|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Draft Focused Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA)CIC Meeting Feb 19, 2002Draft Notes were presented by EPA Ecologist James Chapman, Ph.D. He explained the draft ERA. Notes are below. The full report will be available this spring. The main receptors for the study are Mink and Kingfisher. Though mink are no longer in resident in Indiana, they should be, and would be if allowed to return. Otters are already established, and would have a similar profile, ie subsisting mainly on fish in the creeks.. Kingfishers are common along Richland Creek.
2001 Mean Concentrations of PCBs in fish tissue Total PCBs (Aroclor data) TEQ [dioxin] toxic equivalents (congener data) Sum of congener-specific risks (kingfisher egg only) Exposure assumptions 100 % aquatic diet (whole-body fish) 100 % foraging within a given reach Opportunistic feeding (no species preference) Data reduction Species mean average concentration in a particular species within a single reach Reach mean average of the species means Mink PCBs Mink TEQs Mink LOAEC Assessment of Mink Risk 1 Based on concentrations in prey NOAEC no observed adverse effect conc. Highest concentration with no reproductive effect LOAEC lowest observed adverse effect conc. Lowest conc. causing adverse reproductive effect PCB geometric mean of 4 mink studies TEQ geometric mean of 3 mink studies Kingfisher PCBs Kingfisher TEQs Kingfisher Egg PCBs Kingfisher Egg TEQs Assessment of Kingfisher Risk Based on dose (ingestion/bodyweight/day) NOAEL no observed adverse effect level Highest dose with no reproductive effect LOAEL lowest observed adverse effect level Lowest dose causing adverse reproductive effect PCB geometric mean of 3 chicken studies TEQ single chicken study Assessment of Kingfisher Risk 2 Model accumulation in eggs Diet-to-egg biomagnification factors (BMF) Based on alewife-to-gull egg BMFs (L. Ontario) for PCB congeners and total PCBs Modeled egg congener conc. converted to TEQ Compare modeled accumulation to egg NOAEC and LOAEC for chickens Egg NOAECs and LOAECs PCBs geometric mean of 3 studies TEQ single dioxin study Based on hatchability and chick survival Draft Summary of Ecological RisksConards Branch-#1 6 to 70 times above lowest effectRichland Creek-#2 1.3 to 10 times above lowest effect Richland Creek-#3 and 4 0 to 2 times above lowest effect, 0 to 6 times above no effect Richland Creek-#5 below lowest effect, 0 to 1.7 times above no effect Richland Creek-#6 below no effect James Chapman, Ph.D., Ecologist USEPA Region 5 (SRT-6J) 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604 312 886 7195 312 353 5541 (fax) chapman.james@epa.gov |
|
Warning! Eat no fish from Clear Creek, Pleasant Run, Salt or Richland Creeks.
|
|||
 COPA For more info, e-mail info@copa.org. Copyright © 1990-2002 COPA, Inc. All rights reserved. See legal page for terms of use and disclaimers. All trademarks belong to their respective owners. |
|||