silver, and zinc) that is extracted with the AVS. Recent literature suggests that Hgshould be included with the SEM components (USEPA, 1997c).The AVS present in sediment reacts with the SEM to form insoluble metalsulfides that are significantly less bioavailable for uptake by benthic organismsthan the corresponding free metals. For divalent metals, one mole <strong>of</strong> SEM willreact with one mole <strong>of</strong> AVS (although one mole <strong>of</strong> silver requires two moles <strong>of</strong>AVS). Therefore, if the total concentration <strong>of</strong> AVS is greater than the totalconcentration <strong>of</strong> SEM, the SEM will likely all be bound as nontoxic metalsulfides. Conversely, if the total concentration <strong>of</strong> SEM is greater than the AVS,the excess fraction <strong>of</strong> the metals may exist as bioavailable free metals that couldcontribute to toxicity.Bulk sediment metals concentrations are a poor predictor <strong>of</strong> potential toxicity.The use <strong>of</strong> AVS/SEM ratios, along with organic carbon normalization has beenfound to be a better predictor <strong>of</strong> sediment toxicity. Earlier literature cites the ratio<strong>of</strong> ∑SEM to AVS (e.g. ∑SEM/AVS). More recent literature, however, expressthe difference between ∑SEM and AVS (e.g. ∑SEM-AVS). The advantages tousing ∑SEM-AVS is that the ratio does not get very large when AVS is very low,and that it can be modified to develop partitioning relationships that include otherphases such as TOC (Di Toro et al., 2005a,b). The use <strong>of</strong> the newer method ispreferred when evaluating divalent metal toxicity because it takes into account thepresence <strong>of</strong> TOC on a site-specific level.A recent study has indicated that measurement <strong>of</strong> AVS and SEM is notreproducible between laboratories (Hammerschmidt and Burton, 2010). Bysending four sediment samples to each <strong>of</strong> seven independent laboratories,demonstrated that measured concentrations <strong>of</strong> both AVS and SEM were highlyvariable. Measurement <strong>of</strong> AVS in the four samples varied between laboratoriesby factors <strong>of</strong> 70 to 3,500-fold. Measurement <strong>of</strong> SEM in the four samples variedbetween laboratories by factors <strong>of</strong> 17 to 60 fold. As a result, the calculation <strong>of</strong>AVS/SEM ratios was highly uncertain.The interlaboratory variation in AVS/SEM was attributed to differences in theUSEPA-approved extraction methods (gravimetry, colorimetry, gaschromatographic photoionization, and ion-specific electrochemistry). Variabilitymay also be introduced through sample heterogeneity, and through oxidation <strong>of</strong>reduced sulfur species between the times <strong>of</strong> collection and analysis. In addition,seasonal fluctuations in sediment chemistry can effect AVS/SEM measurements.A follow-up interlaboratory comparison was conducted by Brumbaugh et al.(2011) where AVS and SEM nickel concentrations were measured by fivelaboratories. In this study, the labs were aware <strong>of</strong> the planned interlaboratorycomparison and they were provided guidance for conducting sample preparation,analysis, and quality control measurements. The results <strong>of</strong> this study showed thatmeasurements <strong>of</strong> AVS and SEM-AVS can be reproducible among laboratories,thus emphasizing the need for consistent quality control procedures.While AVS/SEM is a potentially useful tool for assessing bioavailability andassociated toxicity <strong>of</strong> sediment metals, it should not be used as a stand-alone line<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 79Version 1.2 8/29/12
<strong>of</strong> evidence for evaluating risk until laboratory methods have been standardized toallow consistent interlaboratory reproducibility.7.0 Determination <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ecological</strong> Risk-Based Remediation Goals<strong>Ecological</strong> risk-based remediation goals are soil and sediment concentrations protective<strong>of</strong> specified ecological receptors that are calculated from site-specific biological tests.They are considered preliminary because adjustments may be made following the RMDprocess (Section 9.0). These numeric goals serve as delineation criteria for soils andsediment, which in turn enable determination <strong>of</strong> the contaminant footprint, volume <strong>of</strong>contaminated media, and potential remedial action costs. Remediation goals should bedetermined for all COPECs in any exposure pathway where risk is elevated using variouslines <strong>of</strong> evidence such as food chain modeling and soil and sediment toxicity test results(See Figure 7-1). All ecological risk-based remediation goals must be approved byNJDEP (N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.8(c)3).7.1 Use <strong>of</strong> Food Chain Models and Tissue Residue Data to DetermineRemediation GoalsThe tissue-residue approach should be used for contaminants that bioaccumulate andbiomagnify. A list <strong>of</strong> such compounds is included in Table 4-2 <strong>of</strong> USEPA’s (2000c)Bioaccumulation Testing and Interpretation for the Purpose <strong>of</strong> Sediment QualityAssessment, Status and Needs. Remediation goals should be determined forcontaminants when the lines <strong>of</strong> evidence in the ERA indicate that there is an adverseecological impact requiring remediation. They are back-calculated from standardfood chain models, using site-specific prey species tissue data, media concentrations,and a TRV, such as the NOAEL/LOAEL for appropriate receptors. A simplifiedexample is presented in Figure 7-2. Detailed guidance is provided in USEPA (2005a).7.2 Use <strong>of</strong> Soil and Sediment Toxicity Test Results to Determine RemediationGoalsSoil and sediment toxicity tests measure significant reduction in survival, growth, andreproduction <strong>of</strong> invertebrate organisms exposed to site-related samples comparedwith reference area location and laboratory control samples. The use <strong>of</strong> these testsresults to determine remediation goals is most appropriate for nonbiomagnifyingcontaminants for the protection <strong>of</strong> the soil and sediment benthic communities.Various approaches are available, including, but not limited to, those listed in thefollowing sections.<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 80Version 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: indicates burial of potential dioxi
- 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