r/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9200.5-3251
EPA 540/F-94/048
PB94-963316
August 1994
BTAG Forum
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (5204G)
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 4, Number 2
Highlights of the 9th Annual RRAC/
6th Annual SEEW
During the week of April 25, EPA
Region 1 hosted concurrent sessions
of the Regional Risk Assessors Con-
ference (RRAC) and the Superfund En-
vironmental Evaluation Workshop
(SEEW). An estimated 180 persons at-
tended the event, featuring speakers
from the regions and headquarters as
well as from USFWS, NOAA, DOE,
and DOD. Below are highlights from
both sessions compiled by Bruce
Duncan, Region 10 BTAG Coordinator.
The first half of the week was de-
voted to RRAC, including joint ses-
sions as well as separate ecological
risk and human health sessions. Wa-
tershed Protection provided the focus
for the first ecological session, con-
sisting of three case studies and fol-
lowed by a presentation of Region 1's
1
INSIDE
RRAC/SEEW Highlights
4 Agency Updates
5 Announcements
7 Resources
10 U.S. EPA Regional BTAG
Contacts
resource protection strategy. The case
studies (Waquoit Bay Estuary, MA;
Big Darby Creek, OH; and Snake
River, ID) will be interesting to fol-
low, especially in regard to how wa-
tershed evaluation and protection meth-
ods are developed. Key points raised
were how to determine assessment and
measurement endpoints, whether stud-
ies should be keyed to research or de-
cision-making, and how goals are set
and how to determine whether goals
have been met.
The "Technical Issues" session pro-
vided a "grab bag" of several timely
issues. Topics included the effect of
compounds with estrogenic properties
on reptiles, guidance on evaluating
sediment bioaccumulation, the use of
GIS in evaluating wetlands (it was clear
from this talk that GIS is a useful tool,
but requires more wetland-specific data
such as on-site rating of wetland func-
tion, rather than inferential data such
as proximity to industry), and a dis-
cussion on lead toxicity to loons. The
latter presentation serves as a reminder
that "classic" issues of wildlife expo-
sure and effects are still with us. Deri-
vation of wildlife toxicity values is a
concern for most eco-risk assessors and
many of the issues raised will be dis-
cussed for some time to come (e.g.,
LOAELs versus extrapolation from the
dose-response curve). An oft-repeated
request is the need for a toxicity-based
method for evaluating tissue residues.
It was announced that the new Wild-
life Exposure Factors Handbook is
now available.
(continued on page 2)
About BTAG Forum
BTAG Forum is a Bulletin series published by EPA/OERR primarily to
foster communication among Biological/Ecological Technical Assistance
Groups (BTAGs/ETAGs) in EPA Regional Offices. BTAGs have been
established in most Regions to assist EPA site managers in designing,
managing, and reviewing ecological assessments of Superfund sites. The
Forum carries news from the Regions, information on publications and
other potentially useful resources, requests for information, and other items
of interest to BTAG members. If you would like more information on the
BTAG in your area, contact the Regional BTAG coordinator listed inside.
-------
STAG Forum
BTAG Forum is published by
the Toxics Integration Branch,
Hazardous Site Evaluation Divi-
sion, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response.
EDITOR
Susan Swenson Roddy
Region 6
CONTRIBUTIONS
BTAG Forum is published to en-
hance the level of intra- and in-
ter-Regional communication
among the Superfund scientific
community. To achieve that
goal, contributions are needed on
a regular basis. Individual con-
tributions need not be lengthy
or too detailed; they could take
the form of a simple paragraph
on a Region's BTAG activities,
an announcement of upcoming
workshops, or a request for spe-
cific information. Both State and
Federal contributions are wel-
come.
Please help us facilitate the
communication of news and
ideas by taking a few minutes to
write a paragraph or two for the
next Forum,
Inquiries, correspondence and
contributions should be sent to
Susan Roddy, BTAG Forum,
USEPA Region 6 (6H-SR), First
Interstate Tower, 1445 Ross Av-
enue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733 or
telefaxed to (214) 665-6762.
Deadline for next issue:
24 SEPTEMBER 1994
Highlights of the 9th Annual RRAC/6th Annual SEEW
(continued from page 1)
A session entitled "Update on Guid-
ance, Criteria, and Training" presented
the latest developments from EPA.
ERT's Dave Charters spoke of the eco-
logical risk assessment process guid-
ance currently being prepared within
the Emergency Response Division of
OERR in cooperation with the Haz-
ardous Site Evaluation Division. The
guidance is slated to be finished by the
end of FY94. Following a presenta-
tion of "What's New in Ecological
Risk," Anne Sergeant of EPA's ORD
asked what folks in the regions would
like from headquarters. Responses
ranged from guidance on what is eco-
logically significant to development of
future ecological use scenarios. Dur-
ing the joint wrap-up session, much
discussion focused on what RRAC
should have as a constituency and what
groups it should try to meet with; these
issues, however, remain unresolved.
The SEEW portion of the week con-
sisted of three major sessions, "Range
of Methodologies and Tricks of the
Trade," "Ecological Risk Assessment
at Federal Facilities," and "What to
Protect?" The first session, "Range of
Methodologies," began with a review
of the upcoming Superfund guidance
manual. Key points include the screen-
ing step (can a site be screened out?)
and the required decision points where
scientists and managers meet and docu-
ment their decisions. Some issues
raised were (1) What does a LOAEL
represent if used during the screening
step? and (2) How will the guidance
fit with the Superfund Accelerated
Clean-up Model (SACM)?
One of the more important points in
the discussion of hazard indices con-
cerned the issue of additivity or con-
sidering contaminants simultaneously.
Monte Carlo analysis, while totally de-
pendent on the quality of assumptions
and data that are used, has the poten-
tial to compare the importance of each
parameter (sensitivity analysis), incor-
porate uncertainty and variability, and
provide output in terms of a distribu-
tion versus a single value. It was
stressed that uncertainty and variabil-
ity must be distinguished to allow for
proper interpretation of the simulation
results.
The ongoing headquarters effort at
developing screening benchmark/
threshold ecotoxicity levels will be
based on a wide variety of possible
approaches. For example, in produc-
ing threshold values for water column
contaminants, approaches could range
from using AWQC to lowest chronic
values. A contaminant list has been
developed based on feedback and
prioritization by regional BTAGs.
Open issues include what constitutes
sufficient data (e.g., for a lowest
chronic value) and which terrestrial
species should be evaluated. Method
selection is slated for late July.
Many issues were raised during the
presentation entitled "Why Are We
Doing Ecological Risk Assessments?"
including the connectedness of human
health and ecological health, place-
based approaches versus programs,
why things are valuable, renewable re-
sources, what should be protected,
trade-offs, uncertainty, and communi-
cation.
In the case study (a plating facil-
ity), evaluation of soil contamination
involved bioaccumulation studies of
metal uptake by earthworms in lab and
field tests and by vegetation in the lab.
Additional food web pathways into
small mammals and frogs were inves-
tigated.
A panel discussion on ecological
risk assessment concluded the day's
sessions. The panel, which included
representatives from state environmen-
tal agencies, EPA regions and head-
quarters, and NOAA, discussed issues
such as improving the consistency of
ERAs through early BTAG involve-
ment and how quantitative an ERA
-------
needs to be if remediation is occurring
based on human health.
Region 3's approach to developing
ERAs relies on media and habitat.
Since it is generally known which
chemicals are of concern and where
they are in the ecosystem, the focus is
on species susceptibility in determin-
ing what is significant in selecting as-
sessment endpoints.
An introduction to the base closure
process (policy, fast-track, land use,
restrictions, etc.) kicked off the ses-
sion on "ERAs at Federal Facilities."
Other issues focused on comparisons
between base closure and non-base clo-
sure sites (with a plea to develop a list
of issues raised by EPA and federal
facilities). Use of a watershed approach
to evaluate cumulative impacts from
sub-units was discussed. Speakers ac-
knowledged that (1) a site-wide inte-
gration would be necessary for terres-
trial species that "integrate" above the
watershed level, and (2) the watershed
approach should affect the selection
of assessment and measurement end-
points. A case study approach was dis-
cussed regarding the development of
background reference and concentra-
tion estimates. Background concentra-
tions were considered to be on base,
but outside the area of concern. Also
discussed were the use of detection
limits, screening against threshold
benchmark values, developing distri-
butions, identifying outliers, and in-
fluence of soil types. Case studies of
DOE and DOD sites at Hanford, WA
and Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO were
presented.
The follow-up panel discussion pro-
vided suggestions, the first of which
involves the role of research at federal
facilities. Currently, DOD is required
to conduct some research, but resis-
tance is high to conduct more in-depth
research. Ordnance removal is a wide-
spread issue and removal techniques
need further development. The second
suggestion concerns timelines. The
phasing of ERAs becomes problem-
atic when there is no money or time
for more than one phase. In general,
document review periods are too short.
For the session on "What to Pro-
tect," Larry Reed, Director of EPA/
OERR's Hazardous Site Evaluation
Division, presented the keynote. He
explained how ERAs have changed re-
cently with increased visibility, the
"Edgewater consensus" (moving to
place-specific versus program-specific
ERA), ecosystem protection across
programs, and movement beyond hu-
man health (e.g., HRS rankings). He
also acknowledged resource issues
(burden on BTAGs, rapid-track base
closures, increased ERAs for RCRA,
etc.), and gave the latest news on
Superfund reauthorization including
issues about what should be included
in the Federal Register.
Other presentations in the session
discussed what to protect and the pro-
cess of determining assessment end-
points. Included were two "straw" sug-
gestions for determining endpoints.
The first was that the objective of
"what to protect" is to have self-sus-
taining ecosystems; the second was that
an adverse level is a >20% reduction
in a population of concern. The sug-
gestions provoked strong discussion
about endpoints, whether we can se-
lect them and whether we can make
the measurements we want or need.
Differing opinions were expressed in-
cluding (a) that although we have the
tools, they must be applied on a site-
specific basis; and (b) that species life
history strategies determine signifi-
cance. Other topic presentations in this
session included a summary of differ-
ent habitat evaluation methods, an in-
troduction to wetland issues, endan-
gered species issues, and a case study
of the Eagle Harbor (WA) site. The
wetland presentation discussed the
availability of EPA guidance on wet-
lands at Superfund sites. The general
difficulty in trying to restore wetland
function also was discussed. The issue
was raised whether there is policy to
mitigate for ditches that have become
"wetlands" but will be remediated. The
endangered species discussion focused
on the role of EPA and BTAGs in
regards to the Endangered Species Co-
ordinating Committee. Also discussed
were such questions as: "What is
enough, protection?," "How do you
protect endangered species?," and "Are
semiqualitative or qualitative assess-
ments adequate?". The session ended
with a presentation of a the Eagle Har-
bor case study. This is a subtidal site
contaminated with creosote. NOAA
has been able to link PAH exposure to
biomarkers and to reproductive
disfunction as well as to tumors and
lesions. NOAA also has estimated a
half-life for these effects upon removal
of the exposure and is evaluating
changes in biomarkers and other ef-
fects in bottom fish following the cap-
ping of contaminated sediments. A key
point is the linkage between bio-
markers and population-level end-
points.
The panel discussion at the end of
the session discussed wetland
remediation and balancing loss of wet-
land function and values due to con-
tamination with recovery following
remediation. Also discussed was the
balancing of a wetland as an attractive
nuisance versus remediation that is
worse than leaving the contamination
in place. Some things to consider are
the uniqueness of the wetland, clean-
ing up to the future use (i.e., is the
wetland scheduled to be developed?),
whether it is appropriate to classify a
contaminated wetland as high quality
if that is the justification for no re-
moval/capping, and recovery rates.
There remains a great need for guid-
ance on what is significant with re-
spect to wetlands.
The week ended with a meeting of
the regional BTAGs, HQ, and other
EPA personnel. The meeting served a
three-fold purpose: it provided a fo-
rum to raise issues, allowed discus-
sion to determine what participants
want from future workshops, and
brought a collaborative focus to the
question "What is significant?" D
3 .
-------
Agency Updates — NOAA
Aquatic Ecological Risk at the Metal Bank
The Metal Bank of America site, lo-
cated on the Delaware River in Phila-
delphia, PA, is the site of a former trans-
former salvage operation. Transformer
activities occurred at the site from 1968
to 1973 and PCB-contaminated oil was
stored in an underground storage tank.
It is estimated that between 44,000 and
175,000 liters of PCB-contaminated oil
infiltrated ground water beneath the site.
Approximately 16,000 liters have since
been retrieved from ground water. The
Delaware River is a freshwater tidal
system providing year round and sea-
sonal habitat for numerous species of
anadromous, catadromous, estuarine,
and freshwater fish as well as migra-
tory water fowl and shore birds. NOAA
has recently completed an aquatic eco-
logical risk assessment report for the
Metal Bank site in support of EPA Re-
gion 3. This report utilized data col-
lected mostly for other purposes by the
Metal Bank/Cottman Avenue PRP
group.
Aquatic receptors considered in the
assessment include the shortnose stur-
geon (a Federal and state listed endan-
gered species), channel catfish, silvery
minnow, white perch, and Asiatic clam
(as a representative benthic inverte-
brate). PCBs are the primary con-
taminant of concern at the site. Other
contaminants—PAHs, phthalates,
cadmium, and DDT compounds, were
detected primarily in sediment. The ex-
posure pathways considered included
exposure to surface water and sedi-
ments. Exposure point concentrations
for surface waters were estimated us-
ing concentrations in ground-water
seeps and from dilution factors calcu-
lated using a 15-meter dilution zone
and river flow volumes for average
and low-flow conditions. Concentra-
tions in non-aqueous phase layer seeps
were estimated from concentrations of
PCBs, PAHs, and phthalates from one
recent monitoring well sample and his-
toric concentrations of PCBs from
wells at the site. Sediment concentra-
tions of PCBs, PAHs, and bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate decreased with
distance from the site, and three expo-
sure zones were delineated for risk
characterization. PCB concentrations
were determined in tissues of clams,
silvery minnow, and channel catfish
sampled from areas adjacent to the site.
Toxicity reference values were se-
lected from the available literature for
exposure to surface water and sedi-
ment. A safety factor of 100 was ap-
plied to water toxicity reference val-
ues for sturgeon due to its endangered
status (and the resulting need to pro-
tect individual fish and not just the
population) and the limited availabil-
ity of chronic toxicity data. Toxicity
reference values were derived from the
literature showing associations be-
tween tissue residue concentrations of
PCBs and adverse effects in fish. Tox-
icity reference values for tissue resi-
dues included the tenth percentile of
the lowest observed effects levels (0.2
mg/kg wet weight) and the median ef-
fects level (7 mg/kg wet weight). The
median effects were selected in order
to maintain consistency with the use
of ER-M, and because of the incred-
ible range in high and low data values.
The risk characterizations were
based on the toxicity quotient ap-
proach, using exposure point concen-
trations for each medium and toxicity
reference values. For surface water,
only PCBs were considered a contami-
nant of concern. It was considered un-
likely that individual shortnose stur-
geon would remain in the exposure
area long enough to receive chronic
exposure. However, tissue residues in
channel catfish and silvery minnows
from the Delaware River adjacent to
the site suggest the possibility of re-
productive effects in these species.
Channel catfish was used as a surro-
gate for estimating tissue residues in
shortnose sturgeon as it, too, is a
benthic feeder. The potential risk to
sturgeon resulting from PCB accumu-
lation from all exposure pathways near
the site may be greater than for other
fish species because of life history dif-
ferences (sturgeon remain in river sys-
tems for the first seven years of life
and, on average, live longer than other
fish). The primary routes for benthic
invertebrates' exposure to contami-
nants are through sediments and inter-
stitial water. Hazard quotients for PCBs
and benthic invertebrates exceeded 1
(range 5-400) in all three risk charac-
terization zones. No spatial pattern was
observed for DDT (HQ range 15-131),
ODD (HQ range 7-84), DDE (HQ
range 5-76) and cadmium (HQ range
7.6-144) based on limited sampling.
Samples with detectable concentrations
in sediments exceeded probable effects
levels (ER-M or high AET values by
about an order of magnitude). Ques-
tions about NOAA's risk assessment
of the Metal Bank site can be addressed
to Don MacDonald in Seattle
(206)526-6271. Q
EPA Regions
Region 6
Winter and spring have proven to
be busy for Region 6 as numerous sites
are in process. An Administrative Or-
der on Consent for the RI/FS was ne-
gotiated (with trustee input) and signed
with PRPs for a Superfund site at a
Texas Bay site contaminated with mer-
cury. The AOC allows the PRPs to
conduct an ecological risk assessment
(with EPA oversight). A workplan for
(continued on page 9)
-------
Announcements
EPA's Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook
The Wildlife Exposure Factors
Handbook is a compendium of data
and references for conducting expo-
sure and risk assessments for wildlife
species exposed to toxic chemicals in
their environment. The Handbook will
(1) promote the application of risk as-
sessment methods to wildlife species,
(2) foster a consistent approach to wild-
life risk assessments, and (3) increase
the accessibility of the literature appli-
cable to these assessments.
The purpose of the Handbook is to
provide a convenient source of infor-
mation and an analytic framework to
facilitate screening-level risk assess-
ments for common wildlife species.
These screening-level risk assessments
may be used to (1) support site-spe-
cific decisions (e.g., for hazardous
waste sites), (2) support the develop-
ment of water quality or other media-
specific criteria for limiting environ-
mental levels of toxic substances to
protect wildlife species, or (3) focus
research and monitoring efforts.
The Handbook primarily summa-
rizes values for parameters useful for
the exposure assessment component of
risk assessment. In addition, data pro-
vided in the Handbook on population
parameters (e.g., birth and death rates)
may be useful for placing estimates of
risks in a broader ecological context.
Values and extrapolation methods re-
quired for the toxicity assessment com-
ponent are not covered in this Hand-
book. In addition, no chemical-specific
parameters (e.g., bioavailability fac-
tors) are provided.
This Handbook focuses on a se-
lected group of mammals, birds, am-
phibians, and reptiles. Fish and aquatic
or terrestrial invertebrates were not in-
cluded in the current effort. There is
no intention to imply that risk assess-
ments for wildlife should be restricted
to the species described in the Hand-
book, or that risk assessments for wild-
life should always be conducted for
these species. In addition, the species
included in the Handbook have broad
geographic ranges, and the parameter
values presented may not be represen-
tative for all parts of their ranges.
The Handbook includes five sec-
Species Included In EPA's Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook
Birds Mammals Reptiles and Amphibians
Great Blue Heron
Canada Goose
Mallard
Lesser Scaup
Osprey
Red-tailed Hawk
Bald Eagle
American Kestrel
Northern Bobwhite
American Woodcock
Spotted Sandpiper
Herring Gull
Belted Kingfisher
Marsh Wren
American Robin
Short-tailed shrew
Red Fox
Raccoon
Mink
River Otter
Harbor Seal
Deer Mouse
Prairie Vole
Meadow Vole
Muskrat
Eastern Cottontail
Snapping Turtle
Painted Turtle
Eastern Box Turtle
Racer Snake
Water Snake
Eastern Newt
Green Frog
Bullfrog
tions. Section 1 provides an overview
of the Handbook. Section 2 presents
values for the exposure factors for the
selected species and brief descriptions
of relevant aspects of their natural
history.
Contents of Section 2:
Species Profiles
For 34 Selected Species:
• Description of natural history
• List of similar species
• Table of exposure factor values
• Selected bibliography
The summary for each species in-
cludes an introduction to the general
taxonomic group, a qualitative descrip-
tion of the species, tabulated values
for the exposure factors, a list of simi-
lar species, and a selected bibliogra-
phy for that species. Section 3 pro-
vides allometric models that may be
used to estimate various exposure fac-
tors on the basis of body size. Section
3 also provides equations for estimat-
ing food ingestion rates on the basis of
metabolic rate and diet.
Contents of Section 3:
Allometric Equations
Food ingestion rates
Water intake rates
Inhalation rates
Surface areas
Metabolic rates
Section 4 provides recommenda-
tions on how to estimate exposure of
wildlife species. Section 4 also dis-
cusses available information on soil
and sediment ingestion by wildlife
species.
(continued on page 6)
-------
"I
liiiil
Announcements
(continued from page 5)
Contents of Section 4:
Exposure Equations
* General exposure equations
- Drinking water
-Diet
- Soil and sediment ingestion
-Air
- Dermal exposure
• Caloric and water content of
various diets
• Analysis of uncertainty
The Handbook includes an appen-
dix that presents all of the parameter
values identified in the literature sur-
vey, with more details concerning
sample size, methods, and qualifying
information than listed in the main
Handbook.
For further information on the
Handbook, contact Susan Braen
Norton, Project Manager, EPA/ORD/
OHEA (202)260-6955. The Hand-
book was prepared for EPA by Dr.
Margaret E. McVay of ICF Incorpo-
rated, Fairfax, VA (703)934-3136.
The two volume Handbook is avail-
able from the Center for Environmen-
tal Research Information in Cincin-
nati at (513) 569-7562, publication
numbers EPA/600/R-93/187a and
EPA/600/R-93/187b. D
Exposure Factors Included In The Handbook
Normalizing & Contact Dietary Composition Population Timing of Seasonal
Rate Factors Dynamics e.g., Activities e.g.,
body weight
metabolic rate
surface area
water ingestion rate
inhalation rate
food ingestion rate
by season:
spring
summer
fall
winter
by habitat/location
home range size
population density
litter/clutch size
litters/clutches/yr
growth rates _
annual mortality
mating
nesting/egglaying
parturition/hatching
hibernation
dispersal
migration
Information & Inquiries
Do you have any suggestions for articles, book
reviews, or a need for general information?
The Forum staff welcomes your suggestions
and submissions of articles and book or jour-
nal article reviews. If you've come across a
noteworthy piece and feel other readers would
find it of interest, please contact Susan Roddy,
Forum Editor, EPA Region 6 (6H-SR), 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733 or call
214-655-8518.
-------
RESOURCES
Reviews
Ecological Assessment of Hazardous
Waste Sites, James T. Maughan. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, 1993. 352 p.
The major focus of this text is the
need to integrate ecological investiga-
tions, concerns, and input into every
stage of the hazardous waste cleanup
process. Maughan begins with a pref-
ace and brief introductory chapter in
which he presents the key terms and
concepts regarding hazardous waste
sites and ecological assessment. The
two main ecological issues Maughan
wishes to address are attention to criti-
cal ecological resources and regula-
tions during site investigations, and the
integration of ecology as a science into
the remediation of site contamination.
Following the introduction is a chap-
ter on ecological assessment needs and
objectives. Presented here are the po-
tential impacts associated with a haz-
ardous waste site and remediation ac-
tivities and the real need of ecological
assessments as required by law and
enforced by regulators. A significant
section is devoted to the regulatory
perspective covering TSCA, FIFRA,
and RCRA as well as CERCLA and
its 1988 SARA amendments. Also dis-
cussed is the role of ARARs such as
the Clean Water Act and Endangered
Species Act.
One chapter details the elements of
an ecological assessment including pre-
liminary site description, selection of
endpoints, establishment of work plan,
planning of field investigations, bioas-
say work, identification of hazards,
exposure and toxicity assessments, risk
and ecological effects levels, evaluat-
ing remedial alternatives, site restora-
tion plans, etc. A single chapter is de-
voted to the role of human health risk
assessments and includes discussion
of regulatory authority and guidance
as well as a summary of the elements
involved in a baseline human risk
assessment.
Attention is paid to the biological
transfer of contaminants in terrestrial
ecosystems including discussion of
transfer dynamics, transfer pathway
analysis, and sample calculations of
effects levels. Other chapters focus on
the evaluation of contaminants in sedi-
ments and ecotoxicology and the role
it plays in ecological assessments at
hazardous waste sites.
Maughan closes by presenting two
case studies, Pine Street Canal and
Middle Marsh. These Region 1 sites
focus on the ecological assessment of
hazardous waste impacts on freshwa-
ter habitats. Both studies are adequately
detailed and complement the preced-
ing chapters. The selection of a case
study from a terrestrial or estuarine/
marine site located in another region
would have provided a broader per-
spective of how ERAs are conducted
at hazardous waste sites.
The text's strength includes (1) its
excellent discussion of why eco-
assessments should be conducted in-
cluding overall assessment needs and
objectives, (2) its firm grasp of
Superfund and how ERAs fit into
CERCLA guidelines, and (3) its thor-
ough coverage of ARARs.
On the other hand, the author does
not seem to understand the relation-
ship between EPA and natural resource
trustees (NRTs), nor the difference be-
tween ecological risk assessments
(ERAs) and natural resource damage
assessments (NRDAs). He incorrectly
implies that consultation with BTAGs
is equivalent to coordination with
NRTs. CERCLA and the National
Contingency Plan have specific re-
quirements concerning notification of,
and coordination with, NRTs. Notifi-
cation and coordination can be facili-
tated by BTAG consultation, but they
are separate activities needing their
own documentation. Similarly,
Maughan implies too strong a link be-
tween ERAs and NRDAs. While much
of the data collected for an ERA can
be useful in conducting the NRDA,
the two are entirely separate functions
with very different objectives. He fur-
ther confuses the two by using the term
"damage" rather than "injury" to de-
scribe adverse effects. In the NRDA
context, "damage" specifically refers
to the monetary value of an injured
resource. While it may be unfortunate
for the uninitiated reader that such nu-
ances exist, they can be important in
communicating among knowledgeable
participants in the CERCLA process.
This reviewer noted many typo-
graphical, grammatical, and usage er-
rors throughout the text, indicative of
a hurried editorial job. Their presence
somewhat diminishes the profession-
alism of the book.
The text includes numerous tables,
figures, formulas, and equations as well
as extensive bibliographic references.
An appendix of scientific names of the
flora and fauna is included in the text
as is an index. Maughan is joined by
six contributing authors, who collec-
tively are responsible for five of the
book's ten chapters, including the two
case studies. This collaboration
strengthens the text as ecological risk
experts present topics within their area
of expertise.
Framework for Ecological Risk Assess-
ment: Upper Clark Fork River Ba-
sin. Prepared by ARCO (Anaconda,
MT) with the assistance of environ-
mental contractors, September 1992.
The Upper Clark Fork River Basin
(UCFRB) in southwestern Montana
contains a complex of Superfund sites
covering approximately 500 square
miles and comprising 26 operable
units. As part of the process of prepar-
ing RI/FSs for these sites, ARCO and
a team of contractors prepared a frame-
work document outlining how ERAs
should be conducted and how these
risk assessments fit into the overall
remedial decision-making process. Al-
-------
RESOURCES
though the document is intended spe-
cifically to guide studies for the
UCFRB sites (primarily mining sites
with metals contamination), it also has
value as a generic description of ERA
in the Superfund context.
The UCFRB Framework uses some
of the same thinking as the EPA Risk
Assessment Forum's Framework for
Ecological Risk Assessment, and draws
on guidance and other documents from
Superfund. At the same time, it is more
focused than those sources in that it
lays out a clear process for conducting
real-world ERAs. In particular, the
UCFRB Framework emphasizes the
development of preliminary remedial
action objectives (PRAOs) and pre-
liminary remedial action goals
(PRAGs) as part of the process of plan-
ning ERAs. PRAOs are "general de-
scriptions of what remedial actions
should accomplish" (for example,
"protection of important natural re-
sources"). PRAGs are "medium-spe-
cific chemical concentrations that are
protective of human health and the en-
vironment." As the ERA proceeds and
more information is available, these
objectives and goals are refined from
preliminary to final RAOs and RAGs
that become part of a risk manage-
ment plan.
The document also discusses use of
conceptual models in ERA planning,
selection of ecological assessment
techniques (e.g., chemical analysis,
toxicity testing, community analysis,
exposure models, and ecological mod-
els), and a tiered approach to ERA. It
offers clear descriptions of approaches
to assess exposure and toxicity, and an
excellent explanation of the use of joint
probability analysis for risk character-
ization. Especially useful is a chapter
on use of ERA results in remedial ac-
tion decision making. This chapter fo-
cuses ori development of PRAOs and
PRAGs, development and screening of
remedial alternatives, and comparative
risk analysis.
The final chapter presents a very
simplified example ERA of a hypo-
thetical site with metals contamination
and potential exposure to a few terres-
trial species. The example is almost
too simplified, especially since there
are no surface-water or riparian habi-
tats on the site. Nonetheless, it does a
good job of illustrating some of the
basic principles and approaches so that
a novice reader can begin to see how
the various pieces of the ERA fit to-
gether.
In only 61 pages of text (plus bibli-
ography and glossary), the UCFRB
Framework provides a brief, but clear
and concise description of the ERA
process and, most important, of the
decision-making context in which ERA
takes place.
ARCO has a limited supply of this
document; copies can be requested
from:
Gene Mancini
ARCO
515 South Flower Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Book
Announcements
Bacci, E. 1993. Ecotoxicology of Or-
ganic Contaminants. 176 p. CRC
Press.
Davis, S.M. and J.C. Ogden. 1994. Ev-
erglades: The Ecosystem and its
Restoration. 848 p. St. Lucie Press.
Fossi, M.C. and C. Leonzio. 1993.
Nondestructive Biomarkers in Ver-
tebrates. 368 p. Lewis Publishers.
Landis, W.G. and M.H. Yu. 1993. In-
troduction to Environmental Toxi-
cology: Impacts of Chemicals upon
Ecological Systems. 400 p. Lewis
Publishers.
Woodley, S., G. Francis, and J. Kay.
1993. Ecological Integrity and the
Management of Ecosystems. 224 p.
St. Lucie Press.
Articles of Interest
Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology
Nebeker, A.V., K.D. Dunn, W.L.
Griffis, and G.S. Schuytema. 1994.
Effects of dieldrin in food on growth
and bioaccumulation in mallard
ducklings. 26(l):29-32.
Weis, J.S. and P. Weis. 1994. Effects
of contaminants from chromated
copper arsenate-treated lumber on
benthos. 26(1):103-109.
Postma, J.F., M.C. Buckertdejong, N.
Staats, and C. Davids. 1994. Chronic
toxicity of cadmium to Chironomus
riparius (Diptera, Chrionomidae) at
different food levels. 26(2):143-148.
Visviki, I. and J.W. Rachlin. 1994.
Acute and chronic exposure of
Dunaliella salina and Chlamy-
domonas bullosa to copper and cad-
mium — Effects on growth. 1994.
26(2): 149-153.
Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology
Constable, M. and P. Orr. 1994. Le-
thal and sub-lethal toxicity of lin-
dane to Pimephales promelas.
52(2):298-304.
Keller, A.E. 1993. Acute toxicity of
several pesticides, organic com-
pounds, and a wastewater effluent
to the freshwater mussel, Anodonta
imbecillis, Ceriodaphnia dubia, and
Pimephales promelas. 51(5):696-
702.
-------
RESOURCES
Chemosphere
Read, HJ. and M.H. Martin. 1993. The
effect of heavy metals on popula-
tions of small mammals from
woodlands in Avon (England); with
particular emphasis on metal con-
centrations in Sorex araneus L. and
Sorexminutus L. 27(11):2197-2211.
Environmental Review
Outridge, P.M. and A.M.
Scheuhammer. 1993. Bioaccumu-
lation and toxicology of nickel: im-
plications for wild mammals and
birds [Review]. 1(2):172-197.
Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry
Catallo, W.J. 1993. Ecotoxicology and
wetland ecosystems: Current under-
standing and future needs [Review].
12(12):2209-2224.
DiPinto, L.M., B.C. Coull, and G.T.
Chandler. 1993. Lethal and suble-
thal effects of the sediment-associ-
ated PCB Aroclor 1254 on a
meiobenthic copepod. 12(10):1909-
1918.
Huber, W. 1993. Ecotoxicological rel-
evance of atrazine in aquatic sys-
tems. 12(10):1865-1881.
Norberg-King, T. and S. Schmidt.
1993. Comparison of effluent tox-
icity results using Ceriodaphnia du-
bia cultured on several diets.
12(10)1945-1955.
Paine, J.M., M.J. McKee, and M.E.
Ryan. 1993. Toxicity of
bioaccumulation of soil PCBs in
crickets: comparison of laboratory
and field studies. 12(11):2097-2103.
Pascoe, G.A. 1993. Wetland risk as-
sessment [Review]. 12(12): 2293-
2307.
Water South Africa (Pretoria)
Roux, D.J., P.L. Kempster, L. van der
Merwe. 1993. Effect of cadmium
and copper on survival and repro-
duction of Daphnia pulex.
Journal of Hazardous Materials
White, R.K., A. Redfearn, R. Shaw,
and A.D. King. 1993. Impacts of
the use of institutional controls on
risk assessments for U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy Facilities.
35(3):403-412. n
EPA Regions
(continued from page 4)
an ERA for a Department of Defense
facility received review and comment,
as did responses to the comments. This
Superfund site's ROD called for an
ERA to be conducted in the future.
Draft ERAs received review and com-
ment for two other federal facilities. A
workplan and sampling/analysis plan
for a smelter site underwent review
and comment. Although the site is not
on the NPL, the PRPs will conduct the
ERA and the RI/FS under state super-
vision. Technical memoranda for a
field sampling plan and exposure as-
sessment in support of an ERA re-
ceived review and comment for a
Superfund smelter site that is an envi-
ronmental justice site. Region 6 is pro-
viding technical assistance to state staff
for scoping an ERA for a wood-treat-
ing site proposed on the NPL. The state
will conduct the ERA, but the PRPs
will collect the field data. The
Superfund program is providing tech-
nical assistance to the RCRA program
for scoping an ERA for a RCRA facil-
ity. Probabilistic modeling was pro-
posed for the assessment. A workplan
and field sampling plan for the ERA is
being evaluated for inclusion on the
NPL. For this site, removal and the
RI/FS are being coordinated to expe-
dite action, n
Mailing List Additions
Are your name and address correct on your mailing label? Do you have
colleagues who want to receive BTAG Forum? Please send corrections and
new names to Carole Rose, BTAG Forum, USEPA, 303 Methodist Build-
ing, llth and Chapline Streets, Wheeling, WV 26003.
Correction \~\ New [~]
'"I
Name
Address
.J
-------
U.S, EPA Regional BTAG Coordinators/Contacts
EPA HEADQUARTERS
David Charters
Mark Snrcngcr
EUT/EPA(MS-101)
2890 Woodbridgc Avc., BIdg. 18
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
(908) 906-6826
(90S) 321-6724 FAX
i,
Steve Ells
(703) 603-8822
John Miller
(703) 603-9076
OERR/HSED
USEPA (5204G)
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 603-9103 FAX
REGION 1
Susan Svirsjcy
Waste Management Division
EPA Region 1 (HSS-CAN7)
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 573-9649
(617) 573-9662 FAX
REGION 2
Shari Stevens
Surveillance Monitoring Branch
EPA Region 2 (MS-220)
Woodbridge Ave., Bldg. 209
Edison, NJ 08837
(908) 906-6994
(908) 321-6616 FAX
REGION 3
Robert Davis
Technical Support Section
EPA Region 3 (3HW15)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-3155
(215) 597-9890 FAX
REGION 4
Lynn Wellman
WSMD/HERAS
EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-1586
(404) 347-0076 FAX
REGION 5
Steve Ostrodka
EPA Region 5 (HSRLT-5J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-1602
(312) 886-3011
(312) 886-0753 FAX
REGION 6
Jon Rauscher
(214) 665-8513
Susan Swenson Roddy
EPA Region 6 (6H-SR)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-8518
(214) 665-6762 FAX
REGION 7
Bob Koke
SPFD-REML
EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7468
(913) 551-7063 FAX
REGION 8
Gerry Henningsen
EPA Region 8
Denver Place, Suite 500
999 18'" Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303) 294-7656
(303) 293-1230 FAX
REGION 9
Doug Steele/Clarence Callahan
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-2309
(415) 744-1916 FAX
REGION 10
Bruce Duncan
EPA Region 10 (ES-098)
1200 6"1 Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-8086
(206) 553-0119 FAX
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (5204G)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Printed on
recycled paper
10
------- |