Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance - State of New Jersey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the person responsible for conducting remediation may choose to remediate to thehigher of the ESC or background, particularly when the exceedence constitutes ahot spot (Section 6.4.4).6.0 Technical Guidance for Preparing Ecological Risk AssessmentsIf the findings of the EE indicate that further ecological evaluation pursuant to N.J.A.C.7:26E-4.8 is warranted, additional ecological evaluation is required in the form of anERA. The ERA must be conducted in accordance with steps 3 through 8 of ERAGS(Section 6.1, below) (N.J.S.A. 58:10B-12). The ERA is a quantitative assessment of theactual or potential impacts of COPECs from a contaminated site on plants and animals.The ERA will (1) determine whether actual or potential ecological risks exist at a site; (2)identify those constituents that pose the adverse ecological risks; and (3) generate data forrisk-based remediation goal determinations and for RMDs. Contaminants exceedingESC should be delineated to the greater of background or the ESC. Additionally,treatment and removal should be considered for sites where ecological risk is determinedto be negligible if persistent, biomagnifying, toxic are present.The following sections outline the components of the ERA and provide guidance on howto conduct and document the ERA.6.1 Ecological Risk Assessment Process Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.8ERAs were first defined by USEPA through the Framework for Ecological RiskAssessment (USEPA, 1992a). The intent of USEPA’s framework document was todevelop a simple and flexible structure for evaluating the potential for ecologicalrisks. This framework outlines the completion of an ERA in three phases:(1) Problem Formulation - definition and articulation of the goals, breadth, andfocus of the assessment;(2) Analysis - the technical evaluation of data including characterization ofexposures and ecological effects; and(3) Risk Characterization - evaluation of the adverse effects resulting from theexposure of a receptor to a stressor.This framework approach was further defined in the Guidelines for Ecological RiskAssessment USEPA 1998a. This document placed new emphasis on ensuring that theresults of the assessment can be used to support RMDs.Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Process for Designing andConducting Ecological Risk Assessments, EPA 540-R-97-006, Office of Solid Wasteand Emergency Response, Washington, DC (ERAGS - USEPA, 1997a) placed thethree phases of the ERA process into a more structured eight-step process for thedevelopment of ERAs specifically at Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites. This eight-step process includesmultiple Scientific/Management Decision Points (SMDP). SMDPs are checkpointsin the ERA process to (1) verify that the work conducted at each step is complete; (2)determine whether the risk assessment is proceeding in a direction that will supportdecision making; and (3) determine the need, if any, for proceeding to the next step.This process allows for a more proactive mechanism for measuring the progress andorganization of the ERA. The eight steps outlined in ERAGS are as follows:Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 31Version 1.2 8/29/12
Step 1 – Preliminary Screening Level. Formulate a preliminary problemstatement and preliminary toxicity evaluation.Step 2 – Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA). Developexposure estimates and preliminary risk calculations. This step also includes anSMDP.Step 3 – Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA) Problem Formulation.Evaluate toxicity, and develop a preliminary ecological conceptual site model(ECSM), exposure pathways, and assessment endpoints. This step also includesan SMDP.Step 4 – Study Design and Data Quality Objectives (DQO) Development.Establish measurement endpoints and develop the Field Sampling and AnalysisWork Plan based upon results of the previous three steps. This step also includesan SMDP.Step 5 – Verification of Field Sampling Design. Determine the feasibility of thefield program as outlined in Step 4. Include a site visit as part of thatdetermination. This step also includes an SMDP.Step 6 – Site Investigation and Data Analysis. Implement the Field Sampling andAnalysis Work Plan. This step includes an SMDP.Step 7 – Risk Characterization. Quantify potential site risks. This is generally amore realistic evaluation of risks than was performed in Step 2.Step 8 – Risk Management. Select alternatives in the Record of Decision as anSMDP.Steps 1 and 2 define the development of the SLERA within USEPA guidance and theEE within N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.16 and the migration pathway step in 4.8(a) and 4.8(b),while Steps 3 through 7 define the development of the BERA within USEPAguidance and the ERA within the N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.8(c).The following sections outline the ERA process in terms of the three phases (ProblemFormulation, Analysis and Risk Characterization).6.1.1 Problem FormulationThe problem formulation stage is the first phase of the ERA, during which thegoals, breadth, and focus of the assessment are articulated. The problemformulation section consists of the description of the relevant site features andcurrent condition of the environment, a description of the potential ongoing orhistoric contaminant sources, identification of ecological receptors at the site andsurrounding area, and development of the ECSM. The ECSM is a conceptualprojection of possible source-to-pathway-to-receptor scenarios for the COPECsidentified at the site.6.1.1.1 Assessment and Measurement EndpointsAssessment endpoints are defined as explicit expressions of the environmentalvalues to be protected (USEPA, 1992a, 1997a, and 1998a). Selection ofassessment endpoints should occur in the problem formulation phase andEcological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 32Version 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: 5.5 Ecological Evaluation ReportThe
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 and 128:
conservative approach from an ecolo
Page 129:
Data PresentationTabular presentati
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?