicological significance. Chapter 16in EcologicalRiskAssessments of 

# Contaminated Sediments. 

# G.R. Biddinger, T. Dillon, and C.G.

# Ingersoll (eds.). SETAC Press, Pensacola,

# FL. In press. U.S. 

# Environmental Protection Agency. 1988.Interim sediment criteria values for nonpolar hydrophobic organic contaminants. EPA, SDC#17, 

# Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC. 

# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992.Sediment classiJication methods compendium. EPA 823-R921006,Washington, DC.

28 '

### - 

# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993.Assessment and remediation 

# ofcontaminated sediments 

# (ARCS) program. 

# Biological and chemical assessment 

# of contaminated Great Lakes sediment. EPA 905-R93-006, Chicago, 

# IL. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994.Methods

# formeasuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of 

# sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. 

# EPA 600- 

# R24-024,Duluth, 

# MN. Wildhaber,

# M.L. and Schmitt, 

# C.J. 1996. Hazard ranking of contaminated sediments based on chemical analysis, laboratory toxicity tests, andbenthic communitycomposition: Prioritizing sites forremedial action.

# J. Great

# Lakes Research:

# In press.

29

# e .Table 1. Percentageof 

# whole-sediment samples identified as toxic 

# in Chironomus 

# riparius



# I 14-d (CR14),Hyalella 

# azteca 14-d (HA14),or

# H. azteca 

# 28-d (HA28) tests. )


# TOXIC' TOXIC-S2 TOXIC-G3 TOXIC-M4 \ 

# All samples CR14 26 (42)24 (42) 

# 9 (34) ND

. 

# HA14 HA28 39 (62)26(62)34 

# (44) 11(36) i 

# 41 (32)25 (32)20 (25)24 (21)
Great Lakes CR14 HA14 HA28 37 (27)33 (27)11(19)ND 48 (27)30 (27)20(25)24 (21) 48 (27)41 (27)24(25) 5 (21) Upper Mississippi River HA28 0 

# (5) 0 

# (5) 

# ND ND Clark Fork River HA28 

# a: CR14 7 (15) 

# 7 (15) 7 (15) 

# ND 53 (15)13 (15)53(15)20 (15) Trinity River HA14 0 

# (5)



# . 0

# (5) ND HA28 0 

# (5) 0

# (5) ND Mobile Bay HA28 0 

# (5) 0 

# (5) ND ND ND
ND Galveston Bay HA28 60 

# (5) 60 

# (4) 25 (4) ND TOXIC: Significant reduction in survival, growth, ormaturation relativeto the control 

# (p<0.05,N in 

# parentheses) 2TOXIC-S: Significant reduction in survival 3TOXIC-G: Significant reduction in growth ' 

# 4TOXIC-M: Significant reduction in 

# maturation 

# (H.azteca only) 5ND: Not determined 1



# 30

# Table 2. Percentage ofpaired tests orpaired endpointsidentifying samples as toxic in 

# a
Chironomusriparius 

# 14-d(CR14),Hyalella azteca 

# 14-d (HA14),or

# H. azteca 28-d 

# (HA28)tests. A designation of 

# "-S"represents survival, "-G"represents growth, and a 

# row without an 'I-S" 

# or a 

# "-G"represents survival 

# or growth endpoints for those tests.
TOX/"OX' NOT/NOT2 TOX/NOT3 NOT/TOX4 

# @

CR14MA28 CRl4-S/HA28-S CR 14-G/HA28-G HA 14lHA28 HA14-S/HA28-S HA14-G/HA28-G HA

# I4/CR14 HA14-S/CR14-S HA 14-G/CR14-G CR 14-S/CR14-G HA14-S/HA14-G HA28-S/HA28-G 24 19 9 

# 34 

# 25 

# 8 37 26 5 6 

# 4 16 48 64 62 53 66 64 52 63 68 85 

# 60 52 2 

# 5 0 

# 6 

# 0 12 11 

# 4 21 6 20 14 26 12 29 6 10 16 0 7 

# 5 3 16 18 42 42 

# 34 32 32 25 27 27 19 34 25 44
'TOX!TOX: 2NOT/NOT: 3TOX/NOT: 4NOT/TOX: 'N: Number of 

# samples Samples toxic (significant reduction relative to 

# the control p<0.05) with both endpointsor tests Samplesnot toxic with both endpoints or tests Samplestoxic to the first but not the second endpoint or test Samples not toxic to the first but toxic to 

# the second endpoint or test

31

# FIGURES For Figures 1through 20: 

# 1. Comparability was evaluated by plotting the ratio of concentrations of paired SECs (for examplein Figure la: plots the ratio of paired EM-Gsto Ems;

# an asterisk indicates one or more ratios greater 2.4). 2. 

# Reliability was evaluated by plotting the ability of paired SECs to: (1) correctly classify sediment samples (e.g., EM-Gsto Ems; Figure lb), (2) incorrect classifynon-toxic samples 

# as toxic (Type

# I error; e.g., Figure IC),and (3)

# incorrectly classify toxic samples 

# as not toxic (Type

# IIerror; 

# e.g.,Figure Id). 

# 3. The solid lines (e.g., Figure lbto Idfor ERMvs ERM-G) are lines of unity and the dashed lines are 220% 

# of unity. 

# In Figure 1 b to d: (1),EM=EM-G if the paired comparison is within 220%of unity; (2)EM>ERM-Gif the paired comparison is >20% 

# of unity; and (3) 

# ERM<ERM-G if the paired comparison is <20% 

# ofunity. 4. 

# 5= 

# total PCBs, 

# 4=

# PAHs, 3 

# =

# metals, 1=

# physical characteristics (seeAppendix 2c).

# Appendix 1 

# Summary of biological, chemical, and physical characterization performed on sediment samples from each site.

# '

CHAR APPENDIX 1: BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATIONS PERFORMED INDIANA BUFFALO SAGINAW SAGINAW WAUKEGAN UPPER CLARK TRINITY MOBILE TYPE HARBOR RIVER RIVER-1 RIVER-3 HABOR 

### MISS MILLTOWN FORK RIVER BAY 

### 1 GALVESTON BAY NAME ***BIOLOGICAL*** OVERALL TOXICITY OVERALL TOXICITY SURVIVAL SURVIVAL GROWTH GROWTH OVERALL TOXICITY OVERALL TOXICITY SURVIVAL SURVIVAL GROWTH GROWTH MATURATION MATURATION OVERALL TOXICITY OVERALL TOXICITY SURVIVAL SURVIVAL GROWTH GROWTH MATURATION MATURATION Totlal Organic Carbon Acid Volatile Sulfides Clay Sand Water Silt Ash-Free Dry Weight Cation Exchange Capacity Porewater ammonia Porewater hydrogen sulfide 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 

### Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin 

### Total 

### Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 

### 2.3,4.7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 

### Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran 

### 1.2.3.7.8-Pentachlorodibenzodioxin Total Pentachlorodibenzodioxin 1,2,3,4.7.8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,6,7.8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 

### ***PHYSICAL & 

### CHEMICAL**' 3 

# i 3 1 4 3 

### 2 1 5. 3 

### 1 

### 1 1 

### 3 

### 5 1 5 

### 3 

### 1 1 1 4 

### 5 2 

### 4 

### 4 4 3 2 3 

### 4 

### 1 4 

### 1 2 

### 3 6 3 1 2 

# i 2 2 

### 2 2 

# 2 2 2 

### 2 4 

# 2 5 2 

### 5 2 2 

### 3 1 

## .. i 

### CR14 CR14 CR14 CR14 Cp14 CR14 HA14 HA14 HA1

### 4 

### HA14 

### HA14 HA1

### 4 HA14 HA14 HA28 

### HA28 

### HA28 

### HA28 

### HA28 

### HA28 

### HA28 

### HA28 NOT TOX NOT TOX NOT TOX NOT TOX NOT TOX NOT TOX NOT TOX NOT TOX NOT TOX NOT TOX NOT TOX 7 1 

### 5 5 

### .. 7 

### 1 

## a 8 

# 2 6 I 

### 1 2 

### 6 6 2 

# s 8 

### 8 8 8 8 

### 8 8 8 

## a 5 2 

### 6 

### 1 5 2 6 

### 1 

# ; 7 

### 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

### 5 

### 5 5 

### 2 3 

### 2' 3 3 1 

### 5 8 

### 3 8
4 

### 5 6 4 

### 6 

### 4 1 

### 1 6 

### 4 6 

### 4 

### 1 1 5 

### 5 101 

### 102 

### 104 105 106 107 

### 108 109 110 

### 111 

### 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 

### 208 209 210 211 212 213 BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT 4 

### 5 4 

### 5 5 5 8 

### 1' 4 

### 5 4 

### 5 5 5


### 3 2 3 3 3 

### 3 3 

### 3 3 3 2 

### 3 3 3 6 4 

### 8 

### 5 

### 5 3 

### 3 3 

### 5 3 1 3 

### 5 

### 3 

### 5 3 

### 5 3 

### 5'3 

### 1 3 

### 5 

### 3 5 3 

### 5 3 5 

### 3 

### 7 I 

### I I 7 

### I 7 4 

### 6 

### 7 

### I I I

### CHAR 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 300 

### 300 

### 301 301 

### 302 302 302 303 303 303 304 

### 304 304 305 305 305 306 306 307 307 

### 308 308 

### 309 309 309 310 310 310 

### 311 312 312 313 314 315 316 

### 399 312 

### APPENDIX 

### 1: BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL AND 

### CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATIONS PERFORMED

NAME Total Hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,4,1.8-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 1,2,3,6,1.8-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 

### 1,2,3,1,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 

### Total Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 1,2,3,4,6,1,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 

### 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 

### Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3.4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzodioxin 

### Total 

### Heptachlorodibenzodioxin Octachlorodibenzofuran Octachlorodibenzodioxin A1 

### uminum 

### Aluminum Silver Silver Arsenic Arsenic Arsenic Cadmium Cadmium Cadmium Chromium Chromium Chromium Copper Copper Copper Iron Iron Mercury Mercury Manganese Manganese Nickel Nickel Nickel Lead Lead Lead S

### e

### 1 eni um Zinc Zinc zinc Methyl-mercury Tributylin Dibutyl

### in Monobutylin Ratio of SEM metals to AVS TYPE BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BS BT BT PW BS 

### BT PW BS BT PW BS BT PW 

### BS

. 

### BT PW BS BT BT PW BS BT BS BT PW BS BT PW BT BS BT PW BT BT BT BT 

### BS INDIANA HARBOR 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

### 3 3 3 

### 3 3 

### 1 1 

### 4 4 

### 1 

### 5 5 5 

### 5 

### 5 

### 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

### 5 4 4 

### 5 5 

### 5 5 

### 5 

### 5 5 

### 5 

### 4 5 5 

### 5 

### 4 4 

### 4 4 

### 4 

### BUFFALO RIVER '5 5 5 

### 5 3 5 5 5 

### 5 5 5 5 1 1 

### 5 5 

### 1 

### 6* 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 

### 6 6 

### 6 6 6 5 

### 5 6 6 

### 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 

### 6 6 6 5 5 

### 5 5 

### 5 

### SAGINAW RIVER-1 3 3 3 

### 3 3 

### 3 3 

### 3 3 3 .3 3 

### 1 1 

### 3 3 1 

### 4 4 4 4 

### 4 4 

### 4 4 

### 4 4 

### 4 4 

### 4 3 3 

### 4 4 

### 4 4 4 

### 4 4 

### 4 3 

### 4 4 

### 4 3 3 

### 3 3 3 

### SAGI NAW RIVER-3 I 5 

### 5 .I 

### I I I 

### I I 

### I I I 

### 1' 1 

### I 4 

### 1 

### 8 5 7 

### 8 

### 5 7 

### 5 I 8 

### 5 1 1 I 

### 4 7 8 

### I 8 5 

### 'I 8 5 I 

### I 8 

### 5 

# a

6 

### WAUKEGAN HABOR



### 4
4


### 4
4

4 

# 4

4 

### UPPER MISS



# 4

.. 5



# ..



# 5

5

5 

### MILLTOWN

0



### 8 8

8 8 

### 8 8 8 8 

### 8 8 

### 8 .8

8 

## a

a


# s 8 8 8 

### 8 8 

### 8 

## a
8 

### 8 

### 8


# ; CLARK FORK



### I I

# ; I 

### I I 

### I I 

### I 

### I I I 7 

### I I 

### I 

# ; I 

### I I I 

### I I 

### I 

# ; I 

### I

6 

### TRINITY RIVER



# 1 1
1 5 

### 1 1 

### 5 1 

### 1 

### 5 1 1 5 

### 1 1 

### 1 

# 1 1 

### 1 5 

### 1 1 

### 5 

### 1 

# 1 5 

### 1 

### MOBILE BAY

5
5



### 5
5

5 

### 2 

### GALVESTON BAY

5



### 5


### 5
5
5
5

5 5
5

5

5

### CHAR 401

. 

### 402

403 404 405 406 407 

### 408 409 410 

### 411 412 413 414 415 

### 416 417 

### 418 419 420 421 422 423 450 451 452 501 502 503 

### 504 505 

### 506 507 508 

### 601 

### 602 603 

### 604 605 606 607 

### 608 

### 701 702 

### 703 

### 704 705 706 707 

### NAME
. 

### 1.4-Dichlorobenzene 1.2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene Naphthalene 2-Methylnaphthalene Acenaphthene Dibenzofuran Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benz(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo (a)pyrene Indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo (b, k)fluoranthene Acenaphthylene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 4-Methylanphthalene. PAH-T PAH-L PAH

### -H PCB 1016 

### PCB 1221 PCB 1232 PCB 1242 PCB 1248 PCB 1254 PCB 1260 

### TOTAL PCBS Dimethyl Phthalate Dibutyl Phthalate Diethyl Hexglphthalate 2 Fluorobiphenyl Nitrobenzene Butyl Benzyl Phthalate Di-n-octylphalate Bis(2-ethylhexy1)Phthalate 

### Aldrin Hexachlorocyclohexane-alpha Hexachlorocyclohexane-beta Hexachlorocyclohexane-delta Hexachlorocyclohexane-gamma trans-chlordane cis-chlordane APPENDIX 1: 

### BIOLOGICAL,

TYPE BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT ' 

### BT BT BT BT BT BT BT INDIANA HARBOR 4
5 

### 4 1 

### 4 5 5 

### 5 

### 5 5 

### 5 

### 5 4 4 

### 5 5 5 1 1 1 5 

### 5 5 

### 4 4 4 

### 4 4 4 4 1 4 

### 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

### 4 4 4 4 4 

### PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATIONS PERFORMED BUFFALO

RIVER 5
6 5 

### 1 

### 5 6 

### 6 6 6 

### 6 6 

### 5 5 6 

### 6 6 

### 1 1 1 

### 6'

6 6 6 5 

### 5 5 5 

### 5 5 5 

### 1 5 

# 5 5 5 

### 5 

### -5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

### SAGINAW RIVER-1 3


### 4 3 1 

### 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 

### 3 4 4 

## -. 4 1. 

### 1 

### 1 

### 4 

### 4 4 3 3 3 3 

### 3 

### 3 3 

### 1 

### 3 

# i 3 

### 3 3 3 

### 3 3 3 3 3 

### 3 

### 3 SAGINAW RIVER-3 I 7 7 8 7 

### 1 7 

### 8 8 

### 8 8 

### 8 8 8 

### 7 

### I 8 8 8 

### 1 

### 8 

### 1 7 

### 8 8 

### 8 

# ; 7 

### I 

### 1 I 

### I 

# ; 

# ; I 7 7 '7

7 

### I 7 7 7 

### WAUKEGAN HABOR



### 4 4 4 4 4 

### 4 4 

### 4 4
4 

### 4 4 

### 4 4 

### 4 4 4 4

4 

### UPPER 

### MISS

5



### 5 5

5 

### 5 5 

### 5 5 5 

# 5 5 

### 5 

### 5 5 

### 5 5 5 5



# 4 MILLTOWN 

# 8 

# 8 8 8 8 

### 8 8 

### 8 

### 8
8 

### 8 

### 8 8 

### 8 8 

# 8 8 8



### 8 

### CLARK FORK



# ; 1
1 7 7 1 1 7 1 

# ; 1 7 

### 'I

7 

### 7 

# ; 7 7

7 

### TRINITY RIVER

5 5 5 5 

### 5 5 

### 5 5 

### 5 

# 5 5 5 

### 5 5 5 5 5 5



### 1 

### MOBILE BAY

5 

### 5 5 5 5 5 

### 5 5 5 

# 5 5 5 5 

### 5 5 

### 5 

### 5 5 

### 3 GALVESTON BAY

5



### .5 5 5 

### 5 5 5 

### 5 

# 5 5 5

### NAME CHhR 

### 708 4,.4,DDD 709 4,4,DDE 710 4.4,DDT 711 Dieldrin

712 

### Endosulfan-alpha 713 Endosulfan-beta 714 Endosulfan sulphate 715 

### Endrin 7.16 Endrin Aldehyde 717 Endrin Ketone ' 718 

### Heptachlor 719 

### Heptachlor epoxide 720 

### Toxaphene 721 

### Methoxychlor 

# e

APPENDIX 

### 1: BIOLOGICAL, INDIANA TYPE HARBOR BT 

### 4 BT 4 BT 4 BT 4 BT 4 BT 4 BT 4 

### BT 

### 4 BT 4 

### BT 4 

### BT 4 

### BT 4 

### BT 

### 4

BT 

### 4 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATIONS PERFORMED BUFFALO

RIVER 

### 5 5 

### 5 5 5 

### 5 5 

### .5 5 

### 5 5 5 

### 5 5 

### SAGINAW RIVER-

### 1 3 3 

### 3 3 3 3 3 

### 3 3 

### 3 3 

### 3 3 

### 3 

### SAGINAW RIVER-3 7 7 7 7 

### I 7 7 

### I 7 

### I 

### I 7 7 

### I 

### WAUKEGAN UPPER 

### HABOR MISS MILLTOWN 3 CLARK TRINITY MOBILE GALVESTON

FORK RIVER BAY BAY

# Appendix 2b Biology database. Thecomputer disk that accompaniesthe report contains the electronic version of this entire appendix (file name: "apdx2a.txt" for the ascii format and "apdx2a.dbf for the database 

# file). Chemistry database.Thecomputer disk that accompaniesthe report contains the electronic version of this entire appendix (file name: "apdx2b.txt"for the ascii format and "apdx2b.dbf' for the database file).

c

# a:ppendix 2c Chemistry codes. NUMCODE =Numeric code, 

# MOLE.WT. 

# =molecular weight, 

# NFCRC REPORT =

# Designation in USEPA 

# (1993),CHEMCODE =

# Designation 

# for the current report, CHEMICAL NAME, NA =

# not applicable. -



## NUMCODE MOLE. WT. 101 

## 102 103 I04 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 

## 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 

# *;$

214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 

## 222 223 224 225 300 301 3 02 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 

# * NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 305.98 305.98 321.98 321.98 340.43 340.43 340.43 356.43 356.43 374.87 374.87 374.87 374.87 374.87 390.87. 390.87 390.87 390.87 409.32 409.32 409.32 425.32 425.32 443.76 459.76 26.9815 AI 107.87 74.92 112.4 51.996 63.54 55.847 200.59 54.938 58.71 207.19 78.96 65.37 NFCRCREPORT TOC AVS SOLIDS CLAY SAND WATER SILT AFDW CEC NH3-P HS-P 2378-TCDF Total TCDF 2378 TCDD Total TCDD 12378-PeCDF 23478-PeCDF Total PeCDF 12378-PeCDD Total PeCDD 1

## 23478-HxCDF 1

## 23678-HxCDF 123789-HxCDF 234678-HxCDF Total HxCDF 1

## 23478-HxCDD 123678-HxCDD 1

## 23789-HxCDD Total HxCDD 1234678-HpCDF Total HpCDF Total HpCDD OCDF OCDD 1234789-HpCDF 1234678-HpCDD

Ag AS Cd Cr 

# cu Fe Mn 

## Ni Pb Se Zn Hg CHEMCODE TOC AVS NA CLAY SAND WATER SILT AFDW CEC NH3P HSP TCDF TCDD TCDF-T TCDD-T PECDF-A PECDF-B. PECDF-T PECDD-A PECDD-T HXCDF-A HXCDF-B HXCDF-C HXCDF-D HXCDF-T HXCDD-A HXCDD-B HXCDD-C HXCDD-T HPCDF-A HPCDF-B HPCDF-T HPCDD-A HPCDD-T OCDF OCDD CHEMICALNAME Total OrganicCarbon Acid Volatile Sulfides Total Solids Clay Sand Water Silt Ash-FreeDry Weight Cation ExchangeCapacity Pore-water ammonia Pore-waterhydrogensulfide 

## 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 

## 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin Total

## Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin 

## 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran

. ' 

## Total Pentachlorodibenzohran 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodi benzodioxin Total 

## Pentachlorodibenzodioxin 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,7,8;9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzohran Total Hexachlorodibenzofuran 

## 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzodioxin Total Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 

## 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HeptachIorodibenzofuran 

## 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran Total Heptachlorodibenzofurm 

## 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzodioxin Total 

## Heptachlorodibenzodioxin Octachlorodibenzofuran Octachlorodi benzodioxin AL 

## Aluminum SILVER Silver ARSENIC Arsenic CADMIUM Cadmium CHROMIUM-T Chromium COPPER Copper IRON Iron MERCURY Mercury MANGANESE Manganese NICKEL Nickel LEAD Lead SELENIUM Selenium ZINC Zinc 

# .

## Qppendix 2c (continued) 

# e- 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 399 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 

## 412 413 414 

## 415 416 417 

# e::; ;20 421 

## 422 423 424 450 45 1 452 501 

## 502 503 504 505 506 507 SO8 

## 601 

## 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 701 

## 702 215.63 290.04 232.93 175.81 NA NA NA NA NA 147.01 147.01 147.01 128.16 142.2 154.21 168 166.21 178.22 178.22 202.3 202.24 228.28 228.28 252.30 252.30 252.30 276 216

. 

## 252.30 152.2 278 142.2 NA NA NA NA 257.5 196 219 258 289 326 371 

## NA 194.19 NA NA NA NA 312 390.54 390.54 364.92 291 

## Hg-Me TBT DBT MBT NA NA NA NA SEMAVS 1,4DCB 1,2 DCB 1,3DCB Naph(1) ’ 

## 2-MNaph Acnaph(3) DBF Fluore(4) Phen(5) Anth(6) Fluora(7) Pyrene(

## 8) Chrys(IO) 

## BbFluor BkFluor BAP(13) IndPyr(14) BghiPer( 16) BbkFluor(l1) METHYL-HG TBT DBT MBT BERY ILLIUM BORON MOLYBDENUM STRONTIUM SEMAVS 14-2CLBNZ 12-2CLBNZ 13-2CLBNZ NAPHTHALENE ACENA DIBNZFURAN FLUORENE PHENANTHRN ANTHRACENE FLUORANTHN PYRENE BAA CHRYSENE BBF BKF BAP ICDP BGHIP BBKF 2-METHNAP Methyl-mercury Tributylin Dibutylin Monobutylin NA NA NA NA Ratio 

## of SEM metals to AVS 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene Naphthalene 2-Methylnaphthalene Acenaphthene Dibenzofuran Fluorene Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene Benz(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene Indeno (1,2,3-c,d)pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(b,k)fluoranthene

,, 

## Acenaphthylene(2) ACENAFTYLE Acenaphthylene DBA(15) 4-MNaph NA PAH-T PAH-L PAH-H PCB 1016 PCB 1221 PCB 1232 PCB 1242 PCB 1248 PCB 1254 PCB 1260 PCB( 17) DM PH NA NA NA NA BBPh DnOPh BisPh Aldrin BHC-n DBA PERYLENE 4-METHNAP PAH-T PAH-L PAH-H PCB 1016 PCB 1221 PCB 1232 PCB 1242 PCB 1248 PCB 1254 PCB 1260 DlMP DlMBP DEHP 2FLUOROBIP NBNZ BUTBNZ PHT 2NOCTP B2ETHXPHTH ALDRIN PCB-T

6CL-CHX-A Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 4,Methylnaphthalene NA PAH Total (others) PAH Low PAH High PCB 1016 PCB 1221 PCB 1232 PCB 1242 PCB 1248 PCB 1254 PCB 1260 TOTAL PCBS Dimethyl Phthalate Dibutyl Phthalate Diethyl Hexglphthalate 2 Fluorobiphenyl Nitrobenzene Butyl Benzyl Phthalate Di-n-octylphalate Bis(2-ethyl hexy1)Phthalate Aldrin Hexachlorocyclohexane-alpha

## ppendix 2c (continued) 

# c:

-



## 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 

## 71 1 

## 712 713 714 -715 716 717 718 719 720 721 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 

## ,", 910 911 

## 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 920 921 922 923 924 925 291 

## 291 

## 291 

## 410 410 320 318 354.6 381 

## 407 407 421 

## 381 380.92 380.92 373 389 414 346 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BHC-b BHC-d BHC-g Chlordane-trans Chlordane-cis 4,4,DDD 4,4,DDE 4,4,DDT Dieldrin Endosulfan I Endosulfan 

## I1 Endosulfan sulph. Endrin Endrin Aldehyde Endrin Ketone Heptachlor Heptachlor epox. Toxaphene Methoxychlor NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

. 

## NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6CL-CHX-B Hexachlorocyclohexane-beta 6CL-CHX-D Hexachlorocyclohexane-delta 6CL-CHX-G Hexachlorocyclohexane-gamma CHLORDAN-G trans-chlordane CHLORDAN-A cis-chlordane DDD 4,4,DDD DDE 4,4,DDE DDT 4,4,DDT DIELDRIN Dieldrin ENDOSLFN-A Endosulfan-alpha ENDOSLFN-B Endosulfan-beta ENDOSLFN-S Endosulfan sulphate ENDRIN Endrin ENDRIN-ALD Endrin Aldehyde ENDRIN-KETONE Endrin Ketone HEPTACHLOR HEPCL EPOX TOXAPHENE METHOXYCL BENZOIC-AC PCT-FINES BARIUM ANTIMONY CALCIUM COBALT MAGNESIUM POTASSIUM SODIUM VANADIUM 2-BUTANONE ACETONE CHLOROFORM METHYLE-CL TOLUENE 3CLETHENE CHLORDANE ENDOSULFAN THALLIUM PCT-MOIS PH CYANIDE 12-2CLETHE

DDD-SUM DDE-SUM Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Toxaphene Methoxychlor NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

# .)ppendix 2d Sample codes. Location name Buffalo River Buffalo River Buffalo River Buffalo River Buffalo River Buffalo River Clark Fork Clark Fork Clark Fork Clark Fork Clark Fork Clark Fork Clark Fork Indiana Harbor Indiana Harbor Indiana Harbor Indiana Harbor Indiana Harbor Mobile Bay 

# .-

Mobile Bay MobileBay Mobile Bay Mobile Bay Milltown 

# R Milltown 

# R Milltown 

# R Milltown R Milltown R Milltown R Milltown R Milltown R Saginaw River-1 

# Saginaw River-1 Saginaw River-1 Saginaw River-1 Saginaw River-3 Saginaw River-3 Saginaw River-3 Saginaw River-3 Saginaw River-3 Saginaw River-3

- . 

# Saginaw River-3 Location name 

# Letter Samplenumber Samplecode B B B B B B C C C C 

# C C C I 

# I I I 

# I M M M M 

# M

S S S 

# S G G G G G 

# c G 202 204 208 209 210 201 802 803 

# 804 805 

# 806 807 801 102 103 105 106 101 1002 1003 1004 1005 1001 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 701 303 

# 305 308 301 402 403 404 405 

# 406 407 408 

# BR- 1-01-01-G-1-0 BR-1-03-01-G- 1-0 BR-1-07-01-G-1-0 BR-1-08-01-G-1-0 BR-1-09-01-G-1-0 BR-1-CO CF-1-01 CF-1-02 CF- 1-03 CF-1-04 CF-1-05 CF-1-06 

# CF-1 -CO 

# M-1-03-011-0

# -G

# M-1-04-011-0

# -G

# M-1-06-011-0-G

# M-1-07-011-0-G

# M-1 

# -co MB-1-0 1 MB- 1-02 MB-1-03 MB-1-04 

# MB-1 -RE MR-1-01 MR-1-02 

# MR- 1-07 MR-1-11 MR- 1 -

# 17 MR-1-19 MR-1-25 MR-1 -CO SR-1-03-011-0-GSR-1-06-011-0-GSR-l-lO-Ol-G-l~-O SR-1-CO SR-3-01-0 1 -G-1-0 SR-3-02-0 11-0

# -GSR-3-05-011-0

# -GSR-3-06-011-0

# -GSR-3-08-011-0

# -GSR-3-16-01

# -G- 1-0 

# SR-3-24-0 11-0-G

# Letter Samp

# Ie 

# number Sample code

# e'aginawRiver-3

. 

# l'abbs Bay TabbsBay Tabbs Bay Tabbs Bay Tabbs Bay Trinity River Trinity River Trinity River Trinity River Trinity River Upper Mississippi Upper Mississippi Upper Mississippi Upper Mississippi Upper Mississippi Waukengan Harbor Waukengan Harbor Waukengan Harbor Waukengan Harbor G 

# N N N 

# N N T 

# T T T T U U U U 

# U W W W W 401 1102 1103 1104 1105 1101 902 903 904 905 901 603 604 605 

# 601 602 503 

# 504 50

# 1 502 SR-3-CO TB-1-01 TB-1-02 TB-1-03 TB-1-04 TB-1-RE TR-1-01 TR-1-02 TR-1-03 TR-1-04 

# TR-1 -CO UM-1-01 UM- 1-02 UM-1-03 

# UM-1-CO 

# UM- 1 

# -RE WH-1-01 WH-1-02 

# WH- 1-CO 

# WH-1 

# -RE

# @?ppendix 3a Summary of sediment effect concentrations (SECs) calculated using dry-weight concentrations and listed by chemical, test type, and sample type for the entire database. / 

# NUMCODE CHEMCODEChemistrycode for chemical (Appendix 2c) Numerical code for chemical (Appendix 2c) TEST SAMPTYP 

# UNITS 

# SEC 

# C

N TOX EFFECT HIT TOTAL CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT. ' ,- 

# TOXNOT Toxicity test (HA14 =Hyalella azeteca 

# 14-d test; HA28 =

# Hyalella 

# azteca 28-d test; CR-14 

# = Chironornusriparius 

# 14-d test) 

# BT=total extraction of sediment; 

# BS 

# =weak acid digestion of sediment (SEM metals); 

# PW =

# pore water Chemical concentrations Sedimenteffect concentrations (NR =

# not reported) An 

# "x" indicates SECswhich correctlyclassify <70% 

# ofthe samples correctly. An "@" 

# indicates an unreliable SEC (e.g., less than five of the sampleswererdesignated as toxic for the

# chemical orthe number oftoxic samples with concentrations below the SECwas greaterthan the number of toxic samples with concentrations above the SEC). Total number of samples used to calculate each SEC. Number of toxic samples. Number of toxic samples where the concentration of a chemical was greaterthan the mean concentration of the chemical in the non-toxic samples at a site. Number of samples with concentrations greater than the SEC. Percentage samplescorrectly classified as toxic. Percentage of

# toxic samplescorrectly classified as toxic (toxic sample and hit). Percentage of non-toxic samples correctly classified as not toxic (non-toxic sample and nohit). Percentage of non-toxic samples incorrectly classified 

# as toxic (Type

# Ierror; non-toxic sample and hit [false positive]). Percentage of toxic samplesincorrectly classified as not toxic (Type 

# IIerror; toxic sample and no hit [false negative]). 'NUMCODE CHEMCODE



### I 101 TOC

101 TOC

102 AVS

102 AVS

102 AVS

104 CLAY 104 CLAY I 104 CLAY 105 SAND

105 

### SAND

105 SAND 

### I

106 WATER TEST CR14

HA14

HA2 8

CR14

HA14

HA2 8

CR14 HA14 HA28 CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14 APPENDIX 3A: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 1 SEC IN THRES USING ALL DATA
SAMPTYP UNITS

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT BT BT BT

BT

BT

ET %

%

%

UM/G

UM/G

UM/G

% % % %

%

%

8 SEC C ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NEW X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NEW X ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC 0 NERM X NERH 

### X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NEW X NERH X NR X NRX NRX ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC @ NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X # " fl # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 2.67 42 11 5.65 42 11 2.04 42 11 4.38 42 11 8.90 42 11 1.56 42
. 3.40 42 

## . 1.70 32 13 4.65 32 13 1.30 32 13 3.86 32 13 4.00 32 13 1.00 32 

## . 3.20 32 

## . 1.70 62 24 3.00 62 24 1.49 62 24 3.29 62 24 9.00 62 24 1.30 62 

## . 3.60 62
. 15.50 37 9 33.50 37 9

8.26 37 9 20.87 37 9 161.00 37 9

4.40 37 

## . 13.00 37 

## . 5.10 22 11 15.60 22 11 3.46 22 11 9.67 22 11 8.90 22 11 2.35 22 

## . 6.00 22 

## . 5.70 42 22 15.60 42 22 4.27 42 22 14.02 42 22 19.20 42 22 3.20 42 

## . 12.60 42 

## .

. 23 1



## . 13 

## .

. 38. 4 16.00 42 11 32.95 42 11 29.24 42 11 49.11 42 11 98.50 42 11 53.45 42 

## . 73.20 42
. 15.60 32 13 32.95 32 13 25.60 32 13 46.49 32 13 98.50 32 13 42.00 32
. 65.60 32 

## . 16..70 57 24 53.45 57 24 28.08 57 24 61.26 57 24 98.50 57 24 47.20 57
. 70.20 57 

## . 44.10 42 11 46.70 42 11 8 8 8 8 8

12 12 12 12 12

17 17 17 17 17

5 5 5 5 5

10 10 10 10 10

17 17 17 17 17

8 8 8 8 8

,. 12 12 12 12 12

20 20 20 20 20

9 9 17 7 20

8 2

17 6 18 7 7

33 20 33 16 2

9 4 13 5 1

12 5 13

6 7

23 11 25 13 8

31 26 27 22

1

23 17 19 14 1

42 24 38 15 1

22 18 67 76 64 79 74

81 78 84 75 75

60 58 60 61 61

78 ' 81 68 78 73

77 73 82 77 73

64 64 69 69 62

38 36 ' 33 36 71

56 44 44 47 56

51 51 47 60 56

60 55 17 10 19 12 2

38 19 41 19 19

26 15 26 13 2

14

8 14 8

41 23 45 27 27

36 21 40 26 17

19 12 12 7

34 19 22 16

33 18 28 14

19 12 50 67 45 67 71

44 59 44 56 56

34 44 34 48 60

65 73 54 70 73

36 50 36 50 45

29 43 29 43 45

19 24 21 29 71

22 25 22 31 56

18 33 19 46 56

40 43 24 7 29

7 2

16 16 3 3

27 18 27 13 2

11 3 22

5 3

14 14 5

19 5 19 5 2

55 50 52 45

2

38 34 38 28

3

40 25 39 12 2

33 31 10 17 7 14 24

3 22 22 22

13 24 13 26 37

11 16 11 16 24

9 27

5 23 23

17 31 12 26 36

7 14 14 19 26

6 22 19 25 41

9 25 14 28 42

7 14NUMCODE CHEMCODE 106 WATER

106 WATER

106 WATER

107 SILT 107 SILT 107 SILT 108 AFDW 108 AFDW 109 CEC 109 CEC

110 NH3P

110 NH3P

111 HSP 111 HSP 111 HSP 300 AL 300 AL 300 AL 300 AL 300 AL 300 AL TEST CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14 HA14 HA28 CR14 HA28 CR14 HA28

CR14 HA14

HA2 8

CR14 HA14 HA28 CR14 CR14 HA14 HA14 HA28 HA2 8 APPENDIX 3A:

SAMPTYP UNITS

ET

BT

BT

ET BT ET ET ET ET ET

ET BT

BT

BT BT BT BS BT BS BT BS BT %

%

%

% % % % % MEQ/KG MEQ/KG

MG/L MG/L

MG/L

MG/L MG/L MG/L NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 2 SEC IN THRES USING ALL DATA
SEC C TEL X PEL X NEC @ NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X 

### ERL 

## x ERM X TEL X PEL 

### X NEC 

### X NERM 

### X NERH X NRX NRX NRX NR X 

### NRX 

### NRX ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X NRX ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X NR X NR X NRX NRX NR X NR X NR X NR X # # # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 42'.88 42 53.50 42 76.40 42



### , 41.70 42 61.30 42 41.70 32 46.30 32 40.43 32 50.55 32 76.40 32 39.20 32 55.20 32 44.10 57 54.00 57 42.44 57 54.60 57 85.00 57 40.85 57 55.20 57



## . 23

. 13

. 38



## . 15



## . 15



## . 15 12.70 15 15.60 15 12.85 15 14.94 15 15.20 15 13.00 15 14.30 15



## . 36 0.02 21 0.27 21 0.01 21 0.10 21 0.09 21 0.01 21 0.04 21 0.02 41 0.08 41 0.01 41 0.06 41 0.14 41 0.01 41 0.05 41



## . 17 .2

. 17

. 19



## . 19 5 5 20 ERL X 13,509p00.00 25 ERM X 58030000.00 25 TEL X 25519404.38 25 PEL X 59572012.30 25 11 11 11

13 13 13 13 13

24 24 24 24 24

1



### 3 1 4 1 8 8 8 8 8

3 9 9 9 9 9

20 20 20 20 20

3 1

4 11 11 11 11 9 9 9

10 10 10 10 10

15 15 15 15 15

5 5 5 5 5

1 7 7 7 7

16 16 16 16 16

5 5 5 5

1 23 12

1

18 13 19 9 1

29 16 31 14 1

11 3 9 5 5

12 4 12 4 5

24 11 25 12 8

23 10 21

7 57 60 71

59 50 63 50 56

53 58 49 54 56

53 67 53 67 67

67 76 67 76 71

71 63 68 66 66

44 64 44 52 19 7

28 16 

### 31

9

23 14 23 11

40 20 33 27 27

33 19 33 19 19

39 20 39 22 17

40 24 36 12 38 52 71

31 34 31 41 56

30 44 26 44 56

13 47. 20 40 40

33 57 33 57 52

32 44 29 44 49

4 40

8 40 36 21

2

28 25 28 19 3

28 14 32 14 2

33 27

7 7

24 24

5

20 7 22

7 2

52 16 48 16 7 19 26

13 25

9 31 41

19 28 19 32 42

13 33 20- 27 27

10 24 10 24 24

10 29 10 27 32

4 20

8 32

### NUMCODE CHEMCODE 300 

### AL

301 

### SILVER 301 

### SILVER 301 

### SILVER 301 

### SILVER 301 

### SILVER 301 

### SILVER 302 

### ARSENIC 302 

### ARSENIC

302 

### ARSENIC 302 

### ARSENIC 302 

### ARSENIC

302 

### ARSENIC

302 

### ARSENIC

302 

### ARSENIC

302 

### ARSENIC

303 

### CADMIUM

303 

### CADMIUM TEST HA28



### CR14 CR14 HA14 

### HA14 HA28 

### HA28 

### CR14 CR14

CR14 HA14 HA14

HA14

HA28



### HA28

HA28



### CR14

CR14 APPENDIX 3A: 

### SUMXARY 

### OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 7



### SAMPTYP UNITS



### BT

BT PW BT PW BT PW BS 

### BT

PW BS BT

PW

BS

BT

PW

BS

BT NG/G

NG/G UG/L NG/G UG/L NG/G UG/L NG/G NG/G

UG/L NG/G NG/G

UG/L

NG/G

NG/G

UG/L

NG/G

NG/G SEC IN THRES USING ALL DATA # ti 6 

### TOTAL SEC C 

### CONC 

### N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT ' 

### NEC X 73160000.00 25 11 

### NERM X 48240000.00 25
. 

### NERH X 61155000.00 25
. 

### NR X NR X NR X NR X NR X NRX NR X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL X NEC i3 

### NERM X NERH X NR 

### X NR X ERL X 

### ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X 

### ERL ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL 

### X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH 

### X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NEW X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X 

### PEL ,X NEC 8 

### NERM X NERH 

### X ERL ERM 19 2 16 19 1



## . 16 

## .

. 19 2 16
. 19 1 32000.00 42 11 57000.00 42 11 21762.35 42 11 54022.22 42 11 404000.00 42 11

14800.00 42
. 51200.00 42 .' 35 3



## . 5' 

## . 12100.00 32 13 33000.00 32 13 11244.78 32 13 39466.44 32 13 92900.00 32 13 10450.00 32 

## . 47200.00 32 

## . 1.70 21 10 2.30 21 10 1.37 21 10 1.92 21 10 2.30 21 10 1.10 21
. 1.60 21 

## . 7400.00 20 8 24800.00 20 8

3331.67 20 8 16365.82 20 8 23800.00 20 8

1500.00 20 

## . 10800.00 20 

## . 13100.00 52 24 49600.00 52 24 10797.68 52 24 48385.12 52 24 102000.00 52 24

8900.00 52 

## . 47200.00 52 

## . 1.70 36 19 6.80 36 19 1.37 36 19 10.58 36 19 53.70 36 19

1.10 36
. 16.45 36
. 787.00 37 9 1405.00 37 9 514.99 37 9 1817.07 37 9 31300.00 37 9

337.00 37
. 2350.00 37
. 9100.00 42 11 11700.00 42 11 5

6 6 6 6 6

10 10 10 10 10

7 7 7 7 7

7 7 7 7 7

16 16 16 16 16

16 16 16 16 16

6 6 6 6 6

7 7 

### 1

20

7 22

8 1

19 10 20

9 2

8 5 10

5 5

9 4 10 5 5

27 11 32 11 2

22 12 24 10 4

17 12 21

9 1

7 5 52

60 71 55 69 71

69 66 66 63 59

71 67 62 67 67

75 80 80 75 75

63 63 62 63 54

69 58 64 58 53

62 59 57 62 73

86 81 17 7 17 7

34 19 34 16 3

29 19 29 19 19

30 20 35 20 20

31 15 35 15 2

42 22 42 19 8

16 8 19 5

14 10 52

43 64 38 62 71

34 47 31 41 56

43 33 48 48 4a

45 60 45 55 55

33 48 27 48 52

28 36 22 39 44

46 51 38 57 73

71 71 4

31 10 36 12 2

25 13 28 13 3

10 5 19 5 5

15 

### 15 5 5

21

6 27

6 2

19 11 25

8 3

30 24 38 19 3

2 2 44 

## .

10 19 10 19 26

6 22

6 25 38

19 29 19 29 29

10 20

5 

### 20 20

15 31 12 31 44

11 31 11 33 44

8 16 5 19 24

12 17APPENDIX 3A: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 4 SEC IN THRES USING ALL DATA

NUMCODE CHEMCODE 303 CADMIUM

303 CADMIUM

303 CADMIUM

303 CADMIUM

303 CADMIUM

303 CADMIUM

303 CADMIUM

303 CADMIUM TEST SAMPTYP UNITS CR14

CR14

n~i4

HA14

HA14

HA2 8

HA2 8

HA28

304 CHROMIUM-T CR14

304 CHROMIUM-T CR14

304 CHROMIUM-T CR14 8T

PW

BS

BT

PW

BS

BT

PW

BS

BT

PW NG/G

UG/L

NG/G

NG/G

UG/L

NG/G

NG~G

UG/L

NG/G

NG/G

UG/L SEC 

### C TEL 

### X PEL NEC NERM X NERH 

### X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NEW X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X 

### '- ERM X TEL X PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL PEL X NEC 

## x NERM 

## x NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NEW X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC 

## . NEW X NEW X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH 

### X ERL X ERM # # # TOTAL CONC N'TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 2893.44 42 11 6623.82 42 11 41100.00 42 11

920.00 42 

## . 3750.00 42 

## . 0.19 35 9 1.05 35 9 0.12 35 9 0.52 35 9 2.35 35 9 0.08 35 

## . 0.26 35
. 337.00 23 11 1068.00 23 11 237.23 23 11 774.74 23 11 899.00 23 11 167.00 23 

## . 562.00 23 

## . 700.00 32 13 5200.00 32 13 -591.61 32 13 3224.90 32 13 8000.00 32 13

500.00 32 

## . 2000:OO 32
. 0.10 21 10 0.92 21 10 0.09 21 10 0.43 21 10 0.20 21 10 0.08 21
. 0.20 21 

## . 562.00 38 19 1405.00 38 19 314..06 38 19 1494.64 38 19 3870.00 38 19

175.50 38 

## . 1590.00 38 

## . 700.00 62 24 3875.00 62 24

583.27 62 24 3246.54 62 24 8000.00 62 24 486.00 62
. 2720.00 62
. 0.19 36 19 1.05 36 19 0.12 36 19 0.46 36 19 0.36 36 19 0.08 36
. 0.20 36
. 3010.00 37 9 31665.50 37 9

2275.35 37 9 10265.61 37 9 14975.00 37 9 1720.00 37 

## . 3328.00 37
. 39300.00 42 11 363000.00 42 11

39796.86 42 11 159405.14 42 11 312000.00 42 11

40300.00 42
. 70000.00 42
. 0.40 35 9 18.80 35 9 7 7 7

6 6 6 6 6

10 10 10 10 10

11 11 11 11 11

6 6 6 6 6

16 16 16 16 16

18 18 18 18 18

10 10 10 10 10

6 6 6 6 6

8 8 8 8 8

6 6 16 9 2

15 5 16 7 3

12 5 12 7 6

19 7 19 8 6

10 3 10 4 8

21 12 23 11 3

35 12 35 14

8

15 5 16 7 8

12 3 17 6 6

25

4 24

7 6

31

3 69 81 74

66 77 63 83 77

78 74 78 74 70

81 75 81 78 72

62 67 62 71 52

74 66 74 63 53

66 71 66 74 71

56 61 58 67 64

81 84 68 86 86

62 83 60 86 83

26 83 17 14 2

17 9 17 14 6

39 22 39 26 22

41 19 41 22 16

29 14 29 19 19

39 24' 42 21

5

31 15 31 18 11

25 14 28 19 19

19 8 19 14 14

24 10 21 14 12

20

9 52 67 71

49 69 46 69 71

39 52 39 48 48

41 56 41 56 56

33 52 33 52 33

34 42 32 42 47

35 56 35 56 60

31 47 31 47 44

62 76 49 73 73

38 74 38 71 71

6 14 21 7 2

26

6 29

6 3

13 13 '4 4

19 3 19 3 3

19 19 19

16 8 18 8 3

26

5 26

5 2

17 17 3

14 27

3 3

36 36 2 2

69 10 12 24

9 17 9 11 20

9 26

9 22 26 

## .

22 19 25

19 33 19 29 29

11 26

8 29 45 \

8 24

8 21 27

28 39 25 33 33

5 16 5 11 11

2 17 5 12 14

6 17

### NUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST 304 

### CHROMIUM-T CR14 

# .:

304 

### CHROMIUM-T HA14

304 

### CHROMIUM-T HA14

304 

### CHROMIUM-T HA14

' 304 

### CHROMIUM-T HA28

304 

### CHROMIUM-T HA28

304 

### CHROMIUM-T HA28

305 

### COPPER 305 

### COPPER

305 

### COPPER

305 

### COPPER 305 

### COPPER CR14 CR14

CR14

HA14 HA14 

### APPENDIX 3A: 

### SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 5 

### SEC IN THRES USING ALL DATA


### SAMPTYP UNITS

PW

BS

BT

Pw

BS



### BT

PW

BS BT

PW

BS BT UGIL

NG/G

NG/G

UG/L

NG/G

NGIG

UGIU

NGIG NG/G

UG/L

1



### NG/G NG/G SEC C TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM 

### X TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NEW X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC 

## x NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X NR X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC @ 

### NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X NR X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X # #I # 

### TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT 

### HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 0.47 35 9 3.88 35 9 2.50 35 9 0.55 35
. 0.80 35 

## . 14975.00 23 11 22254.00 23 1'1

4499.58 23 11 6059.63 23 11 2184.00 23 11 1352.00 23 

## . 1650.00 23 

## . 56000.00 32 13 293000.00 32 13

47916.59 32 13 130921.73 32 13 95000.00 32 13 41000.00 32
. 58500.00 32
. 2.46 21 10 13.20 21 10

1.28 21 10 3.45 21 10 2.50 21 10 0.67 21
. 0.90 21 

## . 1820.00 38 19 3328.00 38 19 1732.92 38 19 3052.61 38 19 4450.00 38 19 1650.00 38
. 2800.00 38
. 38500.00 62 24 274000.00 62 24

36286.36 62 24 119364.99 62 24 95000.00 62 24 34200.00 62 

## . 52000.00 62
. 0.80 36 19 7.85 36 19 0.62 36 19 2.33 36 19 2.50 36 19 0.48 36
. 0.69 36 

## .

. 30 4 96500.00 42 11 206500.00 42 11

67453,50 42 11 291327.14 42 11 7820000.00 42 11

47150.00 42 

## . 411000.00 42
. 5.30 35 9 20.60 35 9

4.98 35 9 17.64 35 9 102.00 35 9

4.68 35
. 15.10 35
.

, 23 3 6 6 6

7 7 7 7 7

12 12 12 12 12

7 7 7 7 7

15 15 15 15 15

13 13 13 13 13

8 8 8 8 8

8 8 8 8 8

6 6 6 6 6

41300.00 32 13, 12 122250.00 32 13 12 28012.50 32 13 12 77711.97 32 13 12 54800.00 32 13 12 19000.00 32
. 21 4 6

6 4 6 6 8

15 6 20

7 9

7 4 8 4 6

21 10 21 10 8

31

7 31

7 9

10 4 19 7 6

18 13 18 10

1

16

6 16

8 2

15 6 '16

7 9 49 86 80

78 70 78 78 78

81 78 66 81 81

76 71 71 71 71

68 66 68 66 66

60 73 60 73 73

58 58 39 61 58

64 62 64 60 71

63 74 63 80 74

81 78 84 81 81 17 11 11

2% 17 26 26 30

34 19 34 22 25


### ' 29 19 29 19 24

37 21 37 21 18

24

, 11

24 11 13

19 11 17 14 I 22

17 10 17 5

17 9 17 14 3

34 19 38 22 25 31 74 68

52 52 52 52 48

47 59 31 59 56

48 52 43 52 48

32 45 32 45 47

35 61 35 61 60

39 47 17 44 44

48 52 48 55 71

46 66 46 66 71

47 59 47 59 56 43 6

4

13 28



# i

5 10

5

18

5 18

5 3

26 26

2

8 31

3 3

26 21 26 19 2

29

9 29

9 3

13 13 3 9 14 14

22 30 22 22 17

6 22

6 19 16

19 29 19 

## . 29 24

13 29 13 29 32

15 27 15 27 26

33 42 31 36 39

10 17 10 21 26

9 17 9 11 23

6 22

3 19 16APPENDIX 3A: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 6 SEC IN THRES USING ALL.DATA
NUMCODE CHEMCODE 305 COPPER 305 COPPER

305 COPPER

305 'COPPER

305 COPPER

306 IRON

306 IRON 306 IRON

306 IRON 306 IRON

306 IRON

307 MERCURY 307 MERCURY 307 MERCURY 307 MERCURY 307 MERCURY TEST SAMPTYP UNITS HA14 HA14

HA28

HA2 8

HA28

CR14

.CR14 HA14

HA14 HA28

HA2 8

CR14 CR14 HA14 HA14 HA2 8 BT PW

BS

BT

PW

BS

BT BS

BT BS

BT

BT PW BT PW BT NG/G UGIL

NG/G

NGIG

UG/L

%

% %

% %

%

NGIG UGIL NG/G UGIL NGIG SEC C NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL
. NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X

I NERM X

NERH X ERL ERM X TEL PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC X NERM X ~NERH 

### x NRX ERL ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM 

### x NERH X NR .X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X NR X NR X NR X NR X NR X # # # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 49400.00 32
. 5.30 21 10 19.80 21 10 3.89 21 10 9.63 21 10 4.68 21 10 2.85 21
. 4.68 21 

## . 16965.00 38 19 209000.00 38 19

9248.65 38 19 50079.94 38 19 325000.00 38 19

5042.00 38
. 12000.00 38 

## . 41300.00 52 24 187000.00 52 24 28012.50 52 24 101230.43 52 24 583000.00 52 24

19000.00 52 

## . 54800.00 52 

## . 5.30 36 19 19.80 36 19 4.43 36 19 13.16 36 19 35.60 36 19

3.70 36 

## . 8.75 36 

## . 5.31 31 9 8.49 31 9 3.81 31 9 7.04 31 9 18.47 31 9 2.74 31
. 5.84 31
. 31 3 3.57 17 10 5.81 17 10 2.19 17 10 3.99 17 10 2.74 17 10 1.34 17 

## . ' 2.74 17
.

. 17 2 5.19 32 19 7.15 32 19 3.77 32 19 5.71 32 19 7.31 32 19 2.74 32 

## . 4.56 32 

## . 19.70 37 22 28.00 37 22 18.84 37 22 24.76 37 22 28.99 37 22 18.02 37 

## . 21.89 37 

## . 19 1 16 2



## . 19 1



## . 16 1

. 19 3 5 5 5 5 5

10 10 10 10 10

21 21 

# ;



# :. 21

11 11 11 11 11

5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5

8 8 8- 8 8

7 7 7 7 7 5 3 10 4 10

13 7 22 11 4

26 14 29 17 3

16 7 22 11 5

9 4 12

5 1

5 3 10 4 10

10 5 12

8 5

14

5 14

6 3 76 67 52 71 52

63 58 50 58 55

73 69 71 71 56

64 61 47 67 56

74 77 65 74 68

71 59 41 65 41

53 50 59 47 50

57 49 57 46 43 24 14 24 19 24

24 13 29 18 8

35 21 37 25

4

31 17 31 25 11

16 10 16 10

29 18 29 24 29

22 13 28 16 13

27 11 27 11 5 52 52 29 52 29

39 45 21 39 47

38 48 35 46 52

33 44 17 42 44

58 68 48 65 68

41 41 12 41 12

31 38 31 31 38

30 38 30 35 38 24 24

11 5 29 11 3

15

6 19

8 2

14 3 31

6 3

13 3 23

6 3

29 29

9 3 9 9. 3

11 3 11 5 3 24 33 24 29 24

26 31 21 32 42

12 25 10 21 42

22 36 22 28 42

13 19 13 19 29

29 41 29 35 29

38 47 31 44 47

32 49 32 49 54APPENDIX 3A: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 7

NUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST 307 MERCURY HA28 

# *:

- 308 MANGANESE CR14 308 MANGANESE CR14

308 MANGANESE 308 MANGANESE

308 MANGANESE 308 MANGANESE



# , 309 NICKEL

309 NICKEL

309 NICKEL

309 NICKEL

309 NICKEL

309 NICKEL HA14 HA14

HA28 HA28

CR14

CR14

CR14

HA14

HA14

HA14 SAMPTYP UNITS PW BS BT

BS BT



### BS BT

BS

BT

EJW

BS

BT

PW UG/L NG/G NG/G

NG/G NG/G

NG/G NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

UG/L

NG/G

NG/G

UG/L SEC IN THRES USING ALL DATA \ # # ti TOTAL ' SEC C CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT NR 

### X 16 3 NR 

### X 

## . 37 1

NERM X NERH 

### X NRX ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X NR 

### X ERL 

### X ERM X TEL.

### X PEL 

### X NEC 

### X NERM 

### X NERH X ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC NEW X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NEW 

### X NERH 

### X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC 

### X NERM 

### X NERH 

### X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH 

### X ERL ERM X TEL 

### X PEL 

### X NEC 

### X NERM 

### X NERH 

### X 

### ERL 1673000.00 38 9 ERM 2410000.00 38 9 TEL 1079077.38 38 9 PEL 1538382.27 38 9 NEC @ 4460000.00 38 9 696000.00 38 

## . 982000.00 38 

## . 23 

## . 726000.00 24 11 1678000.00 24 11 614721.89 24 11 1080688.67 24 11 819000.00 24 11 520500.00 24 

## . 696000.00 24 

## .

. 38 4 726000.00 44 22 1673000.00 44 22 631327.17 44 22 1184756.09 44 22 4460000.00 44 22 549000.00 44 

## . 839000.00 44 

## .

4873.00 37 9 7010.00 37 9 4038.86 37 9 5419.58 37 9 8160.00 37 9 3347.50 37 

## . 4190.00 37 

## . 40000.00 42 11 47500.00 42 11 26608.27 42 11 38681.39 42 11 57000.00 42 11 17700.00 42
. 31500.00 42
. 5.80 35 9 10.40 35 9 4.82 35 9 7.14 35 9 20.30 35 9

4.00 35 

## . 4.90 35 

## . 4873.00 23 11 6693.00 23 11 2829.98 23 11 5282.97 23 11 4170.00 23 11 1643.50 23
. 4170.00 23 

## . 39600.00 32 13 47500.00 32 13 27717.14 32 13 38496.75 32 13 37900.00 32 13 19400.00 32 

## . 31200.0032 

## . 5.80 21 10 10.40 21 10

4.82 21 10 6.99 21 10 4.90 21 10 4.00 21 

## . 4.70 21 

## . 5 

### 5 5 5 5

8 8 8 8 8

11 11 11 11 11

5 5 5 5 5

10 10 10 10 10

5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5

12 12 12 12 12

5 5 5 5 5 8 5 9 8 1

9 4 15

5 6

18

8 26

9 1

8 4 18 6 

### 3

10 6 17 11

4

7 4 10

4 3



### .. 5 3 11

4 10

11 6 17 11 12

5 3 7 

### 3 7 82 79 79 82 74

83 71 67 75 71

68 59 59 61 48

81 81 54 81 78

93 83 76 90 79

83 80 74 80 77

74 65 57 70. 52

94 78 81 94 91

76 67 67 67 61 13 8 13 13

33 17 38 21 21

30 14 34 16

14

8 14 11



### 5

21 12 21 21

7

14

9 14

9 6

22 13 26 17 22

34 19 38 34 34

24 14 24 14 24 68 71 66 68 74

50 54 29 54 50

39 45 25 45 48

68 73 41 70 73

71 71 55 69 71

69 71 60 71 71

52 52 30 52 30

59 59 44 59 56

52 52 43 52 43 8 5 11

8 3

4 25

4

11

5 25

5 2

8 3 5 3 35

2 2 19

5 2

6 3 14

3 

### 3

22 22

16 

# i

10 10 11 16 11 11 24

13 29

20 36 16 34 50

11 16 11 14 19

5 14 5 

### 5 19



# , 11 17 11 17 20

26 35

6 22 3 6 6

24 33 24 33 24

### NUMCODE CHEMCODE 309 

### NICKEL

309 

### NICKEL

309 

### NICKEL

310 

### LEAD

310 

### LEAD

310 

### LEAD

310 

### LEAD

310 

### LEAD

310 

### LEAD

310 

### LEAD 'TEST HA28



### HA28



### HA28



### cRi4

cRi4

cRia



### HA14

HA14

HA14



### HA28 

### BS

BT

PW

BS

BT

PW

BS



### BT

PW

BS NG/G

NG/G

UG/L

NGIG

NG/G

UG/L

NG/G

NG/G

UG/L

NG/G APPENDIX 3A



### SAMPTYP UNITS SUMMARY OF 

### SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT SEC IN THRES USING ALL DATA 8



### SEC C ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X 

### ERL X 

### ERM TEL X PEL NEC @ 

### NERM X 

### NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NEW X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL NEC X NEW X NERH X ERL ERM TEL 

# . PEL NEC NERM 

### X NERH 

### X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NEW X NERH X ERL ERM X 

### TEL PEL NEC 

### X NERM X 

### NERH 

### X # # # 

### TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 6517.00 38 19 7010.00 38 19 4630.44 38 19 5406.63 38 19 5230.00 38 19 3290.00 38 

## . 4170.00 38 

## . 23800.00 62 24 44700.00 62 24 19514.10 62 24 32821.79 62 24 43000.00 62 24 16000.00 62 

## . 24100.00 62 

## . 5.80 36 19 10.40 36 19

4.82 36 19 6.99 36 19 6.10 36 19 4.00 36 

## . 4.70 36 

## . 10360.00 37 9 81115.00 37 9 11009.63 37 9 62786.85 37 9 569000.00 37 9

11700.00 37 

## . 48600.00 37 

## . 99000.00 42 11 396000.00 42 11

69649.12 42 11 191803.02 42 11 679000.00 42 11

49000.00 42 

## . 92900.00 42 

## . 0.90 35 9 62.85 35 9

0.60 35 9 14.83 35 9

5.70 35 9 0.40 35 

## . 3.50 35 

## . 13882.00 23 11 59878.00 23 11 10658.81 23 11 26468.33 23 11 11700.00 23 11

8184.00 23 

## . 11700.00 23
. 51000.00 32 13 251000.00 32 13 34174.55 32 13 117494.68 32 13

68700.00 32 13 22900.00 32 

## . 55000.00 32 

## . 0.70 21 10 5.50 21 10 0.70 21 10 4.39 21 10 4.10 21 10 0.70 21 

## . 3.50 21 

## . 32000.00 38 19 55000.00 38 19 17079.58 38 19 32664.97 38 19 62400.00 38 19

9116.00 38 

## . 19400.00 38
. 7 7 7 7 7

14 14 14 14 14

7 7 7 7 7

6 6 6 6 6

7 7 7 7 7

6 6 6 6 6

7 7 7 7 7

11 11 11 11 11

10 10 10 10 10

13 13 13 13 13 6 4 8 6 7

20

7 24 14

9

7 4 10

4 5

24

4 23

4 1

10

5 18

7 3 

### \. 14

3 19

4 5

6 4 11

5 11

14

6 16

6 10

16

5 16

6 7

15

8 16 14

5 66 61 66 66 63

68 73 65 74 73

61 58 58 58 56

49 81 46 81 73

83 81 74 81 76

74 83 71 86 83

78 70 57 74 57

78 78 84 78 84

71 76 71 81 76

74 66 71 71 58 16 11 18 16 16

19 11 21 18 13

17 11 19 11 11

19

8 16

8

17 10 21 12

5

20

9 26 11 11

26 17 26 22 26

31 19 38 19 28

48 24 48 29 29

32 18 32 29 11 50 50 47 50 47

48 61 44 56 60

44 47 39 47 44

30 73 30 73 13

67 71 52 69 71

54 74 46 74 71

52 52 30 52 30

47 59 47 59 56

24 52 24 52 48

42 47 39 42 47 3 

# 3

13 18

5 2

3 

# 8 3

46

3 46 3 3

7 2 21 5 2

20 29

3

22 22

13 13

3

29 29

5

8 3 11

8 3 34 39 32 34 34

19 27 18 21 26

36 42 33 42 42

5 16

8 16 24

10 17

5 14 21

6 17 14 14

22 30 22 26 22

9 22

3 22 13

24 19 19

18 32 18 21 39
.~APPENDIX 3A: SUMMARY OF SECS NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT SEC IN THRES USING ALL DATA I 9

NUMCODE CHEMCODE 310 LEAD 

# a,

310 LEAD

311 SELENIUM 311 SELENIUM 311 SELENIUM 312 ZINC

312 ZINC

312 ZINC

312 ZINC

312 ZINC

312 ZINC

312 ZINC

312 ZINC TEST HA28

HA28

CR14 HA14 HA28 CR14

CR14

CR14

HA14

HA14

HA14

HA28

HA28 SAMPTYP UNITS BT

PW

BT BT BT BS

BT

PW

BS

BT

PW

BS

BT NG!G

UGIL

NG/G NG/G NGIG NG/G

NG/G

UG/L

NG/G

NGIG

UGIL

NGIG

NGIG SEC C ERL ERM TEL, PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X NR X 

## mx mx ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC @ NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X # #I #I TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 55000.00 62 24 98700.00 62 24 37229.02 62 24 81743.44 62 24 127000.00 62 24 25200.00 62
. 67700.00 62
. 0.70 36 19 0.90 36 19 0.46 36 19 1.77 36 19 4'.10 36 19 0.30 36 

## . 3.50 36 

## .

. 19 

## .

. 19 

## .

. 19 2 12747.00 37 9 107991.50 37 9

13358.82 37 9 270987.49 37 9 8873000.00 37 9

14000.00 37 

## . 680000.00 37 

## . 381000.00 42 11 2750000.00 42 11

280832.69 42 11
NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC @ NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL. ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NEW X NERH X ERL X 

### ERM PEL 1532481.65 42 11 NEC @ 10090000.00 42 11 207000.00 42 

# . 854000.00 42 

## . 6.30 35 9 55.20 35 9

4.96 35 9 52.90 35 9 2630.00 35 9 3.90 35 

## . 50.70 35 

## . 12747.00 23 11 84066.00 23 11 11901.99 23 11 34306.33 23 11 17388.00 23 11 11113.00 23 

## . 14000.00 23 

## . 159000.00 32 13 422000.00 32 13

94150.15 32 13 384042.97 32 13 541000.00 32 13

55750.00 32 

## . 349500.00 32
. 6.30 21 10 49.60 21 10

3.37 21 10 13.91 21 10 10.70 21 10

1.80 21 

## . 3.90 21 

## . 65893.00 38 19 408000.00 38 19

30372.72 38 19 346340.87 38 19 1064000.00 38 19

14000.00 38 

## . 294000.00 38 

## . 113000.00 62 24 547000.00 62 24 19 19 19 19 19

15 15 15 15 15

6 6 6 6 6

8 8 8 8 8

6 6 6 6 6

6 6 6 6 6

12 12 12 12 12

5 5 5 5 5

11 11 11 11 11

20 20 26 12 32 18 8

19 14 19 10 7

26 13 25 12

1

18 5 23

6 1

19 7 19 7 1

12 3 13 4 6

17 7 20

7 6

6 3 11 4 5

15 10 15 10 3

37 16 74 74 71 77 71

67 58 67 53 61

38 57 35 54 73

64 81 57 83 71

54 71 54 71 71

52 65 48 70 70

81 75 78 75 72

71 67 48 71 67

68 61 68 61 53

63 14 27 16 31 23 11

36 25 36 17 17

16 8 14 5

17 10 19 12

17 9 17 9

26 13 26 17 22

38 19 41 19 16

24 14 24 19 19

29 18 29 18 .5

31 19 47 58 40 55 60

31 33 31 36 44

22 49 22 49 73

48 71 38 71 71

37 63 37 63 71

26 52 22 52 48

44 56 38 56 56

48 52 24 52 48

39 42 39 42 47

32 55 15 3 21

6 2

17 14 17 11 3

54' 27 54 27

3

26

2 36

2 2

37 11 37 11 3

26 30

4

16 3 22

3 3

5 29

5

11 8 11 8 3

29

6 11 23

8 .16 27

17 28 17 36 36

8 16 11 19 24

10 17 7 14 26

9 17 9 17 26

22 35 22 30 26

3 22 22 25

24 33 24 29 29

21 32 21 32 45

8 19 'I\ APPENDIX 3A: SUMMARY OF SECS NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT SEC IN THRES USING ALL DATA 10
# # # TOTAL NUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST SAMPTYP UNITS SEC C CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOWOT 312 ZINC HA28 BT NG/G TEL X 98091.54 62 24 20 , 39 63 32 31 31 6 6 19 2. 29 PEL 543991.73 62 24 20 16 74 19 55 NEC X 1300000.00 62 24 20
. 7 69 10 

### 60 NERM X 85150.00 62
. NERH X
, 541000.00 62 

## . \ 

### - 

# e:

312 ZINC HA28 PW UG/L ERL X 19.00 36 19 8 14 64 28 36 11 25 6 42 ERM X 121.90 

### 36 19 8 6 53 ' 11 42 TEL X 

### 8.61 36 19 8 18 64 33 31 17 19 PEL X 59.66 36 19 8 

### 7 56 14 42 6 39 NEC X 166.00 36 19 

### 8 5 56 11 44 3 42 NERM 

### X 3.90 36 

## . NERH X 29.20 36
. 313 METHYL-HG CR14 BT NG/G NR X 

## . 12 

## . 313 METHYL-HG HA14 BT NG/G NR 

### X 

## -. 12 

## . 313 METHYL-HG 314 TBT 314 TBT 314 TBT 315 DBT 315 DBT 315 DBT 316 MBT 316 MET 316 MBT 399 SEMAVS 399 SEMAVS 399 SEMAVS HA28 CRlh HA14 HA28 CR14 HA14 HA28 CR14 HA14 HA28 CR14 HA14 HA28 BT NG/G BT NG/G BT NG/G BT NG/G BT NG/G BT NG/G BT NG/G BT NG/G BT NG/G BT NG/G BS BS BS NR 

### X NRX NRX NRX NR X NR X NRX NR X' NRX NRX NR X NRX NR 

### X .12 1 

## . .12 1 

## .

. 12 .12 3 

## .

. 12 

## .

. 12 .12 2
. .12 

### 1 

## . .12 1 

## .

. 12 3 .314 

## .

. 18 

## . .314
. 401 14-2CLBNZ CR14 BT NG/G NR X 

## . 19 2 

## . 401 14-2CLBNZ HA14 BT NG/G 

### NR X 

## . 19 

### 1 

## . 401 14-2CLBNZ HA28 BT NG/G NR 

### X 

## . 19 3 

## . 402 12-2CLBNZ CR14 402 12-2CLBNZ HA14 402 12-2CLBNZ HA28 403 13-2CLBNZ CR14 403 13-2CLBNZ HA14 403 13-2CLBNZ HA28 404 NAPHTHALENE CR14

404 NAPHTHALENE HA14 BT BT BT BT ET BT BT

BT NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G

NG/G NR X 

## . 7. NRX 

## . 7. NR X 

# . 7. NR X 

## . 7. NR X 

## . 7. NR X 

## . 7. ERL 55.00 42 11 8 18 79 24 55 19 2 ERM 1890.00 42 11 8 5 81 10 71 2 17 TEL 34.39 42 11 8 21 76 26 PEL 687.39 42 11 8 5 81 10 71 2 17 NEC @ 20000.00 42 11 8 1 71 71 2 26 NERM X 21.50 42 , NERH X 250.00 42 

## . ERL 55.00 32 13 12 18 78 38 41 19 3 ERM 325.00 32 13 12 6 78 19 59 22 TEL 32.75 32 13 12 20 78 PEL 285.04 32 

### 13 12 7 75 19 56 

### 3 22 NEC 290.00 32 13 12 7 75 19 56 3 22 NERM X 19.50 32
. NERH X 250.00 32 

## . ERL X 13.00 62 24 18 46 55 34 21 40 .5 15 24 ERM X 97.50 62 24 18 18 61 15 47 50 24

41 38 ' 22

404 NAPHTHALENE HA28 BT NG/GAPPENDIX 3A: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT SEC IN THRES USING ALL DATA 11



### NUMCODE CHEMCODE 

### TEST SAMPTYP 

### UNITS 404 NAPHTHALENE HA28

405 2-METHNAP CR14 405 2-METHNAP HA14 405 2-METHNAP HA28 406 ACENA CR14 406 ACENA HA14 406 ACENA HA28 407 DIBNZFURAN CR14 407 DIBNZFURAN HA14 407 DIBNZFURAN HA28 408 FLUORENE CR14

408 FLUORENE HA14

408 FLUORENE HA28

409 PHENANTHRN CR14

409 PHENANTHRN HA14

409 PHENANTHRN HA28

410 ANTHRACENE CR14 BT

BT 

### BT BT BT BT 

### BT BT BT BT BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT NG/G

NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G SEC 

### C TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM 

### X NERH X NR 

### X NR X NRX NR X NRX NRX NRX NRX NR X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEI; PEL NEC NERM 

## x NERH .X ERL X ERM 

### X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM 

### X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH 

### X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM 

### X NERH X # # # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 

### ’ 14.65 62 24 139.64 62 24 1400.00 62 24

16.50 62 

## . 200.00 62
. 19 

### 1 19 

### 1 19 

### 3 23 2



## . 13 2



## . 38 3 19 1



## . ’ 19 1



## . 19 3 88.00 42 11 1700.00 42 11

29.66 42 11 651.92 42 11 1800.00 42 11

10.00 42 

## . 250.00 42
.

50.00 32 13 595.00 32 13

34.64 32 13 385.68 32 13 290.00 32 13

24.00 32
. 250.00 32 

## .

10.00 62 24 140.00 62 24 

### 10.00 62 24 149.67 62 24 

### !OOO.OO 62 24

10.00 62
. 160.00 62. 

## . 350.00 42 11 2250.00 42 11

95.39 42 11 1142.37 42 11 6100.00 42 11

26.00 42
. 580.00 42 

## . 390.00 32 13 1100.00 32 13

197.48 32 13 777.82 32 13 1000.00 32 13

100.00 32 

## . 550.00 32 

## . 27.00 62 24 345.00 62 24 18.73 62 24 409.05 62 24 20000.00 62 24 13.00 62 

## . 485.00 62
. 140.00 42 11 1250.00 42 11

37.42 42 11 547.72 42 11

10.00 42
. 240.00 42 

## . 1700.00 42 11,- 8 18 18 18

7 7 7 7 7

12 12 12 12 12

15 15 15 15 15

8 8 8 8 8

13 13 13 13 13

22 22 22 22 22

8 8 8 8 43 17 6

,.

16

5 20 6 4

19 6 21

7 8

58 16 58 15

3

17 5 21 6 4

17

7 21

8 8

36 19 38 17 2

16 

### 5 20 6 4 56 63 68

74 81 14 83 79

75 78 75 81 78

42 61 42 60 63

81 81 71 83 79

81 81 75 78 78

65 66 68 63 61

74 81 74 83 79

. 

## .. 32 15

8

19 10 24 12

7

38 19 41 22 22

37 13 37 11 3

24 10 24 12 7

38 22 41 22 22

31 18 34 15

2

19 10 24 12 7 24 48 

### 60

55 71 50 71 71

38 59 34 59 56



### 5 48 5 .4

8 60

57 71 48 71 71

44 59 34 56 56

34 48 34 48 60



### 55 71 50 71 71 37 13

2

19

2 24

2 2

22 25

3

56 13 56 13

2

17

2 26

2 2

16 25

3 3

27 13 27 13

2

19

2 24 2 2 6 24 31



# ..

7 17

2 14 19

3 22 19 19

2 26

2 27 35

2 17 2 14 19

3 19 

## is 19

8 21

5 24 37

7 17

2 14 19APPENDIX 3A: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 12 SEC IN THRES USING ALL DATA
NUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST 410 ANTHRACENE HA14 

# a

410 ANTHRACENE HA28

411 FLUORANTHN CR14

411 FLUORANTHN HA14

411 FLUORANTHN HA28

412 PYRENE 

# ai

412 PYRENE

412 PYRENE

413 BAA

413 BAA CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14

HA14 SAMPTYP UNITS BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G SEC C ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERE X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC 

## x NERM X NEKH X ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X # # # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT..CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 100.00 32 13 670.00 32 13

31.62 32 13 409.27 32 13 290.00 32 13

10.00 32 

## . 250.00 32 

## .

10.00 62 24 140.00 62 24

10.00 62 24 167.33 62 24 2000.00 62 24

10.00 62 

## . 200.00 62 

## . 110.00 42 11 2900.00 42 11

64.23 42 11 1484.59 42 11 7500.00 42 11

37.50 42
. 760.00 42
. 160.00 32 13 1200.00 32 13

144.22 32' 13 834.27 32 13 1200.00 32 13

130.00 32 

## . 580.00 32 

## .

33.00 62 24 175.00 62 24 31.46 62 24 318.59 62 24 10000.00 62 24 30.00 62 

## . 580.00 62
. 

## . 120.00. 42 11 3225.00 42 11

67.53 42 11 1684.64 42 11 6100.00 42 11

38.00 42
. 880.00 42 

## . 570.00 32 13 1100.00 32 13 231.47 32 13 908.30 32 13 1800.00 32 13

94.00 32 

## . 750.00 32 

## .

40.00 62 24 347.50 62 24 44.27 62 24 493.20 62 24 9000.00 62 24

49.00 62
. 700.00 62 

## . '300.00 42 11 4200.00 42 11

75.50 42 11 1194.99 42 11 3500.00 42 11

19.00 42
. 340.00 42 

## . 260.00 32 13 490.00 32 13 103.25 32 13 363.73 32 13 690.00 32 13

41.00 32
. 270.00 32 

## . 12 12 12 12 12

17 17 17 17 17

8 8 8 8 8

13 13 13 13 13

20 20 20 20 20

8 8 8 8 8

13 13 13 13 13

22 22 22 22 22

7 7 7 7 7

13 13 13 13 13 18 6 20

6 7

56 18 56 15 4

23

5 24

6 4

21

8 21 10 8

37 '-24

37 21

3

22

5 23

7 4

17 8 20 10 7

39 22 36 21

4

13 4 21

5 5

15

8 20 10

6 78 78 78 78 75

45 61 45 63 65

67 81 69 83 79

69 78 69 84 78

56 55 56 56 63

69 81 67 81 79

81 78 72 78 75

60 61 55 63 65

81 83 67 81 81

88 78 72 78 72 38 19 41 19 19

37
' 15

37 13 5

24 10 26 12 7

38 22 38 28 22

27 16 27 15 3

24 10 24 12 7

38 22 38 25 19

31 18 26 18 5

19 10 21 10 10

38 22 38 25 16 41 59 38 59 56

8 47

8 50 60

43 71 43 71 71

31 56 31 56 56

29 39 29 42 60

45 71 43 69 71

44 56 34 53 56

29 44 29 45 60

62 74 45 71 71

50 56 34 53 56 19 22

3

53 

### 1s 53 11 2

31

2 31

2 2

28

3 28

3 3

32 23 32 19 2

29

2 31

5 2

16

3 25

6 3

32 18 32 16 2

12 29

2 2

9 3 25

6 3 3 22 22 22

2 24

2 26 34

2 17 14 19

3 19 3 13 19

11 23 11 24 35

2 17 2 14 19

3 19 3 16 22

8 21 13 21 34

7 17 5 17 17

3 19 3 16 25

### APPENDIX 3A: SUMMARY 

### OF SECS NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 13 

### SEC IN THRES USING ALL DATA

NUMCODE CHEMCODE 413 

### BAA

414 

### CHRYSENE

414 

### CHRYSENE

414 

### CHRYSENE

415 

### BBF 415 

### BBF 415 

### BBF 416 

### BKF 416 

### BKF 416 

### BKF 417 

### BAP

417 

### BAP

417 

### BAP

418 

### ICDP

418 ICDP 

### TEST HA28

CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14 HA14 HA28 CR14 HA14 HA28 CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14

HA14 

### SAMPTYP UNITS BT

BT

BT

BT

BT BT BT BT BT BT 

### BT

BT

BT

BT

BT NGIG

NG/G

NGIG

NG/G

NGIG NGIG NGIG NG/G NGIG NGIG NGIG

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G SEC C ERL X ERM X TEL 

### X PEL X NEC X NERM 

### X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM 

### X NEW 

### X ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NEW 

## x NRX NR 

### X NRX NRX 

## mx NRX ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL 

### X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH 

### X ERL X ERM TEL X 

### PEL # # II 

### TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 19.00 62 24 300.00 62 24

15.72 62 24 284.60 62 24 3000.00 62 24

13.00 62 

## . 270.00 62 

## . 500.00 42 11 5200.00 42 11

122.47 42 11 1512.61 42 11 4000.00 42 11

30.00 42 

## . 440.00 42 

## . 330.00 32 13 690.00 32 13 135.94 32 13 551.00 32 13 600.00 32 13

56.00 32 

## . 440.00 32 

## .

30.00 62 24 500.00 62 24

26.83 62 24 406.20 62 24 3000.00 62 24

24.00 62
. 330.00 62 

## .

. 19 1



## . 19 1



## . 19 4



## . 19 1



## . 19 1



## . 19 4 210.00 42 11 8500.00 42 11

51.23 42 11 1724.82 42 11 5800.00 42 11

12.50 42 

## . 350.00 42 

## . 350.00 32 13 620.00 32 13 119.79 32 13 393.70 32 13 440.00 32 13

41.00 32 

## . 250.00 32 

## .

84.00 62 24 465.00 62 24

32.40 62 24 319.84 62 24 1000.00 62 24

12.50 62 

## . 220.00 62 

## .

30.00 42 11 2800.00 42 11

17.32 42 11 836.66 42 11 3800.00 42 11

10.00 42 

## . 250.00 42
.

78.00 32 13 410.00 32 13

86.53 32 13 326.50 32 13 19 19 19 19 19

7 7 7 7 7

13 13 13 13 13

17 17 17 17 17

6 6 6 6 6

11 11 11 11 11

14 14 14 14 14

8 8 8 8 8

12 12 12 12 38 16 39 16 6

10 4 19



### 5 5

16

7 21

9 9

36 11 38 16 6

18

3 20

5 5

11

6 19 10 10

25

8 31 12

6

23

5 23



### 5 5

21

6 20

6 55 68 56 68 68

88 83 71 81 81

84 81 69 81 81

52 73 52 68 68

74 81 69 81 81

88 78 75 84 84

60 71 53 71 68

67 81 67 81 81

69 78 66 78 27 16 29 16

8

19 10 21 10 10

38 22 38 25 25

24 15 26 16

8

21

7 21 10 10



### .,
31 19 38 28 28

19 11 21 15

8

24 10 24 10 10

38 19 34 19 27 52 27 52 60

69 74 50 71 71

47 59 31 56 

### 56

27 58 26 52 60

52 74 48 71 71

56 59 38 56 56

40 60 32 56 60

43 71 43 71 71

31 59 31 59 34 10 34 10 2

5 24

2 2

13 28

3 3

34

3 35 10

2

21 26

2 2

3 22

3 3

21

2 29

5 2

31

2 31 2 2

28 28 11 23 10 23 31



### .. 7 17



### 5 17 17

3 19 3 16 16

15 24 13 23 31

5 19

5 17 17

9 22

3 13 13

19 27 18 24 31

2 17

2 17 17

3 22

6 22APPENDIX 3A: SUMMARY OF SECS NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT SEC IN THRES USING ALL DATA 14

NUMCODE CHEMCODE 418 ICDP

418 ICDP

419 BGHIP

419 BGHIP

419 BGHIP

420 BBKF 420 BBKF 420 BBKF TEST SAMPTYP UNITS HA14

'HA2 

### 8

CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14 HA14 HA28

421 ACENAPTYLE CR14 421 ACENAPTYLE HA14 421 ACENAPTYLE HA28 422 DBA CR14 422 DBA HA14 422 DBA HA2

### 8

423 4-METHNAP CR14 423 4-METHNAP HA14 423 4-METHNAP HA28 450 PAH-T CR14 BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT BT BT

BT BT BT BT BT BT

BT 

### ET BT BT NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G NG/G NG/G

NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G

NG/G .NG/G NG/G NG/G SEC C NEC NERM X NERH X ERL 

### X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC ,NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X NRX NRX ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC 

## x NERM X NERH 

## x NRX NRX NR X NR X NRX ERL X ERM X TEL, X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X NRX NR 

### X NR X ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH 

### X # # # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 290.00 32 13

96.00 32 

## . 260.00 32 

## .

30.00.57 21 250.00 57 .21

17.32 57 21 239.79 57 21 770.00 57 21

10.00 57 

## . 230.00 57 

## . 290.00 42 11 6300.00 42 

### 11

74.23 42 11 1279.84 42 

### 11 3800.00 42 11

19.00 42
. 260.00 42 

## .

91.00 32 13 460.00 32 13

89.49 32 13 349.14 32 13 310.00 32 13

88.00 32 

## . 265.00 32 

## .

13.00 62 24 275.00 62 24

15.51 62 24 251.50 62 24 1200.00 62 24

18.50 62 

## . 230.00 62 

## .

. 23 2



## . 13 1 37.00 43 13 71.00 43 13 27.20 43 13 157.64 43 13 4000.00 43 13

20:oo 43 

## . 350.00 43 

## . 30 2 20 2



## . 45 2



## . 23 2 13 2 10.00 43 13 15.00 43 13 10.00 43 13 28.20 43 13 870.00 43 13

10.00 43 

## . 53.00 43 

## .

. 7. 

### '. 7. 7 1297.00 42 11 33819.00 42 11

588.47 42 11 13660.65 42 

### 11 84600.00 42 11

267.00 42 

## . 5518.00 42
. 12

15 

### 15 

### 15 15 15

7 7 7 7 7

12 12 12 12 12

18 18 18 18 18

6 6 6 6 6

6 6 6 6 6

8 8 8 8 8 9

32 14 33 14

6

10

4 19

5 

### 5

21

6 21

6 7

40 

### 11 38 14

6

19 14 19 10

1

40 12 40

8 

### 1

20

5 23

5 4 75

56 67 54 67 70

83 83 71 81 81

69 78 69 78 75

52 73 52 71 68

53 51 53 56 67

37 56 37 56 67

74 81 67 81 79 22

25 14 25 14

9

17 10 21 10 10

38 19 38 19 19

27 15 26 16

8

14

7 14

5

30 7 30 2

24 10 24 10

7 53

32 53 30 53 61

67 74 50 71 71

31 59 

### 31 59 56

24 58 26 55 60

40 44 40 51 67

%.

7 49 7 53 67

50 71 43 71 71 6

32 

### 11 33 11 2

7 24

2 '2

28 28 3

37 3 35 6 2

30 26

2

63 21 63 16

2

24

2 31

2 2 19

12 23 12 23

. 28

10 17

5 17 17

3 22

3 22 22



### 11 24 13 23 31

16 23 16 26 30



## ..

23 28 30

2 

### 17 2 

### 17 19APPENDIX 3A: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 15 SEC IN THRES USING ALL DATA
NUMCODE CHEMCODE 450 PAH-T

450 PAH-T

451 PAH-L

451 PAH-L

451 PAH-L

452 PAR-H 

# .1

452 PAH-H

452 PAH-H

508 PCB-T 508 PCB-T 508 PCB-T TEST HA14

HA28

CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14 HA14 HA2 8 SAMPTYP UNITS BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT BT BT NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/ G.

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G NG/G NG/G SEC C ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NEW X ERL X ERM 

## x TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NEW X ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X NR X NR X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NEW X NERH X # II # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 3553.00 32 13 8498.00 32 13 1589.40 32 13 6736.42 32 13 9240.00 32 13

711.00 32 

## . 5340.00 32 

## .

240.00 62 24 2226.50 62 24

264.05 62 '24 3368.09 62 24 62220.00 62 .24

290.50 62 

## . 5095.00 62 

## .

653.00 42 11 7204.50 42 11 231.40 42 11 4140.86 42 11 33600.00 42 11 82.00 42 

## . 2380.00 42
. 

## .

786.00 32 13 3369.00 32 13

387.46 32 13 2919.52 32 13 3040.00 32 13

191.00 32 

## . 2530.00 32 

# .
, 80.00 62 24 653.00 62 24

76.42 62 24 1176.59 62 24 29380.00 62 24 73.00 52 

## . 2120.00 62 

## .

486.00 42 11 26614.50 42 11

309.81 42 11 10122.54 42 11 51000.00 42 11

197.50 42 

## .. 3850.00 42 

## . 2900.00 32 13 5650.00 32 13 1228.01 32 13 4353.82 32 13 6200.00 32 13

520.00 32 

## . 3355.00 32 

## .

170.00 62 24 1747.00 62 24

192.95 62 24 2338.40 62 24 32840.00 62 24

219.00 62
. 3130.00 62 

## .

. 23 3

. 92 50.00 29 10 730.00.29 10

31.62 29 10 244.66 29 10 194.00 29 10 20.00 29 

## . 82.00 29 

## . 13 13 13 13 13

22 22 22 22 22

8 8 8 8 8

13 13 13 13 13

21 21 21 21 21

8 8 8 8 8

13 13 13 13 13

22 22 22 22 22

5 

### 5 5 5 5 18 8 21

9 7

41 24 38 20 5

19

5 20

5 3

18

7 21

8 8

37 21 37 16

4

23

5 23

5 4

16

8 21 10

7

42 24 38 23

6

9' 3 9 3 4 78 78 69 81 75

56 58 55 61 66

76 81 74 81 76

78 81 75 78 78

63 63 63 61 65

67 81 67 81 79

84 78 69 84 75

55 58 52 60 68

69 76 69 76 72 38 22 38 25 19

3i 18 27 16 6

24 10 24 10

5

38 22 41 22 22

31 18 31 13 5

24 10 24 10

7

38 22 38 28 19

31 18 26 18

8



### 17 10 17 10 10 41 56 31 56 56

26 40 27 45 60

52 71 

### 50 71 71

41 59 34 56 56

32 45 32 48 60

43 71 43 71 71

47 56 31 56 56

24 40 26 42 60

52 66 52 66 62 19 3 28

3 3

35 21 34 16

2

21

2 24

2 2

19 25 3 3

29 16 29 13

2

31

2 31

2 2

13

3 28

3 3

37 21 35 19

2

14 14

3 3 19

3 16 22

8 21 11 23 32

2 17

2 17 21

3 19 19 19

8 21

8 26 34

2 17

2 17 19

3 1'9

3 13 22

8 21 13 21 31

17 24 17 24 24 \

# Appendix 3b 

# Summary of sediment effect concentrations 

# (SECs)calculated using dry-weight concentrations and listed by chemical, test type, and sample type for the Great Lakes database. Seelegend to 

# Appendix 3a for a description 

# of the headings.APPENDIX 3B: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 1 SEC IN THRESGL USING GL DATA
NUMCODE CHEMCODE 101 TOC

101 TOC

101 TOC

102 AVS

102 AVS

102 

### Avs

104 CLAY 104 CLAY 104 CLAY 105 SAND

105 SAND \

105 SAND

106 WATER TEST SAMPTYP UNITS CR14

HA1 4



# , HA28

CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14 HA14 HA28 CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14 BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT BT BT BT

BT

BT

BT %

%

%

UM/G

UM/G

UM/G

% % B %

B

%

B SEC C ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC 0 NEW X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X NRX NR X NR X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC 0 NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM 

### X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X # # # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 3.70 27 11 5.70 27 11 2.39 27 11 4.47 27 11 8.90 27 11 1.55 27 

## . 3.50 27
. 1.70 27 13 4.65 27 13 1.30 27 13 3.98 27 13 4.00 27 13 1.00 27 

## . 3.40 27 

## . 2.00 27 24 4.65 27 24 1.41 27 24 3.98 27 24 4.00 27 24 1.00 27 

## . 3.40 27 

## . 15.50 22 9 33.50 22 9

7.15 22 9 14.18 22 9 161.00 22 9

3.30 22
. 6.00 22 

## . 5.10 22 11 15.60 22 11 3.46 22 11 9.67 22 11 8.90 22 11 2.35 22 

## . 6.00 22 

## . 5.10 22 22 15.50 22 22 3.64 22 22 9.48 22 22 8.90 22 22 2.60 22
. 5.80 22 

## .

. 8. 8



## . 8. 16.00 27 11 32.95 27 11 21.69 27 11 49.11 27 11 98.50 27 11 29.40 27 

# . 73.20 27
. 15.60 27 13 32.95 27 13 21.42 27 13 49.11 27 13 98.50 27 13 29.40 27 

## . 73.20 27 

## . 15.60 27 24 32.95 27 24 21.42 27 24 48.09 27 24 98.50 27 24 29.40 27
. 70.20 27 

## . 44.10 27 11 46.30 27 11 7 7 7 7 7

12 12 12 12 12

12 12 12 12 12

5 5 5 5 5

10 10 10 10 10

-1

1 11 11 11 11

8 8 8 8 8

12 12 12 12 12

12 12 12 12 12

8 8 10 7 18 8 2

17 6 18 7 7

28 11 33 13 13

9 4 14 9 1

12 5 13 6 7

25 12 26 16 17

31 26 28 22

1.

23 17 19 13

1

44 36 39 30

1

22 18 79 76 64 79 74

81 78 84 75 75

61 66 60 63 63

78 81 65 78 73

77 73 82 77 73

69 67 67 67 64

38 36 36 36 71

56 44 44 50 56

54 47 46 51 56

60 55 14 10 17 12 2

38 19 41 19 19

23 11 26 11 11

14 8 14 14

41 23 45 27 27

40 24 40 29 29

19 12 14 7

34 19 22 16

37 26 28 23

19 12 64 67 67 71 48

44 59 44 56 56

39 55 34 52 52

65 73 51 65 73

36 50 36 50 45

29 43 26 38 36

19 24 21 29 71

22 25 22 34 56

18 21 18 28 56

40 43 10 7 26

7 2

16 16 3 3

23

6 27 10 10

11 3 24 11 3

14 14 5

19 5 21 10 12

55 50 52 45

2

38 34 38 25

3

40 37 40 30

2

33 31 12 17 10 14 24

3 22 22 22

16 27 13 27 27

11 16 11 11 24

9 27

5 23 23

12 29 12 24 24

7 14 12 19 26

6 22 19 25 41

5 16 14 19 42

7 14APPENDIX 3B: SWRY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 2 SEC IN THRESGL USING GL DATA # # # TOTAL NUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST SAMPTYP UNITS SEC C CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 106 WATER CR14 BT B TEL 

### X 42.88 27 11 8 23 57 19 38 36 ' 7 PEL 

### X 54.44 27 11 8 10 60 5 55 19 21 71 2 26 NEC 

### 4 NERM 

### X 41.70 27
. NERH 

### X 64.00 27 

## . 76.40 27 

### 11 8 1 71

106 WATER HA14 BT B ERL X 41.70 27 13 10 18 59 28 31 28 13 ERM 

### X 46.30 27 13 10 13 50 16 34 25 25 TEL 

### X 40.84 27 13 10 18 59 28 31 28 13 PEL 

### X 54.44 27 13 10 8 53 9 44 16 31 NEC X 76.40 27 13 10 56 3 41 1 56 NERM X 40.00 27
. NERH X 64.00 27 

## . 23 30 28 19 106 WATER HA28 BT B ERL X 44.10 27 24 8 29 53 18 37 21 25 ERM X 48.60 27 24 

### 8 22 54 TEL X 42.88 27 24 

### 8 31 49 23 26 32 19 PEL X 54.58 27 24 8 14 54 11 44 14 32 NEC X 76.40 27 24 8 2 54 54 4 42 NERM 

### X 41.70 27 

## . NEW 

### X 61.30 27 

## . 107 SILT CR14 BT % NR X 

# . 8. 107 SILT 107 SILT 110 NH3P 110 NH3P

110 NH3P

111 HSP 111 HSP 111 HSP 300 AL 300 AL 300 AL 300 AL 300 AL 300 AL 301 SILVER 301 SILVER 301 SILVER 301 SILVER 301 SILVER 301 SILVER 302 ARSENIC 302 ARSENIC HA14 BT %. HA28 BT % CR14 BT MG/L HA14 BT MG/L

HA28 

### BT MG/L

CR14 BT MG/L HA14 

### BT MG/L HA28 BT MG/L CR14 BS NG/G CR14 BT NG/G HA14 

### BS NG/G HA14 BT NG/G HA28 BS NG/G HA28 BT NG/G CR14 BT NG/G CR14 PW UG/L HA14 BT NG/G el4 PW UG/L HA28 BT NG/G HA28 PW UG/L CR14 BS NG/G CR14 BT NG/G NRX NR X NRX ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM 

## x TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X NR X NRX NRX NR X NR X NRX NRX NR X NRX NRX NR X NR 

### X NR 

### X NR 

### X NR X NR X ERL X ERM 

## . 8.



## . 8. ,213
. 0.02 21 9 7 12 67 33 33 24 10 0.27 21 9 7 4 76 19 57 24 

### 0.01 21 9 7 12 67 33 33 24 10 0.10 21 9 7 4 76 19 57 24 0.09 21 9 7 5 71 19 52 5 24 0.01 21 

## . 0.04 21 

## . 20 10 0.02 21 20 8 24 71 39 32 0.17 21 20 8 6 66 15 51 34 0.01 21 20 8 25 68 39 29 22 10 0.07 21 20 8 

### 11 63 20 44 7 29 0.09 21 20 8 9 63 17 46 5 32 0.01 21 

## . 0.03 21 

## .

. 2.



## . 2.



## . 2.



# . 4. 4. 4.



## . 4.

. 4.



# . 4.



## . 19 2 

## .

. 16
. .19 1 

## . 16
. 19 2
. 16
.

. 4. 32000.00 27 11 5 20 60 17 43 31 10 60000.00 27 11 

### 5 7 71 7 64 10 19APPENDIX 38: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 3 SEC IN THRESGL USING GL DATA
NUMCODE CHEMCODE 302 ARSENIC

302 ARSENIC

3 302 ARSENIC

302 ARSENIC

302 ARSENIC

302 ARSENIC 302 ARSENIC

302 ARSENIC

303 CADMIUM

303 CADMIUM

303 CADMIUM

303 CADMIUM

303 CADMIUM TEST CR14

CR14 HA14 HA14

HA14

HA28 HA28

HA2 8

CR14

CR14

CR14

HA14

HA14 SAMPTYP UNITS BT

PW BS BT

PW

BS BT

PW

BS

BT

PW

BS

BT NG/G,

UG/L NG/G NG/G

UG/L

NG/G NG/G

UG/ L

NG/G

NG/G

UG/L

NG/G

NG/G SEC C TEL X PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X NRX NFtx ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X NR X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM 

## x NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL # # #I TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT COFECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 20435.26 27 11 53216.54 27 11 92900.00 27 11 13050.00 27 

## . 47200.00 27 

## .

. 20 3

. 4. 12100.00 27 13 33000.00 27 13 13200.00 27 13 39466.44 27 13 92900.00 27 13 14400.00 27 

## . 47200.00 27 

## . 1.70 20 10 2.30 20 10 1.37 20 10 1.98 20 10 2.30 20 10 1.10 20 

## . 1.70 20 

## .

. 4. 13000.00 27 24 34000.00 27 24 13124.40 27 24 40059.96 27 24 92900.00 27 24 13250.00 27 

## . 47200.00 27

~ 

## . 1.70 20 19 2.00 20 19 1.37 20 19 1.79 20 19 2.30 20 19 1.10 20 

## . 1.60 20 

## . 787.00 22 9 1349.00 22 9 420.80 22 9 870.71 22 9 1349.00 22 9 225.00 22
. 562.00 22 

## . 5200.00 27 11 10850.00 27 11 2026.82 27 11 5208.17 27 11 8000.00 27 11 790.00 27
. 2500.00 27
. 0.19 20 9 1.00 20 9 0.12 20 9 0.45 20 9 0.20 20 9 0.08 20 

## . 0.20 20
. 337.00 22 11 1068.00 22 11 237.23 22 11 774.74 22 11 899.00 22 11 167.00 22 

## . 562.00 22
. 700.00 27 13 5200.00 27 13

674.54 27 13 3605.55 27 13 5 5 5

10 10 10 10 10

7 7 7 7 7

9 9 9 9 9

8 8 8 8 8

5 5 5 5 5

'6 6 6 6 6

5 5 5 5 5

10 10 10 10 10

11 11 11 11 22 9 4

19 10 15 9 2

8 5 10 5 5

28 19 26 17 4

22 19 24 19 19

17 15 21 16 15

10 5 20

9 8

15 6 16 7 14

12 5 12 7 6

19 7 19 8 55 71 69

69 66 63 63 59
,- 71 67 62 67 67

65 63 62 60 54

69 61 64 61 61



## .. 62 62 57 59 62

83 81 64 81 83

66 80 63 83 63

78 74 78 74 

## 7o

81 75 81 78 17 10 2

34 19 25 16 3

29 19 29 19 19

33 23 29 19 4

42 33 42 33 33

16 14 19 14 14

17 10 19 14 14

17 11 17 14 14

39 22 39 26 22

41 19 41 22 38 62 67

34 47 38 47 56

43 48 33 48 48

33 40 33 40 50

28 28 22 28 28

46 49 38 46 49

67 7.1 45 67 69

49 69 46 69 49

39 52 39 48 48

41 56 41 56 36 12 7

25 13 22 13 3

10 5 19 5 5

21 13 21 13 4

19 19 25 19 19

30 27 38 30 27

7 2 29 7 5

26

6 29

6 26

13 13 4 4

19 3 19 3 10 17 24

6 22 16 25 38

19 29 19 29 

# - 29

13 23 17 27 42

11 19 11 19 19

8 11 5 11 11

10 17 7 12 12

9 14 9 11 11

9 26

9 22 26

22 19NUMCODE CHEMCODE 303 CADMIUM 

# e

303 CADMIUM

303 CADMIUM

303 CADMIUM

303 CADMIUM TEST HA1 4

HA14

HA2 8

HA28

HA28

304 CHROMIUM-T CR14

304 CHROMIUM-T CR14

304 CHROMIUM-T CR14

304 CHROMIUM-T HA14

304 CHROMIUM-T HA14

304 CHROMIUM-T HA14 APPENDIX 38: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 4 SEC IN THRESGL USING GL DATA

SAMPTYP UNITS

BT

PW

BS

BT

PW

BS

BT

PW

BS

BT

PW NG/G

UG/L

NG/G

NG/G

UG/L

NG/G

NG/G

UG/L

NG/G

NG/G

UG/L SEC C NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL # ' 8 # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 8000.00 27 13

650.00 27 

## . 2500.00 27
. 0.10 20 10 0.92 20 10 0.09 20 10 0.43 20 10 0.20 20 10 0.08 20
. 0.20 20 

## . 337.00 22 19 1068.00 22 19 237.23 22 19 774.74 22 19 899.00 22 19 167.00 22 

## . 562.00 22 

## . 900.00 27 24 5200.00 27 24

737.90 27 24 3605.55 27 24 8000.00 27 24

605.00 27 

## . 2500.00 27
. 0.10 20 19 0.92 20 19 0.09 20 19 0.43 20 19 0.20 20 19 0.08 20
. 0.20 20 

## . 21682.00 22 9 41077.00 22 9

5414.25 22 9 9471.65 22 9 14975.00 22 9

1352.00 22 

## . 2184.00 22
. 274000.00 27 11 407000.00 27 11 119364.99 27 11 195075.63 27 11 312000.00 27 11

52000.00 27 

## . 93500.00 27 

## . 2.46 20 9 24.40 20 9

1.28 20 9 6.81 20 9 2.50 20 9 0.67 20 

## . 1.90 20 

## . 14975.00 22 11 22254.00 22 11

4499.58 22 11 6059.63 22 11 2184.00 22 11 1352.00 22 

## . 1650.00 22
. 56000.00 27 13 293000.00 27 13

53962.95 27 13 131480.04 27 13 95000.00 27 13 52000.00 27 

## . 59000.00 27 

## . 2.46 20 10 13.20 20 10

1.28 20 10 5.01 20 10 11

6 6 6 6 6

10 10 10 10 10

11 11 11 11 11

6 6 6 6 6

5 5 5 5 5

7 7 7 7 7

5 5 5 5 5

7 7 7 7 7

12 12 12 12 12

7 7 7 7 6

10 3 10 4 8

23 15 23 17 16

31 10 33 14 8

18 6 18 7 14

5 3 7 6 6

7 4 7 7 6

7 3 8 4 6

6 4 6 6 8

15 6 15 7 9

7 4 8 4 72

62 67 62 71 52

74 74 74 74 71

69 71 66 74 71

64 64 64 67 53

I. 89 84 84 86 86

86 83 86 86 83

83 83 80 86 80

78 70 78 78 78

81 78 81 81 81

76 71 71 71 16

29 14 29 19 19

42 32 42 34 32

29 13 29 18 11

33 17 33 19 22

14 8 14 14 14

14 10 14 14 12

14 9 14 11 11

26 17 26 26 30

34 19 34 22 25

29 19 29 19 56

33 52 33 52 33

32 42 32 39 39

40 58 37 56 60

31 47 31 47 31

76 76 70 73 73

71 74 71 71 71

69 74 66 74 69

52 52 52 52 48

47 59 47 59 56

48 52 43 52 3

19 19 19

18 8 18 11 11
n.
21

3 24

5 2

17 17 17

5 3 3

2 2 2 2

6 9 6

4

13 13 3

5 10 25

19 33 19' 29 29



### 8 18 8 16 18

10 26 10 21 .27

19 36 19 33 31

11' 16 11 11 11

12 17 12 12 14.

11 17 11 14 14

22 30 22 22 17

6- 22

6 19 16

19 29 19 29SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT SEC IN THRESGL USING GL DATA 5

NUMCODE CHEMCODE

, TEST 304 CHROMIUM-T HA14

304 CHROMIUM-T HA28

304 CHROMIUM-T HA28

304 CHROMIUM-T HA28 

### I


## ..

305 COPPER 305 COPPER

305 COPPER

305 COPPER 305 COPPER 

# .

305 COPPER

305 COPPER 305 COPPER

305 COPPER CR14 CR14

CR14

HA14 HA14

HA14

HA28 HA28

HA28 . APPENDIX 38

SAMPTYP UNITS

PW

BS

BT

PW

BS BT

PW

BS BT

PW

BS BT

PW UGI L

NGIG

NG/G

UGIL

NG/G NGIG

UG/L

NG/G NGIG

UGIL

NGIG NG/G

UGIL # ,# # TOTAL SEC C CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH 

### X ERL
. ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X 

## mx ERL 'X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X NR X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X NR X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X ,TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X 2.50 20 10 0.67 20
. 1.90 20
. 1300.00 22 19 18328.50 22 19

1325.75 22 19 5499.27 22 19 2184.00 22 19 1352.00 22
. 1650.00 22 

## . 90000.00 27 24 312000.00 27 24

68410.53 27 24 135676.08 27 24 95000.00 27 24 52000.00 27 

## . 5,9000.00 27 

## . 0.80 20 19 7.85 20 19 0.73 20 19 3.86 20 19 2.50 20 19 0.67 20 

## . 1.90 20 

## .

. 22 3 96500.00 27 11 187000.00 27 11 52488.81 27 11 99882.18 27 11 148000.00 27 11 28550.00 27 

## . 53350.00 27 

## . 5.30 20 9 19.80 20 9 3.78 20 , 9 9.63 20 9 4.68 20 9 2.70 20 

## . 4.68 20 

## .



# . 22 3 41300.00 27 13 122250.00 27 13 28012.50 27 13 78025.96 27 13 54800.00 27 13 19000.00 27 

## . 49800.00 27 

## . 5.30 20 10 19.80 20 10 3.78 20 10 9.63 20 10 4.68 20 10 2.70 20 

## . 4.68 20 

## .

. 22 3 41300.00 27 24 122250.00 27 24 28012.50 27 24 78025.96 27 24 54800.00 27 24 19000.00 27 

## . 49800.00 27 

## . 3.30 20 19 19.45 20 19

2.96 20 19 9.54 20 19 4.68 20 19 2.65 20 

## . 7

10 10 10 10 10

11 11 11 11 11

8 8 8 8 8

7 7 7 7 7

5 5 5 5 5

12 12 12 12 12

5 5 5 5 5

12 12 12 12 12

6 6 6 6 6 6

3

### i'

5 30 7 19

11 6 12 7 9

10 4 10 4 6

18 14 20 17 16

16 7 21 11 21

15 6 16 7 9

5 3 10 4 10

26 17 29 18 20

24

7 26 11 22 71

53 63 50 68 68

76 71 74 73 73

58 58 58 58 58

64 64 64 62 64

63 77 49 71 49

81 78 84 81 81

76 67 52 71 52

73 71 71 73 73

53 61 41 67 47 24

42 13 39 18 34

16 10 16 11 13

19 11 19 11 14

17 12 19 14 14

17 11 17 14 17

34 19 38 22 25

24 14 24 19 24

35 25 37 27 29

36 17 36 25 31 48

11 50 11 50 34

60 61 58 61 60

39 47 39 47 44

48 52 45 48 50

46 66 31 57 31

47 59 47 59 56

52 52 29 52 29

38 46 35 46 44

17 44 11 42 17 5

39 39 16

2 3 2

8 

# s 3

26 21 29 26 24

29

9 43 17 43

13 13 3

24 24

15 8 19 8 10

31

3 36

6 31 24

8 37 11 32 16

23 29 23 27 26

33 42 33 42 39

10 14 7 12 12

9 14 9 11 9

6 22

3 19 16

24 33 24 29 24

12 21 10 19 17

17 36 17 , 28 ' 22NUMCODE CHEMCODE 305 COPPER 

# e.
306 IRON 306 IRON 306 IRON

306 IRON 306 IRON

306 IRON 307 MERCURY 307 MERCURY 307 MERCURY 307 MERCURY 307 MERCURY 307 MERCURY 308 MANGANESE 308 MANGANESE 308 MANGANESE 308 MANGANESE

308 MANGANESE 308 MANGANESE

309 NICKEL 309 NICKEL

309 NICKEL TEST HA28 CR14 CR14 HA14

HA14 HA28

HA28 CR14 CR14 HA14 HA14 HA28 HA28 CR14 CR14 HA14 HA14

HA28 HA28

CR14 CR14

CR14 APPENDIX 38: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 6

PW 

### .BS BT BS

BT 

### BS

BT BT PW 

### BT Pw BT PW BS BT BS BT

BS BT



### BS BT

PW UG/L % % %

% %

% NG/G UG/L NG/G UG/L NG/G UG/L NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G

NG/G NG/G

NG/G NG/G

UG/L SAMPTYP. UNITS ~~ ~ SEC IN THRESGL USING GL DATA # # # TOTAL SEC C CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT NERH X NR X NRX ERL ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X NRX ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NEW X NERH X NR X NR X 

### NR 

## -x NR X NR X NRX 4.68 20

. 16



## . 16 3.57 16 5.81 16 2.10 16 3.99 16 2.74 16 1.23 16 2.74 16



## . 16 3.57 16 5.81 16 2.10 16 3.99 16 2.74 16 1.23 16 2.74 16



## . 16



## . 19



## . 16

. 19 ’



## . 16

. 19 NR. 

## x . 16 NR X 

## . 22 NRX . 23 NRX 

## . 22 ERL 726000.00 23 ERM 1678000.00 23 TEL X 597655.42 23 PEL 1080688.67 23 NEC 819000.00 23 NERM X 492000.00 23 NERH X 696000.00 23 NRX . 22 ERL X 726000.00 23 ERM X 1678000.00 23 TEL X 597655.42 23 PEL X 1080688.67 23 NEC X 731000.00 23 NERM X 492000.00 23 NERH X 696000.00 23 NR X . 22 ERL 43000.00 27 ERM 50000.00 27 TEL 29544.88 27 PEL 43531.60 27 NEC 57000.00 27 NERM X 20300.00 27 NERH X 37900.00 27 ERL 5.80 20 ERM 10.40 20 TEL 4.82 20 PEL 6.99 20 NEC , 4.90 20 NERM X 4.00 20 NERH X 4.70 20 4 

### 2 10 10 10 10 10

2 19 19 19 19 19

2 1 2 1 1 3 3

4

11 11 11 11 11

22 22 22 22 22

4 11 11 11 11 11

9 9 9 9 9 5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5

8 8 8 8 8

8 8 8 0 

### a

9 9 9 9 9

5 5 5 5 5 5 3 10

4 10

14

8 25 11 22

9 4 15 5 6

18

7 26

9 16

9 6 15 8 4

7 4 10 4 10 71 59 41 65 41

66 47 44 56 47

83 71 67 75 71

68 57 59 61 64

90 83 81 88 79

83 80 74 80 74 29 18 29 24 29

34 16 41 25 38

33 17 38 21 21

30 11 34 16 25

19 12 21 17

7

14

9 14

9 14 41 41 12 41 12

31 31

3 31

9

50 54 29 54 

### 50

39 45 25 45 39

71 71 60 71 71

69 71 

### 60 71 60 29 29

9 9 38

9 31

4 25

4

11

5 25 5 11

2 2 14

2 2

6 3 14 3 14 29 29 35 29 41

25 44 19 34 22

13 29

8 25 25

20 39 16 34 25

7 14 5 10 19

11 17 11 17 11310 LEAD

310 LEAD NUMCODE CHEMCODE 309 NICKEL

309 NICKEL

309 NICKEL

309 NICKEL

309 NICKEL

309 NICKEL

310 LEAD

310 LEAD TEST HA14

HA14

HA14

HA28

HA28

HA28

CRl4

CR14

CR14

HA14 APPENDIX 3B

SAMPTYP UNITS

BS

BT

PW

BS

BT

PW

BS

BT

PW

BS NGIG

NG/G

UG/L

NGIG

NG/G

UG/L

NG/G

NG/G

UG/L

NG/G SUMMARY OF'SECS NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT SEC IN THRESGL USING GL DATA
SEC C ERL ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NEW X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC 

## x NERM 

## x NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH 

## x ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC 

## x NERM X NERH 

## x ERL X ERM TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL 

### X PEL NEC NERM X NERH 

### X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL NEC X NEW X NERH X #
. # # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 4873.00 22 11 6693.00 22 11 2726.94 22 11 5282.97 22 11 4170.00 22 11 1526.00 22 

## . 4170.00 22
. 39600.00 27 13 47500.00 27 13 27717.14 27 13 38681.39 27 13 37900.00 27 13 19400.00 27 

## . 31500.00 27 

## . 5.80 20 10 10.40 20 10 4.82 20 10 6.99 20 10 4.90 20 10 4.00 20 

## . 4.70 20 

## . 4873.00 22 19 6693.00 22 19 2726.94 22 19 5282.97 22 19 4170.00 22 19 1526.00 22
. 4170.00 22
. 39600.00 27 24 50000.00 27 24 27717.14 27 '24 39686.27 27 24 43000.00 27 24 19400.00 27 

## . 31500.00 27 

## . 5.80 20 19 10.40 20 19 4.82 20 19 6.99 20 19 4.90 20 19 4.00 20 

## . 4.70 20
. 10360.00 22 9 102352.00 22 9

9494.88'22 9 34605.18 22 9 39159.00 22 9 8702.00 22
. 11700.00 22
. 86000.00 27 11 492500.00 27 11

52786.36 27 11 183942.25 27 11 286000.00 27 11

32400.00 27
. 68700.00 27 

## . 5.30 20 9 89.50 20 9

2.06 20 9 17.70 20 9 5.70 20 9 0.80 20 

## . 3.50 20 

## . 13882.00 22 11 59878.00 22 11 10315.98 22 11 26468.33 22 11 11700.00 22 11 7666.00 22 

## . 11700.00 22
. 5 5 5 5 5

12 12 12 12 12

5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5

11 11 11 11 11

5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6 6

5 5 5 5 5

7 7 7 7 7 5 3 11 4 10

11 6 17 11 12

5 3 7 3 7

8 5 23

6 16

11 6 18 10 9

7 4 10 4 10

24

4 24 14 13

14 4 23

7 6

6 3 10 4 5

6 4 12 5 11 74 65 57 70 52

94 78 81 94 91

76 67 67 67 67

66 63 53 66 50

76 71 68 74 73

61 58 58 58 58

49 81 49 65 68

79 79 62 81 79

86 83 74 86 83

78 70 61 74 57 22 13 26 17 22

34 19 38 34 34

24 14 24 14 24

18 13 32 16 21

16 10 18 15 13

17 11 19 11 19

19 8 19 14 14

19 7 21 12 10

14 9 14 11 11

26 17 30 22 26 52 52 30 52 30

59 59 44 59 56

52 52 43 52 43

47 50 21 50 29

60 61 50 60 60

44 47 39 47 39

30 73 30 51 54

60 71 40 69 69

71 74 60 74 71

52 52 30 52 30 22 22

16 3

10 10

3 29 21

2 11 2 2

3 

# e e

46 3 46 24 22

14 2 33

5 5

3 14 3

22 22 26 35 22 30 26

6 22

3 6 6

24 33 24 33 24

32 37 18 34 29

23 29 21 24 26

36 42 33 42 33

5 16 5 11 ' 11

7 19 5 14 17

11 17 11 14 14

22 30 17 26 22 7

# e NUMCODE CHEMCODE 310 

### LEAD

310 

### LEAD

310 

### LEAD

310 

### LEAD

310 

### LEAD

311 

### SELENIUM 311 

### SELENIUM 311 

### SELENIUM 312 

### ZINC

312 

### ZINC

312 

### ZINC

312 

### ZINC

312 

### ZINC TEST HA14

HA14

HA28

HA28



### HA28



### CR14 HA14 

### HA28 

### CR14

CR14

CR14

HA14



### HA14 APPENDIX 38: 

### SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 8



### SAMPTYP UNITS

BT

PW

BS



### BT

PW

BT BT BT BS

BT

PW

BS

BT NGIG

UG/L

NG/G

NGIG

UGIL

NG/G NGtG NGtG NGtG

NGtG

UGIL

NG/G

NG/G SEC 1N.THRESGL USING GL DATA # # # 

### TOTAL SEC 

### C CONC N 'POX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT' ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL 

### X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC 

### X NERM X NERH X 

### NRX NRX NRX 

### ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NEW X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH 

### X ERL ERM 51000.00 27 251000.00 27

39825.87 27 120656.54 27 68700.00 27 31100.00 27 58000.00 27 0.70 20 5.50 20 0.73 20 4.39 20 4.10 20 0.76 20 3.50 20 13882.00 22 81115.00 22 10658.81 22 30806.58 22 11700.00 22

8184.00 22 .11700.00 22 55000.00 27 251000.00 27

41358.19 27 120656.54 27 68700.00 27 31100.00 27 58000.00 27 0.70 20 5.30 20 0.70 20 4.31 20 4.10 20 0.70 20 3.50 20 19 19



## . 19 12747.00 22 102239.00 22

11901.99 22 37833.13 22 27390.00 22 11113.00 22 14000.00 22 381000.00 27 2250000.00 27

248822.23 27 899374.78 27 900000.00 27 162500.00 27 359500.00 27 6.30 20 49.60 20

2.86 20 13.91 20 10.70 20

1.30 20 3.90 20 12747.00 22 84066.00 22 10762.23 22 34306.33 22 17388.00 22

9086.50 22 14000.00 22 159000.00 27 422000.00 27 13 13 13 13 13

10 10 10 10 10

19 19 19 19 19

24 24 24 24 24

19 19 19 19 19

2 9 9 9 9 9

11 11 11 11 11

9 9 9 9 9

11 11 11 11 11

13 13 11 11 11 11 11

10 10 10 10 10

6 6 6 6 6

11 11 11 11 11

11 11 11 11 11

5 5 5 5 5

7 7 7 7 7

5 5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6 6

12 12 14 6 15 6 10

16 5 ,13

6 7

17 4 24 15 24

26

7 28

8. 21

19 6 19 6 7

26 14 27 15 16

18 6 23 10 10

19 9 24 14 15

12 3 15 4 6

17 7 78 78 81 78 84

71 76 67 81 76

74 61 55 74 55

74 73 74 71 76

67 64 67 64 61

38 59 35 62 59

64 83 57 74 74

54 71 40 63 60

52 65 39 70 70

81 75 31 19 34 19 28

48 24 38 29 29

34 11 34 32 34

27 11 29 11 24

36 17 36 17 17

16 11 16 14 14

17 12 19 12 12

17 11 17 14 14

26 13 26 17 22

38 19 47 59 47 59 56

24 52 29 52 48

39 50 21 42 21

47 61 45 60 52

31 47 31 47 44

22 49 19 49 46

48 71 38 62 62

37 60 23 4.9 46

26 52 13 52 48

44 56 

### 13 13 3

29 24

5

11 29

8 29

15 16 2 10

17 17 3

54 27 57 27 30

26

2 36 12 12

37 14 51 26 29

26 39

4

16 3 9 22

6 22 13

24 10 19 19

16 39 16 18 16

11 27 10 27 15

17 36 17 36 36

8 14 8 11 11

10 14 7 14 14

9 14 9 11 11

22 35 22 30 26

3

, 22

### APPENDIX 38: 

### SIJMMARY OF SECS NORMALIZED TO DRY 

### WEIGHT SEC IN THRESGL USING GL DATA # # 

### Ii TOTAL 9

NUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST SAMPTYP UNITS

. 

### SEC C 6ONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT 312 ZINC HA14 BT NG/G TEL 125463.14 27 13 12 19 81 PEL 385414.06 27 13 12 7 75 6 

### 72 NEC 541000.00 27 13 12 

### NERM X 99000.00 27 

## . NERH X 352000.00 27
. '. 

### 312 ZINC HA14 PW UG/L ERL 6.30 20 10 

### 5 6 

### 71 ERM 

### X 49.60 20 10 5 

### 3 67 

### TEL X 2.86 20 10 5 

### 11 48 PEL 13.91 20 10 5 

### 4 71 

### NEC X 10.70 20 10 ' 

### 5 5 67 

### NERM X 1.30 20
. 

### NERH X 3.90 20 , 

### 312 ZINC HA28 BS NG/G ERL 27390.00 22 19 5 

### 16 71 ERM X 102239.00 22 19 5 

### 14 66 

### TEL 17446.63 22 19 

### 5 18' 71 PEL X 37833.13 22 19 5 

### 15 68 NEC X 17388.00 22 19 5 

### 19 68 NERM X, 11113.00 22 

## . NERH X 14000.00 22 

## . 312 ZINC HA28 BT NG/G ERL X 127000.00 27 24 13 35 66 

### ERM 381000.00 27 24 13 19 76 TEL X 116244.57 27 24 13 36 65 

### PEL 363602.81 27 24 13 21 73 NEC 541000.00 27 24 13 17 73 NERM 

### X 106400.00 27 

## . NERH X 347000.00 27 

## . 312 ZINC HA28 PW
, 

### UG/L ERL X 

### 6.30 20 19 5 

### 19 67 

### ERM X 49.60 20 19 5 

### 9 ' 

### 61 TEL X 2.86 20 

### 19 5 

### 25 50 

### PEL X 13.91 20 

### 19 5 

### 14 64 NEC X 10.70 20 19
. 5, 

### 15 61 

### NERM X 1.30 20 

## . NERH X 3.90 20
. 

### 313 METHYL-HG CR14 BT NG/G NR X 

## . 12 

## . 313 METHYL-HG HA14 BT NG/G NR X 

# e- 313 METHYL-HG HA28 BT NG/G NR X 12 

### .. 12 1 .12 1 

## . 314 TBT CR14 BT NG/G 

### NR X 314 TBT HA14 BT NG/G NR 

### X 

## . 12 

## . 314 TBT HA28 BT NG/G NR X .12 3
. 

### 315 DBT CR14 BT NG/G 

### NR X
, 

## . 12 

## . 315 DBT HA14 BT NG/G NR X 

## . 12
. 

### 315 DBT HA28 BT NG/G NR X 

## . 12 2 316 MBT 316 MBT 316 MBT 399 SEMAVS 399 SEMAVS 399 SEMAVS 401 14-2CLBNZ 401 14-2CLBNZ 401 14-2CLBNZ 402 12-2CLBNZ 402 12-2CLBNZ 402 12-2CLBNZ CR14 HA14 HA28 CR14 HA14 HA28 CR14 HA14 HA28 CR14 n~i4 HA28 BT BT BT BS BS BS BT BT BT BT BT BT NG/G NG/G NG/G

NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NR X NRX NRX NRX NRX NRX NR X NR X NR 

### X NR X NR 

### X NR 

### X .12 1 

# .

. 12 

### 1
. 

### .12 3
. 

### .18 

### 3
.



## . 18
.



## . 18
. 

### .19 2
.

. 

### 19 1
.



## . 19 3 

## . .I .7 .7 

### TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 41 41 19 19 56
. 3 

### 22 16 56 3 

### 25

24 48 5 

### 24 14 52 33 

### 24 24 29 24 19 52 29 19 48 5 

### 29

32 39 11 

### 18 26 39 11 24 34 37 

### 13 16 29 39 11 

### 21 34 34 16 

### 16

31 35 26 8 

### 23 53 8 16 31 34 27 8 23 50 11 16 

### 19 

### 53 8 19

36 31 .17 17 6 

### 33 19 42 36 14 33 17 28 36 11 25 28 33 14 25



## . 

## ..

...APPENDIX 38: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 10 SEC IN THRESGL USING GL DATA

NUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST SAMPTYP UNITS 403 13-2CLBNZ CR14 403 13-2CLBNZ HA14 403 13-2CLBNZ HA28 404 NAPHTHALENE CR14

404 NAPHTHALENE HA14

404 NAPHTHALENE HA28

405 2-METHNAP CR14 405 2-METHNAP HA14 405 2-METHNAP HA28 406 ACENA CR14 406 ACENA HA14 406 ACENA HA28 407 DIBNZFURAN CR14 407 DIBNZFURAN HA14 407 DIBNZFURAN HA28 408 FLUORENE CR14

408 FLUORENE HA14

408 FLUORENE HA28

409 PHENANTHRN CR14 BT BT BT BT

BT



### BT

BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT

BT

BT

BT NGIG NGIG NGIG NGIG

NG/G

NG/G

NGIG NG/G NG/G NGIG NG/G NGIG NGIG NG/G NGIG NG/G

NG/G

NGIG

NGIG SEC C NR X NR X NR X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC @ NERM X NERH 

### X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC ' NEW X NERH 

### X ERL 

### X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM 

### X NERH 

### X NRX NRX NRX NR 

### X NRX NRX NRX NRX NR 

### X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL 

### ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH 

### X ERL X 

### ERM 

### X TEL X PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM 

### X NERH X 7 7 7. 1'60.00 27 

### ii 3600.00 27 11

126.17 27 11 1003.99 27 11 20000.00 27 11 99.50 27
. 280.00 27
.

55.00 27 13 325.00 27 13 43.87 27 13 285.04 27 13 290.00 27 13

35.00 27 

# . 250.00 27 

## .

42.00 27 24 325.00 27 24

49.78 27 24 285.04 27, 24 290.00 27 24

59.00 27 

## . 250.00 27 '. 19 1



## . 19 

### 1



## . 19 3



## . 82



## . 82



## . 19 1 19 1



## . 19 3 88.00 27 11 1700.00 27 11

91.43 27 11 689.93 27 11 1800'.0027 11

95.00 27 

## . 280.00 27 

## .

50.00 27 13 595.00 27 13

43.59 27 13 385.68 27 13 290.00 27 13

38.00 27
. 250.00 27

46.00 27 24 595.00 27 24

47.96 27 24 385.68 27 24 290.00 27 24

50.00 27
. 250.00 27 

## . 390.00 27 11 3400.00 27 11 394.97 27 11 1709.97 27 11 6100.00 27 11 400.00 27 

## . 860.00 27
. '7 7 7 7 7

12 12 12 12 12

12 12 12 12 12

7 7 7 7 7

12 12 12 12 12

12 12 12 12 12

7 7 7 .7 7 15 5 16

5 1

18

6 18 7 7

22

7 21

8 8

16 5 15

6 4

19

6 20

7 8

24

7 23

8 9

16 5 15 5 4 71 81 74 81 71

78 78 78 75 75

61 69 60 68 68

74 81 71 83 79

75 78 78 81 78

58 69 56 71 69

79 81 76 81 79 17 10 19 10

38 19 38 19 19

18 10 16 10 10

19 10 17 12

7

38 19 41 22 22

18 10 16 11 11

21 10 19 10 7 55 71 55 71 71

41 59 41 56 56

44 

### 60 44 58 58

55 71 55 71 71

38 59 38 59 56

40 60 40 60 58

57 71 57 71 71 19 2 19

2 2

19 19 3 

### 3

18

2 18

3 3

19 2 19 2 2

22 22



# 1

21

2 21

2 3

17

2 17

2 2 10 17

7 17 26

3 22

3 22 22

21 29 23 29 29

7 17 10 14 19

3 22 19 19

21 29 23 27 27



### 5 17 7 17 19 # # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOTNUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST 409 PHENANTHRN HA1'4

409 PHENANTHRN HA28

410 ANTHRACENE CR14

410 ANTHRACENE HA14

410 ANTHRACENE HA28

411 FLUORANTHN CR14 

# e.-

411 FLUORWTHN HA14

411 FLUORWTHN HA28

412 PYRENE

412 PYRENE CR14

HA1 4 APPENDIX 38

SAMPTYP UNITS

BT

BT

BT



### BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT NG/G

NG1.G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NGIG

NGIG SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT SEC IN THRESGL USING GL DATA 11

SEC C ERL TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X # # # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 390.00 27 13 1100.00 27 13 225.17 27 13 749.00 27 13 1000.00 27 13

130.00 27
. 510.00 27 

## . 340.00 27 24 1100.00 27 24 270.37 27 24 798.75 27 24 1000.00 27 24 215.00 27 

## . 580.00 27
. 140.00 27 11 1250.00 27 11

129.61 27 11 580.95 27 11 1700.00 27 11

120.00 27 

## . 270.00 27 

## . 100.00 27 13 670.00 27 13

81.24 27 13 409.27 27 13 290.00 27 13

66.00 27
. 250.00 27 

## .

66.00 27 24 670.00 27 24

88.99 27 24 409.27 27 24 290.00 27 24 120.00 27 

## . 250.00 27 

## . 160.00 27 11 4800.00 27 11

234.95 27 11 2400.00 27 11 7500.00 27 11

345.00 27
. 1200.00 27 

## .

160.00 27 13 1200.00 27 13

152.32 27 13 774.60 27 13 1200.00 27 13

, 145.00 27 

## .

500.00 27 

## . 110.00 27 24 1200.00 27 24

153.79 27 24 869.48 27 24 1200.00 27 24 215.00 27
. 630.00 27
. 570.00 27 11 5500.00 27 11

594.47 27 11 2824.00 27 11 6100.00 27 11

620.00 27
. 1450.00 27 

## . 570.00 27 13 1100.00 27 13 269.05 27 13 908.30 27 13 1800.00 27 13

127.00 27 

## . 750.00 27
. 13 13 13 13 13

13 13 13 13 13

8 8 8 8 8

12 12 12 12 12

12 12 12 12 12

7 7 7 7 7

13 13 13 13 13

13 13 13 13 13

7 7 7 7 7

13 13 13 13 13 17 7 20

8 8

20 8 21

9 9

16 .5 16 6 4

18 6 18 6 7

21

7 81 81 78 78 78

68 71 66 69 69

74 81 74 83 79

78 78 78 78 75

63 69 7 8

19 5 16 5 4

21

8 21 10 8

31

9 26 11 9

16 5 15 5 4

17 8 20 10 7 69 68

71 81 74 81 79

69 78 69 84 78

56 69 55 73 69

79 81 76 81 79

81 78 72 76 75 20 j 61 38 22 41 22 22

19 11 19 11 11

19 10 19 12 7

38 19 I 38 19 19

18 10 16 10 10

21 10 19 10 7

38 22 38 28 22

23 11 18 15 11

21 10 19 10 7

38 22 38 25 19 44 59 38 56 56

48 60 47 58 58

55 71 55 71 71

41 59 41 59 56

45 , 60 45 60 58

50 71 55 71 71

31 56 31 56 56

34 58 37 58 58

57 71 57 71 71

44 56 34 53 56 16 22

3 3

13 2 15 3 3

19 2 19 2 2

19 19 3

16 2 16 2 3

24

2 19 2 2

28

3 28

3 3

27

3 24

3 3

17 2 17 2 2

16 3 25

6 3 3 19 19 19

19 27 19 27 27

7 17 7 14 19

3 22

3 22 22

21 29 23 29 29

5 17 7 17 19

3 19 3 13 .19

16 27 21 24 27

5 17 7 17 19

3 19 3 16 22APPENDIX 38: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT SEC IN THRESGL USING GL DATA 12
# # 

### I! TOTAL NUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST SAMPTYP UNITS SEC C CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 412 PYRENE HA28 BT NG/G ERL X 120.00 27 24 13 30 58 23 35 26 16 3 27 ERM X 1100.00 27 24 13 9 69 TEL X 160.62 27 24 13 25 56 18 39 23 21 PEL X 983.87 27 24 13 10 68 11 56 

### 5 27 NEC X 1800.00 27 24 13 8 68 10 58 3 29 NERM X 215.00 27 

## . NERH X 880.00 27 

## . 11 58

413 BAA

413 BAA

413 BAA CR14 BT NG/G ERL 300.00 27 11 7 13 81 19 62 12 7 ERM 4200.00 27 11 7 4 83 10 74 17 TEL 273.86 27 11 7 13 81 19 62 12 7 PEL 1554.03 27 11 7 

### 5 81 10 71 2 17 NEC 3500.00 27 11 7 

### 5 81 10 71 2 17 NERM X 250.00 27 

## . NERH X 575.00 27 

# . HA14 BT NG/G

HA28 BT NG/G

414 CHRYSENE CR14 BT NG/G

414 CHRYSENE HA14 BT NG/G

414 CHRYSENE HA28 BT NG/G

415 BBF CR14 BT NG/G 415 BBF HA14 BT NG/G 415 BBF HA28 BT NG/G 416 BKF CR14 BT NG/G ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NEW X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X NR X NRX NR X NRX 416 BKF

. HA14 BT 416 BKF HA28 BT 

# . 417 BAP CR14 BT NG/G NR X NG/G NR X NG/G ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X 9 .3 260.00 27 13 13 15 88 490.00 27 13 13 8 78 22 56 3 19 161.65 27 13 13 18 78 38 41 19 3 363.73 27 13 13 10 78 25 53 6 16 3 25 690.00 27 13 13 6 72 16 

### 56 100.50 27 

## . 270.00 27 

## . .* 

## . 38 50

35.00 27 24 13 33 56 24 32 29 15 490.00 27 24 13 9 69 11 58 3 27

84.71 27 24 13 28 58 ' 21 37 24 18 408.17 27 24 13 11 69 13 56 5 26 690.00 27 24 13 7 66 8 58 3 31 205.00 27 

## . 340.00 27 

## . 500.00 27 11 7 10 88 19 69 5 7 5200.00 27 11 7 4 83 10 74 17

367.42 27 11 7 14 83 21 62 12 5 1831.39 27 11 7 5 81 10 71 2 17 

### 2 17 4000.00 27 11 7 

### 5 81 10 71

270.00 27 

# . 645.00 27 

## . 330.00 27 13 13 16 84 38 47 13 3 690.00 27 13 13 7 81 22 59 19 188.79 27 13 13 20 72 38 34 25 3 525.36 27 13 13 9 81 25 56 3 16 600.00 27 13 13 9 81 25 56 3 16 108.00 27 

## . 400.00 27 

## . 110.00 27 24 13 28 61 23 39 23 16 690.00 27 24 13 8 71 11 60 2 27 551.00 27 24 13 10 71 13 58 3 26 3 26 600.00 27 24 13 10 71 205.00 27 

## . 440.00 27 

## . 

## ,

150.17 27 24 13 25 56 18 

### 39 23 21 13 58

.19 1 

## .

. 19 .1
. .19 4
.



## . 19 I 19 1
.

210.00 27 11 6 18 74 8500.00 27 11 6 3 81

219.77 27 11 6 17 71 1933.91 27 11 6 5 81 5800.00 27 11 6 

### 5 81

230.00 27 

## . 440.00 27 

## . .. 21 52 21 5 7 74 19 19 52 21 7 10 71 2 17 10 71 2 17

417 BAP HA14 BT NG/G ERL 350.00 27 13 11 11 88 31 56 3 9 ERM 

## . 620.00 27 13 11 6 78 19 59 22 TEL 187.55 27 13 11 18 78 38 41 19 3 PEL 409.15 27 13 11 10 84 28 56 3 13NUMCODE CHEMCODE 417 BAP

417 BAP

418 ICDP

418 ICDP

418 ICDP

419 BGHIP

419 BGHIP

419 BGHIP

420 BBKF 420 BBKF 420 BBKF APPENDIX 38

TEST SAMPTYP UNITS HA14

HA28

CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14 HA14 HA28 421 ACENAPTYLE CR14 421 ACENAPTYLE HA14 421 ACENAPTYLE HA28 422 DEA CR14 422 DBA HA14 422 DBA HA28 423 4-METHNAP CR14 BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT NG/G

NGfG

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NGfG SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT SEC IN THRESGL USING GL DATA 13

SEC C NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NEW X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NEW X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH 

### X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X NRX NR X NR X NRX 

### NR X NR X NR X NR X NR X 

### NR X # # # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 440.00 27 13 100.50 27 

## . 270.00 27 

## . 280.00 

### 27 24 620.00 

### 27 24 167.75 

### 27 24 409.15 27 24 440.00 

### 27 24 100.50 27
. 270.00 27
. 160.00 27 11 5300.00 27 11

183.30 27 11 1218.20 27 11 3800.0027 11 210.00 27 

## . 280.00 27
.

78.00 27 13 410.00 27 13 111.71 27 13 320.16 27 13 290.00 27 13 160.00 27 

## . 250.00 27 

## . 160.00 27 21 410.00 27 21 111.71 27 21 320.16 27 21 290.00 27 21 78.00 27 

## . 250.00 27 

## . 290.00 27 11 6300.00 27 11 249.70 27 11 1374.77 27 11 3800.00 27 11 215.00 27
. 300.00 27
.

91.00 27 13 460.00 27 13 120.66 27 13 352.42 27 13 310.00 27 13 160.00 27 

## . 270.00 27 

## .

30.00 27 24 310.00 27 24

61.36 27 24 278.39 27 24 290.00 27 24 125.50 27 

## . 250.00 27
.



## . 81



## . 81



## . 81 15 2 15 2 15 2

82 

## : 8 2

. a2 7 11

11 11 11 11 11

7 7 7 7 7

12 12 12 12 12

12 12 12 12 12

7 7 7 7 7

12 12 12 12 12

13 13 13 13 13 10

13 7 20 11 11

18 4 

### 16 5 

### 5

21 6 

### 20

6 9

21

7 22

7 10

10 4 14 5 5

21 6 

### 20 6 7

33

8 29 11 11 84

73 69 65 73 73

69 83 69 81 81

69 78 66 78 75

65 72 63 72 7,O

83 83 79 81 81

69 78 66 78 75

50 71 53 73 73 28

16 10 18 15 15

19 10 17 10 10

38 19 34 19 22

19 11 19 11 12

17 10 19 10 10

38 19 34 19 19

21 11 19 15 15 56

56 60 47 58 58

50 74 52 71 71

31 59 31 59 53

46 61 44 61 58

67 74 60 71 71

31 59 31 59 56

29 60 34 58 58 3



### 5 2 15 3 3

24 21

2 2

28 28

6

18

2 19

2 5

7 14

2 2

28 28 3

32

2 27 3 3 13

23 .2

9 21 24 24

7 17 10 17 17

22 19

18 26 18 26 25

10 17 7 17 17

3 22 6 22 22

18 27 24 24 ,19

### NUMCODE CHEMCODE 423 

### 4-METHNAP 423 

### 4-MEiHNAP 450 

### PAH-T

450 

### PAH-T

450 

### PAH-T

451 

### PAH-L

451 

### PAH-L

451 

### PAH-L

452 

### PAH-H

452 

### PAH-H

452 

### PAH-H

508 

### PCB-T 508 

### PCB-T TEST HA14 

### HA28 

### CR14

.I

HA14

HA28

CR14



### HA14

HA2 8

CR14

HA14



### HA28

CR14 

### HA14 APPENDIX 3B



### SAMPTYP UNITS

BT BT BT

BT

BT

BT

1 

### BT

BT

BT

ET

BT

BT BT NG/G NG/G NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G NG/G SUMMARY OF 

### SECs NORMALIZED TO 

### DRY WEIGHT SEC IN THRESGL USING GL DATA 14



### SEC C NR 

### X NR 

### X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH 

### X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM 

### X TEL X PEL NEC 

### X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NEW X 

### NERH X ERL X ERM TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL NEC X NERM X 

### NERH X NRX NR X # # # 

### TOTAL CONC N 

### TOX 

### EFFECT HIT CORRECT 

### TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT 

### TOXNOT

.7



## . 7. 3553.00 27 11 59140.00 27 11

4081.02 27 11 21911.15 27 11 84600.00 27 11 4687.50 27 

## . 8118.00 27 

## . 3553.00 27 13 8498.00 27 13 2468.84 27 13 6736.42 27 13 9240.00 27 13 1715.50 27 

# . 5340.00 27 

# . 1297.00 27 24 8498.00 27 24 2145.02 27 24 6786.69 27 24 9240.00 27 24 3547.50 27 

# . 5420.00 27 

# .

811.00 27 11 11040.00 27 11

922.36 27 11 5658.27 27 11 33600.00 27 11

1049.00 27 

## . 2900.00 27 

## . 786.00 27 13 3369.00 27 13

534.52 27 13 2919.52 27 13 3040.00 27 13

363.50 27 

## . 2530.00 27 

## .

536.00 27 24 3369.00 27 24 744.10 27 24 2919.52 27 24 3040.00 27 24 1033.00 27 

## . 2530.00 27 

# . 2900.00 27 11 48100.00 27 11

2813.72 27 11 16881.72 27 11 51000.00 27 

### ' 11 2730.00 27 

# . 5925.00 27 

## . 2900.00 27 13 5650.00 27 13 1685.82 27 13 4089.50 27 13 6200.00 27 13 980.00 27 

## . 2960.00 27 

## . 486.00 27 24 5650.00 27 24

969.75 27 24 4503.09 27 24 6200.00 27 24 1935.00 27 

## . 3589.00 27 

## . 82 82 7 7 7 7 7

13 13 13 13 13

13 13 13 13 13

7 7 7 7 7

13 13 13 13 13

13 13 13 13 13

7 7 7 7 7

13 13 13 13 13

13 13 13 13 13 17 5 16 5 4

18 8 20

9 7

27

9 24 10 8

17 5 15 5 3

18 

### I 21

8 8

23

8 19 9 9

15 5 16 5 4

16 8 20 10 7

32

9 26 11 8 76 81 74 81 79

78 78 72 81 75

56 69 58 71 68

71 81 71 81 76

78 81 75 78 78

63 71 63 69 69

81 81 79 81 79

84 78 72 84 75

55 69 55 73 68 21 10 19 10 7

38 22 38 25 19

19 11 18 13 10

19 10 17 10 5

38 22 41 22 22

19 11 16 11 11

21 10 21 10 7

38 22 38 28 19

23 11 

# ;: 10 55 71 55 71 71

41 56 34 56 56

37 58 40 58 58

52 71 55 71 71

41 59 34 56 56

44 60 47 58 58

60 71 57 71 71

47 56 34 56 56

32 58 37 58 58 19 2 19 2 2

19 3 25

3 -3

24

3 21

3 3

21

2 19 2 2

19 25

3 3

18 2 15 3 3

14 2 17 2 2

13 3 25

3 3

29

3 24

3 3 5 17 7 17 19

3 19 3 16 22

19 27 21 26 29

7 17 10 17 21 I' 3 19 19 19

19 27 23 27 27

5 17 5 17 19

3 19 3 13 22

16 27 21 24 29APPENDIX 38: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 

# . 15 SEC IN THRESGL USING GL DATA , ti # # TOTAL NCTMCODE CHEMCODE TEST SAMPTYP UNITS SEC 

## c CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 508 PCB-T HA28 BT NG/G NR X
. 82. 

# *

...

# Appendix 3c Summary of sediment effect concentrations 

# (SECs)calculated using sediment concentrations normalized to total organic carbon 

# (TOC)concentrations and listed by chemical, test type, and sampletype for the entire database. Seelegend to Appendix 3a for a description 

# of the headings.

\



### \APPENDIX 3C: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON 1 SEC IN THRESTOC USING ALL DATA
NUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST SAMPTYP UNITS 401 14-2CLBNZ CR14 401 14-2CLBNZ HA14 401 14-ZCLBNZ HA28 402 12-2CLBNZ CR14 402 12-ZCLBNZ HA14 402 12-2CLBNZ HA28 403 13-2CLBNZ CR14. 403 13-2CLBNZ HA14 403 13-2CLBNZ HA28 404 NAPHTHALENE CR14

404 NAPHTHALENE HA14

404 NAPHTHALENE HA28

405 2-METHNAP CR14 405 2-METHNAP HA14 405 2-METHNAP HA28 406 ACENA CR14 406 'ACENA HA14 406 ACENA HA28

407 DIBNZFURAN CR14 407 DIBNZFURAN HA14 407 DIBNZFURAN HA28 408 FLUORENE CR14

408 FLUORENE HA14 BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT

BT

BT

BT BT BT BT BT BT

BT BT BT BT

BT NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G

NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G

NG/G SEC C NR X NR X NRX NR X NR X NR 

### X NRX NR 

### X NRX ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC @ NERM 

### X NERH 

### X ERL 

### X ERM 

### X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM 

### X NERH 

### X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X NRX NRX NR 

### X NR 

### X NR X ERL X ERM X TEL 

### X PEL X NEC @ NERM X NERH X NRX NR X NRX ERL 

### ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH 

### X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM 

### X # # # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 19 2



## . 19 1



## . 19, 3



## . 7. .7. .7.



## . 7.



## . 7.



## . 7. 2619.05 42 11 30571.25 42 11

1884.57 42 11 20898.14 42 11 224719.10 42 11

1356.06 42 

## . 14285.71 42 

## .

2619.05 32 ij 15867.65 32 13

2642..75 32 13 16306.87 32 13 80000.00 32 13

2666.67 32 

## . 16758.24 32 

## .

1166.67 62 24 3636.36 62 24 1149.88 62 24 5134.55 62 24 80000.00 62 24

1133.33 62 

## . 7250.00 62 

## .

. 19 1



## . 19 1



# . 19 3



## . 23 1



## . 13 1 714.29 38 10 884.62 38 10 718.97 38 10 1330.12 38 10 31111.11 38 10

723.68 38 

## . 2000.00 38 

## .



# . 19 1



# . 19 1



## . 19 3 3285.71 42 11 20000.00 42 11

1812.65 42 11 16903.09 42 11 80000.00 42 11

1000.00 42 

## . 14285.71 42 

## .

2090.91 32 13 17053.57 32 13 2361.30 32 13 16905.26 32 13 80000.00 32 13

2666.67 32 

## . 8 8 8 8 8

12 12 12 12 12

19 19 19 19 19

6 6 6 6 6

9 9 9 9 9

12 12 12 12 12 18 6 19

8 1

21 9 20

9 3



### 37 19 38 16 3

22 17 21

7 1

16 8 18 9 2

21

9 20

9 2 79 79 76 79 71

69 69 66 69 63

60 63 61 58 63

47 45 45 61 71

74 79 74 76 74

69 69 66 69 59 24 10 24 12

38 19 34 19

6

29 16 31 11

3

16

8 13

3

19 12 21 12

2

38 19 34 19 3 55 69 52 

### 67 71

31 

### SO 31 50 56

.3

1 47 31 47 60

32 37 32 58 71

55 67 52 64 71

31 50 31 50 56 19 5 21

7 2

28

9 28

9' 3

31 15 31 15 2

42 37 42 16 3

19

7 21 10

2

28

9 28

9 

### 3 2 17

2 14 26



### 3 22

6 22 34

10 23

8 27 35

11 18 13 24 26

7 14

5 14 24

3 22

6 22 38APPENDIX 3C: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON SEC IN THRESTOC USING ALL DATA 2

NUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST 408 FLUORENE HA14 408 FLUORENE HA28

409 PHENANTHRN CR14

409 PHENANTHRN HA14

409 PHENANTHRN HA28

410 ANTHRACENE CR14

410 ANTHRACENE HA14

410 ANTHRACENE HA28

411 FLUORANTHN CR14

411 FLUORANTHN HA14

411 FLUORANTHN HA28 SAMPTYP UNITS BT BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT NG/G NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NGIG'

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G SEC C NERH X ERL X ERM X \ TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL X

, PEL

NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X #I # # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOMOT 16758.24 32 

## .

909.09 62 24 3285.71 62 24

953.46 62 24 5635.77 62 24 80000.00 62 24

1000.00 62 

## . 9666.67 62 

## . 6140.35 42 11 50357.14 42 11

2626.67 42 11 36913.48 42 11 80000.00 42 11

1123.61 42
. 27058.82 42 

## . 18571.43 32 13 51428.57 32 13

7067.96 32 13 61411.96 32 13 137500.00 32 13

3333.33 32 

## . 73333.33 32 

## .

1000.00 62 24 13848.48 62 24

1014.60 62 24 23308.51 62 24 222222.22 62 24

1029.41 62 

## . 39230.77 62 

## .

2456.14 42 11 25000.00 42 11

1567.21 42 11 18898.22 42 11 80000.00 42 11

1000.00 42 

## . 14285.71 42 

## .

2456.14 32 13 16609.39 32 13

2402.48 32 13 16683.65 32 13 80000.00 32 13

2350.00 32 

## . 16758.24 32 

## .

909.09 62 24 4545.45 62 24

909.09 62 24 5740.60 62 24 80000.00 62 24

909.09 62 

## . 7250.00 62 

## . 27027.03 42 11 90357.14 42 11

7367.55 42 11 58951.46 42 11 84269.66 42 11

2008.39 42 

## . 38461.54 42 

## . 27027.03 32 13 71252.48 32 13 13014.20 32 13 64964.14 32 13 177500.00 32 13

6266.67 32 

## . 59230.77 32
.

2086.96 62 24 7619.05 62 24 2824.81 62 24 17118.42 62 24 177500.00 62 24

3823.53 62
. 19 19 19 19 19

10 10 10 10 10

13 13 13 13 13

24 24 24 24 24

9 9 9 9 9

12 12 12 12 12

19 19 19 19 19

8 8 8 8 8

12 12 12 12 12

21 21 21 21 21 43 22 39 18

2

20

8 24 10

4

18 10 21

8 2

47 24 39 19

2

18 7 20

9 2

21

9 21

9 2

41 20 41 18

2

14

4 19

7 6

16

9 19

9 2

39 25 36 19 2 47 58 47 58 61

74 79 64 79 79

78 72 69 66 59

53 61 63 63 61

74 81 74 76 74

69 69 69 69 59

53 61 53 58 61

79 83 71 81 83

78 69 69 69 59



### 56 56 52 60 61 27 16 24 13

2

24 12 24 14

7

38 22 38 16

3



### ..

34 19 32 16 2

21 12 24 12

2

38 19 38 19

3

29 16 29 13

2

19 10 21 12 12

34 19 34 19

3

29 18 24 15

2 19 42 23 45 60



### 50 67 40 64 71

41 50 31 50 56

19 42 31 47 60

52 69 50 64 71 

# :a 31 50 56

24 45 24 45 60

60 74 50 69 71

44 50 34 50 56

27 39 27 45 60 42 19 39 16

2

24

7 33 10 2

19

9 28

9 3

42 19 31 15 2

21

5 24 10 2

28

9 28

9 3

37 16 37 16

2

14 24

5 2

16 9 25 9 3

34 23 34 16 2 11 23 15 26 37

2 14 2 12 19

3 19

3 25 38

5 19

6 23 37

5 14

2 14 24

3 22

3 22 38

10 23 10 26 37

7 17

5 14 14

6 22

6 22 38

10 21 15 24 37

### APPENDIX 3C: 

### SUMMARY OF 

### SECS NORMALIZED TO TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
. 3 

### SEC IN THRESTOC USING ALL DATA



### NUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST SAMPTYP UNITS 411 

### FLUORANTHN HA28 412 

### PYRENE CR14

412 

### PYRENE HA14

,413 

### BAA

413 

### BAA 412 

### PYRENE HA28

CR14

HA14

HA28 413 BAA

414 

### CHRYSENE CR14

414 

### CHRYSENE HA14

414 

### CHRYSENE HA28

415 

### BBF 415 

### BBF 415 

### BBF CR14 HA14 HA28 

### BT BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT BT BT NG/G NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G
,



### NGIG

NG/G

NG/G NGIG NG/G SEC C NERH X ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL X PEL X 

### NEC X NERM X NERH X

, 

### ERL 

### X

ERM X TEL .X 

### PEL 

### X NEC X NERM 

### X NERH X ERL 

### ERM TEL 

### X PEL NEC NERM 

### X NERH X ERL ERM X 

### TEL PEL. X NEC X NERM X 

### NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X 

### NEC 

### X NERM X NERH 

### X ERL 

### ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NEW X ERL ERM TEL PEL X NEC 

### X NERM X NERH 

### X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X NR X NR X

/- # # # 

### TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 38461.54 62 25675.68 42 11 81460.08 42 11

6971.35 42 11 60545.06 42 11 80000.00 42 11

1892.83 42 

## . 45000.00 42
. 25675.68 32 13 64705.88 32 13 11990.99 32 

## . 13 71947.69 32 13 147500.00 32 13

5600.00 32 

## . 80000.00 32 

## .

2101.45 62 24 1'8333.33 62 24 2646.66 62 24 31643.04 62 24 147500.00 62 24

3333.33 62 

## . 54615.38 62 

## . 14285.71 42 11 54500.00 42 11

3779.64 42 11 30661.46 42 11 80000.00 42 11

1000.00 42 

## . 17250.00 42 

# . 14090.91 32 13 30823.53 32 13

6129.91 32 13 30282.01 32 13 80000.00 32 13

2666.67 32 

## . 29750.00 32 

## .

1289.86 62 24 14090.91 62 24

1135.72 62 24 16461.44 62 24 80000.00 62 24

1000.00 62
. 19230.77 62
. 16756.76 42 11 47794.12 42 11

4918.75 42 11 31953.97 42 11 80000.00 42 11

1443.84 42 

## . 21363.64 42 

## . 16756.76 32 13 40588.24 32 13 10674.55 32 13 53302.69 32 13 112500.00 32 13

6800.00 32 

## . 70000.00 32 

## .

1637.68 62 24 16756.76 62 24

1642.36 62 24 20261.80 62 24 112500.00 62 24

1647.06 62 

## . 24500.00 62
.



## . 19 1



## . 19 1 

### NR X 

## . 19 3 10 10 10 10 10

13 13 13 13 13

23 23 23 23 23

8 8 8 8 8

12 12 12 12 12

19 19 19 19 19

10 10 10 10 10

13 13 13 13 13

19 19 19 19 19 18 5 20

9 6

20 10 21

8 4

41 24 38 16 4

14 5 20

7 4

17 9 20

9 ,4

37 20 38 17 4

1 15 6 20

8 5'

17 10 20

8 3

39 19 38 17 3 74 86 69 81 83

12 72 69 66 66

60 61 55 61 65

79 81 69 81 79

75 69 72 69 66

56 61 55 60 65

81 83 69 83 81

81 72 72 66 63

53 63 52 63 63 21 12 21 14 12

38 22 38 16 9

32 19 27 13 5

19 10 21 12 7

34 19 38 19 9

27 16 27 13 5

21 12 21 14 10

38 22 38 16 6

27 16 26 15 3 52 74 48 67 71

34 50 31 50 56

27 42 27 48 60

60 71 48 69 71

41 50 34 50 56

29 45 27 60 * 47

60 71 48 69 71

44 50 34 50 56

26 47 26 48 60 21 2.6

7 2

25

9 28

9 3

34 19 34 13 2

14 2 26

5 2

19 9 25

9 3

32 16 34 15 2

14 2 26

5 2

16 9 25

9 3

35 15 35 13 2 5 14 5 12 14

3 19 3 25 31

6 19 11 26 34

7 17 5 14 19

6 22

3 22 31

11 23 11 26 34

5 14 5 12 17

3 19 3 25 34

11 23 13 24 35

### I' NUMCODE CHEMCODE 416 BKF 416 BKF 416 BKF 417 BAP

417 BAP

417 BAP

418 ICDP



### 418 ICDP

418 ICDP

419 BGHIP

419 BGHIP

419 BGHIP

420 BBKF TEST CR14 HA14 HA28 CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14APPENDIX 

### 3C: SUMMARY OF SECS NORMALIZED TO TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON SEC.IN THRESTOC USING ALL DATA

BT ET BT BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT NGIG NG/G NG/G NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G SAMPTYP UNITS SEC C NR X NR X NR X ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC NEW X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL X NEC X NERM X NEW X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NEW X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM 

### X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH 

### X ERL' 

### ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X NR X 6 # # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 19 1



## . 19 1



## . 19 3 12432.43 42 11 125000.00 42 11

3525.97 42 11 50000.00 42 11 80000.00 42 11

1000.00 42 

## . 20000.00 42 

## . 12432.43 32. 13 36470.59 32 13

7725.00 32 13 26483.15 32 13 80000.00 32 13

4800.00 32 

## . 19230.77 32 

## .

1217.39 62 24 11216.22 62 24

1158.75 62 24 13185.27 62 24 80000.00 62 24

1102.94 

### 62
. 15500.00 62 

## .

8108.11 42 11 94642.86 42 11

2847.47 42 11 36770.11 42 11 80000.00 42 11

1000.00 42 

## . 14285.71 42 

## . 7619.05 32 13 26000.00 32 13

5039.53 32 13 26495.28 32 13 80000.00 32 13

3333.33 32
. 27000.00 32 

## .

1000.00 57 21 9054.05 57 21 1000.00 57 21 8801.28 57 21 80000.00 57 21

1000.00 57 

## . 8555.56 57 

## . 13809.52 42 11 112500.00 42 11

4154.74 42 11 40089.19 42 11 80000.00 42 11

1250.00 42
. 14285.71 42
. 8108.11 32 13 31000.00 32 13

5198.75 32 13 28930.95 32 13 80000.00 32 13

3333.33 32 

## . 27000.00 32 

## .

1250.00 62 24 10621.21 62 24

1165.92 62 24 11900.26 62 24 80000.00 62 24

1087.50 62 

## . 13333.33 62
. \ 4

7 7 7 7 7

11 11 11 11 11

18 18 18 18 18

7 7 7 7 7

11 11 11 11 11

16 16 16 16 16

7 7 7 1 

### 7

11 11 11 11 11

18 18 18 18 18 14 4 20

6 5

16 7 20

9 5

37 16 38 15 5

13 4 19 6 5

17 10 20

9 5

41 14 41 14 5

12 4 19 6 5

17 9 21

9 5

37 16 38 15 5 79 83 69 79 81

78 75 72 69 69

53 65 52 63 66

76 83 71 79 81

75 66 66 63 69

44 67 44 67 68

79 83 71 79 81

75 69 69 69 69

56 65 55 63 66 19 10 21 10 10

34 19 38 19 13

26 15 26 13 6

17 10 21 10 10

34 19 34 16 13

26 14 26 14 7

17 10 21 10 10

34 19 38 19 13

27 15 27 13

6 60 14 48 69 71

44 56 34 50 56

27 50 26 50 60

60 74 50 69 71

41 47 31 47 56

18 53 18 53 61

62 74 50 69 71

41 50 31 50 56

29 50 27 50 60 14 26

5 2

16 3 25 -9 3

34 11 35 11 2

14 24

5 2

19 13 28 13 3

46 11 46 11 2

12 24

5 2

19 9 28

9 3

32 11 34 11 2 7 17 5 17 17

6' 22

3 22 28

13 24 13 26 32

10 17 5 17 17

6 22

6 25 28

11 23 11 23 30

10 17 5 17 17

6 22

3 22 28

11 24 11 26 32NUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST 420 BBKF HA14. 420 BBKF HA28

421 ACENAPTYLE 

### cRia 421 ACENAPTYLE HA14 421 ACENAPTYLE HA28

422 DBA 422 DBA 422 DBA

423 4-METHNAP 423 4-METHNAP 423 4-METHNAP 450 PAH-T, 

# 0-

450 PAH-T

450 PAH-T

451 PAH-L

451 PAH-L cRia HA14 HA2 8



### cRi4 HA14 HA2 8 CR14

HA14

HA28

cRi 4

HA14APPENDIX 3C: SUMMARY OF SECS NORMALIZED TO TOTAL ORGYIC CARBON SEC IN THRESTOC USING ALL DATA 5

SAMPTYP UNITS

BT BT

BT BT BT

BT BT BT

BT BT BT BT

BT

BT

BT

BT NGIG NG/G

NGIG NGIG NGIG

NGIG NGlG NGIG

NGIG NGIG NG/G NGIG

NGIG

NGIG

NG/G

NGIG # # #. TOTAL SEC C CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT NR X 

## . 13 1 ERL X 1428.57 43 13 ERM X 2394.93 43 13 TEL X 1889.82 43 13 PEL X 4206.64 43 13 NEC X 192500.00 43 13 NERM X 2500.00 43
. NERH X 7388.89 43 

## . NR X 

# . 30 1 NR X 

## . 20 1 ERL X 714.29 45 10 ERM X 1000.00 45 10 TEL X 845.15 45 10 PEL X 2755.09 45 10 NEC @ 80000.00 45 10 NERM X 1000.00 45
. NERH X 7590.52 45 

## . NR X 

## . 23 1 NRX 

## . 13 1 ERL X 769.23 43 13 ERM X 1125.00 43 13 TEL X 877.06 43 13 PEL X 1936.49 43 13 NEC X '23250.00 43 13 NERM X 1000.00 43
. NERH X 3333.33 43 

## . NRX 

## . 7. NRX 

## . I.

ERL 169190.48 42 11 ERM 651000.00 42 11 TEL, X 52995.87 42 11 PEL 502025.90 42 11 'NEC 1360000.00 42 11 NERM X 16600.00 42 

## . NERH X '387142.86 42 

## . ERL 169190.48 32. 13 ERM X 531264.71 32 1.3 TEL 116897.18 32 13 PEL X 568416.65 32 13, NEC X 1360000.00 32 13 NERM X 80766.67 32
. NERH X 608166.67 32
. . ERL X 15449.28 62 24 ERM. X 105200.00 62 24 TEL X 20865.97 62 24 PEL X 207877.18 62 24 NEC X 1360000.00 62 24 NERM X 28181.82 62 

## . NERH X 41,0769.23 62 

## . ERL 31095.24 42 11 ERM 191571.43 42 11 TEL 13767.34 42. 11 PEL 123158.23 42 11 NEC 640000.00 42 11 NERM X 6095.45 42 

## . NERH 

### X 79176.47 42 

## . ERL 31095.24 32 13 ERM X 138527.03 32 13 TEL 24263.89 32 13 PEL X 157265.39 32 13 NEC X 640000.00 3'2 13 NEW X 18933.33 32'
. NERH X 178538.46 32
. .8 8 8 8 8

5 5 5 5 5

8 8 8 8 8

9 9 9 9 9

12 12 12 12 12

23 23 23 23 23

8 8 8 8 8

12 12 12 12 12 35 22 31 12

1

33 27 28 10

1

29 14 26 11 1

18 7 20

8 4

20

9 20

9 4

49 24 39 19 4

18 7 20 10 2

20 11 20 10 2 30 47 35 56 67

27 31 29 56 76

35 56 37 53 67

74 81 69 79 79

72 69 72 69 66

47 61 56 63 65

74 76 74 74 74

72 69 72 66 59 21 14 19 7

11 7 7

16 9 14 5

21 12 21 12 7

38 19 38 19 9

32 19 29 16 5

21 10 24 12 2

38 22 38 19 3 9 33 16 49 67

16 24 22 56 76

19 47 23 49 67

52 69 48 67 71

34 50 34 50 56

15 42 27 47 60

52 67 50 62 71

34 47 34 47 56 60 31 53 21



### 2

62 53 56 22

2

51 23 47 21

2

21

5 26

7 2

25 9 25

9 3

47 19 34 15 2

21

7 24 12 2

25 13 25 13 3 9 16 12 23 30

11 16 16 22 22

14 21 16 26 '30

5 14 5 14 19

3 22

3 22 31

6 19 10 23 34

5 17 2 14 24

3 19 3 22 38NUMCODE CHEMCODE 451 PAH-L

452 PAH-H

452 PAH-H

452 PAH-H

508 PCB-T 508 PCB-T 508 PCB-T TEST HA28

CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14 HA14 HA2 8 APPENDIX 3C: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON 6 SEC IN THRESTOC USING ALL DATA

SAMPTYP UNITS

BT

BT

BT

'BT

BT BT BT NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G NG/G # # # TOTAL SEC C CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NEW X NERH X 

## mx NRX 6100.00 62 24 31095.24 62 24

6049.79 62 24 54731.23 62 24 640000.00 62 24

6000.00 62
. 96333.33 62 

## . 138621.62 42 11 661964.29 42 11

39179.47 42 11 376058.03 42 11 720000.00 42 11

11073.53 42 

## . 213636.36 42 

## . 138621.62 32 13 398676.47 32 13

70609.90 32 13 410172.49 32 13 838750.0.0 32 13

35966.67 32 

## . 422000.00 32 

## .

10000.00 62 24 96166.67 62 24 13622.10 62 24 149272.01 62 24 838750'.00 62 24

18556.15 62
. 231703.30 62 

## . 23 2



# . 92 NG/G ERL X 1538.46 29 10 ERM 4027.78 29 10 TEL X ' 1754.12 29 10 PEL 3297.73 29 10 NEC 10777.78 29 10 NERM X 2000.00 29 

## . NERH X 2700.00 29 

## . 21 21 21 21 21

8 8 8 8 8

12 12 12 12 12

22 22 22 22 22

8 8 8 8 8 37 23 38 19 2

15 5 20

7 5

17 9 21

9 5

48 23 38 17 5

21

6 18 6 4 60 60 58 60 61

76 81 69 81 81

75 69 69 69 69

45 60 55 60 66

41 72 45 72 72 29 18 29 15 2

19 10 21 12 10

34 19 38 19 13

31 18 27 13 6

24 14 21 14 10 31 42 29 45 60

57 71 48 69 71

41 50 31 50 56

15 42 27 47 60

17 59 24 59 62 31 19 32 16 2

17 2 26

5 2

19 9 28

9 3

47 19 34 15 2

48 7 41

7 3 10 21 10 24 37

7 17 5 14 17

6' 22

3 22 28
.

8 21 11 26 32

10 21 14 21 24

# 0

- 

# Appendix 3d Summary of sediment effect concentrations 

# (SECs)calculated using sediment concentrations normalized to total organic carbon 

# (TOC)concentrations and listed by chemical, test type, and sampletype 

# for the Great Lakes database. Seelegend to Appendix 

# 3a for 

# a description 

# of the headings.



# a-

..APPENDIX 3D: SUMMARY OF SECS NORMALIZED TO TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON

NUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST SAMPTYP UNITS 401 14-2CLBNZ CR14



### - 401 14-2CLBNZ HA14 401 402 402 402 403 403 403 404 14-2CLBNZ HA28 12-2CLBNZ CR14 12-2CLBNZ HA14 12-2CLBNZ HA28 13-2CLBNZ CR14 13-2CLBNZ HA14 13-2CLBNZ HA28 NAPHTHALENE CR14

404 NAPHTHALENE HA14

404 NAPHTHALENE HA28



### I 405 2-METHNAP CR14 405 2-METHNAP HA14 405 2-METHNAP HA28 406 ACENA CR14 406 ACENA HA14 406 ACENA HA28 407 DIBNZFURAN CR14 407 DIBNZFURAN HA14 407 DIBNZFURAN HA28 408 FLUORENE CR14

408 FLUORENE HA14

408 FLUORENE HA28 BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT

BT

BT

BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT

BT

BT NGlG NG/G NGIG NG/G NGIG NGIG NG/G NGIG NG/G NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G

NG/G

NGIG SEC IN THRGLTOC USING GL DATA # # # TOTAL ' SEC C CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT NR NR 

### NR NR NR 

### NR NR 

### NR NR ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC X 

## . 19 2 X 

## . 19 1 X
. 19 3

X
. 7. X 

## . 7. X 

## . 7. X .7 X .7 3157.89 27 11 56818.18 27 11

4055.22 27 11 37876.89 27 11 Q 224719.10 27 -11 NERM X NERH 

## x ERL X ERM 

### X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL 

### X ERM 

### X TEL 

### X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X NR X NRX NRX NRX NRX NR 

### X NR X NR 

### X NR 

### X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X 5207.52 27 

## . 25250.00 27 

## .

2619.05 27 13 15867.65 27 13

2047.07 27 13 17468.46 27 13 80000.00 27 13

1600.00 27 

## . 19230.77 27 

## . 2619.05 27 24 23500.00 27 24

2654.21 27 24 21258.48 27 24 80000.00 27 24

2689.84 27 

## . 19230.77 27
.



## . 19 1



## . 19 1



## . 19 3



## . 8 '1



## . 81 '8 1



## . 19. 1



## . 19 

### 1



## . 19 3 3285.71 27 11 20000.00 27 11 20112.05 27 11 80000.00 27 11 2516.04 27
. 20224.72 27 ,

2090.91 27 

### 13 17053.57 27 13 1627.42 27 13 18109.48 27 13 80000.00 27 13

1266.67 27
. 19230.77 27 

## .

1543.86 27 24 17053.57 27 24

2130.91 27 24 18109.48 27 24 2875.24 27 11 7 7 7 7 7

12 12 12 12 12

11 11 11 11 -1



### 1

9 9 9 9 9

12 12 12 12 12

12 12 12 12 17 6 15

6 

### 1

21

9 21

9 3

24

8 23

8 3

16

8 17 7 2

21

9 22

9 2

28 

### 10 23 10 1

76 79 71 79 71

69 69 69 69 63

61 68 60 68 63

74 79 76 76 74

69 69 66 69 59

55 65 56 65 21 10 17 10

38 19 38 19 6

19 10 18 10 3

19 12 21 10

2

38 19 38 19

3

19 10 16 10 55 69 55 69 71

31 50 31 50 56

42 58 42 58 60

55 67 55 67 71

31 50 28 50 56

35 55 40 55 19 5 19

5 2

28

9 28

9 

### 3

19

3 19

3 2

19 7 19

7 2

28

9 31

9 3

26 6 21

6 5 17 10 17 25 4.
3 22

3 22 34

19 29 21 29 35

7 14 5 17 24

3 22

3 22 38

19 29 23 29APPENDIX 3D: SUMMARY OF SECS NORMALIZED TO TOTAL ORGFIC CARBON SEC IN THRGLTOC USING GL DATA 2

# # # TOTAL NUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST SAMPTYP UNITS SEC C CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT \ 408 FLUORENE HA28 ET

409 PHENANTHRN CR14 BT NGIG NEC X NERM X NERH X NGIG ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NEW X NERH X 80000.00 27 24 12 2 61 2941.18 27 

## . 19230.77 27 

## . 18571.43 27 11 9 16 79 60714.29 27 11 9 7 81 17230.61 27 11 9 16 79 55878.88 27 11 9 7 81 80000.00 27 11 9 4 79 15986.59 27 

## . 51428.57 27 

## . 2 60 2 37

21 57 17 5 12 69 5 14 21 57 17 5 12 69 5 14

7 71 2 19



### .. 409 PHENANTHRN HA14 ET NGIG ERL 18571.43 27 13 13 18 78 38 41 19 3 ERM 51428.57 27 13 13 10 72 22 50 9 19 TEL 11512.99 27 13 13 20 72 38 34 25 3 PEL 37263.54 27 13 13 12 72 25 47 13 16 NEC X 80000.00 27 13 13 

### 5 63 9 53 6 31 NERM X 7137.25 27 

## . NERH X 27000.00 27
. 409 PHENANTHRN HA28 BT NGIG ERL X 6140.35 27 24 13 26 65 23 42 19 16 8 26 ERM X 40000.00 27 24 13 13 66 13 53 TEL X 9907.74 27 24 13 25 63 21 42 19 18 8 26 PEL X 39613.52 27 24 13 13 66 13 53 NEC X 80000.00 27 24 13 7 63 6 56 

### 5 32 NERM X 15986.59 27 

## . NERH X 39230.77 27 

## . 410 ANTHRACENE CR14 ET NGlG ERL 2456.14 27 11 9 18 74 21 ' 52 21 5 ERM 25000.00 27 11 9 7 81 12 69 5 14

410 ANTHRACENE HA14 BT NGIG TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NEW X 3756.38 27 11 9 17 71 21926.45 27 11 9 7 81 80000.00 27 11 9 2 74

5744.95 27 

## . 19230.77 27 

## .

2456.14 27 13 12 21 69 16609.39 27 13 12 9 69 2324.54 27 13 12 21 69 17872.08 27 13 12 9 69 80000.00 27 13 12 2 59

2200.00 27 

## . 19230.77 27 

## . 19 52 21 7 12 69 5 14

2 71 2 24

38 31 28 3 19 50 9 22 38 31 28 3 19 50 9 22 3 56 3 38

410 ANTHRACENE HA28 BT NGIG ERL X 2200.00 27 24 12 25 60 19 40 21 19 6 29 ERM X 16609.39 27 24 12 10 65 10 55 TEL X 3908.68 27 24 12 20 61 16 45 16 23 PEL X 17872.08 27 24 12 10 65 10 55 6 29 2 37 NEC X 80000.00 27 24 12 2 61 NERM X 6944.44 27 

## . NERH X 

## \ 19230.77 27 

## . 2 60

411 FLUORANTHN CR14 BT NG/G ERL 27027.03 27 11 8 14 79 19 60 14 7 ERM 90357.14 27. 11 8 4 83 10 74 17

' PEL 70203.79 27 11 8 7 81 12 ', 69 

# . 5 14 NEC 84269.66 27 11 8 6 83 12 71 2 14 NERM X 14482.76 27 

## . NERH X 54545.45 27 

## . TEL 19784.49, 27 11 8 ' 15 76 19 , 57 17 7

411 FLUORANTHN HA14 BT NGlG ERL 27027.03 27 13 12 

### 16 78 34 44 16 6 ERM X 71252.48 27 13 12 9 69 19 ' 50 9 22 TEL X 10165.56 27 13 12 19 69 34 34 25 6 PEL 46233.91 27 13 12 11 75 25 50 9 16 NEC X
. 80000.00 27 13 12 9 69 19 50 9 22 NERM X 3823.53 27 

## . NERH X 30000.00 27 

## . 411 FLUORANTHN HA28 BT

. NG/G ERL X 6333.33 27 24 12 27 56 19 37 24 19 ERM X 71252.48 27 24 12 10 65 10 55 6 29 TEL X 9577.27 27 24 12 23 56 16 40 21 23 PEL X 56439.39 27 24 12 11 66 11 55 6 27 NEC X 80000.00 27 24 12 

### 10 65 10 55 6 29 NEW X 14482.76 27 

## . NERH X 44705.88 27
. 412 PYRENE CR14 BT NG/G ERL 25675.68 27 11 10 18 74 21 52 21 

### 5 ERM 81460.08 27 11 10 5 86 12 74. 14 TEL 25768.70 27 11 10 17 71 19 52 21 7 2 14 PEL 71556.61 27 11 10 6 83 12 71APPENDIX 3D: SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON 3 SEC IN THRGLTOC USING GL DATA

NUMCODE CHEMCODE 412 PYRENE



### - 412 PYRENE

412 pYRENE

413 BAA

413 BAA

413 BAA 

# 0-

414 CHRYSENE

414 CHRYSENE

414 CHRYSENE

415 BBF 415 BBF 415 BBF 416 BKF 416 BKF 416 BKF TEST CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14 HA14 HA2 8 CR14 HA14 HA2 8 SAMPTYP UNITS BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT BT BT BT BT BT NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G SEC C NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL X PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM 

### x NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC X NERM X NERH X EFU X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X rJR X NR X NR X NR X NR X NR X # # # TOTAL CONC
, N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 80000.00 27 11 25862.07 27
. 62857.14 27
. 25675.68 27 13 64705.88 27 13 17083.53 27 13 53960.77 27 13 80000.00 27 13 11366.67 27
. 45000.00 27 

## .

4400.00 27 24 64705.88 27 24 10784.09 27 24 59446.92 27 24 80000.'00 27 24 26431.03 27 

## . 54615.38 27 

## . 14285.71 27 11 54500.00 27 11 11097.42 27 11 38360.14 27 11 80000.00 27 11

8620.69 27 

## . 27000.00 27 

## . 14090.91 27 13 30823.53 27 13

4597.43 27 13 24346.67 27 13 80000.00 27 13

1500.00 27 

## . 19230.77 27 

## . 5666.67 27 24 30823.53 27 24

6989.32 27 24 27360.03 27 24 80000.00 27 24 8620.69 27
. 24285.71 27
. 16756.76 27 11 47794.12 27 11 14311.00 27 11 35922.71 27 11 80000.00 27 11 12222.22 27 

## . 27000.00 27
. 16756.76 27 13 40588.24 27 13

95305.24 27, 13 27938.20 27 13 80000.00 27 13

5855.17 27 

## . 19230.77 27 

## . 2400.00 27 24 40588.24 27 24

5083.22 27 24 32411.71 27 24 80000.00 27 24 10766.28 27 

## . 25882.35 27 

### ..



## . 19 1



# . 19 1



## . 19 3

, 19 1

, 19 1

, 19 3 10

13 13 13 13 13

13 13 13 13 13

8 8 8 8 8

12 12 12 12 12

12 12 12 12 12

10 10 10 10 10

13 13 13 13 13

13 13 13 13 13 6

20 10 21 12 8

33 11 25 12 9

14 5 17 6 4

17 9 21 11 4

25 11 23 12 4

15 6 16 8 5

17 10 20 10 6

33 10 26 11 6 83

72 72 69 72 66

53 66 63 65 63

79 81 76 79 79

75 69 69 69 66

63 66 60 68 65

81 83 79 83 81

81 72 72 72 66

56 68 58 66 65 12

38 22 38 25 16

23 11 21 11 8

19 10 21 10 7

34 19 38 22

9

21 11 18 13 5

21 12 21 14 10

38 22 22 13 38

24 11 19 11 6 71

34 50 31 47 50

31 55 42 53 55

60 71 55 69 71

41 50 31 47 56

42 55 42 55 60

60 71 57 69 71

44 50 34 50 53

32 56 39 55 58 2

25

9 13 9 2a

31

6 19

8 6

14 2 19 5 2

19 9 28 13 3

19 6 19 6 2

14 2 17 5 2

16 9 25

9 6

29

5 23

6 3 14

3 19 3 16 25

16 27 18 27 31

7 17 5 17 19

6 22

3 19 31

18 27 21 26 34



## .. 5 14 5 12 17

3 19 3 19 28

15 27 19 27 32 IAPPENDIX 3D: 

### SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON 4 SEC IN .THRGLTOC USING GL DATA

NVMCODE CHEMCODE 417 BAP

417 BAP

417 BAP

418 ICDP

418 ICDP

418 ICDP

419 BGHIP

419 BGHIP

419 BGHIP

420 BBKF 420 BBKF 420 BBKF TEST CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14

HA14

HA28

CR14 HA14 HA28 421 ACENAPTYLE CR14 BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT

BT BT BT BT NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G

NG/G NG/G NG/G NG/G SAMPTYP UNITS SEC C ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NEW X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NEW X ERL ERM TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X ERL X ERM X TEL X PEL X NEC X NERM X NERH X NR X NR X NR X NR X # # # TOTAL CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 12432.43 27 11 125000.00 27 11 10359.49 27 11 56180.51 27 11 80000.00 27 11

8632.18 27 

## . 25250.00 27 

## . 12432.43 27 13 36470.59 27 13

7117.88 27 13 26483.15 27 13 80000.00 27 13

4075.16 27 

## . 19230.77 27 

## . 10000.00 27 24 36470.59 27 24

6383.70 27 24 27401.92 27 24 80000.00 27 24

4075.16 27 

## . 20588.24 27 

## .

8108.11 27 11 94642.86 27 11 7585.85 27 11 46772.92 27 11 80000.00 27 11 7097.22 27 

## . 23115.38 27 

## .

7619.05 27 13 26000.00 27 13

5501.32 27 13 22360.68 27 13 80000.00 27 13 3972.22 27 

## . 19230.77 27 

## . 7619.05 27 21 26000.00 27 21 4613.95 27 21 22360.68 27 21 80000.00 27 21

2794.12 27 

## . 19230.77 27 

## . 13809.52 27 11 112500.00 27 11

9899.96 27 11 50994.91 27 11 80000.00 27 11

7097.22 27 

## . 23115.38 27 

## .

8108.11 27 13 31000.00 27 13

5781.30 27 13 24416.26 27 13 80000.00 27 13

4122.22 27 

## . 19230.77 27 

## .

8108.11 27 24 23147.06 27 24

6588.04 27 24 21098.24 27 24 80000.00 27 24

5352.94 27 

## . 1923!.77 27 

## .

. 81 81 81 15 1 7 7 7 7 7

11 11 11 11 11

11 11 11 11 11

7 7 7 7 7

11 11 11 11 11

11 11 11. 11 11

7 7 7 7 7

11 

# ; ;. 11 11

12 12 12 12 12 14 4 15 6 5

16 7 20

9 5

19 7 23

7 5

13 4 15 5 5

17 10 20 10 5

18 10 22 10 5

12 4 14 5 5

17 9 20 10 5

18 10 21 10 5 79 83 76 79 81

78 75 72 69 69

63 69 60 69 66

76 83 76 81 81

75 66 66 66 69

67 67 63 67 68

79 83 74 81 81

75 69 66 66 69

68 65 63 65 66 19 10 19 10 10

34 19 38 19 13

16 10 18 10 6

17 10 19 10 10

34 19 34 19 13

18 11 19 11 7

17 10 17 10 10

34 19 34 19 13

18 10 18 10 6 60 74 57 69 71

44 56 34 50 56

47 60 42 60 60

60 74 57 71 71

41 47 31 47 56

49 56 44 56 61

62 74 57 71 71

41 50 31 47 56

50 55 45 55 60 14 17 5 2

16 3 25

9 3

15 2 19 2 2

14 17 2 2
‘P 19 13 28 13 3

14 7 19 7 2

12 17 2 2

19 9 28 13 3

11 6 16 6 2 7 17 7 17 17

6 22

3 22
. 28

23 29 21 29 32

10 17 7 17 17

6 22

6 22 28

19 26 18 26 30

10 17 10 17 17

6 22

6 22 28

21 29 21 29 32 

### I

### APPENDIX 3D: 

### SUMMARY OF SECs NORMALIZED TO TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON SEC IN THRGLTOC USING GL DATA 5
# # # 

### TOTAL NUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST SAMPTYP UNITS SEC C CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 421 

### ACENAPTYLE HA14 

### BT NG/G NR X 

## . 15 1 

## .
- 421 

### ACENAPTYLE HA28 

### BT NG/G NR X 

## . 15 1 422 

### DBA CR14 

### BT NG/G NR X 

## . 81 422 

### DBA HA14 

### BT NG/G NR X 

## . 81. 422 

### DBA HA28 

### BT NG/G NR X
. 81. 423 

### 4-METHNAP CR14 BT NG/G NR X 

## . 7. 423 

### 4-METHNAP HA14 423 

### 4-METHNAP HA28 450 

### PAH-T CR14 

### BT BT BT NG/G NG/G NG/G NR X 

## : 7 

### NR X 

## . 7. 

### ERL 169190.48 27 11 9 18 74 

### ERM 651000.00 27 11 9 7 81 

### TEL 171981.23 27 11 9 17 71 

### PEL 581265.00 27 11 9 7 81 

### NEC 1360000.00 27 11 9 4 ' 79 

### NERM 

### X 174818.01 27 

## . NERH X 519000.00 27 

## . 21 52 21 5 12 69 5 14 19 52 21 7 12 69 5 14 2 19 7 71



### ERL 169190.48 27 13 12 20 72 38 34 25 3 9 22 19 50 

### ERM X 531264.71 27 13 12 9 69 

### TEL ' 133412.29 27 13 12 20 72 38 34 25 3 13 22 

### PEL X 467147.94 27 13 12 10 66 19 47 

### NEC X 1360000.00 27 13 12 4 66 9 56 3 31 

### NERM X 105200.00 27
. 

### NERH X 410769.23 27 

## . 450 

### PAH-T HA14 

### BT NG/G

ERL X 22754.39 27 24 13 

### ERM X 411529.41 27 24 13 

### TEL 

### X 63070.41 27 24 13 

### PEL X 411149.15 27 24 13 

### NEC X 1360000.00 27 24 13 

### NERM X 174818.01 27 

## . NERH X 410769.23 27 

## . ERL 31095.24 2.7 11 8 

### ERM 191571.43 27 11 8 

### TEL 37916.98 27 11 8 

### PEL 229942.85 27 11 8 

### NEC 640000.00 27 11 8 

### NERM X 46235.29 27
. 

### NERH X 276000.00 27 , 

### ERL 31095.24 27 13 12 

### ERM X 138527.03 27 13 12 

### TEL 23570.50 27 13 12 

### PEL X 159251.69 27 13 12 

### NEC X 640000.00 27 13 12 

### NEW X 17866.67 27 

## . NERH X 183076.92 27 

## . 36 12 24 12 4 55 65 61 65 65 26 11 19 11 5 29 32 13 8 27 53 19 19 42 53 8 27 60 2 34 450 

### PAH-T HA28 

### BT NG/G

21 10 19 7 2 5 52 21 67 7 17 55 19 7 67 7 19 71 2 24

34 25 3 13 19 47 34 25 3 13 22 47 56 3 38 451 

### PAH-L CR14 18 7 16 6 2 74 76 74 74 74 

### BT NG/G

NG/G 20 11 20 10 2 72 69 72 66 59 38 22 38 

### BT 451 

### PAH-L HA14
19 3

451 

### PAH-L HA2 8 

### BT NG/G ERL X 14228.07 27 24 13 27 63 23 40 21 16 

### ERM 

### X 91054.05 27 24 13 15 63 13 50 11 26 

### TEL X 28790.24 27 24 13 23 60 18 42 19 21 

### PEL X 129111.95 27 24 13 12 61 10 52 10 29 

### NEC X 640000.00 27 24 13 2 61 2 60 2 37 

### NERM X 58256.54 27
. 

### NERH X 183076.92 27
. 452 

### PAH-H CR14 

### BT NG/G ERL ERM 

### TEL PEL NEC NERM X NERH X ERL ERM 

### X TEL X PEL NEC 

### X NERM X NERH X 138621.62 27 11 8 661964.29 27 11 8 116513.34 27 11 8 401070.22 27 11 8 720000.00 27 11 8

97931.03 27 

## . 243000.00 27
. 138621.62 27 13 12 398676.47 27 13 12

47680.13 27 13 12 301289.84 27 13 12 720000.00 27 13 12

16400.00 27
. 227692.31 27
. 15 5 16 7 5 76 81 79 81 81 19 10 21 12 10 57 17 7 71 2 17 57 17 5 69 5 14 71 2 17

452 

### PAH-H HA14 NG/G 17 9 21 10 6 75 69 69 72 66 34 19 38 22 13 41 19 6 50 9

, 22 31 28 3 50 9 19 6 28 53 

### BTAPPENDIX 3D: SUMMARY OF SECS NORMALIZED TO TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON SEC IN THRGLTOC USING GL DATA 6


### U U TOTAL NUMCODE CHEMCODE TEST SAMPTYP UNITS SEC C CONC N TOX EFFECT HIT CORRECT TOXHIT NOTNOT NOTHIT TOXNOT 452 PAH-H HA28 ET NG/G ERL X 87333.33 27 24 12 24 61 19 42 19 19 ERM X 398676.47 27 24 12 9 66 10 56 5 29 TFT. X 92480 50 27 24 12 23 60 18 42 19 21 

# a

__-

.. .~. -. ~ ~ 

### - 6 27 PEL 

### x 306551.37 27 24 12 11 66 11 55

~~ .~ ~~ ~ NEC X 720000.00 27 24 12 6 65 6 58 3 32 NERM X 97931.03 27 

## . NERH X 235714.29 27 

## . 508 PCB-T CR14 ET NG/G NR X 

## . 82. 508 PCB-T HA14 ET NG/G NR X 

## . 82. 508 PCB-T HA28 ET NG/G NR X 

## . 82.

# Appendix 4a 

# Data grouped by chemical, test type, sample type, toxicity response, and sediment concentrations normalized to dry weight (in ascending order). A value bracketed by 

# "--" indicate published SECs (see Appendix 5). SeeAppendix 2c for a description of the chemical name for each abbreviated CHEMCODE. See Appendix 3a for additional descriptions of the headings for the columns. If SECs for a 

# particular chemical are not reported (NR) for a test type and sample type in both Appendix 3a and Appendix 3b, then an ascendingdatatable 

# is not included in Appendix 4a 

# for those SECs. If SECs for aparticular chemical are not 

# reported for atest type and sample type in Appendix 3a or 

# in Appendix 3b, then these particular SECs for this particular test type 

# and sample type are not reported in the ascending datatable. Examples are included forcopper and benzo[a]pyrene. The computer disk that accompanies the report contains the electronic version of this entire appendix (file name: "apdx4a.wp"). -



# CONC EFFECT NE

. 

# NC
SG 

# * 

# ** RATIO SITE

SAMPLE CEN

TOXICALL Concentration. Non-toxic sample. No concordance (concentration of 

# the chemicalin a

# toxic sample was less than the mean concentration of the chemical in the non-toxic samples at a site; designated as no 

# effect in the calculations 

# of SECs). Small gradient (concentration of the chemical in a toxic sample 1to 52

# times the mean concentration of the chemical in the non-toxic samples at a 

# site). Concentration of the chemical in a 

# toxic sample 2 to 54times the mean concentration of 

# the chemical in the non-toxic samples at a site. Concentration of 

# the chemical in a 

# toxic sample 

# >4the mean concentration of thechemical in the

# non-toxic samples at a 

# site. Concentration ofthe chemical in the sample divided by the mean concentration of 

# the chemical in the non-toxic samples at a site. 1:Indiana Harbor, 2: Buffalo River, 3: Saginaw River (1st survey), 4: Saginaw River (3rd survey), 5: Waukegan Harbor, 

# 6: Upper Mississippi River, 

# 7: Milltown Reservoir of the Clark Fork River, 

# 8: Clark Fork River, 

# 9: Trinity River, 10:Mobile 

# Bay, 11:TabbsBay in Galveston Bay. Sample identification code. CO: control, 

# RE: reference. Censor. An @ 

# indicates unreliable SEC(e.g., less than five of the samples were designated as 

# toxic for the chemical or the frequency of toxic samples below the SECwas greaterthan the frequency of toxic samples above the SEC). Survival,growth, or 

# maturation significantly less than the control response (~50.05). SURVPercentage survival normalized to the control response. NT TX GROW MATURE ND Not determined. MINTOX 

# Response not significantly less than the control response (p>0.05). Response significantly less than the control response (~50.05). Percentage growth normalized to the 

# control response. Percentage maturation normalized to the control response (Hynlella

# azteca 

# only). Minimum conccntration in 

# a 

# toxic sample.

### 1 

### APPENDIX 4a: ASCENDING DATA TABLES (ALL DATA) NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT INCLUDES NBS AND OTHER 

### (--I SECS NE 

### no effect 

## I NC<1 

# I NG=1 

# I SG 

### 1-2 

# I * 2-4 

# I **>4


# ---

# -- - - - -

# --

# - -- NUMCODE=305 CHEM=Copper TEST=HA28 SAMPTYP=bottom sediment 

# - sem UNITS=ng/g 

## -------------- - CONC EFFECT RATIO SITE SXMPLE CEN TOXIC SURV TOXS 

### GROW TOXG MATURE TOXM
890.0 1017.0 1144.0 1334.0 1843.0 1843.0 2224.0 .2796.0 2923 

### .O 2986.0 3050.0 3177.0 3939.0 4384.0 5042.0 5700.0 6989.0 9248.7 10600.0 

### 12000.0 12000.0 12000.0 12000.0 12000.0 12000.0 12000.0 

### 12000.0 15694.0 16965.0 16965.0 17791.0 50079.9 77000.0 141000.0 178000.0 185000.0 209000.0 233000.0 251000.0 287000.0 325000.0 325000.0 354000.0 607000.0 6971000.0 NC NE NC NE NE NC 

### NE NE NE NC NE NC NC NC NE NC 'NC NE NE NE NE NE NE NE SG 

### SG SG NE SG NE t



### NE NE +



### *+
+f 0.1 

### 0.1
0.3

0; 4 0.3 0.6 0.6


### 0.6 0.1



### 1.3 1.4 

### 1.5
1.5 

### 2.0 2.5 2.1
3.9 6.6 

### 51.5 3 4 3 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 4 3 2 2 

# ; ; 1


### 9 4 3 1 8 

### 8 2 

# i i 8 

### 1

7 7 

### 7 

# ; 8 8 8 7 7 8 GL-SECS NOT REPORTED SR-1-10 SR-3-06 SR-1-06 SR-3 -02 SR-3 -05 BR-1-09 BR-1-08 SR-3-24 SR-3-16 BR-1-07 SR-3-08 SR-1-03 BR-1-01 BR-1-03

NERM-50% NO EFFECT MR-1-CO IH-1-06

TEL-SR(ERL*NERM) MR-1-01 TR-1-CO SR-3-CO SR-1-CO IH-1-CO CF-1-CO CF-1-06 BR-1

### -CO

NERH-85% NO EFFECT IH-1-04 IH-1-07

ERL-15% EFFECT IH-1-03

PEL-SR(ERM*NERH) CF-1-05 MR-1-02 MR-1-2 5 MR-1-17 ERM-50% EFFECT MR-1

### -07 CF-1

### -04 CF-1-03 CF-1-02

NEC-MAX NO EFFECT MR- 1-19 MR-1-11 CF-1-01
I 

### TOX NOT TOX NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT TOX N0,T TOX TOX TOX NOT TOX TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX TOX TOX NOT TOX NOT TOX TOX NOT TOX NOT TOX TOX TOX 100.0 NT 100.0 NT

10.3 TX 103.8 NT

96.1 NT 

### 88.2 TX 97.4 NT 102.6 NT

96.1 NT .80.3 TX 88.3 NT 96.2 

### NT 89.5 TX 79.0 TX ioo.0 

### NT 1.4 TX 108.1 NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 

### NT 120.3 NT 100.0 

### NT

0.0 

### TX 0.0 

### TX 

### 1.4 TX 114.9 NT 109.3 NT 109.3 NT 115.1 NT

91.9 TX 128.4 NT 123.0 NT 102.7 NT 114.0 NT

90.7 NT 64.9 TX 97 92 60 

### 10 94 92 

### 10 10 

### 10 85 92 

### 91 96 

### 85 

### 10 68 79 ND 

### 10 10 10 

### 10 10 10 ND ND 96 

### 98 92 95 92 91 10 82 94 89 58 73 TX NT TX NT NT NT NT NT NT TX NT 

### TX NT TX NT NT TX ND NT NT 

### NT NT NT NT 

### ND ND NT 

### NT TX NT 

### TX TX NT TX NT TX TX TX 10 

### 96 37 

### 10 

### 11 10 10 

### 10 95 10 95 10 10 

### 10 10 0. 

### 68 ND 10 

### 10 10 

### 10 .90 10 ND ND 0. 

### 77 95 12 65 

### 31 

### 80 93 48 6

### 3' 

### 24 25 NT NT TX NT NT
. 

### NT NT 

## ' NT NT 

### NT NT 

### NT NT NT NT 

### NT NT ND NT NT NT NT NT NT ND ND NT NT NT NT NT TX NT NT
. 

### NT NT TX TX

### APPENDIX 4-3: ASCENDING DATA TABLES (ALL DATA) NORMALIZED- TO DRY 

### WEIGHT 2 INCLUDES NBS AND OTHER 

### (--I SECS NE 

### no effect 

# 1 NC<1 

# 1 NG=1 

# I SG 1-2 

## I * 

### 2-4 

# I ">4

. 

### hWMCODE=305 CHEM=Copper TEST=HA28 SAMPTYP=bottom sediment 

### - total UNITS=ng/g 

## ------------- ------------- CONC EFFECT 1700.0 7300.0 8800.0 9500.0 9600.0 10200.0 10400.0 10400.0 11000.0 

### 13000.0 16000.0 16000.0 16000.0 18000.0 18300.0 18700.0 19000.0 19000.0 19000.0 19000.0 19000.0 19000.0 19000.0 19500.0 20300.0 24000.0 26500.0 28012.5 28012.5 29900.0 32800.0 33100.0 34000.0 35700.0 41300.0 41300.0 41300.0 45600.0 48700.0 49000.0 49800.0 49800.0 51900.0 54800.0 54800.0 54800.0 67000.0 78026

### .O 96500.O 

### 101230.4 108000.0 110000

## .o 122250.0 128000

### .O 148000.0 182000

## .o 187000.O 

### 187000.O 

### 197000.0 226000.0 266000.0 270000.O 

### 287000.0 364000.0 379000.0 390000.O 

### NC NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 

### SG NE NC NE SG 

### NE 

### NE NE NE NE 

### NE
SG NE NE NE
NC NE NE
SG

NE SG NE NE NE 

### * 

### **

NE t* 

### ** **

tt 

### SG 

### ** SG 

### ** RATIO SITE SAMPLE CEN TOXIC 0.2

1.1 

### 0.8
1.8

2.0

0.1



### 1.3

1.5 

### 2.6

2.1 9.7



# ..

4.6 9.6 9.8
11.9

1.2 15.1



### 1.6 19.9 11 

### 11

9 5 9 9 5 

### 9 11 11 3 

### 8 

### 11

4 

# 9 4 3 1 

### 2
5 

### 4 4 

### 8 

# ; 7 4
2 

# z 2 

### 3 4 4 

# z 5 

### 4

8 

### 2 1 

### 3 

# i 7 1 7 1 

### TB-1-01 TB-1

### -RE TR- 1-0

### 3 WH-1-RE TR-1

### -04 TR-1-01 

### WH-1

## -co TR-1-02 TB- 1-0

### 2 TB-1-04 SR-1-10 CF-1-06 --slcl-- TB-1-03 SR-3-06 TR-1-CO SR-3 -CO SR-1-CO IH-1-CO BR-1-CO 

# --te lm--

NERM-50% NO EFFECT GL-NERM-50% NO EFFECT WH-1-01 

### SR-3-01 SR-3-02 CF-1-CO

TEL-SR(ERL'NERM1 GL-TEL-SR'(ERL*NERM) MR-1

# - 0

### 1 

### MR-1-CO SR-3-05 --erl-- --telf-- BR-1-09

GL-ERL-15% EFFECT ERL-15% EFFECT BR-1-0 

### 8 BR-1-07 SR-1-03 SR-3-24

GL-NERH-85% NO EFFECT SR-3-16 SR-3-08

NERH-85% NO EFFECT GL-NEC-MAX NO EFFECT BR-1-03 WH-1-02 

### GL-PEL-SR(ERM'NERH) PEL-SR(ERM'NERH)

--pelm-- --slc2-- 

### GL-ERM-50% EFFECT CF-1- OS 

### BR-1-01 IH-1-04 SR-1-06

ERM-50% EFFECT

--pelf-- IH-1-03 MR-

### 1

### -02 --e rm-- IH-1-07 MR-1-19 IH-1-06 

### --aet4-- TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT TOX NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT
TOX NOT NOT NOT
TOX NOT NOT
TOX
NOT TOX TOX NOT NOT NOT
TOX ?OX

NOT TOX TOX TOX
TOX TOX TOX TOX TOX SURV TOXS GROW TOXG MATURE TOXM 0.0 

### TX 100.0 NT

98.6 NT 109.5 NT

82.9 NT 81.4 NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 

### NT

11.4 TX 93.2 NT 100.0 NT 120.3 NT

52.3 TX 100.0 NT 

### 100.0 NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 NT 

### 100.0 

### NT

I.



### 71.7 TX 97.4 NT 103.8 NT 100.0 

### NT
108.1 NT 

### 100.0 

### NT

96.1 NT
88.2 'TX
97.4 NT 80.3 TX 96.2 NT 102.6 NT

96.1 NT 88.3 NT
79.0 TX 36.5 TX

114.9 NT

89.5 TX

0.0 

### TX 10.3 TX

1.4 TX 

### 109.3 NT

0.0 

### TX 114.0 NT

1.4 TX ND 10 

### ND 11 ND ND 10 ND 72 10 

### 97 10 

### 97 92 ND 10 

### 10 10 10


### 91 94 10 10


### 79 10 

### 94
92
10 85 91 10 

### 10 92
85 74



### 98 96 ND 60


### 96 92 ND 89 68 ND NT ND NT ND ND NT ND TX NT TX NT NT NT 

### ND NT NT NT 

### NT

NT NT NT 

### NT

TX NT 

### NT

NT

NT TX TX NT NT NT

TX TX

NT NT ND TX

NT TX ND TX 

### NT ND ND

.

### ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 10 90 

### ND 96 ND 10 10 

### 10 10



### ND 11 

### 10 10
68 10 11

10


### 10 10 10 

### 10 9s 9s
10 ND

17 

### 10 ND 37
0. 

### 9s ND 63 0. ND ND ' 

### ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NT NT ND NT 

### I 

### ND NT 

### NT NT NT

ND NT NT NT

NT NT NT

NT

NT NT NT NT NT NT

NT ND

NT NT ND TX

NT NT ND NT NT

### 3 APPENDIX 4a: ASCENDING DATA TABLES (ALL DATA) NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT INCLUDES NBS AND OTHER (--) 

### SECS NE 

### no effect 

# I NC<1 

# I NG=1 

# I SG 1-2 

# I * 

### 2-4 

## I ">4


## ---_--------NUMCODE=305 CHEM=Copper TEST=HA28 SAMPTYP=bottom sediment 

# - total UNITS=ng/g 

## ------------- (continued) CONC EFFECT 390000.0 410000.0 NE 411000.0 SG 459000.0 478000.0 

### NE 480000.0 SG 

### 530000.0 583000.0 NE 583000.0 840000.0 878000.0 * 1300000.0 

### 7820000.0 

### ** RATIO SITE SAMPLE
.7 1.9 7 

### 2.1 7



### .E 1.9 8



# :a

4.0 ,7 

### 31.7 8 

### --aet2-- MR-1-25 MR-1-07 

### MR-1-17 CF-1-04 CF-1-0 3 

### --aet3

# -- CF-1-02

NEC-MAX NO

--aet5-- 

### --aetl-- MR-1-11 

### CF-1-01 CEN TOXIC
NOT TOX TOX NOT TOX NOT EFFECT TOX TOX SURV TOXS GROW TOXG
109.3 NT 95 NT

91.9 TX 91 TX 115.1 

### NT 92 TX 128.4 NT 10 NT 123.0 NT 82 TX 102.7 NT 

### 94 NT

90'.7 NT 58 TX 64.9 TX 73 TX MATURE TOXM
12 NT 31 TX 

### 65 NT 80 NT 93 NT 48 NT


### 24 TX 25 TX

### APPENDIX 4a: ASCENDING DATA TABLES (ALL DATA) NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT 4 INCLUDES NBS AND OTHER (--) 

### SECS NE 

### no effect 

# 1 NCcl 

# I NG=l 

# 1 SG 1-2 

# 1 * 

### 2-4 

# 1 **>4


# - NUMCODE=305 CHEM=Copper TEST=HA28 SAMPTYP=porewater UNITS=ug/l 

## -------------------- CONC EFFECT

0.6 1.1 1.3 1.5 

### 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.7 3.0 

### 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.7 4.4 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.1 5.3 5.3 

# *-

5.4 8.7 8.8 8

## .8' 

### 9.5 9.5 13.2 14.8 15.1 16.4 19.1 19.5 19.8 19.8 21.4 35.6 35.6 79.4 89.9 102.0 126.3 NC NE NC NE NE NC NC NC NC NE NE NE SG NC

NE NE NE NE NE NE
SG NE NE NE NC
SG NE SG 

### **

*t 

### ** NE 

###   

## **  ** RATIO SITE 

### 0.1 0.4
0.5 0.2 0.7 

### 0.6



# .-

1.0 0.4.

1.1

0.9
1.4 1.4 4.1 4.2 4.6
6.1 

### 8.8 10.0 

### 27.0 3 4 2 8 2 2 

### 7 

### 2 3 

### 4 4 

# ;

9 4 

### 2

4 3 1 8 2 

# i
7 

### 0 

### 8 

# ; ; 7 8 1 

# i i 

# s 8
7 7 1 

### SAMPLE CEN TOXIC SR-1-03 

### SR-3-02 BR-1-03 CF-1-06 

### BR-1

### -08 BR-1-07 

### MR-

### 1

### -01 

### BR-1-09 SR-1-10



### GL-NERM-50% NO EFFECT SR-3-01

GL-TEL-SR (ERL*NERM) SR-3-08 SR-3-06 

### BR-1-01

GL-ERL-15% EFFECT NERM-50% NO EFFECT TEL-SR (ERL*NERM) MR-1-02
TR-1-CO SR-3-CO SR- 

### 1

### -CO IH-1-CO CF-1-CO BR-1-CO

GL-NERH-85% NO EFFECT GL-NEC-MAX NO EFFECT IH-1-06

ERL-15% EFFECT MR-1-CO CF-1-05 CF-1-04

NERH-85% NO EFFECT MR-1

# - 07

GL-PEL-SR(ERM*NERH) PEL-SR(ERM*NERH) MR-1-17 MR-1-25 CF-1-

### 03 IH- 1-04

GL-ERM-50% EFFECT SR-1-06

ERM-50% EFFECT IH-1-03 CF-1-02

NEC-MAX NO EFFECT CF-1-01 MR-1-11 MR-1-1

### 9 IH-1-07 TOX NOT TOX NOT NOT TOX TOX TOX TOX NOT NOT NOT TOX TOX
NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT
TOX NOT NOT NOT TOX
TOX NOT TOX TOX TOX TOX NOT TOX TOX TOX TOX SURV 

### TOXS.GROW TOXG 

### MATURE TOXM 

### 96.2 NT 103.8 NT

79.0 TX 120.3 NT

97.4- NT 80.3 TX 108.1 NT

88.2 TX 100.0 NT

97.4 NT 88.3 NT 100.0 NT

89.5 TX 109.3 NT


### 100.0 NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 NT 100.0 NT 

### 100.0 

### NT

1.4 TX 100.0 NT 114.9 NT 128.4 NT

91.9 TX
115.1 NT 

### 109.3 NT 123.0 NT

0.0 

### TX 10.3 TX

1.4 TX 102.7 NT

64.9 TX 90.7 NT 114.0 NT

0.0 TX 91 

### 10 85 10 

### 10 85 79 92 97 94 92 92 96 92
ND 10 10 10 10 10
68 10 98 10 

### 91
92 95 82 ND 60 

### 96 94 73 58 89 ND TX NT TX NT TX TX NT TX NT NT 

### NT NT TX 

## NT

ND NT 

### NT NT NT NT

NT NT NT NT TX

TX NT TX ND TX NT NT TX TX TX ND 10 10 10 

### 90 10 

### 10 68 10 

### 10 11 

### 95 96 10 95

ND 10 10 

### 10 10 

### 10
0. 

### 10 77 80 31
65 12 93 ND 37 0. 

### 48 25 24 63 ND NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT 

### NT NT NT NT NT NT I



### ND NT NT NT NT NT

NT NT NT NT TX

NT NT NT ND TX NT NT TX TX NT ND I.. 

### I 

### APPENDIX 

### 4a: ASCENDING DATA TABLES (ALL DATA) NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT INCLUDES NBS AND OTHER (--) 

### SECs NE no effect 

# I NCc1 

# 1 NG=1 

# 1 SG 1-2 

# 1 * 2-4 

## 1 **>4 5



# - ----- -

# -- NUMCODE=417 CHEM=Benzo(a)pyrene TEST=HA28 SAMPTYP=bottom sediment 

### - total UNITS=nglg 

### ---------

0.0 6.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

### 10.0 10.0 10.0 

### 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

### 10.0 

### 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

### 10.0 10.0 10.0 

### 12.5 15.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 24.0 25.0 30.0 31.9 32.4 41.0 48.0 56.0 

### 62.0 80.0 

### 82.0 84.0 

### 84.0 87.0 88.8 

### 100.0 100.0 100.5 160.0 167.7 180.0 210.0 220.0 220.0 230.0 250.0 250.0 270.0 270.0 280.0 280.. 0 319.8 350.0 409.1 430.0 440.0 NE NC NE NE NE NE NC NC NE NE NE NE NG NG NG NG NG NE NE NE NE NE NC NE NE NE NE SG NE NC NE

NE NE NE NE 

### NE 

### **

ft 

### NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 

### **

**

NE

NE CONC EFFECT RATIO SITE SAMPLE CEN TOXIC



## . 11 0.6 

### 3

.5 .6 

### .9 .9 1.0 

### 11 1.0 11

.4 .3 .7 .7 1.0 7 1.0 7 

### 1.0 7 1.0 

### 7 1.0 7

.1 .8



# . '8 

### .8



## .. 8 

### 0.9 8



### .2 

## :a .6



## . 11 2.0 11

.9 1.0 5



### .6


### .5 .6 

### .9 .6 

### 7.6 8



## . 10 

### 4.8 7



## . 

# 9,



# . 10



## . 10 :4



## . 10 

### .4 21.0 3


### .4 .4 .4 .4 

### 28.0 3

.2


### .4 TB-1-RE SR-1-10 WH-1-co UM- 1

# -CO TR-1 -CO TR-1-02 TB-1-03 TB-1-01 SR-3-CO SR-1-CO MR- 1 -CO MR-1-2 5 MR-1-17 MR-1-11 MR- 1

# -07 MR-1-02 MR-1-01 IH-1-CO CF-1-CO CF-1-0 6 CF-1-05 CF-1-04 CF-1-03 BR-1-CO



### NERM-50% NO EFFECT CF-1-02 UM-1 

### -RE TB-1-04 TB-1-02 TR-1-01 WH-1-02 UM-1-01 

### --tel

### f

# -- TEL-SR (ERL*NERM) WH-1-RE MR-1-19 UM-1-02 TR-1-04 TR-1-03 UM-1 

### -03 CF-1-01 MB-1-03 ERL-15% EFFECT



# --telm-- MB-1-RE MB-1-02

GL-NERM-50% NO EFFECT SR-3-06

GL -TEL- SR (

### ERL*NERM) MB-1-04 SR-1-06 SR-3 -05 

### SR-3-16 SR-3-08 

### SR-3-02 SR-3-01 

### SR- 1-03

NERH-85% NO EFFECT

GL-NERH-85% NO EFFECT GL-ERL-15% EFFECT PEL-SR(ERM'NERH) BR-1-0 8 

### GL-PEL-SR(ERM*NERH)

--erl-- SR-3-24 NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX TOX TOX TOX TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT TOX NOT
NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX
NOT

NOT SURV TOXS GROW TOXG MATURE TOXM 100.0 NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 

### NT

52.3 TX

0.0 

### TX 100.0 NT 

### 100.0 NT 100.0 

### NT 109.3 NT 

### 115.1 NT

90.7 NT 

### 91.9 TX 109.3 NT 108.1 NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 NT 120.3 NT 114.9 NT 128.4 NT 123.0 NT 100.0 NT 102.7 NT

86.5 NT 93.2 NT 11.4 TX 81.4 NT 36.5 TX 119.3 NT
109.5 NT 114.0 NT 117.9 NT

82.9 NT 98.6 NT 114.9 NT

64.9 TX 95.5 NT 100.0 

### NT

97.0 NT 100.0 NT

95.5 NT 10.3 TX 96.1 NT 96.1 NT 88.3 NT 103.8 NT

97.4 NT 96.2 NT
97.4 NT
102.6 NT 10 97 10 ND ND ND 97 ND 10 10 10 9s 92 58 91 92 79 10 10 10 

### 98 10 82 10 94 ND 10 72 ND 74 ND
11 89 ND ND ND ND 73 ND ND ND 92 ND 60 

### 94 10 92 10 94 91


### 10
10 NT TX NT ND ND ND NT ND NT NT NT 

### NT TX TX TX TX TX 

### NT NT NT NT NT TX NT NT ND NT TX ND TX ND

NT TX ND ND ND ND TX ND ND ND NT ND TX NT NT NT NT NT 

### TX

NT

NT ND 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND 10 

### 10 10 12 65 24 31 95 68 10 

### 10 90 77 93 10 48 

### ND ND ND ND ND ND 80



### ND 63 ND ND ND ND 25 ND ND ND 96 ND 37 11 95 95 10 11 10
10
10 

### ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NT NT 

### NT NT NT TX TX NT NT 

# - NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT 

# ,

NT ND ND ND ND ND ND #



### ND NT ND ND ND ND TX ND ND 

### ND NT ND TX ' 

### NT NT NT NT NT NT

NT

NT -.. 

### \ 

### APPENDIX 4a: ASCENDING DATA TABLES (ALL DATA) NORMALIZED TO DRY WEIGHT INCLUDES NBS AND OTHER (--) 

### SECS 6 

### NE no effect 

# I NC<1 

# I NG=1 

# I SG i-2 

# I 2-4 

# I **>4



### -

# ----

# ---- NUMCODE=417 CHEM=Benzo(a)pyrene TEST=HA28 SAMPTYP=bottom sediment 

### - total UNITS=ng/g 

## --------- 

# - CONC 440.0 440.0 460.0 465.0 470.0 620.0 620.0 763.0 782.0 1000.0 

### 1000.0 1580.0 1600.0 1600.0 1600.0 3000.0 3600.0 5800.0 7000.0 10000.0 

### 18200.0 21000.0

I 

### 22000.0



### 25000.0 2 ..4 2 18.0 5 

### ** * 2.6 2 

### * 3.4 2

NE 

## . 10 

### (continued) EFFECT RATIO 

### SITE

. 

### SAMPLE. CEN TOXIC



## ** 32.2 700.0 

### ** 1000.0 

### ** 2100.0 

### **



## ** 2500.0 BR-1-09 WH-1-01 

### BR-1-03 BR-1-07

GL-NEC-MAX NO EFFECT ERM-50% EFFECT
GL-ERM-50% EFFECT



# --pe

### lm-

# - --pelf-- MB-1-01

NEC-MAX NO EFFECT

--aet6-- --aet4-- --aet2

# -- --aetl-- --aet3-- --em--

2 BR-1-01 1 

### IH-1-04 

### 1 IH-1-03 1 

### IH-1-07 

### 1 IH-1-06 --aet5--
--em-- TOX TOX TOX TOX

NOT

TOX TOX TOX TOX TOX SURV TOXS GROW 88.2 TX 71.7 TX 79.0 TX 80.3 TX

75.8 NT

89.5 TX

0.0 TX 1.4 TX 0.0 

### TX 1.4 TX 92 91 85 85

ND

96 ND 96 'ND 68 TOXG NT NT TX TX

ND

NT ND NT ND NT MATURE TOXM 10 

### ND 10 10

ND

10 ND 0. 

### ND 0. 

### NT ND NT NT

ND

NT ND NT ND NT

# Appendix 4b 

# PAH or

# PCB data grouped by chemical, test type, sample type, toxicity response, and sediment concentrations normalized to total organic carbon 

# (TOC;in ascending order). Seelegend for Appendix 

# 4afor 

# a description of the headings. An exampleis included for benzo[a]pyrene. Thecomputer disk.that accompanies the report contains the electronic version 

# ofthis entire appendix (file name: “apdx4b.wp”).

### APPENDIX 4b: 

### ASCENDING DATA TABLES (ALL DATA) NORMALIZED TO TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON 1 

### NE no effect 

# I NC<1 

# I NG=1 

# I SG 1-2 

# I * 2-4 

# I ‘*>4



## -----

# ---- NUMCODE=417 CHEM=Benzo(a)pyrene TEST=HA28 SAMPTYP=bottom sediment 

### - total 

### UNITS=ng/g 

## --------- 

# e

- CONC EFFECT 2.0 149.3 312.5 322.6 370.4 416.7 438.6 526.3 600.0 

### 697.1 714.3 833.3 833.3 882.4 909.1 909.1 1000.0 1000.0 

### 1000.0 1000.0 1000.0 1000.0 1000.0 

### 1000.0

L 

### 1102.9

1158.8 1205.9 1217.4 1217.4 1250.0 1250.0 1428.6 1666.7 1818.2 1818.2 2900.0 3111.1 3333.3 3692.3 3727.3 4075.2 4800.0 5000.0 

### 6383.7 6944.4 7931.0 9000.0 9333.3 10000.0 

### 10000.0 

### 11000.0 11111.1 

### 11216.2 12432.4 13185.3 15500.0 15500.0 

### 15714.3 19230.8 20000.0 20588.2 20588.2 23500.0 26666.7 27000.0 27401.9 NE NE NE NE NC NC NC NC NC NE SG NE NE NE NC NE NE. NE NE NE NE SG NE NE

NE

NE NE NE NE SG NE NE NE NE NE 

### **

**


### NE NE NE ** 

### **
NE NE **
NE NE NE SG NE

NE NE RATIO SITE



# . 11 .8 .7 .8 

### 0.6 7 0.7 

### 7 0.4 

### 5 0.9 7 

### 0.6 3

.6 

### 1.2 8

.8 .8 .0 

### 1.0 11



### .7 .5 .6 

### .9 .4 

### .3 

### 1.6 7

.1 

### .2 

# :i 2.0 8 2.0 7



# . 10 .6



## . 10



## . 11 2.0 

### 11



## . 10 .6 

### .9 6.0 

### 7

.6 :9 5.5 11



### .4 

### .4



## . 10 

### 9.3 3 10.0 3 :4



## . 10 

### 11.3 5 

### :9 :4 .4 

### 1.9 2

.2 2.2 2

.9 .4 

### SAMPLE TB-

### 1- RE CF-1-06 MR- 1

### -25 

### CF-1-04 MR-1-11 MR-1

### -07 WH-1-02 MR-1-17 SR- 1-10 

### UM-1-01 

### CF-1-03 CF-1-CO CF-1 

### -0

### 5 CF-1-02 TB-1 

### -03 MR-1-CO WH-1-co UM-1-co TR-1-CO SR-3-CO SR-1-CO MR-1-01 IH-1-CO BR-1-CO

NERM-50% NO EFFECT TEL-SR(ERL*NERM) WH-1-RE CF-1-01

ERL-15% EFFECT MR-1-02 MB-1-RE UM-1-RE MB-1

### -0

### 2 TB-1-04 TB- 1-02 

### MB-1-03 UM-1-0 2 TR-1 

### -0

### 2 

### MR-1-19 UM-1-03

GL-NERM-50% NO EFFECT TR- 1-01 

### TB-1-01 SR-3-08 SR-3

### -16 MB-1

### -0

### 4 SR-1-03 SR-1-0 6

GL-TEL-SR(ERL*NERM)

GL-ERL-15% EFFECT SR-3-24 MB-1-01 

### WH-1-01 TR-1-04 ERM-50% EFFECT PEL-SR (ERM*NERH) NERH-85% NO EFFECT SR-3-05 SR-3-02 BR-1-09 BR-1-08

GL-NERH-85% NO EFFECT BR-1-03 TR-1-03 SR-3-01

GL-PEL-SR(ERM*NERH)
A 

### CEN TOXIC NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX TOX TOX TOX TOX NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX 

### NOT NOT
NOT TOX TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT TOX TOX NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT TOX NOT NOT SURV TOXk GROW TOXG MATURE TOXM 100.0 NT 120.3 NT 109.3 NT 128.4 NT

90.7 NT 91.9 TX 36.5 TX 

### 115.1 NT 100.0 

### NT 119.3 NT 123.0 NT 100.0 NT 114.9 NT 102.7 NT

52.3 TX 100.0 

### NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 NT 108.1 NT 100.0 

### NT 100.0 

### NT
109.5 NT

64.9 TX 109.3 NT 100.0 

### NT

86.5 NT 97.0 NT 93.2 NT 11.4 TX 95.5 NT 117.9 NT 100.0 

### NT 114.0 NT 114.9 NT

81.4 NT

0.0 

### TX 88.3 NT 96.1 NT 95.5 NT 96.2 NT 10.3 TX 102.6 NT

75.8 NT 71.7 TX 82.9 NT 96.1 NT 103.8 NT

88.2 TX 97.4 NT 79.0 TX 98.6 NT 97.4 NT 10 10 

### 95 

### 10 58 91 74 92 97 ND 10 

### 98 94 97 10 

### 10 

### ND ND
. 

### 10 10 

### 79 10 10 

### a2

11 

### 73 92 ND ND ND 10 

### 72 ND ND ND 89 ND ND ND 92 10 

### ND 91 60 

### 10 ND 91 ND 94 10 92 10 

### 85 ND 94 NT NT NT NT TX TX TX TX TX ND TX NT NT NT NT NT NT ND ND NT NT TX NT NT

NT TX TX ND ND ND NT TX ND ND ND TX ND ND ND NT NT ND TX TX NT 

### ND NT ND NT NT NT NT TX ND NT ND 90 12 

### 80 24 31 ND 65 

### 10 ND 93 

### 10 .77 48 .ND 10 ND ND ND 

### 10 

### 10 68 10 10



### ND 25 95 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 63 ND ND ND 95 95 ND 10 

### 37 10 ND ND ND 

### 11 10 

### 10 

### 10 10 

### ND 11 

### ND NT NT NT TX 

### I TX ND NT I 

### NT ND NT NT NT NT ND NT ND ND ND NT NT NT NT NT

ND TX NT ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NT ND ND ND NT NT ND NT TX NT ND ND ND NT NT NT NT NT ND NT

### APPENDIX 4b: ASCENDING DATA TABLES (ALL DATA) NORMALIZED TO TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON NE no effect 

# I NC<1 

# I NG=1 

# I SG 1-2 

# I * 2-4 

# I **>4



# --------- NUMCODE=417 CHEM=Benzo(a)pyrene TEST=HA28 SAMPTYP=bottom sediment 

### - total UNITS=ng/g 

## --------- (continued) .CONC EFFECT RATIO SITE SAMPLE CEN TOXIC SURV TOXS GROW 

### TOXG MATURE TOXM 36470.6 

### * 36470.6
, 

### 65168.5 

### ** 80000.0 

### NE 80000.0 80000.0 

### 125000.0 

### ** 129870.1 

### ** 215517.2 

### ** 238636.4 

### ** 3.4 2 6.0 2

.4


### 125.0 1 129.9 1 

### 215.5 

### 1 238.6 1 

### BR- 1-07 GL-ERM-50% EFFECT BR-1-01 SR-3-06



### NEC-MAX NO EFFECT GL-NEC-MAX NO EFFECT IH-1-04 IH-1-03 IH-1-06 IH-1-07 2

TOX. 80.3 

### TX 

### 85 TX 

### 10 NT TOX 89.5 TX 96 NT 

### 10 NT NOT 100.0 

### NT 92 NT 96 NT
TOX 0.0 

### TX ND ND ND ND TOX 1.4 TX 96 NT 0. NT TOX 1.4 TX 68 

### NT 0. NT TOX 0.0 

### TX ND ND ND' ND

# - 

# Appendix 5 Other published toxicity data grouped by chemical, test type, sample type, toxicity response, and sediment concentrations normalized to dry weight (in 

# ascending order). Study Codes: (1) MCGEE: McGee et al. (1994) and Schlekat et al. (1994); (2) 

# DAY: Day et al. (1995); 

# (3) HOKE: Hoke et al. (1995); (3)

# JFLD: Field and Cairncross (1994); and (4) SUPRF: M.D. Sprenger, USEPA, Edison, NJ (unpublisheddata). Tests: (1) HA10 

# to HA28:

# HyaZeZZa azteca 

# 10- to 28-d test; (2) CR14: Chironomus 

# riparius 14-dtest; 

# (3) TT28: Tubifex tubifex 

# 28-d test; and (4) HS28: Hexagenia 

# spp. 28-d test. SeeAppendix 2c for adescription of the chemical name for each abbreviated CHEMCODE. The first four pages of this appendix are included 

# on the

# followingpages of thereport. The computer disk that accompanies the report contains the electronic version of this entire appendix (file name: "apdx5.w~").

### SAMPLE COLLECTIONS SORTED 

### BY CONCENTRATION NE 

### no 

### effect 

## I NC<1 

## I NG=1 

## I SG 1-2 

## I 2-4 

## 1 '*>4



### CONC 0.51 0.71 0.73 0.91 1.20 1.20 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.44 1.48 1.66 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.87 1.87 1.87 1.87 1.94 2.04 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 

### 2.08 2.08 2.20 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 EFFECT NE NE NC NC NE NC NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NC NE NE NE NC NE NE NE NC NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 

### NE NC NE NE NC NE NE RATIO

0.3 0.3 0.2.

0.6

0.6

0.6



## ..

0.7


### 0.8 STUDY SUPRF JFLD JFLD JFLD JFLD SUPRF DAY DAY MCGEE DAY DAY MCGEE MCGEE MCGEE DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY MCGEE MCGEE DAY DAY MCGEE DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY JFLD DAY DAY DAY DAY TEST HA10 

### CTlO CT14 CT14 CT14 HA10 CR14 HA28 'HA28 HS28 TT28 HA28 HA28 HA28 CR14 HS28 TT2 8 CR14 HA28 HS28 TT28 CR14 HA28 HS2

### 8 TT28 CR14 HA28 HS28 TT28 HA2

### 8 HA28 CR14 HA28 HA2

### 8 HS28 TT2 8 CR14 CR14 HA28 HA28 HS28 HS28 TT2 8 TT28 CT14 CR14 HA28 TT2 8 

### HA^

# a

HS28 SAMPLE MA0

### 5 

### 1111-02-RS15-01 1111-02-RS07-01 1111-02-AS07-01 1111-02-AS12-01 OE04 CM17 CM17 BR7 CM17 CM17 BR5 BR3 BR6 SL04 SL04 

### SL04 SL04 CWOl CWOl CWOl CWOl CW05 CWO5 

### CW05 CW05 CM15 CM15 CM15 CM15 BR2 BR1 cw2

### 1 cw21 

### BR4 cw21 cw21 

### CW06 cw12 CW06 cw12 CW06 cw12 cw12 CW06 1111-02-RS14-01 cw22 cw2 2 cw22 cw22 SAMPTYPE TOXIC BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT 

### BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT 

### BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT NOT NOT TOX TOX NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT TOX 

### NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT
. 

### NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT SURV 88.30 85.00 60.00 40.00 

### 92.50 18.00 80.00 94.70 81.30 94.00 40.00 95.00 90.00 91.30 73.30 90.00 

### 21.00 88.00 89.30 98.00 22.00 86.70 90.70 

### 100.00

26.00 86.70 88.00 94.00 43.00 80.00 90.00 84.00 89.30 85.00 98.00 45.00 82.70 89.30 94.70 94.70 94.00 

### 80.00 45.00 24.00 77.50 88.00 77.30 98.00 43.00 913.70 TOXS GROW NT 

### 0.18 NT 4.59 TX 3.76 TX 2.73 NT 4.17 TX 4.73 NT 

### 0.46 NT 0.49 NT 3.82 NT 2.03 NT 73.00 NT 4.09 

### NT 3.99 NT 

### 3.88 NT 

### 0.50 NT 0.59 NT 4.41 TX 109.00 NT 

### 0.38 NT 0.72 TX 22.00 NT 0.33 NT 0.42 NT 6.17 NT 

### 29.00 NT 

### 0.50 NT 

### 0.54 NT 3.30 NT 102.00 NT 

### 4.12 NT 

### 4.12 NT 

### 0.58 NT 

### 0.74 NT 3.96 NT 9.97 NT 117.00 

### NT 0.36 NT 0.52 NT 0.53 NT 0.70 NT 5.35 NT 10.12 NT 172.00 TX 22.00 NT 4.34 NT 0.55 TX 0.71 NT 9.11 NT 74.00 NT 6.87 TOXG NT NT NT TX NT NT NT NT 

### NT NT 

### NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT 

### NT NT NT 

### TX NT NT NT 

### TX NT NT NT 

### NT NT NT 

### NT NT NT NT NT NT NT 

### NT NT NT NT NT TX NT NT NT NT NT2.34 

### NE 2.34 NE 2.34 NE 2.34 NE 2.34 NE 2.36 NE 2.40 NE 2.44 NE 2.44 NE 2.44 NE 2.44 NC 2.45 NE 2.45 NE 2.45 NE 2.45 NE 2.52 NE 2.52 NE 2.52 NE 2.52 NE 2.53 NE 2.59 NE 2.59 NE 2.59 NE 2.59 NE 2.63
. NE 2.63 NE 2.63 NE 2.63 NE 2.65 NE 2.65 NE 2.65 NE 2.65 NE 2.68 NE 2.69 NE 2.69 NE 2.69 NE 2.69 NC 2.72 NE 2.72 NE 2.72 NE 2.72 NC 2.80 NC 2.90 NE 2.90 SG 2.90 NE 2.90 NE 2.90 SG 2.90 NE 2.93 NE 2.93 NE 2.93 NE 2.93 NE 2.93 NE 2.93 SG 2.93 NE 2.93 NC 2.95 NE 0.8

0.9

0:9 

### 0.5 

### 1.1
1.0

1.0 1.0 DAY SUPRF 

### DAY DAY DAY MCGEE 

### JFLD DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY MCGEE 

### DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY MCGEE 

### DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY 

### SUPRF DAY JFLD SUPRF 

### DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY - 

### JFLD CR14 HA1

### 0 HA2

### 8 HS28 TT28 HA2

### 8 CT14 CR14 HA28 HS28 TT28 CR14 HA2 8 HS28 TT2

### 8 CR14 HA2

### 8 HS2

### 8 TT2

### 8 HA2 8 CR14 HA2 

### 8 HS28 TT2

### 8 CR14 HA2

### 8 HS28 TT28 CR14 HA2

### 8 HS28 TT28 HA28 CR14 HA2 

### 8 HS28 TT28. CR14 HA2

### 8 HS28 TT28 HA1

### 0 CR14 CT14 HA10 HA2

### 8 HS28 TT28 CR14 CR14 HA28 HA28 HS28 'HS28 TT28 TT28 CT14 CW24 CW24 cw24 cw24 CON2 ' 1111-02-RS13-01 cw2

### 3 cw23 cw23 cw23 CW14 cw14 CW14 CW14 CW15 cw15 cw15 cw15 BR9 CW13 CW13 CW13 

## csoa

CW13 CW18 CW18 CW18 CW18 CWO9 CWO9 CWO9 CWO9 BR8 SL07 SL07 SL07 SL07 CMO

### 5 CMO

### 5 CMO5 CMO5 OE21 VSOl 1111-02-AS09-01 MA06 VSOl VSOl VSOl CW17 VS03 cw17 VS03 CW17 VS03 CW17 VS03 1111-02-RSll-01 BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT 5 NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT TOX TOX NOT TOX NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT TOX NOT 76.00 NT 93.30 

### NT 90.70 NT 98.00 NT 42.00 NT 88.70 NT 72.50 NT 96.00 NT 90.70 NT 100.00 NT 39.00 NT 86.70 NT 84.00 NT 

### 100.00 NT 46.00 NT 85.30 

### NT .82.70 NT 

### 100.00 NT 43.00 NT 90.00 NT 76.00 NT 

### 88.00 NT 100.00 

### NT 44.00 NT 86.70 NT 93.30 NT 98.00 NT 47.00 NT 85.30 NT 84.00 NT 

### 100.00 NT 29.00 NT 93.80 NT 71.10 NT 82.70 NT 98.00 NT 15.00 TX 84.00 NT 86.70 NT 

### 100.00 NT

31.00 NT

0.00 TX 84.00 NT 42.50 TX 81.70 NT 88.00 NT 94.00 NT 26.00 NT 89.30 NT 89.30 NT 86.70 NT 97.30 NT 94.00 NT 90.00 NT 43.00 NT 21.00 NT 90.00 NT 0.51 

### NT 0.50 NT 

### 0.66 NT 8.53 NT 62.00 

### NT

3.70 NT 3.20 NT 0.35 NT 0.71 NT 7.98 NT 43.00 TX

0.61 NT 0.74 NT 10.59 NT 135.00 NT

0.49 NT 0.76 NT 10.94 NT 126.00 NT

3.94 NT 0.51 NT 

### 0.66 NT 10.93 

### NT 126.00 NT



### 0.66 NT 0.82 NT 

### 11.15 NT 147.00 NT

0.40 

### NT 0.50 NT 4.56 NT 

### 56.00 NT

3.88 NT 0.41 NT 0.95 NT 5.98 NT 152.00 NT

0.36 NT 0.50 NT 5.16 NT 37.00 TX NR 0.43 NT '3.03 TX 

### 0.16 NT 0.61 NT 0.19 TX 30.00 NT

0.64 NT 0.33 NT 0.87 NT 0.42 NT 10.40 NT 0.01 TX 154.00 NT 22.00 TX

4.64 NT

### 3.05 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.20 3.20 3.25 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.48 3.48 3.48 3.48 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.55 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.81 3.81 3.81 3.81 4.30 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.50 4.79 4.79 4.79 4.79 5.00 

### 5.50 7.00 SG 

### NE NE NE SG 

### NE NE NE NE SG 

### NE NE NE SG 

### NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 

### SG NE NC NE NE SG SG 

### NE NE SG 

### NE SG SG NE SG 

### NE NE SG 

### **

SG 

### SG NE NE NE NE NC NE NE NE NE NE NC SG 1.1



### 1.2

1.2

1.2
4.8



## ..

1.1 0.6



## ._ 1.2 1.3


### 1.3 1.3 

### 1.3 1:)
1.5 

### 1.6 1.5

0.8



### 0.9 1.2 JFLD DAY DAY DAY 

### JFLD SUPRF JFLD DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY 

### JFLD SUPRF SUPRF DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY 

### SUPRF DAY DAY DAY 

### JFLD DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY 

### JFLD DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY 

### SUPRF DAY DAY DAY DAY 

### SUPRF SUPRF SUPRF CT14 CR14 HA2

### 8 HS28 CT14 HA1

### 0 CT14 CR14 HA2 8 HS28 TT28 CR14 HA2 8 HS28 TT28 CR14 CT10 HA10 HA1 

### 0 HA28 

### HS28 TT28 CR14 HA2 8 HS28 TT2 8 

### CR14 HA10 

### HA28 HS28 TT28 

### CT14 CR14 HA2 8 HS28 TT28 CR14 HA28 HS28 TT2 8 

### CT14 CR14 HA28 

### HS28 TT28 CR14 HA28 

### HS28 TT2 8 HA1

### 0 CR14 HA28 

### HS28 TT28 HA10 

### HA10 HA10 

### 1111-02-RS12-01 CW16 CW16 CW16 1111-02-AS08-01 MA0

### 9 1111-02-AS06-01 CMO9 CMO9 CMO9 CM09 CM11 CM11 CM11 CM11 CM2 2 1111-02-AS03-01

CW03 CW03 

### CWO3 

### CW03 SL02 OElO SL02 SL02 SL02 1111-02-RS01-01 CM07 CM07 CM07 CM07

. 

### SL06 SL06 SL06 SLO6 VS07 VS07 VS07 VS07 CMO8 

### CM08 CMO8 CMO8 

### OE02 CMO1 

### CMOl CMO1 

### CMOl OE27 MA04 MA0 

### 1 1,111 

# -02 -AS0 

### 5

### -01 

### BT BT BT BT BT BT BT 

# . BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT 

## . TOX NOT NOT , 

### NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT TOX NOT NOT TOX TOX NOT NOT TOX NOT TOX TOX NOT TOX NOT NOT TOX TOX TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX TOX 52.50 90.70 89.30 

### 100.00

17.50 78.30 82.50 75.30 93.30 90.00 44.00 72.00 96.00 100~00



### 45.00 82.70 82.50 88.30 71.70 93.30 

### 100.00

37.00 80.00 

### 90.00 100.00



### 22.00 77.80 16.00 89.30 98.00 16.00 60.00 82.70 85.60 89.00 31.00 76.00 78.70 98.00 19.00 75.00 78.70

0.00 4.00 24.00 85.30 93.30 100.00



### 37.00

3.00 84.00 89.30 96.00 34.00 90.00 76.70

0.00 

### TX NT 

### NT NT TX NT NT NT NT 

### NT NT 

### NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT 

### NT NT NT 

### NT NT NT 

### TX NT 

### TX NT NT TX TX NT NT 

### NT NT NT TX NT 

### TX PjT 

### NT TX TX TX NT 

### NT NT NT 

### TX NT NT NT NT NT TX TX 1.32 0.65 0.79 10.58

0.72 0.17 4.07 0.46 0.67 

### 3.39 113 

### .OO

0.39 0.53 4.15 91.00

0.42 3.78 0.23 0.18 0.87 4.61 150.00



### 0.43 0.66 5.78 

### 15.00

'0.39 3.16 0.69 3.15 147.00

4.44 0.47 0.74 4.58 123 

### .OO

0.18 

### 0.58 4.24 131.00

5.06 0.29 0.00 -0.08



### 7.00 0.42 0.67 5.42 102.00

3.20 0.31 0.56 5.07 102.00

3.87 0.16 

### TX NT 

### NT NT 

### TX NT 

### NT NT NT 

### TX NT NT NT TX NT NT TX NT NT NT NT 

### NT NT NT NT 

### TX NT 

### TX NT NT NT NTNTNT 

### TX NT 

### TX NT NT 

### NT NT NR NR TX TX NT 

### NT NT 

### NT 

### TX NT NT NT NT NT NT NR

### 7.10 7.10 7.30 7.30 7.30 7.30 7.70 

### 8.90 9.10 9.40 9.50 

### 10.00 

### 12.00 14.00 

### SG 

### SG 

### NE NE NE NE NE SG 

### NE SG 

### NE NE NE ____-_ 1.2 SUPRF 1.2 SUPRF 

### DAY DAY DAY DAY SUPRF 1.5 

### SUPRF SUPRF 1.6 SUPRF SUPRF SUPRF 2.0 ' 

### SUPRF



# . . SUPRF 

### HA10 HA1

### 0 CR14 HA28 

### HS28 

### TT28 HA1

### 0 HA10 

### HA10 

### Wl0 HA1

### 0 HA10 HA1

### 0 

### HA10 MA0

### 3 OE23 CM06 

### CMO6 

### CMO

### 6 CMO6 

### OE16 OE2

### 4 

### MA08 OE12 

### MA1 1 MA10 

### OE2

### 5 

### OE14



# __________ BT BT 

### BT BT 0T BT BT BT BT BT BT 

### BT BT BT 

## ------ TOX TOX NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT TOX NOT TOX NOT 

### NOT TOX NOT

.

### --

# -

# _- --- 10.00 0.00 

### 78.90. 97.30 100.00 

### 45.00 98.00 13.00' 86.70 

### 10.00 90.00 - 

### 78.30

0.00 

### 96.00 

## ____--___--- TX TX NT NT NT 

### NT NT TX NT 

### TX NT NT 

### TX NT 

# ___--- 0.40 

### 0.63 6.54 96.00

4.27 

### 3.63 0.14 3.43 0.16 

### 0.14 4.98 

# ___--____--__- NR 'NR 

### NT ' 

### NT NT NT NT TX NT 

### TX 

### NT NT 

## m NT
.

# e Appendix 6 Other published sediment effect concentrations (SECs; dry-weight concentrations) used to evaluate the comparability of our calculated SECs. See Appendix 2c for a description of the chemical name for each abbreviated CHEMCODE (ND =

# not determined). CODES ERL ERM TELm PELm AET1 AET2 AET3 AET4 SLCl SLC2 EQP TELf PELf AET5 AET6 UNITS* SOURCE ngJg Long et al. (1995) ng/g Long et al. (1995) ngk : 

# MacDonald et al. 

# (1995) marine ng/g ngk ng/g ng/g ngk ng/g ngk ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g MacDonald et al. (1995) marine Barrick et al. 

# (1988) amphipod marine Barrick et al. 

# (1988) oysters marine Barrick et al. (1988) microtox marine Barrick et al. 

# (1988)benthos marine Persaud et al. (1992)lowest effect level Persaud et al. (1992) severe effect level (assumed 2%total organic carbon; TOC) USEPA (1988)and more recent (assume 2% TOC) Smith et al. (1996) freshwater Smith et al. 

# (1996) freshwater Batts and Cubbage (1995) Hyalella freshwater (assumed 2% TOC for PAHs and PCBs) Batts and Cubbage (1995) Microtox freshwater (assumed 2% TOC for 

# PAHs and PCBs) *metals: ug/g *iron: percent ND =

# not determined

## CHEMCODE SILVER ARSENIC CADMIUM COPPER IRON MERCURY 0.15 

## MANGANESE NICKEL LEAD SELENIUMND ZINC CHROMIUM-T

14-2CLBNZ 

### 12-2CLBNZ 

## 13-2CLBNZ NAPHTHALENE ACENA DIBNZFURAN FLUORENE PHENANTHRN ANTHRACENE FLUORANTHN PYRENE BAA BBF BKF 

## BAP ICDP BGHIP BBKF ACENAPTYLE DBA 2-METHNAP



# cH’RY

# sENE

PAH-L PAH-H PAH-T ~~



# ERL 1

# .o 8.2 1.2 81 34 

## ND 0.71 

## ND 20.9 46.7 

## ND 150 

## ND ND ND 160 70 16 

## ND 19 240 85.3 600. 665 261 384 

## ND ND 430 

## ND ND ND 44 63.4 552 1700 4022 

# ERM 3.7 70 9.6 370 270 

## ND 0.13 

## ND 51.6 218 

## ND 410 

## ND ND ND 2100 670 500 

## ND 540 1500 1100 5100 2600 1600 2800 

## ND. ND 1600 

## ND ND ND 640 260 3160 9600 44792 

# TELm 0.73 7.24 0.68 52.3 18.7 

## ND 0.7 

## ND 15.9 30.2 

## ND 124 

## ND ND ND 34.6 20.2 6.71 

## ND 21.2 86.7 46.9 113 153 74.8 108 

## ND ND 88.8 

## ND ND ND 5.87 6.22 312 655 1684 PELm 1.77 41.6 4.21 160 

## 108 

## ND 2.1 

## ND 42.8 112 

## ND 271 

## ND ND ND 391 201 88.9 

## ND 144 544 245 1494 1398 693 846 

## ND ND 763 

## ND ND ND 128 135 1442 6675 16770 AETI AET2 6.1 0.56 93 700 6.7 9.6 270 

## ND 1300 390 

## ND ND 0.59 2.1 

## ND ND 140 

## ND 660 660 

## ND ND 960 1600 120 120 110 50 170 170 2400 2100 1900 670 

## 2000 500 

## ND ND 3600 540 6900 1500 13000 960 30000 2500 16000 3300 5100 1600 9200 2800 7800 3600 7800 3600 3000 1600 1800 690 1400 720 

## ND ND 1300 560 540 230 24000 5200 69000 17000 

## ND ND AET3 AET4 6.1 0.56 57 700 5.1 9.6 260 

## ND 530 390 

## ND ND 0.41 0.2 

## ND ND 140 

## ND 450 530 

## ND ND 410 1600 110 110 50 35 170 170 2700 2100 1400 670 730 500 

## ND ND 

## 1000 540 5400 1500 4400 960 24,000 1700 16000 2600 5100 1300 9200 1400 9900 3200 9900 3200 3600 1600 2600 600 2600 670 

## ND


# . ND 1300 560 970 230 13000 5200 69000 12000 

## ND ND 

# SLCl ND 6 0.6 26 16 2 2 460 16 31 

## ND 120 

## ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2000 

# SLC:! ND 33 10 110 110 4 

## ND 1100 

### 75 250 

## ND



## . 820 

## ND



## . ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 

## EQP ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.147 

## ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2400 

## ND 20400 26000 26000 

## ND ND ND 22000 

## ND ND ND 2800 

## ND ND ND ND.

220000 

## ND 

# TELf ND 5.9 0.596 37.3 35.7 

## ND 0.486 

## ND 18 35 

## ND 123 

## ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 41.9 

## ND 111 53 31.7 57.1 

## ND ND 31.9 

## ND ND ND ND ND NP ND 34.1 

# - PELf ND 17 3.53 90 197 

## ND 2.7 

## ND 36 91.3 

## ND 315 

## ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 51

### 5 

## ND 2355 875 385 862 

## ND ND 782 

## ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 277 4.5 

## ND 150 40 12 7 280 

## ND 840 

## ND ND ND 0.56 1800 

## ND ND 31 720 260 

## ND 1100 490 

## ND ND ND ND ND ND 46000 6600 

## ND ND 68000 580 

## 10200 ND 84000 600 182000 2200 34000 520 96000 3000 62000 3200 13000 1100 34000 1580 30000 2200 30000 2200 18200 1580 7600 660 18200 600 

## ND ND 1660 320 3200 200 420000 11000 220000 13000 640000 24000

## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN ON aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN 913 - 

## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN OPL 

## aN 09E aN aN aN aN aN 

# s13v - aN aN PL'Z



## aN aN P'Z9

aN aN aN L9'9 09PP 

## SL'9 CS'8 

## aN 

## 6'8 aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN il3d 

# - aN aN 9'0 

## aN aN L9'Z

aN aN aN S8'Z L 

### ZP' 

## 1 PS'E



# aN S'P 

## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN 

## 1131 

# - aN aN aN aN aN 001 

## aN aN aN aN aN 0092 aN aN aN aN aN aN aN 0181 

## aN OPZ aN 086 

## aN 021 aN 021 

## aN .oz1 aN 

# oz aN OPZ 

## aN OZP 

## aN 002 

## aN 091 aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN

OP800901 

## QN 08P 

## aN 089 

## aN OOOE 

## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN 0901 

# mm aN aN



# s aN aN

E aN aN aN



# z L 

## 9 8 L 

### L 

## E E 

# s 9 Z aN aN ON aN aN aN aN OL



# s 09 OE 

## aN aN aN



## L 131s 

# - aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN ON aN aN aN aN aN aN aN 006

## 1

aN E9 

## aN aN 0091 

## 1L OE 

### 1 

## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN 

## p13v aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN PE



## 6 91 

## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN OOE 1 

## 0029



## 006 aN aN 0019 

## 009

## 1 000 1



## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN 

## E13V 

# - aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN

9 

## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN 

## 0061

OZP 

# OLP aN aN OOP 1



## 09 

## 1 001

### 1



## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN 

## Z13V 

# - aN ON aN aN aN aN 

## aN aN aN aN 

## OLZ

Sl EP 

## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN 0016 00

## 1z



## 006 aN aN 009

## 1 OOP

### 1 0016



## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN 

## 113v 

# - aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN €3 L'LS 

## PLE 18'L 

## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN LP9Z



## aN aN aN aN aN aN 

## 681 

## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN 

## Wild 

# - 7 

## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN ZL'O 

## 68'E LO'Z ZZ' 

### 1



## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN 18

## 1 aN aN aN aN aN aN 9'12

aN aN aN aN aN aN aN W131 

## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN 1



## '9P LZ 

## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN ON aN aN aN aN aN aN 081 

## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN Wtl3 

# - aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN 8s' 1



### Z'Z 

## aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN aN L'ZZ

aN aN aN aN aN aN aN ltl3 - 

## WAXOH13W 

## 3N3HdVXOl XOd313d3H HOlH3Vld 3 H a1V-Ni

## tlaN3 NIHaN3 S-NdlSOCIN3 B-NJlSOaN3 V-NJlSOaN3 aN Niuavia 

# iaa 3aa 

# aaa V-NVaHOlH3 '3-NVClkJOlH3 9-XH3-139 a-XH3-139 8

## -XH3-1 

## 39 V-XH3-139 NlHalV HlHdXH13ZB dl30NZ lHdZNglfl9 ZNBN 

## dawla

dwla 1-83d 

## diaouondz

09Zl93d PSZ

## 193d 8PZ 193d ZPZ 183d ZEZ 

## 183d lZZl83d 910183d 3

# a03w3

## H3

# ERM 

# / ERM-G FIGURE 1A 

### ENTIRE DATABASE VS 

### GREAT 

## UKES DATABASE BY CONCENTRATION TEsT=CM4

4 33 33 3 

# ERM 

# I ERM-G FIGURE 18: 

# ENTIRE DATABASEVS GREAT 

## MES DATABASE x CORRECT 

## m=m4
N-25 

## w 80 10

0 I 

# I'

0 

# i

Figures la and 1

### b. Comparabilityand reliability

## of ERMs

### calculatedusingthe Great Lakes database 

### (ERM-G)

### vs ERMs calculatedusing dry-weight concentrationsandthe entire database (ERM). 

### See the 

### page proceeding Figure 1 in

### the report

### for addltionaldetall.

## I 

# *o ERM 

# / ERM-G FIGURE 1C: 

## ENTIRE DATABASE 

## VS GREAT 

## LAKES DATABASE 

# ?&E&:

,’” 

# / ERM 

# / ERM-G FIGURE 1D: 

### ENllRE DATABASE VS GREAT LAKES 

### DATABASE X TYPE 

### II m=cRl4

0 

# a n-a 

# 4 /”

# /

,/ 

# / 

# /

’0 

# , 00’

’0 0 

# ,‘ .0



### Figures 

## IC and Id. Comparabilityand reliability 

### of 

### ERMscalculated using the Great Lakesdatabase 

### (ERM-G)vs ERMscalculated using dry-weight concentrationsandthe entire database 

### (ERM). Seethe page proceeding Figure 

### 1

### in the report for additional detail.0 

## a

I 

## m 

# or m 09 01 09 OB 001.

OL OB OB 1L 

### =W t2 

## n 

## oz 91 9'1 t'L tl 01 9'0 9'0 

### vo 

## ro a0



### LZ -I



# .

### l3d 

### mtwmcummw~aoio



# c

### I I z 

# //

0-lY3 

### m (3 

### R 

## s

0

W 

## a 3 

## a G

c

0 

# % k 

### 6- 0 l 

# it-

. As_ $0 0-1na 0 m m 

### r, 

# G

h J 

### U
m B 

### m D 

### m m V 

# w,

c

m m (0 3 0) 

### u. 

## L

.

## .-n I1 2 

### w



# .. I S 

## P E 

### 8 

# $3 

# =$ 4 

## R 0,

0 0-7M

0

### -1m

# I

# *

TEL 

# / TEL-G FIGURE 48: 

## ENTIRE DATABASE VS 

## GREAT 

## IAKES DATABASE 

# TEL 

# I EL-G FIGURE 4A 

## ENTIRE 

## DATABASE 

## VS 

## GREAT W(ES DATABASE BYC ICrnllON 

# viEE RsT.cRl4

1 13 111 TEL>TEL-Q 4 

### FW EL-TO.

# -Q 6 (24%)

33 

### 3 1

1~'''~'''~~"''1'~''~''1" .' 

## ' ,.."I'."i bO 0.2 0.4 0.6 Od 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 ld 20 22 24 

### TEST-HAU 

### a I 

# 2 lm 90 

### 80 70 

### N- 

### 25

N- 

### 27 ,/" 

# /

40



### oy, , , 

### , I,,, 

# , , 

# , , I, I,,

0 

### 10 20 

### Jo 40 50 60 TD 80 

### BO100



### 'igures 4a and 4b. Comparability and reliabilityof 

## TELs calculated usingthe Great Lakesdatabase (TEL-G)

### vs TELscalculated using dry-weight concentrations and the 

## entire database 

## (TEL). See the page proceeding Figure 1 

### inthe report

## for additional detail.L;



# g W 

### K 3 

### c1I 

## ii 3-13.l



# \\I\\ 0-N

0-1U 0-13.l W K =J 

## u G 

# a !3 

# x 8

0 c 

### 3



### 4 

## a 0

0 O--faL 

## 8 8 8 

### I? 

# s 8li 3 

## a IG L
0

0--1u a, 0) 

## G c% 

## 3

m 

### n 

# 3 la Q U c 

## f?

m 

## 5 .- .d 

### c a,
U C Q Ul C 0 .a C a, 0 C 0
13) 

## E c


# E

I 

# s & U m

# NEC 

# / NEC-G FIGURE 

## 5k ENTIRE 

### DATABASE

# VS GREAT LAKES DATABASE BY CO~~tlON

TEST-HAU 

# NEC 

# / NEC-G FIGURE 56: 

### ENTIRE 

### DATABASE 

### VS GREAT 

## LAKES DATABASE K 

### CORRECT TEST=cm4 

### N= 15 90 M 

# m 60



### rigures 5a 

## and 5b. Comparability and reliability

## of NECs 

### calculated using the Great Lakes database (NEC-G)

## vs NECs

### calculated using dry-weight concentrations and the entire database (NEC).See the

--e- ..-----A:-- Clnl#.n i in.+ha rennrt fnr arlrlitinnal 

### tintail.

# NEC 

# / NEC-G flGURE 5C: 

### ENTIRE DATABASE VS 

### GREAT L4KES DATABASE %TYPE1 TES=CRU

J

0 I 

# Y NEC 

# / NEC-G FIGURE SD: 

## ENTIRE DATABASE 

### VS GREAT 

### LAKES DATABASE &.&%l: N=25 

## w Bo 

## m €4

0 IO 

## a 10 4a 50 60 70 80 

### w WXI NEC TEST-IUU



### NEC m=HA2I) 

# ,/ 

# / owrnY)40w60mww1m 

### NEC 

## m-w 1m w]

# "-* 

# "i

€4



### Figures

### 5c and 5d. Comparability and reliabilityof 

### NECs calculated using the Great Lakes database (NEC-G)

### vs NECs calculatedusingdry-weight concentrations and the entire database (NEC). See the page proceeding Flgure 1 inthe 

### reportfor additional detail.

# e 

# *

ERM 

# / PEL FIGURE 6A: BY 

## CONCENTRATION TEST=

### cm4

TEST- HA14

1 

### 3 1 

# I 41 1444 44 44 4 3

# 1

. '313 1 

### 33 

## *

TEST

# -H428

4 44 444 4 4 A4 4 4 

### 39 31 33 

### 11 11 1 

# ERM 

# / PEL FIGURE 68: 

## % 

## CORRECT TEST-CR14



### 3 

### 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 80 100 

### ERM TEST=HAl8



### Figures 6a and 6b. 

### Comparability and reliability 

### of 

### ERMs and 

### PELS calculated using dry-weight concentrationsand the 

### entiredatabase. Seethe page proceeding Figure 

### 1 40 

### 60 

### 60 70 80 Bo 1M) 

### €AM



### n the report 

### for additional detail.L L 0

\\\\ \



### I 0

0

lad 7ad



## I s

0

13d 13d 

## a
0 

# -

0

Q Q) 0 

### m 

### a a
Q) Q (I) 

## 5

Q -0 C 

### m ul c 0 

## 5



## .- d 

## 2 d c c 

# 8 8

-0 C 

### m



### u u3 U C 

### m 0 Wc

# 'i: R 0

0



## -2 

# -E

a 1

t 0

1 2 0 I 

# a

# - m C 0 U 

### m 

## .- c 

# e

L 

# .- 0 

### r 0 

### n 

### 2 

# s 2 

## ii 5 

## 2 n (D m 

### m 4 

### m 

## 5 Q W 

## cn ai 

### n W C 

# .- r 2 m 0, C W W 0



# 3 m m 

# - 8
a 8


### t? 8 

# Q "$ a 

# a t
0 

# \ \\ \

lY3 lY3



### ma3 0) 

### m 

# s!

:-

# ERM 

# I ERL FIGURE BC% 

# TYPE 1 lUl-CRl4

-I Y I 

# it

u f 1.r

0 1020304046070BDSU1oQ WY TEST-HAl4



# a 'w N-33 

# 4
I 

# ERM 

# / ERL FIGURE BD: % 

## TYPE II TEST-CRU

I 

## m 

# , 

# /

, 0 

# .

,," 

# /

Figures 8c

## and8d. Comparabllity andreliability of ERMs

## and ERLs

## calculated using dry-weightconcentrations andthe entire database. See

## thepageproceeding Figure 1 

## In thereport for 

## additional detail.

## I f

0 m 

# r m m 

## cn



# !I!% 0 n 

# -

# 1:

% $Z R w 9. X 0 

# ct; I$
U X 0 d 

# 13 'W



### ID C 

### .a

Y) -I 

### w 

## a

# PEL 

# I TEL FIGURE 

## 9C: % 

# TYPE I TEsI=cm4 lm 90 NL 26 

### m 

## m 60

0 10'20 30 40 

### 60 60 70 W W 1W 

## w. TEST- M14

0 0 0

'0 '0 '0 1' 10



# /-

0 

# PEL 

# I TEL FIGURE 

## 9D: % 

## TYPE II m=m loo 

## w Bo W=ZB



## m

c 

## 'igures 9c 

## and 9d. Comparabilityand rellabilityof PELSandTELs calculated usingdry-weight concentrations andthe entire database. Seethe page proceeding Figure 1inthe report

### for additional detail.I



### wna

0..

'n

n 

### I IIM 

### R n z



# - - IS

# NEC 

# / ERL

. 

### BGURE 11A: BY CONCENTRATION



# . 3 

## *
1 

# NEC 

# / ERL FIGURE 11B: % 

### CORRECT TEsI=cm4

/I&'' 

# '' 

# ,' 0



## igures 1

### laand 11

### b. Comparability and reliability of 

### NECsand 

### ERLs calculated using dry-welght concentratlons and the 

## entire database. 

### See the page proceeding Figure 

### 1 In

### the report for additional detail.

# \
\\\\



## R L

0 

## R P

0



## 8 8 

### 8 

## L 8 51 

# 23

x a L

0 \ 

## 9 a 8 

## e 8 

### t?g 8 4 

### R 

## s

0



## 8 8 

### 8 

### E 

## a 38 3 SI

0 n 

### P

0 L 

# - 0 

### r 0 

### a 

### 2 

## 5 

# s! G m 

## 5 2 n al 

### c 

# .- 7 3 m



### c al al 0
m 0-l KJ n m 

### 5 al a, v) 

## w n 

# 3 ca KJ '0 

### m 

### c al 

### al U 

### c 

### ca In 

### c 0 c

L c 

## .- 

## 5

.- c 

### F c 

### c al 0 C 0 

### m al 

### E 3 

# .- 

# i. D 0, 

### c 0) 3 '0 al 

### ca 3 0 

# -

c 

# - - 2 v)

# e

ERM 

# / ERM-T FlGURE 12A: % CORRECT TEST-CRI4

c I 

# H 

# /

'

., 0 0 

# '. ,' 0 

# oy,, , , 

## , , 

## , , 

## , . 

## , . , 

## :, . 

# , , i 

# .ERM

# / ERM-T flGURE 128: 

### % 

## TYPE I

Figures 12a and 12b. Reliability 

### of ERMscalculated usingdry-welght concentrations and using sediment concentrations normalized to total organlc carbon 

## (TOC; ERM-T) 

### concentrations 

### for the entire database. 

### Seeth-epage proceedlng Figure 1 

## In the report for additional detail.

### al

al 

### 5 L 

# - 0

A-wa L- NU3 

# c

0 LI-lY3

L-1- 

## 8 8 

### P E 8 51 

# s a a e

0 

### I-1w

0

I-in3 I-lto 0 0 

### al v, 

### 6 n 

# 2 cd 

### m '0 c 

### 2 

# .- c 

### c 0 al 

### 5 L c 0 v) 

### c 0 

# = c 0) 

### c 0 

### 2 c

n 

### m U C m m m 7 ln 3 0, LL 

## E

._

### cnL 

## I 

## EnL- I 

### FIGURE 13C: % 

# TYPE II TEST-cm4



### o io t~ 

## s o 50 

### w 

## m m w im ERL lES=W14 

### loo 80 60 10 80 N- 14



### o io 20 30 

## o so bo 

### io 

### .y 

## m io0 ERL 

# I

Figure 13c. ' 

### Reliability

### of 

### ERLscalculated using dry-weight concentratlonsand usingsedimentconcentratlons normalizedto 

### TOC 

### (ERL-T) concentrationsfor the entire database. See thwpage proceeding Figure 1 

### in the reportfor additional detali.

# d)

I

# H

e l I 

# Y

I

# P I 

# NEC 

# / NEC-T FIGURE 14A 

### % 

### CORRECT TEST=CR(~

.” 

# M



# ’E{N- 11 ,/” 

# /

Ot’, 

# . , , , 

# , , ~ , I , I , I , 

# , NEC 

# / NEC-T FIGURE 

## l4B % 

## TYPE I TEST=CRU 

### N= 14 90 80 70 60



### o io 20 30 UI 

## w 60 70 

### wiw NK: TEsI=tlAU

N-l7 90 

### m

igures 14a and 14b. Reliability 

### of NECs calculated using dry-weight concentralions and using sediment concentrations normalizedto TOC 

### (NEC-T) concentrations 

### for the entire database. See 

### the oaoe 

### oroceedina Fiaure 1 

### Inthe reportfor additional detail.

### Figure 14c. 

# NEC 

# / NEC-T FIGURE 14C % 

### TYPE 

## II I

# e.

'@ 90
70 N-14 

## m

Reliabilityof 

### NECscalculated using dry-weight concentrationsand using sediment concentrationsnormalized

## to TOC (NEC-T) concentrationsfor 

### the entire database. 

### Seethe page proceeding Figure 1 

### in the report

### for additionaldetail.

# I 1 

# ERM 

# / ERM-PW FIGURE 15k % 

### CORRECT TEST=uIIb



# .

100 sill "=' 

### ,,'. 

# /
I 5 t
o{f , , , 

# , , 

# , , 

## I,,

, 

### I. 

### o 

### i020~0~1~maow1m 

# ERM 

# / ERM-PW FIGURE 158: 

### % 

### WE I 'TEST-CRU



### N= 7 

## ,," 

# /



# . ,

CRY



### Figures 15a and 15b. Reliability of 

### ERMsfor metals calculateduslng dry-weight concentrationsand pore-water (ERM-PW) concentrations

### for the entire database. See the page proceedingFigure 1 In the report

### for additional delall.

### igure 

### 15c. 

# ERM 

# / ERM-PW FIGURE 15C: 

### % 

## TYPE 

## II IEST=CFM lm 

### N- 

### e 90 80 10



# h 0 I 

### I 

# ' w 80 70 0 N-7



### Reliability

### of ERMs

### for metals calculated usingdry-weight concentralionsand pore-water (ERM-PW) 

### concentrations 

### for the entire database. See 

### the page proceeding Flgure 1 

### inthe report for 

### additlonal detail.Md -1- 

## 8 8 

# s

0 c 

### 3 8 

# =i i?

0. n 

## e

Q

Md-ltl3 Md

# -1tR

Md-1M Md-1M 0 

# s
a 8


### k 8 

## sii 

# s PI R 0

b

Wd-1-

# 8

Md-1M



# , w-iua 

# F a 

## ii 0) Ql 

### c al a, 

## 5hU-33N Md--31N Md-33N



# s

0 p. 

### k

0

Md

# -33N 

### AM

# -93N 

### c U a, 

## .- 

# 8 2 Q a, m 

### m a 

### a
a, a, v) 

## 5

ai v) 

### m D 

### m m U CI 

## !E 

# .- CI 

### c a, a, 

## 5 

## P L v) 

### c

v) 

### c * 

# .o E I
c 

### c a, 0 

### c 0 0

Md-93N

U C 

### m

L

# @ NEC 

# '/ NEC-PW FIGURE 17C: 

## % 

## TYPE 

## II

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 80 100 

### NEC 

# I TEST-CM4
N-6



# h P z 0 10 20 30 

### '40 W 60 70 80 80 100 

### NEC TEsT-HAi4

80 70 60 

### so

0 10 20 

### 30 40 W 

### 60 70 Bo 90100 

### NEC TEST- HA28 

# @'

' .



# I

. 

### Figure 17c. Reliability of 

### N'ECS

## for metals calculated using dry-weight concentrations and pore-water 

### (NEC-PW) concentrations for the entire database. See the page proceeding Figure 

### 1 in the report 

## for additional detail.

# ERM-BT 

# / ERM-BS FIGURE 18A: 

### % 

### CORRECT TEST-CRl4 100 

### eo 80 70 

# ' 50 

# 3 60 

# B., 30 20 10 0 ,.I.I.I.I.~.I.I.I.~ I 0 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80 90 100 ERM

# -BT TEST-HA14



# 3 

# t

0 10 20 30 40 60 80 70 80 Bo 100 

### ERM

# -BT TEST

# -HAZB lM 

### eo 80 70 60 60 N- 8

0 10 20 30 40 60 

### 60 70 

### BO 90 100 EAM-BT 

# a I 

# 3 

# e ERM-BT 

# / ERM'- 

# 13s FIGURE 186: 

### Yo TYPE 

### I TEST- CR14

0 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80 90 100 ERM-BT TEST

# -HA14

0 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80 Bo 100 EM-BT TEST- 

### HA20

0 10 20 

### 30 40 

### SO 60 70 80 90 100 ERMLBT 

### Figures 18a and 18b. Reliability 

### of

## ERMs calculated using total-metal 

### (ERM-ET)concentrations and simultaneously extracted metal (ERM-BS concentrations for the entire database See the page proceeding Figure 1 

### in the report for additional detail.

### igure 18c. 

# e

I I Y 

# e ERM

# -BT 

# / ERM-BS FIGURE 18C % 

## TYPE II



# 0 

# 6 I 

### f 

### N- 6 90 

## so 

## m 0 I

50



### Reliabilityof 

## ERMs calculated usingtotal-metal (ERM-ET)

### concentrationsandslmultaneously extracted metal 

### (ERM-BS)concentrations

## forthe 

### entire database, See 

## the page proceeding Figure 1

### inthe reportfor 

### additional detail.

# ERL-BT / ERL-BS FIGURE 19A 

### 9L 

### CORRECT m=m4 

### loo 80 80 70 Iy= 5



### o 10a1~0400~mmwwm ERL-BT IEsT-HI14 ' N- 6



## m 

# -.-

ERL- BT 

# / ERL

# -BS FIGURE 19B %

## WE I l€sT=cRu $00 90 

### w- 5 

### m 

## m

Q 

### io 20 

### m u) 50 

### m TO 

### m WIOO W-BT TT!Sl=IiAU

Y) I A 

## B 

# OK 

# <
. , , 

## , , 

## , ,'), 

## , , 

# , 

# . , 

# . i



### igures 19a and 

## 19b. Reliability

### of ERLscalculated using total-metal concentrations

### (ERL-BT) and simultaneouslyextracted rn-eta1 

### (ERL-BS) concentrations for the 

### entire database. proceeding Figure 1inthe 

### report

## foradditionaldetail. See

### the page 

# I -.

# .e
ERL-BT 

# / ERL-BS flGURE 1Bc: % 

### TYPE II TEST-CRU 

# '"

# /



# . 0 0 

## m

n- I 

# ,'" 

# /

a I 

## i$ m 

# il

a0 b

10 0'



### Flgure 19c. 

### Rellabllity

### of ERLscalculated usingtotal-metal concentratlons 

### (ERL-BT)andsimultaneouslyextractedmetal

### (ERL-BS) concentrations

### for 

### the entire database. See

### the page proceeding flgure 1 

## Inthe 

### report

### for additional detail.

# e

R 

# =

0



### ea

### -33N



### 1 

## a

0 

### S



### 8 

### R t

0
sa-33~



### R 0

0 Sa

# -3PN

Sa

# -33N 

### a 0, 

### m a a a, 

## cn 'ai 

### n n 

## 5

v) 

### m 

## m m U c 

# E 

# .- e t 

### a rn 

## 5 L 'c 0 v) 

### c 0 

## .- c 

## 9 

# s c C a, 0 

### c 

# - v) 

# z W 

# z

V 

### c ld ld 0 N v) 

## 2 m 

## .-Q al Q v) 

# s

r n m 

### n 

### d 

# E v) Q Q U 'j C al 0 

### f 

# s 

# - fn C 0 

# - c c 

# e 8 C al 0 

### cF



# Be



# i 

# le@

e 

# -

E

e 

# P

# e ieE P 

# -

-.

L

e 

# -I

# I ds 

# Iti m 0 (0 

### ai ul Q 

### n Q Q 

### u c

N N

### Figure 23 1114111180 WywJBwffFXxDm N-Q I &.I



### Observed and expectedtoxlcity

### of samples based onthe mlnimum number

### of NEC exceedances uslngdry-welght concentratlons and using all individualNECs 

### regardless

### of the 

### percent correct classification for the entire database. 

### See legend of Flgure21 for 

### a descrlptlonof Flgure 

### 23.

# - NEC/ERM/ERL

# - FIGURE 24 SAMPTYP= BT TEST- 

### HA28

12 3 4 6 

### e 7 8 9 10

MIMLIUY NUMBEA OF EXCEEDENCEQ SAMPTYP 

### = BT TEST =HA28

loo a0

# 1

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

MINIMUM NUMBER OF EICEEDENCES 

### SAMPTYP =

### BT 

### TEST

# -HA28

F 20 0 12 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10

MINIMUM NUMBER OF EXIcEEDDdCEB

Figure 24 Observed and expected toxicity of HA28 samples based on the mlnlmum number of 

### NEC,ERM, and ERL exceedances for the entire database using dry-weight concentrations regardless of percentage correct classification by these indlvidual ERMs. See legend of Figure 21 for a description of Figure 24.N

t 

### m

N



### a hl

# GL SECS

# - ERM -MT DATA FIGURE 26: 70% CRITERION I SAMPTYP = BT TEST= CR14

TOxIcmO HIT 1234se78~10 MINIMUM NUMBER 

### OF EXCEEDANCES 

### SAMPNP=

### BT 

### TEST- 

### HA28 100 ' 

# 901 

# b N-16 

### I SEC-11

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MINIMUM NUMBER 

### OF MCEEDANCES

Figure 26 Observed and predicted toxicity of Clark Fork Rlver samples based on the minimum number of Great Lakes ERM exc'eedances using dry-weight concentrations and using only those chemicals for which indivldual SECS correctly classify 270% of the Great Lakes samples. See legend of Figure 21 for 

### a descrlptlon of Figure 26.

# a 4 

# .I. .%?? 4 

# L-



# *
I 

# A a

## ALL-CR14 

## BT

ALL-HA14 BT

t--



## ALL- HA28 

## BT

OTHER 

# &* x

1 TH 

# @ t:&HOLDS 

## FIGURE 

## 28 

# CHEMCODE=

# COPPER



# $- x

++G 

# * ++- x

0 0 I I I 1 

## 10 100 

## 1000 CONCENTRATION (NG/G) 10000

Figure 28 

### Comparability of 

### our SECsto 

### publishedSECs for 

### copper basedon dry-weight concentrations. See legend

### of Figure

### 27 

### for andescription

### of the abbreviations in Figure 28.Figure 29 

# PELF/SLC1 /At5/EQP FIGURE 29 

### SAMPTYP 

### BT TEST= HA28

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 10

UINIWM NUMBER OF UCEEOWCEQ 

### SAMPlYP

### =BT 

### TEST= HA28

1 2 3 4.6 t3 7 

## s e io UlWWNn OF UC,-S

Observed and predicted toxlclty of HA28 samples based on dry-welght concentratlonsand the mlnirnum number of exceedances of publlshed freshwater PELS (PELF; Smith et al.. 1996). Hyalella 

### azteca AETs (AET5; Bans and Cubbage. 1995; assumed 2% TOC). EQP (USEPA. 1988: Hoke et al.. 1995; assumed 

### 2% T0C)-andSLCs (SLC1; lowest effect level for Screenlng Level Concentrations; Persuad et al.. 1992). See legend of Figure 21 for a description of Figure 29.

# . cn 

# >

'0

3 0) 

# LL L


# .- 0 0

0



### 0 0


### 0 

### 0

0 

### 0 

# 0 0 F 

# 3

1 

# I 1 

## I I 

# I 1 8 

## F 

# - 0" c 0 

### 2 L 0 '0 

### c a,
a, w 

## 2 a m 

### 5 c 0 VI VI a, 

# 2



# : 0, 

### 2

W

0

m