Guidance for Conducting Risk Assessments and Related Risk ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2. Site categories Categories Criteria for sites in each category Operable Units CERCLA actions that have been defined in approved decision documents (e.g., record of decision, Action Memorandum). Characterization Areas Sufficient information exists to recognize that additional CERCLA action is appropriate. Remedial Site Evaluation Areas Some existing/historical information exists to conclude that the area has a high potential of being contaminated; however, insufficient information exists to determine if further investigation or remediation is warranted. Removal Site Evaluation Areas The site meets criteria for evaluation to be considered under CERCLA (i.e., area is inactive and hazardous substances have been released or a threat of a release exists), but insufficient information exists to determine if a removal or remedial action is necessary. 2.2.1 Site Evaluations Two types of site evaluations are conducted on the ORR: removal site evaluations and remedial site evaluations (Fig. 2). Removal Site Evaluations are conducted for those sites that are considered “newly discovered”, meaning that they were not previously listed as source areas in Appendix C of the Federal Facility Agreement for the Oak Ridge Reservation (DOE 1992). The removal site evaluation may involve a limited environmental sampling, but typically it is performed using available analytical data. The available data are compared with risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) and may indicate that: • a removal action is warranted, • a remedial site evaluation should be performed, or • no further investigation is needed. Note: Sometimes, emergency and time-critical removal actions are not formally established as projects until after actions are taken, because of the immediate need to protect human health and the environment. Sites identified as requiring a non-time critical removal or remedial action, however, are established as projects and must then undergo prioritization. Remedial Site Evaluations are conducted if the available existing/historical data and operational information indicate that there is the potential for environmental contamination, but insufficient or poor quality data require the determination of whether additional investigation (e.g., data collection) or remediation is warranted. In such cases, a comparison of data to risk-based PRGs is a tool project managers can use to: • identify data needs and limitations (e.g., detection limits are greater than risk-based PRGs), • focus future sampling and analysis on chemicals and exposure pathways of potential concern, • establish appropriate detection limits for subsequent environmental sample analysis, • support a No Further Investigation Determination, and/or • quantitatively support the need for additional study. 12
Removal Site Evaluation Removal Action Remedial Site Evaluation Figure 3 2.2.2 Remedial Investigation No Further Investigation Figure 2. The site evaluation process and risk assessment The Remedial Investigation phase of the ORR’s RI/FS process begins with a scoping workshop (sometimes referred to as a data quality objectives workshop) (Fig. 3). The scoping workshop is attended by the DOE EM Managing and Integrating (M&I) contractor project team, the DOE Program Manager, TDEC, and EPA Region IV team members. The purposes of this workshop are to: • develop conceptual site models (for the movement of chemicals in the geology and hydrology and for the human health and ecological risk assessments); • identify preliminary remedial action objectives and likely response actions; • identify Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and risk-based PRGs; • determine the type of decisions to be made, and the type, quantity, and quality of data needed to support those decisions (i.e., define Data Quality Objectives); • identify the need and schedule for treatability studies (as necessary); • design the data collection program (e.g., sampling approach, analytical methods, and detection limit requirements); and • define the RI and FS tasks (i.e., the scope of work to be performed). Based on the results of the scoping workshop, a RI work plan is developed and submitted for approval. Once approved, the workplan is implemented. The results of the site characterization activities are documented in the RI Report, which includes the baseline human health risk assessment. The conclusions of the baseline human health risk assessment are used to: • help determine whether additional response actions are necessary, • provide evaluations of the effectiveness of prior actions (i.e., comparison of current and historical data) (if appropriate), 13 Site Evaluation and Risk Assessment Screen data against risk-based preliminaryremediation goals to: • prioritize activities, • identify data gaps and limitations, • focus future sampling and analysis on contaminants and pathways of concern, • establish appropriate detection limits for subsequent environmental sample analysis, • provide risk information on which to base removal action, if necessary, • provide risk information on which to base risk reduction resulting from removal, • support a no further investigation determination, and • quantitatively support the need for additional study.
Page 1 and 2: BJC/OR-271 Guidance for Conducting
Page 3 and 4: Guidance for Conducting Risk Assess
Page 5 and 6: 5.1 COMPARISON TO RISK-BASED PRELIM
Page 7 and 8: ACRONYMS ARARs Applicable or Releva
Page 9 and 10: 1. INTRODUCTION The U.S. Department
Page 11 and 12: Risk assessments and related risk a
Page 13 and 14: Section 4: A more detailed discussi
Page 15 and 16: Table 1. Applicable regulatory and
Page 17 and 18: Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant: Th
Page 19: Site Evaluation Remedial Investigat
Page 23 and 24: The results of these risk analyses
Page 25 and 26: 3. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT A
Page 27 and 28: 3.3 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND DEMO
Page 29 and 30: 4.1 DATA EVALUATION The first step
Page 31 and 32: S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Y
Page 33 and 34: End Use Category Table 6. End Use W
Page 35 and 36: database incorporates information n
Page 37 and 38: Scenarios of Concern. Total noncarc
Page 39 and 40: The guidelines in this document dic
Page 41 and 42: 6. BASELINE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSES
Page 43 and 44: Note: Remedial Goal Options (RGOs)
Page 45 and 46: Spatial Anaysis and Decision Assist
Page 47 and 48: EPA. 1991d. Appendix D of RAGS, Vol
Page 49 and 50: APPENDIX A RISK ASSESSMENT TECHNICA
Page 51 and 52: ES/ER/TM-28 The Use of Institutiona
Page 53 and 54: spatially homogeneous, factors to a
Page 55 and 56: ES/ER/TM-33/R2 by providing more sp
Page 57 and 58: K/ER-153/R1 Baseline Risk Assessmen
Page 59 and 60: Sections B.1 through B.5 provided i
Page 61 and 62: evaluated by comparison to the repo
Page 63 and 64: slope factor for 234 Th ( 234 Th do
Page 65 and 66: emaining analyses (since it had a l
Page 67 and 68: Analytes for which the maximum dete
Page 69 and 70: This guidance directs the user thro
Page 71 and 72:
where: x = arithmetic mean of the b
Page 73 and 74:
APPENDIX D GUIDE FOR AIR DISPERSION
Page 75 and 76:
D.2 LAND USE—EXPOSURE SCENARIOS E
Page 77 and 78:
Source Solidification/ Stabilizatio
Page 79 and 80:
a certain depth of space. Two basic
Page 81 and 82:
preclude the use of techniques for
Page 83 and 84:
Technology-specific emission rates
Page 85 and 86:
D-14 APPLICATION: Type Table D.4. S
Page 87 and 88:
D-16 METEOROLOGY: RASCAL MILDOS- AR
Page 89 and 90:
D.4.1.1 Screening-level codes D.4.1
Page 91 and 92:
strongly recommended that external
Page 93 and 94:
The primary difference between the
Page 95 and 96:
1. source term 2. overland pathway
Page 97 and 98:
Briggs, Klug, Brookhaven, St. Louis
Page 99 and 100:
D-28 Table D.5. Atmospheric transpo
Page 101 and 102:
D-30 Attributes CD M Table D.5. (co
Page 103 and 104:
Only portions of the source area th
Page 105 and 106:
D.4.2.2.3 CTDMPLUS The Complex Terr
Page 107 and 108:
D.5. PARAMETERS The major input dat
Page 109 and 110:
D.5.1.1.1 Wind directions In the va
Page 111 and 112:
Table D.7. Meteorological data avai
Page 113 and 114:
The EPA (1988) provides guidance on
Page 115 and 116:
Input CAP88- PC Leafy Vegetables (K
Page 117 and 118:
D.8. REFERENCES ANL (Argonne Nation
Page 119 and 120:
Thibodeaux, L. J. 1989. Theoretical
Page 121 and 122:
Table D.10. Baseline emission rate
Page 123 and 124:
Table D.11. Remedial technologies t
Page 125 and 126:
Table D.14. VOC emission rates for
Page 127 and 128:
Title EPA and NTIS No. Date Estimat
Page 129 and 130:
E.1 INTRODUCTION As one of the prim
Page 131 and 132:
emedial decisions. Establishing a r
Page 133 and 134:
Table E.2. Purpose of model selecti
Page 135 and 136:
eview information from other simila
Page 137 and 138:
its associated uncertainty, the tea
Page 139 and 140:
E.4 REFERENCES Droppo, J. G., J. W.
Page 141 and 142:
F.1 INTRODUCTION Human health risks
Page 143 and 144:
F.2 PLANT MODELS For a complete ana
Page 145 and 146:
Table F.1. (continued) Parameter De
Page 147 and 148:
subsequently deposited on plant sur
Page 149 and 150:
a major concern. F.2.1.2 Plant upta
Page 151 and 152:
F.3 ANIMAL MODELS F.3.1 General Mod
Page 153 and 154:
Table F.2. Recommended default valu
Page 155 and 156:
f p = faction of the year the anima
Page 157 and 158:
closely match the plant types of in
Page 159 and 160:
consumption to a dry-weight basis b
Page 161 and 162:
fat content of a cow (25%) and mult
Page 163 and 164:
pasture, and dairy cattle obtain 60
Page 165 and 166:
4.2.8 Fraction of daily water intak
Page 167 and 168:
Hoffman, F. O., U. Bergstrom, C. Gy
Page 169 and 170:
Peterson, H. T. ,. Jr.. 1983. Terre
Page 171 and 172:
G.1. INTRODUCTION Calculation of th
Page 173 and 174:
G.2.1 Soil Determining the size of
Page 175 and 176:
Site Concentration 50 40 30 20 10 0
Page 177 and 178:
Frequency Frequency Frequency 12000
Page 179 and 180:
Stream G-11 Park Lake or River Figu
Page 181 and 182:
More likely, contamination of sedim
Page 183 and 184:
G.2.3 Groundwater The determination
Page 185 and 186:
uncertainty analysis. G.2.4 Surface
Page 187 and 188:
Figure G.12. ORNL groundwater risk
Page 189 and 190:
G.2.4.1 Recommendations After selec
Page 191 and 192:
G.3.2 Traditional Approach The firs
Page 193 and 194:
G.3.3 Division of Data and the Bonf
Page 195 and 196:
of giving smaller weights to areas
Page 197 and 198:
Figure G.16. Variography of the exa
Page 199 and 200:
5 Figure G.17. Kriged map of contam
Page 201 and 202:
Northing 150 125 100 75 50 25 10 20
Page 203 and 204:
concluded that the DL/2 method was
Page 205 and 206:
The simulation presented in Sect. G
Page 207 and 208:
By defining contamination boundarie
Page 209 and 210:
Gilbert, R. 1987. Statistical Metho
Page 211 and 212:
H.1. INTRODUCTION The quantitative
Page 213 and 214:
(Andelman 1990) K p permeability co
Page 215 and 216:
only (yr) 6 (child) (EPA 1991a) EF
Page 217 and 218:
Table H.1. Uncertain parameters and
Page 219 and 220:
values. These values are used in th
Page 221 and 222:
Table H.4. Results of the uncertain
Page 223 and 224:
and 12%, respectively) on the predi
Page 225 and 226:
parameters that pertains to the adu
Page 227 and 228:
While this methodology could be app
Page 229 and 230:
EPA. 1991a. Risk Assessment Guidanc
Page 231 and 232:
The first step in performing the in
show all

Guidance for Conducting Risk Assessments and Related Risk ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?