Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance - State of New Jersey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Toxicity Equivalence Concentration (TEC). The sum of all the TECs is referred to as thetotal, or ∑, TEQ. See Figure I-1: “Example Determination of 2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalents(TEQs).”Contaminant Concentration Avian TEF TEC(ppt)Chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins2,3,7,8-TCDD 13.5 1 13.51,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 7.9 0.01 0.079PCDD TEQ = ∑ PCDD TECs = 13.5 + 0.079 = 13.58Chlorinated dibenzofurans2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 16.2 1 16.21,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 0.5 0.1 .05OCDF 21.7 0.0001 0.00217PCDF TEQ = ∑PCDF TECs = 16.2 + 0.05 + 0.00217 = 16.25Non-ortho-substituted PCBs3,3’4,4’,5-pentaCB (PCB 126) 682 0.1 68.23,3’4,4’,5,5’-hexaCB (PCB 169) 524 0.001 0.524PCB TEQ = ∑ PCB TECs = 68.2 + 0.524 = 68.72∑ TEQ = ∑ PCDD TEQ + ∑PCDF TEQ+ ∑ PCB TEQ = 13.58 + 16.25 + 68.73 = 98.56Figure I-1. Example Determination of 2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalents (TEQs)Two approaches can be used for the handling of nondetect data: assume nondetects aszero or nondetects as 1/2 the reported detection limit. For situations in which the primarycontaminant is 2,3,7,8-TCDD and good detection limits are achieved for all congeners(generally less than 10 ppt), using either procedure usually results in similar outcomes forthe calculated sample-specific TEQ. However, if elevated detection limits are reportedfor many of the congeners, it is recommended that non-detects are factored in at 1/2 thereported detection limit (adjusted based on TEF) given the uncertainty because of theelevated detection limit.TEQ EvaluationThe individual 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration, each of the three class-specific TEQs, andthe ∑ (total) TEQ are compared with ecological screening criterion for 2,3,7,8-TCDD asper Section 5.4. The resultant HQs are carried through the EE process.Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 127Version 1.2 8/29/12
Data PresentationTabular presentations in the EE report should include raw sample concentrations for the17 dioxins and furans and 12 dioxin-like PCB congeners, sample-specific quantitationlimits, avian TEFs, TECs, TEQs for each of the three contaminant classes (e.g., PCDDs,PCDFs, and dioxin-like PCBs), and the total TEQ.Evaluation of Dioxins, Furans, and Dioxin-like PCBs in the Ecological RiskAssessmentThe investigator is referred to USEPA 1993b and USEPA 2008b regarding ecologicalrisk characterization approaches and the application of the TEQ process to tissueconcentrations and food chain modeling.Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 128Version 1.2 8/29/12
Page 1 and 2:
Ecological EvaluationTechnical Guid
Page 3 and 4:
6.2.1.3 Biological Sampling of Fish
Page 5 and 6:
Acronyms and AbbreviationsADDAETAFA
Page 7 and 8:
Executive SummaryThis document prov
Page 9 and 10:
environmentally sensitive areas pur
Page 11 and 12:
Figure 3-1: Flow diagram to describ
Page 13 and 14:
assessment may also include evaluat
Page 15 and 16:
“Hazard quotient” or “HQ” m
Page 17 and 18:
“Site investigation” means the
Page 19 and 20:
parameters as specified in ERAGS (i
Page 21 and 22:
document otherwise). The investigat
Page 23 and 24:
5.3.2.1 Potential Contaminant Migra
Page 25 and 26:
71 0Sampling pointsSampling transec
Page 27 and 28:
5.3.4 Background ConsiderationsIt i
Page 29 and 30:
III. GroundwaterAnalytical data fro
Page 31 and 32:
5.5 Ecological Evaluation ReportThe
Page 33 and 34:
Step 1 - Preliminary Screening Leve
Page 35 and 36:
specific measurements of receptor h
Page 37 and 38:
Figure 6-2: Ecological Conceptual S
Page 39 and 40:
ingested, air inhaled, or material
Page 41 and 42:
Fugacity, which is described as the
Page 43 and 44:
environment. As noted in ERAGS, the
Page 45 and 46:
Sample SelectionAfter completing th
Page 47 and 48:
While there are many laboratories t
Page 49 and 50:
ioavailability, and by doing so, of
Page 51 and 52:
For the purposes of surface water,
Page 53 and 54:
higher trophic level receptors. Lip
Page 55 and 56:
Details regarding surface water tox
Page 57 and 58:
e present at intervals greater than
Page 59 and 60:
elatively sedentary organisms that
Page 61 and 62:
COPECs. The following references ar
Page 63 and 64:
tests (USEPA, 2002e). After collect
Page 65 and 66:
multiple reference area soils repre
Page 67 and 68:
In ERAs, tissue residue analyses ar
Page 69 and 70:
Objectives of the ERA: including a
Page 71 and 72:
evaluation might necessitate the co
Page 73 and 74:
N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.8(c)1. The ERA may
Page 75 and 76:
sediment (i.e., that fraction that
Page 77 and 78: Twelve dioxin-like PCB congeners ha
Page 79 and 80: indicates burial of potential dioxi
Page 81 and 82: of evidence for evaluating risk unt
Page 83 and 84: 7.2.1 Apparent Effects Threshold Ap
Page 85 and 86: when site conditions are most simil
Page 87 and 88: destroying 10 acres of the mature f
Page 89 and 90: ASTM (American Society for Testing
Page 91 and 92: Establishing Sediment Quality Crite
Page 93 and 94: N.J.A.C. (New Jersey Administrative
Page 95 and 96: USEPA. 1989c. Risk Assessment Guida
Page 97 and 98: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regu
Page 99 and 100: USEPA 2006a. Data Quality Assessmen
Page 101 and 102: Appendix A - Habitat Survey FormsEc
Page 103 and 104: Ecological Evaluation Technical Gui
Page 105 and 106: Appendix B - Sampling Procedures fo
Page 107 and 108: Appendix C - Surface Water Toxicity
Page 109 and 110: Short-term chronic studies, endpoin
Page 111 and 112: Appendix D - Sediment Toxicity Test
Page 113 and 114: Toxicity Test DesignSediment toxici
Page 115 and 116: Appendix E - Sediment Pore Water an
Page 117 and 118: The seven-day daphnid survival and
Page 119 and 120: esults are then evaluated using USE
Page 121 and 122: Surber or Square-foot BottomThis sa
Page 123 and 124: Appendix H - Soil Toxicity TestingS
Page 125 and 126: another sample may still have a sub
Page 127: conservative approach from an ecolo
show all

Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance - State of New Jersey

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

Delete template?

Save as template?