Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

HEALTH CONSULTATION

MELROSE DUMP
MELROSE, STEARNS COUNTY, MINNESOTA


I. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) received a request from the Minnesota Pollution ControlAgency (MPCA) to evaluate potential public health concerns regarding the Melrose Dump, located nearthe city of Melrose, Stearns County, Minnesota (the site). The site was identified by the MPCA throughits Dump Assessment Program as an "action site". This designation indicates that the site warrantsfurther evaluation due to its potential to adversely impact public health or the environment. This healthconsultation is based on a site visit conducted by MDH staff on May 16, 2000, private water supplywell sampling conducted by MDH staff on July 21, 2000, a review of previous MDH documents, andinformation provided to MDH by the MPCA and its consultant, STS Consultants, LTD (STS, 2000a;STS, 2000b).

The city of Melrose is located approximately 100 miles west-northwest of Minneapolis. The site islocated approximately 1 mile southeast of the city of Melrose, on a parcel of undeveloped land locatedin the northeast and southeast quadrants of the intersection of County Road 173 and Riverview Road(see Figure 1). The dump area occupies a total area of approximately 3.2 acres, divided into northern(1.3 acre) and southern (1.9 acre) portions. A smaller "middle" dump area was identified betweenthese two main dump areas during the Phase II investigation. Access to the site is unrestricted.

The north dump began accepting wastes in the 1930s, and it was operated as an open dump until theearly or mid-1960s. At that time, dumping switched to the southern portion of the dump and continueduntil the early 1970s. It is not known when waste was deposited in the "middle" dump area. The areasurrounding the site is mainly agricultural, but a few widely scattered residences are also present, withprivate wells ranging in depth from 36 to 117 feet. Immediately east of the site is an active sand andgravel mining operation. The Melrose city water supply wells are located on a hill less than 1,500 feetnorth of the site and are completed between 54 to 128 feet below grade (see Figure 1).

As a public dump, the site likely accepted all types of wastes, including household garbage, autos, tires,and appliances. An undated MPCA memo documents a conversation with a former landfill operator whoindicated that the dump had received PCB-contaminated oil at least once, but probably several times. Only small amounts of waste are currently exposed at the surface of the dump. Based on a Phase II siteinvestigation, the volume of waste at the site is estimated to be more than 19,000 cubic yards.

Geology/Hydrogeology

Based on available geologic information, soils at the site are composed primarily of well drained silt orloam overlying stagnation moraine sands and gravels of the Des Moines lobe. The uppermost bedrockis expected to be Precambrian gneiss at depths of 100 to 150 feet below grade (STS, 2000a). However,MDH review of well logs from the area identified three wells north of the site where granite wasencountered at 52 to 62 feet below grade. It is unclear whether this represents the topography of thebedrock, which may be controlling groundwater flow, or the presence of glacial erratics.

Soil borings conducted by STS confirmed the presence of up to 40 feet of sand and silty sand withoccasional clay and gravel lenses (STS, 2000b). The location of the borings is illustrated in Figure 2, and cross sections of the dump are presented in Figures 3, 4, and 5.

Based on the surrounding topography, the surficial groundwater is expected to flow southeast towardsthe Sauk River. However, groundwater modeling completed by the wellhead protection program of theMDH indicates that groundwater near the site actually flows to the northeast. Based on that modeling,it appears that the site may be within the capture zone of the nearest city wells (R. Soule, MDH, pers. comm., 2000).

Site Visit

On May 16, 2000, Jim Kelly and Ginny Yingling of MDH visited the site. The northern portion of thesite is located in a wooded area adjacent to a small pond and wetland area. Small amounts of waste arescattered on the surface of the site, including cans, bottles, appliances, and 55 gallon drums. Waste onthe north edge of this part of the dump encroaches into the wetland.

The southern portion of the site is located on a south-facing bluff, south of Riverview Road. Waste waspushed or thrown over this bluff, including appliances, automobiles, and household waste. Near theedge of the bluff, MDH staff observed some stressed vegetation. During a subsequent site visit on May25, 2000, MDH staff again observed a large area in the south portion of the dump where broadleafplants (Virginia Creeper, wild geraniums, etc.) were visibly wilted despite recent rainfall and moderatetemperatures. Similar plants nearby did not exhibit signs of stress. This may indicate the presence ofmethane gas at the site. During that second visit, staff also observed agricultural chemicals beingapplied to the field where the city water supply wells are located and noted that the applicator was quite close to the wells.

Site Investigation

Eighteen soil borings were advanced by STS at the site. Eight of these borings were completed astemporary monitoring wells (locations shown in Figure 2). The borings encountered 0-13 feet of wasteoverlying up to 40 feet of sand and silty sand with occasional lenses of clay and gravel. In thenorthernmost portion of the north dump area, the waste lies directly above a 1 to 4 feet thick layer ofpeat, associated with the pond north of the dump. Solid wastes encountered included: glass, wood,brick, concrete, ash, cinders, plastic, metal, rubber, and vinyl. Organic vapors were measured using aphoto-ionization detector (PID) during drilling, but were not detected above 1 PID unit in any boring. Methane gas was tested for in eleven borings, but was not detected (including the area where stressedvegetation was observed).

Surface soil was analyzed from four locations for metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), diesel range organics (DRO), pesticides, and herbicides. Fourmetals (arsenic, copper, chromium, and lead) exceeded their respective MPCA Soil Reference Values(SRVs). The SRVs represent the concentration of a contaminant in soil at or below which normaldermal contact, inhalation, and/or ingestion is unlikely to result in an adverse human health effect. Three metals (arsenic, chromium, and selenium) exceeded their respective MPCA Soil Leaching Value(SLV). The SLV represents the concentration of a contaminant in soil above which leaching couldcontaminate the groundwater at levels above established standards. It should, however, be noted thatthe samples were analyzed for total chromium (which includes both chromium VI and the morecommon chromium III), but were compared to the more toxic chromium VI criteria. DRO was detectedin the two north dump samples at concentrations up to 110 mg/kg. Also, six PAHs and one pesticide (DDT) were detected in one sample from the north dump. The analytical results are presented in Table 1.

Waste samples from five soil borings were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), metals,PCBs, PAHs, DRO, pesticides, and herbicides. Eight metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium,copper, lead, nickel, and selenium) exceeded their respective SLVs, and five (arsenic, barium,chromium, copper, and lead) exceeded their respective SRVs. As noted above, these samples wereanalyzed for total chromium but were compared to the criterion for chromium VI. DRO was detectedin each sample, ranging from 18 to 130 ppm. The PCB, Arochlor 1254, and two PAHs were detectedin one boring (SB-8), and DDT was detected in both samples from the south dump area. DDT was alsodetected in the "middle" dump area. The analytical results are presented in Table 2.

Soil below the waste horizon from six soil borings was analyzed for VOCs, metals, PCBs, PAHs, DRO,pesticides, and herbicides. Only one metal (chromium) exceeded its SLV in the north dump area. Asnoted above, this sample was analyzed for total chromium but was compared to the criterion forchromium VI. Chromium, copper, and lead were also slightly elevated in one boring (B-8) in the southdump area. DRO was detected in only one boring in the north dump at low concentrations (30 mg/kg). No PCBs, PAHs, pesticides, herbicides, or VOCs were detected. The analytical results are presented in Table 3.

Groundwater from eight soil borings and the well purge/development water was analyzed for VOCs,metals, PCBs, PAHs, DRO, pesticides, and herbicides. The only compounds detected were metals, andnone exceeded their respective drinking water standards. Arsenic was detected at 14 ug/L in one boring. However, elevated arsenic concentrations are not uncommon in glacial deposits in Minnesota and thisdetection may be a result of naturally occurring arsenic, rather than dump related contamination. The analytical results are presented in Table 4.

Sediment from one location in the adjacent wetland area was analyzed for metals, PCBs, PAHs,pesticides, and herbicides. The only compounds detected were metals, of which five (arsenic, cadmium,copper, lead, and nickel) exceeded their respective sediment criteria. The sediment criteria are basedon effects on aquatic organisms, and exceedences of these criteria do not necessarily indicate a human health concern. The analytical results are presented in Table 5.

The MDH collected water samples from one private well near the site (the well location is shown on Figure 1). The sample was analyzed for the presence of 68 volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), 8metals, nitrate, and 4 indicator parameters. Low concentrations of barium (160 ug/l), manganese (48ug/l), and nitrate (0.25 mg/l) were detected. None of these compounds exceeds drinking water standardsand are not unusual for groundwater in Minnesota. The MDH samples the city water supply on anannual basis. No dump-related contaminants have been detected in the water from the wells located near the site.


II. DISCUSSION

Dumps may pose a potential human health risk when people come into contact with chemicals in soil,water, or air at levels of health concern, or when people are exposed to physical hazards such as sharpobjects or uneven ground. This requires that both the chemicals (or hazards) are present and that peopleare in contact with them.

Waste materials in old dumps are often buried beneath a thin layer of whatever type of soil is easilyavailable at the time. Sometimes the cover consists of a waste material such as ash or sand blast sands,which usually contain high concentrations of metals. This appears to have been the case at the MelroseDump where only a thin, discontinuous layer of sandy soil covers the waste. Often the cover materialsare thin or absent in spots, thus exposing wastes and contaminants. Over time, compaction anddegradation of the waste result in settling and the emergence of large, sharp objects such as scrap steelwhich can become a physical hazard. This is particularly true in the southern dump area and on slopesin the northern dump area.

Organic waste materials in the dump (if it was not burned regularly) often degrade and generatemethane and other gases. Low levels of chemical solvents may also be present in gas produced by olddumps. Together, these gases are referred to as 'landfill gases.' These gases are frequently explosiveand can migrate up to a few hundred feet from the dump site, depending on local conditions. This gasmigration can result in explosive levels of methane and concentrations of solvents above health concernsin nearby homes or buildings. Although stressed vegetation was observed in the late spring in thesouthern dump area, subsequent methane sampling did not detect the accumulation of this or otherorganic gases.

The degradation of solid waste also produces leachate when infiltrating water contacts the waste anddissolves chemicals from it. Leachate may discharge to surface water or infiltrate into groundwater. Groundwater contaminated by leachate usually does not have any distinguishing appearance, color, ortaste, and people are rarely aware of any problem unless the water is tested.

The Melrose Dump is a typical small town dump because it was located near the town, accepted alltypes of wastes, and encroached on an adjoining wetland. Waste materials exposed at the dump surface,particularly in the southern portion of the dump, represent a physical hazard. There also appears to besome chemical risk associated with this site. Several metals were detected in surface soil samples atconcentrations exceeding their Soil Reference Value. In addition, six PAHs and a pesticide weredetected in the surface soils. Moreover, several metals, PAHs, a PCB, and a pesticide were detectedwithin the waste horizon at the site. Over time, these contaminants may leach to the groundwater.

No contaminants were detected in the groundwater beneath the site. There were also no detections ofcommon dump related contaminants, such as VOCs, in the private well sampled near the site. Thissuggests that widespread groundwater contamination is not likely to be associated with this dump. However, the proximity and shallowness of the city water supply wells are cause for concern, especiallyif contamination should leach into the groundwater in the future.

There are also ecological risks associated with the site, in the form of elevated metals in sediments inthe pond adjoining the northern portion of the dump. This indicates the dump is impacting the wetland,likely through the erosion of contaminated soils. None of the metals detected in the sediment samplebio-accumulate, so there does not appear to be a potential human exposure pathway through theconsumption of contaminated fish or wildlife caught in this area. (Compounds that bio-accumulate arechemicals that increase in concentration as they move up the foodchain.)

Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Child Health Initiative

ATSDR's Child Health Initiative recognizes that the unique vulnerabilities of infants and children makethem of special concern to communities faced with contamination of their water, soil, air, or food. Children are at greater risk than adults from certain kinds of exposures to hazardous substances at wastedisposal sites. They are more likely to be exposed because they play outdoors and they often bring foodinto contaminated areas. They are shorter than adults, which means they breathe dust, soil, and heavyvapors close to the ground.

Children also weigh less, resulting in higher doses of chemical exposure per body weight. Thedeveloping body systems of children can sustain permanent damage if toxic exposures occur duringcritical growth stages. Most importantly, children depend completely on adults for risk identificationand management decisions, housing decisions, and access to medical care.

Children may be attracted to exposed debris areas due to the presence of bottles and shiny metal objects. No evidence was observed to indicate that children are frequenting the site. However, access to the siteis unrestricted, there is a fair amount of waste exposed at the site, and surface soils are contaminated at concentrations that exceeded human exposure standards.


III. CONCLUSIONS

Based on a review of available information in MPCA and MDH files, a site visit conducted on May 25,2000, and analysis of private water supply samples, it appears that this site poses an indeterminatepublic health hazard. The hazards involve mainly physical hazards from small amounts of exposedwaste and chemical hazards from contact with contaminated surface soils. Although the city watersupply wells are located near the site, groundwater beneath the site was found to contain only metalsand at concentrations below the Health Risk Limits or other drinking water criteria. The site may posean environmental hazard, based upon the elevated levels of metals detected in sediments in the adjoiningwetland, but this does not appear to represent a human health risk as the wetland is not large enough to be used for recreational or angling purposes.


IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. Additional cover soil should be placed on the surface of the dump to prevent exposure to physical hazards and contaminated soils. This would also likely help to reduce the amount of contamination entering the adjoining wetland as a result of runoff.

  2. Access to the site should be restricted through the use of fencing and signs should be posted prohibiting dumping of waste.

  3. Institutional controls, such as a notice filed with the property deed, should be considered to record the location of the dump for future reference.

V. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN

MDH's Public Health Action Plan for the site will consist of:

1. A letter to the MPCA and to city and county authorities advising them of our recommendations;

2. Continued annual testing of the city water supply wells for VOCs by the MDH community water supply program; and

3. A review of any additional available data, and participation in any meetings or other public outreach activities.


VI. REFERENCES

STS Consultants, LTD, 2000a, Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, April 20, 2000

STS Consultants, LTD, 2000b, Draft Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, September 11, 2000.


PREPARERS OF REPORT

James Kelly
Health Assessor
Site Assessment and Consultation Unit
Minnesota Department of Health
tel: (651) 215-0913

Ginny Yingling
Hydrologist
Site Assessment and Consultation Unit
Minnesota Department of Health
tel: (651) 215-0917

Alan Yarbrough
Technical Project Officer
Division of Health and Consultation
State Program Section
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


CERTIFICATION

This Melrose Dump Health Consultation was prepared by the Minnesota Department of Health under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the time the health consultation was begun.

Alan W. Yarborough
Technical Project Officer, SPS, SSAB, DHAC, ATSDR


The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this public health consultation and concurs with the findings.

Lisa C. Hayes
for Chief, State Program Section, DHAC, ATSDR


FIGURES

Melrose Dump Location
Figure 1. Melrose Dump Location

Melrose Dump Site Map
Figure 2. Melrose Dump Site Map

Cross-section A-A'
Figure 3. Cross-section A-A'

Cross-section A-A' continued and B-B'
Figure 4. Cross-section A-A' continued and B-B'

Cross-section C-C'
Figure 5. Cross-section C-C'


TABLES

Table 1.

Surface Soil Analytical Results
Melrose Dump
Concentrations in mg/kg
  SS-01
(0-1 ft.)
SS-02
(0-1 ft.)
SS-03
(0-1 ft.)
SS-04
(0-1 ft.)
SLV SRV
Diesel Range Organics - DRO 110 79 <8 <8.9 NE NE
Metals EPA 6010
Arsenic 10.9 17.7 2.13 33.4 15.1 10
Barium 455 352 26.2 317 842 1,200
Cadmium 2.06 2 <0.101 <1.17 4.4 35
Arsenic 26.8* 20.2* 9.12* 85.7* 18 71
Copper 128 67.8 8.17 96.3 400 100
Lead 425 279 4.51 77 525 400
Mercury 0.465 0.272 <0.0211 <0.0214 1.6 0.7
Nickel 25.7 27.3 10.2 104 88 520
Selenium 0.939 1.99 <0.507 <5.86 1.5 170
Polychlorinated Biphenyls - PCBs EPA 8020 No detects for all compounds analyzed 2.1 1.2
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons - PAHs EPA 8270
Fluoranthene <2 0.63 <0.33 <0.35 295 1,080
Chrysene <2 0.55 <0.33 <0.35 NE NE
Benzo (b) fluoranthene <2 0.96 <0.33 <0.35 NE NE
Benzo (k) fluoranthene <2 0.89 <0.33 <0.35 NE NE
Benzo (a) pyrene <2 0.73 <0.33 <0.35 NE 2
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene <2 0.51 <0.33 <0.35 NE NE
Pesticides EPA 8081
4,4 - DDT 0.11 0.13 <0.035 <0.0035 NE 15
Herbicides (MDA List 1) no detects for all compounds analyzed varies varies
* = denotes value for total chromium (chromium (III) + chromium (VI))
- = compound not analyzed.
SLV = Soil Leaching Value - MPCA Tier 1, 1999
SRV = Soil Reference Value - MPCA Tier 1, 1999
NE = Not Established
Bold = Concentration above detection limits
  = Concentration exceeds SLV
  = Concentration exceeds SRV


Table 2.

Waste Analytical Results
Melrose Dump
Concentrations in mg/kg
  B-2
S-02
(2.5-4.5 ft.)
B-4
S-03
(5-7 ft.)
B-6
S-02
(2.5-4.5 ft.)
B-8
S-03
(5-7 ft.)
B-17
S-03
(5-7 ft.)
SLV SRV
Volatile Organic Ompounds - VOCs
EPA 8260 Methonal
No detects for all compounds analyzed varies varies
Diesel Range Organics - DRO 120 18 21 130 72 NE NE
Metals EPA 6010
Arsenic 36 19.3 13.3 12.9 15.6 15.1 10
Barium 684 548 1,780 369 1,270 842 1,200
Cadmium 6.27 5.93 1.84 4.16 5.04 4.4 35
Chromium (VI) 132* 26.5* 27.1* 32.3* 43.5* 18 71
Copper 190 91 68.6 399 228 400 100
Lead 2,740 704 235 776 1,120 525 400
Mercury (EPA 7471) 0.58 0.0711 0.0309 0.449 0.155 1.6 0.7
Nickel 98.5 22.5 34.2 35.2 31.3 88 520
Selenium 1.42 1.83 <0.575 <0.533 0.674 1.5 170
Silver <1.23 <1.11 <1.15 <1.07 2.42 3.9 170
Polychlorinated Biphenyls - PCBs EPA 8020      
Arochlor 1254 <0.041 <0.037 <0.038 0.093 <0.04 2.1 1.2
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons - PAHs EPA 8270      
Pyrene <2.1 <0.37 <1.9 2 <2.1 272 890
Benzo (b) fluoranthene <2.1 <0.37 <1.9 1.8 <2.1 NE NE
Pesticides EPA 8081          
4,4' - DDT <0.041 <0.037 0.068 0.063 0.13 NE 15
Herbicides (MDA List 1) No detects for all compounds analyzed varies varies

* = denotes value for total chromium (chromium (III) + chromium (VI))
SLV = Soil Leaching Value - MPCA Tier 1, 1999
SRV = Soil Reference Value - MPCA Tier 1, 1999
NE = Not Established
Bold = Concentration above detection limits

  = Concentration exceeds SRV
  = Concentration exceeds SLV


Table 3.

Soil Analytical Results
Melrose Dump
Concentrations in mg/kg
  B-2
S-03
(6 ft.)
B-4
S-05
(10 ft.)
B-6
S-03
(5 ft.)
B-8
S-06
(13 ft.)
B-17
S-05
(10 ft.)
Dup (B-4, S-05)
B-20, S-05
(10 ft.)
SLV SRV
Volatile Organic Compounds - VOCs
EPA 8260 Methanol
No detects for all compounds analyzed varies varies
Diesel Range Organics - DRO 30 <13 <8.7 <8.8 <7.7 <8.1 NE NE
Metals EPA 6010
Arsenic 1.73 3.54 2.12 3.09 2.57 1.27 15.1 10
Barium 73.9 52.8 13.1 68.5 39.9 41.6 842 1,200
Cadmium <0.263 <0.16 <0.102 1.02 0.146 <0.118 4.4 35
Chromium 4.02 19.6 8.25 12.8 8.51 13.3 18 71
Copper 9.45 11.6 8.9 31.8 7.36 8.03 400 100
Lead 27.4 36.9 4.87 145 10 21.6 525 400
Mercury <0.0531 <0.0327 <0.0205 0.0224 <0.0207 <0.0243 1.6 0.7
Nickel 7.61 11.1 10.3 13.2 9.66 8.5 88 520
Selenium <1.32 <0.802 <0.508 <0.53 <0.507 <0.59 1.5 170
Silver <2.63 <1.6 <1.02 <1.06 <1.01 <1.18 3.9 170
Polychlorinated Biphenyls - PCBs EPA 8082 No detects for all compounds analyzed 2.1 1.2
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons - PAHs EPA 8270 No detects for all compounds analyzed varies varies
Pesticides EPA 8081 No detects for all compounds analyzed NE varies
Herbicides (MDA List 1) No detects for all compounds analyzed varies varies
* = denotes value for total chromium (chromium (III) + chromium (VI))
SLV = Soil Leaching Value - MPCA Tier 1, 1999
SRV = Soil Reference Value - MPCA Tier 1, 1999
NE = Not Established
Bold = Concentration above detection limits
  = Concentration exceeds SLV
  = Concentration exceeds SRV


Table 4.

Groundwater Analytical Results
Melrose Dump
Concentrations in ug/l
  B-1
W-04
B-2
W-05
B-3
W-06
B-4
W-08
B-5
W-02
B-6
W-03
B-7
W-01
B17
W-10
B-20 (B-04 Dup.)
W-09
FB-1
W-07
Drum Criteria Source
Volatile Organic Compounds - VOCs
EPA 8260
No detects for all compounds analyzed No detects for all compounds analyzed varies varies
Diesel Range Organics - DRO not detected not detected not detected not detected not detected not detected not detected not detected not detected not detected not detected 200 HBV
Metals EPA 6010    
Arsenic <5 14 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 50 MCL
Barium 39.7 85.7 51 45.3 49.5 72 52.4 45 45 <10 58 2,000 HRL
Selenium <5 7.31 7.82 <5 <5 <5 6.13 8.46 <5 <5 5.72 30 HRL
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons - PAHs EPA 8270 No detects for all compounds analyzed varies varies
Polychlorinated Biphenyls - PCBs EPA 8082 No detects for all compounds analyzed 0.04 HRL
Pesticides EPA 8081 No detects for all compounds analyzed varies varies
Herbicides (MDA List 1) No detects for all compounds analyzed varies HRL

< = Less than laboratory limit of detection
HRL = Health Risk Limit for Groundwater, Minnesota Department of Health, 1994.
MCL = U.S. EPA - Maximum Concentration Limit
HBV = Minnesota Department of Health - Health-Based Values
NE = Not Established
Bold = Concentration above detection limits


Table 5.

Sediment Analytical Results
Melrose Dump
Concentrations in mg/kg
  SD-01
(0-1 ft.)
LEL or ERL SQC or SQB
Diesel Range Organics - DRO - NE NE
Metals EPA 6010
Arsenic 9.98 6 NE
Barium 337 NE NE
Cadmium 1.64 0.6 NE
Chromium (VI) 16.5* 26 NE
Copper 44.4 16 NE
Lead 523 31 NE
Mercury <0.0553 0.2 NE
Nickel 21.5 16 NE
Selenium 1 NE 170
Polychlorinated Biphenyls - PCBs EPA 8082 No detects for all compounds analyzed 70 1.8
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons - PAHs EPA 8270 No detects for all compounds analyzed 4000 NE
Pesticides EPA 8081 No detects for all compounds analyzed varies varies
Herbicides (MDA List 1) - varies varies
* = denotes value for total chromium (chromium (III) + chromium (VI))
- = compound not analyzed.
LEL = Lowest Effect Level
ERL = Effects Range Low Value
SQC = Sediment Quality Criteria
SQB = Sediment Quality Benchmark
NE = Not Established
Bold = Concentration above detecton limits
NE = no regulatory standard established
  = Concentration exceeds SQC/SQB
  = Concentration exceeds LEL/ERL


Next Section          Table of Contents

  
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #