Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance - State of New Jersey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Exposure pathway HQ >1 in ERA dietary Protective soil concentrations, mg/kg(receptor) exposure models (see Figure 7-2 for calculations)orstatistically significant toxicityAvian Insectivore PCBs 2.8(Woodcock) Mercury 2.4Lead 320Copper 402Mammalian Lead 760Herbivore Copper 1,600(Muskrat)Soil Invertebrate Lead 420Community Copper 290(site-specific AET)For PCBs and mercury, since risk is indicated only for avian insectivores, the remediation goals are2.8 mg/kg and 2.4 mg/kg respectively. For lead and copper, it is recommended that the mostconservative concentration be selected as the remediation goal, (i.e., 320 mg/kg for lead based onrisk to avian insectivores and 290 mg/kg for copper based on soil toxicity to the soil invertebrates).Figure 7-1. Hypothetical Example of Media Concentrations to Consider forSelection of Ecological Risk-Based Remediation Goals.1. Calculate site-specific BSAF:BSAF = C tissue / C soil/sediment ; therefore, C tissue = (C soil/sediment ) (BSAF)2. Set the desired dose = to NOAEL/LOAEL and substitute “(C soil/sediment ) (BSAF)” for “C tissue ” :Dose = (C tissue )(IR)/BWNOAEL = (C soil/sediment, X BSAF )(IR)/BW3. Rearrange calculation and solve for “protective” media concentration, i.e., theecological risk-based preliminary remediation goal:Remediation Goal = C soil/sediment = (NOAEL)(BW)(BSAF)(IR)BSAF = Soil/sediment bioaccumulation factor, unitlessDose = Dose of individual contaminant, mg/kg-dayC tissue = Contaminant concentration measured in prey species tissue, mg/kg dry weightC soil/sediment = Contaminant concentration of soil or sediment media, mg/kg dry weightIR = Ingestion rate, kg/dayBW = Body weight of surrogate receptor, kgFigure 7-2. Simplified Example of Determining a Remediation Goal Using aStandard Food Chain Model and Site-Specific Tissue Residue Data.Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 81Version 1.2 8/29/12
7.2.1 Apparent Effects Threshold ApproachThe Apparent Effects Threshold (AET) is the contaminant concentration in soil orsediment above which a specific biological effect is always found (i.e., the highestconcentration in which no effect is observed in a given data set). Because thisapproach is based on the absence of biological effects and associated chemicalconcentrations, it is useful with contaminant mixtures. See Evaluation of theApparent Effects Threshold (AET) Approach for Assessing Sediment Quality(USEPA, 1989a) for further guidance. A simplified example is presented inFigure 7-3Assume five (5) sample locations, with chemical analyses and toxicity testing conducted at each locationFor each contaminant, order the results from all locations from highest to lowest concentrations:Station #Arsenic Concentration (mg/kg) Earthworm Toxicity (biomass reduction)2 1000 *1 300 *4 150 *5 60 NE3 30 NE* - Significant effect in toxicity testNE – No significant effectRemediation Goal (As) = AET = 60 mg/kg (the highest concentration above which there is always an effect)Figure 7-3. Simplified Example of Determining a Remediation Goal Using theApparent Effects Threshold (AET) Approach7.2.2 Sediment/Soil Effects Concentration ApproachThe Sediment/Soil Effects Concentration (SEC) is the concentration of anindividual contaminant in soil or sediment below which toxicity is rarelyobserved. It is the concentration associated with an effect, and above thisconcentration, toxicity is frequently observed. See Calculation and Evaluation ofSediment Effect Concentrations for the Amphipod Hyalella Azteca and the MidgeChironomus Riparius (USEPA, 1996) for further guidance.8.0 UncertaintySeveral sources of uncertainty are associated with ecological risk estimates. Theseinclude initial selection of COPECs based on the sampling data, estimates of toxicity toecological receptors based on limited laboratory data (usually on other species), anduncertainties in exposure and effects assessment. As part of the final steps in estimatingpotential ecological risks associated with a site, the magnitude of uncertainties associatedwith the risk estimation should be discussed.Uncertainty in risk estimation has both qualitative and quantitative components.Qualitative uncertainty analyses are recommended by guidance (USEPA, 1988) andcontribute to the confidence with which risk assessment conclusions can be drawn andEcological Evaluation Technical Guidance Document 82Version 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: of evidence for evaluating risk unt
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?