' '; United States .Office of Policy
• ' Environmental Protection Planning and Evaluation June, 1969
: / , •. Agency , (PM-220)
»H^i Ecological Risk ~~
Assesment Methods
A Review And Evaluation
Of Past Practices In The
Superfund And RCRA
Programs
-------
EPA-230-03-89-044
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS:
A REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF PAST PRACTICES
IN THE SUPERFUND AND RCRA PROGRAMS
U.S. E^ironr-ental Protection Asenar
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
7~'\Vest Jackscn Boulevarjd, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
Office of Policy Analysis
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Jtme 1989 ,--.'.-;; r'-'-'V: ;"--|o T,:', 12ih Hoc;-
1 '
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was developed by EPA's Office of Policy Analysis (OPA)
within the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Dr. Craig Zamuda was
the EPA project director, with support provided by Dr. Dexter Hinckley, Mr.
Ron Benioff, and Mr. Mike Cox.
ICF Incorporated assisted EPA in development of this document. The IGF
team was directed by Bob Hegner and included Margaret McVey, Simon Heart,
Michael Troyer, Baxter Jones, and Randy Freed.
The authors of this document wish to acknowledge, with appreciation, the
inputs, cooperation, and review provided by many other people who contributed
to the project. This includes numerous individuals within the Department of
the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service and Office of Environmental Project
Review), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, all ten EPA
Regions, EPA Laboratores, EPA Headquarters, and several State organizations.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 APPROACH TAKEN IN REVIEW OF METHODS 4
2.1 Review and Analysis of Site-Specific Methods 4
2.1.1 Review and Analysis of Methods used at CERCLA Sites 4
2.1.2 Review and Analysis of Methods used at RCRA Sites 5
2.2 Review and Analysis of Methods used in Regulatory and
Policy Studies 5
2.3 Criteria Used to Evaluate Methods 6
3 SITE-SPECIFIC METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL IMPACTS
AT OSWER SITES 7
3.1 Approaches Used to Characterize Actual Impacts 8
3.1.1 Evaluation of Biotic Community Structure 8
3.1.2 Analysis of the Morphological and/or Physiological
Condition of Individual Organisms 15
3.1.3 Comparison of Environmental Concentrations of
Contaminants to Ecological Benchmark Levels 18
3.2 General Evaluation of Approaches Used to Characterize
Actual Impacts 18
4 SITE-SPECIFIC METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS
AT OSWER SITES 24
4.1 Approaches Used to Characterize Potential Impacts 24
4.1.1 Comparison of Environmental Concentrations of
Contaminants to Ecological Benchmark Levels
(Quotient Method) 25
4.1.2 Qualitative Evaluation of Potential Impacts from
Estimates of Exposure Potential 31
4.1.3 Evaluation of Potential Impacts from Estimates of
Hazard Potential 32
4.1.4 Quantitative Modeling of Adverse Effects to
Ecosystems 36
-------
- ii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
4.2 General Evaluation of Approaches Used to Characterize
Potential Impacts 36
5 METHODS USED IN REGULATORY AND POLICY STUDIES TO CHARACTERIZE
ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AT OSWER SITES 43
5.1 Screening-Level Analyses for Establishing Policy and
Regulatory Priorities 43
5.1.1 Proximity of Waste Sites to Sensitive Environments 45
5.1.2 Survey of Damage Case Studies 45
5.1.3 Quantitative Modeling of Potential Impacts based on
Damage Case Scenarios 47
5.1.4 Comparative Risk Estimation 48
5.2 Specific Methods for Evaluating Potential Ecological
Impacts 49
5.2.1 Hazard Index for Multiple Contaminants 50
5.2.2 Ecosystem Exposure-Response Model 51
5.3 General Evaluation of Methods Used in Regulatory and
Policy Studies 51
6 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADDITIONAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT 56
6.1 Characterizing Exposure 57
6.1.1 Standardizing Exposure and Intake Assumptions 57
6.2 Characterizing Hazard 57
6.2.1 Characterizing Hazards from Single and Multiple
Contaminants 57
6.2.2 Guidance in Using Media Toxicity Tests 57
6.2.3 Data Needs 58
6.3 Characterizing Exposure-Response 58
6.3.1 Derivation of Ecological Benchmarks 58
6.3.2 Wider Use of Existing Techniques and Approaches 59
-------
- iii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
6.3.3 Exposure-Response Data 59
6.4 Characterizing Risk 59
6.4.1 Receptor Characterization 59
6.4.2 Determining Areal Extent and Reversibility of Impacts ... 60
6.4.3 Determining the Ecological Significance of Impacts 60
6.4.4 Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment Methodology 61
7 GENERAL IMPLICATIONS FOR OSWER AND SPECIFIC METHODS DEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SELECTED OSWER PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES 62
7.1 General Implications for OSWER 62
7.2 Methods Development Opportunities for Selected
OSWER Programs and Activities 63
7.2.1 Relationship to General Objectives of
Ecological Assessment Methods 64
7.2.2 Opportunities for Methods Development in the
RCRA Program 64
7.2.2.1 Regulatory Development 64
7.2.2.2 Hazardous Waste Definition and Determination ... 69
7.2.2.3 Subtitle C Permitting 70
7.2.2.4 Subparts F and S Corrective Action 72
7.2.3 Opportunities for Methods Development in
CERCLA Programs and Activities 74
' 7.2.3.1 Removal Program 74
7.2.3.2 Pre-Remedial Activities 74
7.2.3.3 Selection of Remedy 76
7.2.3.4 Implementation and Completion of Remedy 77
8 LITERATURE CITED 79
-------
- IV -
APPENDICES
EXHIBIT A-l:
EXHIBIT A-2:
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX E:
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
LIST OF CERCLA SITES REVIEWED (ALPHABETIZED BY REGION) ...
LOCATION (EPA REGION) OF CERCLA SITES AND RCRA
FACILITIES REVIEWED
Page
11
SUMMARY OF SITE-SPECIFIC METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE
ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS A-l
SUMMARY OF SITE-SPECIFIC METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE
POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS B-l
SITE-BY-SITE LISTING OF METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE
ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS C-l
SITE-BY-SITE LISTING OF METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE
POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS D-l
GLOSSARY OF ENTRIES IN APPENDICES E-l
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report includes a summary and analysis of methods used to
characterize ecological impacts in policy and regulatory studies and at
specific CERCLA and RCRA waste sites. In this report, the term "ecological
assessment" is defined broadly to include any characterization or evaluation
of exposure, hazard, risk, or injury to an ecological receptor. The purposes
of this report are to:
• identify and summarize the methodological approaches used to
characterize both actual and potential ecological impacts at CERCLA and
RCRA waste sites,
• identify the ecological assumptions inherent in these approaches and the
types of information they can and cannot provide,
• identify opportunities for additional methods development that would
make current approaches for characterizing ecological impacts more
comprehensive and standardized, and
• discuss the general implications of this review and analysis for OSWER
and identify specific methods development opportunities for selected
OSWER programs and activities.
Readers interested in descriptions and evaluations of methodological
approaches are directed to Chapters 3, 4, and 5. Those interested in general
and specific methods development opportunities and implications for particular
OSWER programs and activities are directed to Chapters 6 and 7. Data on the
frequency with which specific approaches or their elements were used at CERCLA
and RCRA sites, as well as a site-by-site listing of these data, are provided
in the accompanying technical Appendices to this report.
Methods reviewed in this report can be divided into three general
categories: (1) screening specific sites or facilities, specific waste
management practices, and/or general types of facilities or wastes to
determine the overall nature and extent of associated ecological impacts in
order to establish policy and regulatory priorities, (2) characterizing actual
ecological impacts (i.e., those that have been measured or observed) resulting
from the release of chemical constituents at these sites or facilities or as
the result of these waste practices, and (3) characterizing potential
ecological impacts (i.e., those that have not been measured or observed, but
are predicted to occur either at present or in the future) that might result
from the release of chemical constituents at these sites or facilities or as
the result of these waste practices.
Analyses in this report focus primarily on the main approaches used to
characterize impacts rather than on details of specific elements used in these
approaches. Each major methodological approach is described and evaluated.
The evaluation includes the ecological assumptions inherent in the approach,
the types of ecological impacts it can and cannot characterize, its main
limitations, and its utility for risk management. These approaches then are
-------
- VI -
discussed according to the relative level of effort required and types of
information about ecological impacts provided by that level of effort.
Opportunities for-additional methods development that would make ecological
assessments more standardized and comprehensive are outlined. The general
implications of this review and analysis for OSWER are discussed. Finally,
specific methods development opportunities for particular OSWER programs and
activities are identified.
Specific opportunities for methods development are identified for four
RCRA programs and four CERCLA programs or activities. The RCRA programs
included in this report are: regulatory development, hazardous waste
definition and determination, Subtitle C permitting, and Subparts F and S
corrective action. The CERCLA programs and activities included in this report
are: the Removal program, pre-reraedial activities, selection of remedy, and
implementation and completion of remedy.
There was considerable variability among OSWER sites reviewed in the
approaches and techniques used in ecological assessments, sampling intensity
and level of effort devoted to such assessments, and the manner in which
particular approaches were applied at a given site. Some of this variability
resulted from differences among sites in the need for ecological assessments
and types of ecosystems being assessed. Some might have resulted from
resource and personnel constraints. However, the general lack of policy and
guidance for conducting ecological assessments apparently has resulted in the
development of numerous independent approaches in methods used in ecological
assessments and in the level of effort and resources devoted to such
assessments.
Currently there is no OSWER policy or guidance for selecting for a
particular site the appropriate receptors and ecological endpoints of concern;
background values and/or reference sampling locations; approaches, techniques,
and level of effort; and contaminants of concern. There also is no OSWER
policy or guidance for the use of existing toxicity data, interpretation of
survey and media toxicity test results, and presentation and discussion of
results in site-specific documents. Without clear policy and guidance,
evaluations of ecological impacts will continue to vary among OSWER sites.
The absence of policy or guidance in many cases is due to a lack of
appropriate scientific knowledge and data, and additional fundamental research
addressing these data gaps clearly is needed. Policy decisions that could be
reached given current knowledge and data are identified in this report.
Without clear policy guidelines, it is not certain whether information
about ecological impacts can play a significant role in risk management
decisions or the extent to which it should do so. The relative absence of
ecological input to remediation and control goals suggests that current
approaches, as applied, provide information that is not used in risk
management decisions. If information on ecological impacts should play a role
in risk management decisions, additional guidance in conducting ecological
assessments will be required. Without additional policy and guidance, the
information provided by these approaches probably will continue to play a
limited role in risk management decisions.
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Substances released from sites subject to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) have the potential to cause
adverse effects to human health and the environment. Although there are
numerous examples of adverse ecological impacts being caused by releases of
hazardous substances and wastes, programs developed and implemented by EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) under CERCLA and RCRA
have focused primarily on identification, analysis, and mitigation of
potential adverse effects to human health. As a consequence of this program
emphasis, relatively little information is available concerning the overall
extent of ecological impacts at OSWER sites (EPA/OPA 1989a).
This relative lack of information on ecological impacts appears to
result from several factors. EPA has not articulated clear policy guidelines
for conducting ecological assessments at OSWER sites, so ecological impacts
might not have been evaluated at all sites where such evaluations are
warranted. No consistent methodological framework has been developed for
evaluating ecological impacts at hazardous waste sites, so a variety of
different methods and techniques have been used. No consistent guidelines
have been developed for interpreting the results of ecological impact
assessments, so these results appear not to have been used consistently in
ecological risk management decisions.
To help address these issues, EPA's Office of Policy Analysis (OPA) has
initiated a study of the nature and extent of ecological impacts at CERCLA and
RCRA sites, the methods that have been or could be used to evaluate ecological
impacts at these sites, and past ecological risk management decisions and
issues at OSWER waste sites. In this report, the term "ecological assessment"
is defined broadly to include any characterization or evaluation of exposure,
hazard, risk, or injury to an ecological receptor. The purposes of this
report are to:
• identify and summarize the methodological approaches used to
characterize both actual and potential ecological impacts at CERCLA and
RCRA waste sites,
• identify the ecological assumptions inherent in these approaches and the
types of information they can and cannot provide,
• identify opportunities for additional methods development that would
make current approaches for characterizing ecological impacts more
comprehensive and standardized, and
• discuss the general implications of this review and analysis for OSWER
and identify specific methods development opportunities for particular
OSWER programs and activities.
-------
- 2 -
OPA has prepared separate reports that evaluate the nature and extent of
ecological impacts and past ecological risk management issues at CERCLA and
RCRA sites (EPA/OPA 1989a). Taken together, these reports serve as the basis
for conclusions on the adequacies of existing EPA policies for ecological
protection, opportunities for program improvements, and needs for further
development of policy, guidance, and methods.
This report includes a summary and analysis of methods used to
characterize ecological impacts in policy and regulatory studies and at
specific CERCLA and RCRA waste sites. These methods can be divided into three
general categories:
• screening specific sites or facilities, specific waste management
practices, and/or general types of facilities or wastes to determine the
overall nature and extent of ecological impacts associated with these
facilities, wastes, and practices in order to establish policy and
regulatory priorities;
• characterizing actual ecological impacts (i.e., those that have been
measured or observed) resulting from the release of chemical
constituents at these sites or facilities or as the result of these
waste practices; and
• characterizing potential ecological impacts (i.e., those that have not
been measured or observed, but are predicted to occur either at present
or in the future) that might result from the release of chemical
constituents at these sites or facilities or as the result of these
waste practices.
In this report, evaluation of screening methods is limited to those used
in policy and regulatory studies because the specific CERCLA and RCRA sites
reviewed had already passed through the screening process before being
identified for this study. Hence, site-specific sreening-level models such as
the Hazard Ranking System are not evaluated.1 The analyses presented in this
report focus primarily on methods used to characterize impacts that existed
prior to response actions, not impacts resulting from responses or remaining
after responses have been taken. The report focuses exclusively on impacts
associated with releases of hazardous substances and wastes, not impacts
caused by other activities at OSWER sites (e.g., construction activities).
There are several important limitations to the analyses presented in
this report. First, the review is based primarily on methods as described in
site-specific or policy/regulatory documents. Complete documentation for many
sites was not readily available, so various types of specific information
(e.g., the particular media toxicity test protocol followed) might not have
been obtained. Information on ecological impacts and methods was particularly
lacking for most types of RCRA facilities (EPA/OPA 1989a). Second, because
documentation is necessary to fully describe and evaluate specific
methodological approaches and techniques, the review of site-specific methods
See also Section 5.1.
-------
- 3 -
is concentrated primarily on sites well into the mitigative or control
process. Recently-developed techniques or practices were not used at these
sites and thus are'not described in the documents we reviewed. We have
attempted to identify newly-developed techniques and practices during
conversations with Regional staff and personnel from other agencies (e.g., the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and we have included at least brief
references to some of these techniques and practices in this report. Third,
although documents from 52 CERCLA sites and 16 RCRA Subtitle C facilities were
reviewed in detail, this sample might not be representative of the full
universe of OSWER sites (EPA/OPA 1989). Finally, the detail in which site-
specific ecological impacts and methods were described varied considerably
among the sites reviewed.
The remainder of this report is divided into six chapters. Chapter 2
outlines the approach taken in this review and analysis. In Chapter 3,
methods used to characterize actual site-specific impacts are described and
evaluated. In Chapter 4, methods used to characterize potential site-specific
impacts are described and evaluated. In Chapter 5, methods used in regulatory
and policy studies to characterize the ecological impacts associated with
OSWER waste sites are described and evaluated. General opportunities for
additional methods development are discussed in Chapter 6. Implications for
OSWER and specific methods development opportunities for particular OSWER
programs and activities are discussed in Chapter 7.
-------
CHAPTER 2
APPROACH TAKEN IN REVIEW OF METHODS
In this chapter, we outline briefly our approach for identifying and
reviewing methods used to characterize ecological impacts at OSWER sites. The
approach for site-specific methods is described in Section 2.1, and the
approach for methods used in regulatory and policy studies is described in
Section 2.2. Criteria used to evaluate methods are presented in Section 2.3.
2.1 Review and Analysis of Site-Specific Methods
Three steps were used to collect and analyze data on the nature and
extent of ecological impacts at CERCLA sites: (1) identification of candidate
sites with known or suspected ecological impacts, (2) collection of relevant
available reports for each candidate site, and (3) review and analysis of the
collected reports. Three steps also were used to collect and analyze
information on the nature and extent of ecological impacts at RCRA sites: (1)
telephone interviews and meetings with RCRA professionals, (2) collection and
review of available program analysis and regulatory development documentation,
and (3) case study development and analysis of RCRA Subtitle C facilities.
Details of the steps taken to identify sites, gather documents, and select
sites for detailed review can be found in EPA/OPA (1989) . In this section we
briefly summarize the process of review and analysis of site-specific
documents.
2.1.1 Review and Analysis of Methods used at CERCLA Sites
From a total of 247 CERCLA candidate sites, 52 sites were selected for
detailed review based on (a) the presence of some type of ecological
assessment, and (b) the quantity and apparent quality of documentation
collected for each site. Only those sites for which we obtained at least a
Remedial Investigation (RI) report, a detailed Feasibility Study (FS) report,
or a detailed risk and/or endangerment assessment were considered.
Information on ecological impacts was extracted from the available site
documents. For each site, we recorded the types of contamination and release
problems, actual and potential ecological impacts resulting from these
releases, and methods used to characterize these impacts. Data on methods are
summarized and compiled on a site-by-site basis in the accompanying technical
appendices to this report. Information on contamination, releases, and
impacts at the same sites is compiled and summarized in EPA/OPA (1989a).
In this report, the phrase actual ecological impacts refers to any
adverse effects to individual organisms, populations, communities, or
ecosystems that were observed to result from exposure to contaminants released
at or from an OSWER site. The phrase potential ecological impacts refers to
any such adverse effects that were predicted to result from potential
exposures to site-specific contaminants. Actual impacts are evidence that
injury to ecosystems or their biotic components has occurred and/or continues
to occur at or near the site, while potential impacts are those that (a) might
occur but have not yet occurred, or (b) might be occurring at present but have
-------
- 5 -
not been observed. For example, actual impacts cannot occur without a
release, but potential impacts can be evaluated on the basis of a predicted or
potential release. Actual impacts have been distinguished from potential
impacts because the methods and data used to characterize the two types of
impacts differ markedly. Characterization of actual impacts requires some
type of survey or sampling of the condition of ecological receptors at and
near the site. Characterization of potential impacts is more predictive in
nature and requires information on chemical hazard, exposure potential, and
exposure-response for the ecological receptors and methods to predict
potential impacts from these data.
2.1.2 Review and Analysis of Methods used at RCRA Sites
The review of RCRA program analyses and regulatory development documents
focused on six types of facilities: hazardous waste treatment, storage, or
disposal facilities regulated under Subtitle C; municipal solid waste
landfills regulated under Subtitle D; coal utilities; smelting and refining
facilities; oil and gas facilities; and mining facilities. For most of these
areas, available documentation focused on the national extent of ecological
impacts and the ranking of comparative risk analyses conducted by EPA
Headquarters and several Regions and States (EPA/OPA 1989a).
Review of site-specific methods used at RCRA facilities was limited by
temporal constraints and the availability of ecological information to 16 of
the 38 RCRA Subtitle C facilities identified through telephone and personal
interviews. Information on ecological impacts was extracted from the
available documents using the same process as described for CERCLA sites (see
Section 2.1.1). Data on methods are compiled on a site-by-site basis in the
accompanying technical appendices to this report. Information on
contamination, releases, and impacts at the same set of sites is compiled and
summarized in EPA/OPA (1989a).
2.2 Review and Analysis of Methods used in Regulatory and Policy Studies
The review of regulatory and policy studies focused on documents from
nine studies: (1) Risk-Based Variance from Secondary Containment Requirements
of Hazardous Waste Tank Systems (EPA/OSW 1987a), (2) RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis
Model (EPA/OSW 1984), (3) the Oil and Gas Report to Congress (EPA/OSW 1987b) ,
(4) the Coal Utilities Report to Congress (EPA/OSWER 1988), (5) the Smelting
and Refining Report to Congress (EPA/OSW 1988b), (6) the Mining Wastes Report
to Congress (EPA/OSWER 1985), (7) the OSWER Comparative Risk Project (EPA/OSW
1988a), (8) the National Comparative Risk Project (EPA/OPA/OPPE 1987), and (9)
the State and Regional Comparative Risk Project (ICF 1987).
From these documents, information on the main approaches used to
characterize ecological impacts are summarized (Chapter 4). Each summary
includes the purpose of the approach, information on how hazard, exposure,
receptors, and risks are characterized, and the main types of information
provided by the method.
-------
- 6 -
2.3 Criteria Used to Evaluate Methods
Because there are no clear policy guidelines or standard methods for
conducting ecological assessments at OSWER sites, there is no widely-accepted
yardstick with which to evaluate a particular methodological approach. We
evaluated the methodological approaches with respect to their ecological
assumptions, limitations, types of impacts they can and cannot characterize,
and utility for risk management. We also determined the relative level of
effort associated with each methodological approach and the information gained
by that level of effort.
-------
CHAPTER 3
SITE-SPECIFIC METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL IMPACTS AT OSWER SITES
In this chapter we describe and summarize the general approaches used to
characterize actual, site-specific ecological impacts at CERCLA and RCRA sites
and evaluate their effectiveness in characterizing these impacts.
As a preliminary step in this analysis, all methods were organized
according to the type of ecosystem (i.e., terrestrial, terrestrial associated
with aquatic2, freshwater, estuarine, marine, and wetland) to which they were
applied. For each ecosystem of concern, we determined the types of ecological
receptors used to evaluate actual impacts and the general approaches used to
characterize these impacts. Receptors were classified according to the biotic
level of organization (i.e., ecosystem, community, population, individual),
taxonomic group of organism (e.g., bird, mammal, invertebrate, plant), and
specific ecological endpoint used (e.g., reproduction, community diversity).
Approaches were classified according to the type of method employed (e.g.,
qualitative survey of the ecosystem, systematic field sampling, media toxicity
test), and whether sampling points were selected on the basis of ecological
concerns, human health concerns, or both. We also identified the type of
ecological benchmark (e.g., lowest-observed-effect level, acute LC50, ambient
water quality criterion) used in comparisons with environmental concentrations
of contaminants. Such benchmarks, however, do not necessarily reflect actual
ecological impacts (see Section 3.1.3). A listing of the frequency with which
each element was used at the OSWER sites reviewed is presented in Appendix A,
and a site-by-site listing of these elements is presented in Appendix C.
These can be found in the accompanying technical appendices to this document.
To provide some background and context for the methods being described
and evaluated, we briefly summarize the types of contamination scenarios noted
at the OSWER sites reviewed. These scenarios are described in detail in two
separate documents (EPA/OPA 1989a). The relative frequency with which
contamination of specific media or biota was noted for a given type of
ecosystem is shown in Exhibit 1. For example, available documents suggested
that actual or potential impacts to terrestrial ecosystems might occur at 35
of the sites reviewed. Contaminated soils were noted at nearly all of these
sites, contaminated terrestrial biota was noted at 10 (29%) of these sites,
and deposition of airborne contaminants on soils and plant surfaces was noted
at nine (26%) of these sites. Contaminated sediments were noted at 32 (58%)
of the sites at which available documents suggested that actual or potential
impacts to freshwater ecosystems might occur. Overall, contaminated soils,
sediments, surface water, and biota were noted frequently at the sites
reviewed. The primary routes by which contaminants reached aquatic ecosystems
were discharge of contaminated ground water (noted at 24 sites), surface
2 An ecosystem in which terrestrial organisms might be exposed to
contaminants through direct contact with or ingestion of contaminated surface
water or ingestion of aquatic biota.
-------
- 8 -
runoff from contaminated soils or other surface materials (22 sites)., and
direct discharge of leachate (15 sites).
In the remainder of this chapter, we describe and evaluate the main
approaches used to characterize actual ecological impacts at OSWER sites. The
three main approaches used to characterize actual impacts are described and
evaluated in Section 3.1. A general discussion of approaches and techniques
used to characterize actual impacts at OSWER sites is presented in Section
3.2.
3.1 Approaches Used to Characterize Actual Impacts
Actual impacts to one or more types of ecosystems were characterized at
54 (79%) of the 68 OSWER sites reviewed. Three main approaches were used for
these characterizations: evaluation of the biotic community structure,
analysis of the morphological and/or physiological condition of individual
organisms, and comparison of environmental concentrations of contaminants to
ecological benchmark levels. The main techniques and endpoints used to
characterize actual impacts using these approaches are listed in Exhibit 2.
At the majority of sites reviewed, ecological concerns appeared to be driving
the evaluations, although at some sites, economic and/or human health concerns
(e.g., a finfish or shellfish industry) were evident (see Appendix A).
Evaluation of community structure was used at 37 (69%) of the sites at
which actual impacts were characterized (Exhibit 3). This approach was used
for terrestrial and wetland ecosystems slightly more frequently than for
aquatic ecosystems (Exhibit 4). Analysis of individual morphology and/or
physiology was used at 34 (63%) of the sites. This approach was used for
aquatic ecosystems more frequently than for terrestrial ecosystems.
Comparison of environmental concentrations of contaminants to ecological
benchmarks was used at 17 (31%) of the sites. This approach was used only
rarely for terrestrial ecosystems. Each of these approaches is described and
evaluated in a separate section below.
3.1.1 Evaluation of Biotic Community Structure
Description In this approach, biotic community structure in ecosystems
exposed to site-specific contaminants and in nearby reference areas were
compared. The purpose was to determine whether a measurable difference in the
biotic structure of the exposed ecosystem existed and to document the
magnitude of that difference. Measures of community structure included
species diversity or evenness indices, stressed or absent vegetation, a
qualitative description of the community, and the presence of "indicator"
(pollution tolerant) species' associated with stressed ecosystems (Exhibit 5).
However, specific measures used to evaluate species diversity or stressed
vegetation generally were not identified in the documents reviewed.
Three main techniques were used to document community structure (Exhibit
2). On a site-specific basis, the most common technique was systematic field
sampling (Exhibit 5). Standardized sampling protocols were used to collect
biota, and the taxonomic composition of these biota was evaluated with a
diversity or evenness index. This technique was used much more commonly for
-------
EXHIBIT 1
CONTAMINATION SCENARIOS AT OSWER SITES REVIEWED*7
Type of Ecosystem
Terrestrial
Terrestrial/Aquatic
Freshwater
Wetland
Estuarine
Marine
Number^'
of Sites
35
20
55
27
7
2
Number of Sites
Soil/Sediment
33
7
32
18
7
1
with Documented Contamination£/ of
Surface Water Biota Air
10
5 2
43 27
19 11
6 4
1 0
9
-
-
-
-
-
-' For more detailed information, see EPA/OPA (1988a,b).
-x The number of sites at which available documents suggested that actual or potential
impacts to this ecosystem type might occur.
-1 Numbers do not include sites at which contamination was suspected but not demonstrated.
-------
EXHIBIT 2
APPROACHES, TECHNIQUES, AND ENDPOINTS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL IMPACTS AT OSWER SITES
Approaches
Techniques
Endpoints
Evaluation of Biotic
Community Structure
Quantitative Sampling
Qualitative Surveys
Aerial Photography
Diversity Indices
Indicator Species
Description of Community
Absent/Stressed Vegetation
Evaluation of Individual
Morphology or Physiology
Field Sampling
Histopathology, Necropsy
Records of Mortality
Detailed Field Studies
Tissue Residue Levels
Disease/Abnormalities
Reproduction
Comparison of Contaminant
Concentrations to Ecological
Benchmarks-7
- Field Sampling
- Contaminated Media
- Hazard Indices
-1 Although this approach does not establish the existence of actual ecological impacts, it was used as
a surrogate measure of actual impacts at 17 of the sites reviewed.
-------
- 11 -
EXHIBIT 3
APPROACHES FOR CHARACTERIZING ACTUAL
IMPACTS AT OSWER SITES
1 \J\J
90
Q
w 80
I
8 70
O
cc
a 60
0 50
X
* 40
**
ul 30
t
(/>
^ 20
10
0
-
_.
*
-
*~ 32
—
—
—
-
7
20
>w
x?/^
^
>2<
^
§S
1
^
[/; •
Brsr^ 1^ /f
1 7 xx i ^
5 *Ow x
/// r— RA^ K,/
// Ovy r /*
// XX / j
// XA /
// 7 So x /i
^ 3 f/l ^ 1 1 f /I
/v <^) x' ^s ^5
-------
% ECOSYSTEMS TO WHICH APPROACH APPLIED
•o
CD
O
^>
m
o
o
w
«<
V)
**•
(D
3
o
m
H
X
O
D
O
r-
O
Q
O
(D
(0
fi)
^*
(D
O
I
-------
- 13 -
Q
UJ
Z
O
Q.
O
UJ
\
UJ
g
z
X
O
UJ
I-
X
o
UJ
EXHIBIT 5
TECHNIQUES AND ENPOINTS USED TO
EVALUATE BIOTIC COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
21
Techniques Used
[_ ] Quantitative Sampling
CxX><) Qualitative Surveys
Y/^\ Aerial Photography
Ecological Endpoints
Community Diversity Indices
[ ] Absent or Stressed Vegetation
K/\J Qualitative Description
{_ j Indicator Species
Number above bar represents number of sites at which technique or endpoint used
-------
- 14 -
aquatic ecosystems than for terrestrial or wetland ecosystems. The next most
common technique was a qualitative survey of the exposed ecosystem. Such a
survey generally was conducted by walking through the area, conducting a
census of plants and animals, and noting any differences between the diversity
of organisms observed and expected for a "typical" ecosystem of that type. At
most sites where this technique was used, the specific reference area used for
the comparison was not identified. This technique was used most commonly for
terrestrial and wetland ecosystems. The final technique, used at four sites,
was aerial photography to determine the extent of vegetation stress or absence
in terrestrial and wetland ecosystems.
Qualitative surveys and systematic field sampling focused on four major
taxonomic groups of organisms: terrestrial plants, aquatic and terrestrial
vertebrates, benthic macroinvertebrates, and shellfish.
Evaluation Ecosystems can be characterized to a certain extent
according to two main features: structure and function. Structural
components include abundance, biomass, and diversity of biotic populations as
well as taxonomic, functional, and trophic organization of the community.
Functional components include the processes involved in the movement and
transformation of chemicals and energy. Ecosystem structure and function
clearly are linked to one another, but in a complex and often poorly
understood manner. The basic assumption inherent in diversity-based
approaches is that a measurable change in the structure of a biotic community
reflects a change in the stability, functional integrity, quality, and
likelihood of survival of the ecosystem.
A qualitative survey is a low-effort technique that can document large,
readily-apparent changes in community structure. Because qualitative surveys
are in essence visual or auditory censuses, subtle, less apparent changes in
community structure generally will not be detected. A qualitative survey thus
lacks sensitivity and yields very little information about the overall
severity of impacts (unless they are obvious), because the magnitude of the
differences between the exposed ecosystem and the reference area is difficult
to quantify. Moreover, when no adverse impacts are noted, it is difficult to
determine whether they had not occurred or were overlooked. Qualitative
surveys can be an effective means to determine the areal extent of readily-
apparent impacts.
Indices of community structure provide a measure of both subtle and
large changes in the structure of biotic communities. In principle, the
difference between the structure of the exposed community and that of a
reference area can be determined quantitatively. In practice, use of a
diversity or evenness index alone rarely provides a measure of the severity of
impacts because (a) it is difficult to interpret consequences of a given
quantitative change in the index for the stability, functional integrity,
quality, and survival of the ecosystem, and (b) the numerical value of the
index depends on a number of factors including sampling intensity,
seasonality, and the precision with which organisms are identified
taxonomically.
-------
- 15 -
Indices of community structure can be extremely effective in
characterizing the severity of impacts when coupled with information on the
areal extent of such impacts and additional information such as the presence
of pollution-tolerant species, although this combination of approaches was not
used commonly at OSWER sites. At one atypical site (Palmerton Zinc),
diversity indices were used to document the complete devastation of a forested
ecosystem, although the presence of impacts was evident even to a casual
observer (2,000 acres of trees were defoliated).
Aerial photography is an excellent technique for determining the nature
and areal extent of injury to terrestrial and wetland plants. Aerial
photographs can provide considerable information about the specific types of
injury to plants and the diversity of the plant community, although technical
expertise is required to interpret such photographs correctly. However, it is
difficult to estimate the severity of damage to vegetation using aerial
photography alone. At one site (Wildcat Landfill), aerial photography was
used to document the loss or permanent alteration of 31 acres of tidal
wetland. In general, aerial photography probably is most effective as a
screening technique to identify particular areas for additional surveys or
study.
3.1.2 Analysis of the Morphological and/or Physiological Condition of
Individual Organisms
Description In this approach, the physiological and/or morphological
condition of individual organisms inhabiting the exposed ecosystem and a
reference area were compared to determine whether the incidence of adverse
effects in these individuals was greater in the exposed ecosystem. Four main
techniques were used to document such effects (Exhibit 2). The most common
technique, used for terrestrial, aquatic, and/or wetland ecosystems at nearly
all sites, was to collect organisms directly from the exposed ecosystem and
from the reference area and examine the collected specimens (Exhibit 6). The
most common endpoint used to evaluate the condition of these specimens was
tissue residue levels of contaminants. At most sites, tissue residue levels
were measured directly in specimens. At two sites, in-situ toxicity tests
were conducted to determine whether elevated tissue residue levels in fish
were site-related. At one site, data from STORET and a State monitoring
program were used for the exposed and reference ecosystems.
At 11 (32%) of the sites, the incidence of tumors, lesions,
developmental abnormalities, and other morphological or physiological symptoms
of stress were evaluated in specimens (Exhibit 6). At five of these,
histopathology or necropsy was used to examine specimens more thoroughly. At
four sites, historical records of mortality (e.g., bird carcasses found) were
reported for the exposed ecosystem. At one RCRA facility (IRECO Chemicals),
field observations were conducted to determine whether predatory birds were
able to reproduce successfully.
Sampling and analysis focused on four major taxonomic groups of
organisms: aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates, terrestrial invertebrates,
terrestrial plants, and benthic macroinvertebrates. Sampling also focused
generally on the taxonomic groups most likely to be exposed to contaminants
-------
- 16 -
Q
UJ
CO
Z
O
0.
Q
Z
UJ
\
Ul
ID
g
z
x
o
111
^-
x
o
X
W
Ul
H
CO
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
EXHIBIT 6
TECHNIQUES AND ENDPOINTS USED IN ANALYSIS
OF INDIVIDUAL MORPHOLOGY OR PHYSIOLOGY
28
25
17
Techniques Used
] Field Sampling
PJJXJ5&! Histopathology/Necropsy
V7Z\ Historical Records of Mortality
f D In-Situ Bioassays
K\5\\] Other
Ecological Endpoints
[ / A Tissue Residue Levels
F I Disease or Abnormalities
Other
Number above bar represents number of sites at which technique or endpoint used
-------
- 17 -
(e.g., when sediments were contaminated, sampling focused on benthic
invertebrates or bottom-feeding fish). Tissue residue levels generally were
sampled when substances with a high potential for bioaccumulation were
present.
Evaluation The ecological assumptions inherent in this approach depend
on its purpose. Individual organisms are the basic biotic components of an
ecosystem. Certain organisms (e.g., endangered or commercially important
species) also have an economic or aesthetic value. If the purpose of this
approach is to determine whether adverse effects have occurred in such
"valued" organisms, no ecological assumptions are inherent. Otherwise, this
approach assumes that individual organisms are valid surrogates for ecosystem
effects (i.e., injury to the basic biotic components of an ecosystem decreases
its stability, functional integrity, quality, and/or likelihood of survival).
Measurement of tissue residue levels provides information as to whether
biota have been exposed to site-specific contaminants. When background levels
of contaminants are high, there can be considerable difficulty in attributing
the observed exposure to a site or facility. Strictly speaking, elevated
tissue residue levels do not indicate the presence of adverse biological
effects unless coupled with independent evidence of such effects. Elevated
tissue residue levels simply confirm an exposure. When evidence of actual
biological effects is collected, the ecological significance of biotic
contamination is more apparent. For example, at the Marathon Battery site,
elevated tissue residue levels noted in muskrats were linked at least
circumstantially to observed reductions in their reproductive success.
Elevated tissue residue levels in organisms that are important food sources
(e.g., earthworms, shellfish, fish) also indicate that exposures to other
ecological receptors through the food chain are possible. Although rarely
done, it is possible to determine the areal extent of elevated tissue residue
levels in sessile organisms. For example, at the Allied Chemical Baltimore
Works, the areal extent of contaminated shellfish was estimated.
Determining whether adverse morphological or physiological effects are
more common in organisms exposed to contaminants than in reference areas is an
effective method for characterizing ecological impacts to individual
organisms. Only traditional techniques such as gross examination,
histopathology, and necropsy were used at the sites reviewed. Newer
techniques such as enzyme activity measurement can provide much more sensitive
indicators of adverse physiological effects in organisms (see TRI 1987). For
example, inhibition of cholinesterase activity in fish and birds indicates
that the organism may have been exposed to organophosphate and/or carbamate
insecticides. In birds, 51% cholinesterase inhibition has been associated
with mortality. Inhibition of delta-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase (D-ALAD)
has been correlated with lead uptake in fish and birds. Analyzing effects in
individual organisms is particularly effective at distinguishing sites at
which impacts have occurred from those at which impacts have not occurred,
because the incidence of abnormalities can be compared statistically in the
exposed and reference populations. For example, histopathological examination
of fish at the Clothier site indicated no significant increase in tumors,
parasites, or fin erosion, while increases in the incidence of such
abnormalities were noted at other sites.
-------
- 18 -
Use of historical records such as fish kills to document adverse effects
can provide evidence that mortality has occurred as the result of past
releases from the site, but such records do not provide evidence that
mortality or other adverse effects is occurring as the result of present
releases. However, when conducting damage assessments at CER.CLA sites, the
Fish and Wildlife Service considers evidence of past damage even if that
damage is no longer occurring. This technique is most relevant if current
practices or conditions at the site are identical to those at the time the
previous incidents occurred.
3.1.3 Comparison of Environmental Concentrations of Contaminants to
Ecological Benchmark Levels
Description In this approach, measured concentrations of contaminants
in environmental media (e.g., soil, sediment, and surface water) were compared
to ecological benchmark levels derived from toxicity tests on laboratory
organisms. The purpose was to determine whether contaminant concentrations
had reached a level known to result in adverse effects in these organisms.
This approach was used most commonly for aquatic or wetland ecosystems.
Ecological benchmarks used most frequently for aquatic ecosystems were the
ambient water quality criteria developed by EPA's Office of Water. Those used
most frequently for terrestrial ecosystems or the terrestrial component of
wetlands were background levels. Usually, no specific organisms or endpoints
of concern were identified.
Evaluation Evidence of concentrations of contaminants above benchmark
levels confirms the presence of an exposure pathway and the likely magnitude
of exposure but does not establish the existence of acutal ecological impacts.
For some benchmarks (e.g., ambient water quality criteria), such evidence
might be considered a surrogate measure of actual impacts, but it is a more
valid measure of potential ecological impacts (see Section 4.1.1).
3.2 General Evaluation of Approaches Used to Characterize Actual Impacts
In the previous section, three approaches for characterizing actual
ecological impacts at OSWER sites were identified. Each was evaluated
according to its inherent assumptions, the type of information it provided,
and its limitations. These approaches are: comparison of environmental
concentrations of contaminants to ecological benchmark levels, evaluation of
biotic community structure, and evaluation of the morphological or
physiological condition of individual organisms. In this section, these
approaches are discussed according to the level of effort required and the
types of information provided by a given level of effort (Exhibit 7). We also
discuss the manner in which these techniques were used to characterize actual
ecological impacts at the OSWER sites reviewed.
Comparison of environmental concentrations of contaminants to ecological
benchmark levels is a screening-level approach that utilizes information on
the areal extent of contamination and the types of ecosystems exposed to
contaminants, but it does not provide any information on actual impacts. This
is a relatively low-effort approach because information on the nature and
-------
EXHIBIT 7
SUMMARY EVALUATION OF APPROACHES AND TECHNIQUES USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL IMPACTS AT OSWER SITES
Approach/Technique
Information Provided
Information Not Provided
Information Gained
Evaluation of Biotic Community Structure
Qualitative Surveys
Quantitive Measures
Identification of large,
readily-apparent impacts
Areal extent of impacts
Quantification of small,
subtle impacts
Severity of impacts^
Areal extent of impacts
Identification of subtle
impacts
Impacts to individuals
or populations
Severity of impacts
(unless extreme)
Impacts to individuals
or populations
Identification of sites
with major impacts to
biotic communities
Identification of sites
with minor impacts to
biotic communities
-1 The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA 1988) has developed guidelines that define severity
of impacts for some ecosystems.
-------
EXHIBIT 7 (continued)
SUMMARY EVALUATION OF APPROACHES AND TECHNIQUES USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL IMPACTS AT OSWER SITES
Approach/Technique
Information Provided
Information Not Provided
Information Gained
Evaluation of Individual Morphology or Physiology
Examination of Specimens
Detailed Field Studies
Direct evidence of
injury to individual
organisms
Areal extent or
magnitude of impacts
Quantification of
small, subtle impacts
to individuals or
populations
Impacts to populations,
communities, or the
ecosystem
Impacts to communities
or the ecosystem
Comparison of Measured Contaminant Concentration to Ecological Benchmarks
Field Sampling
Nature and areal extent
of contamination and/or
contamination above
benchmarks
Direct evidence of actual
impacts
Identification of sites
with major impacts to
individual organisms
Identification of sites
with minor impacts to
individuals or populations
Identification of
exposure pathways
N5
o
-------
- 21 -
extent of contamination generally is required for human health risk
assessments and to determine the types of cleanup or controls required at the
site. Because this approach is more valid for characterizing potential
ecological impacts, it will be discussed in Section 4.1.1 below.
A qualitative survey of community structure can detect large, readily
apparent impacts to exposed ecosystems, including the presence or absence of
indicator species. It also can be used to determine the areal extent of such
impacts. However, more subtle community-level impacts and impacts to
populations or individual organisms generally will not be detected with this
approach. Severity of impacts is difficult to determine with this technique
unless it is obvious.
A quantitative measure of community structure can detect more subtle
alterations in community structure. Hence, sites at which community-level
impacts are not readily apparent might be identified with this approach. This
approach also can provide a measure of the severity of impacts, although it is
difficult to evaluate the ecological significance of a particular change in a
community diversity or evenness index. Areal extent of impacts can be
determined by-field sampling or by use of aerial photography.
The quality of information provided by quantitative measures of
community structure depends considerably on the scope and intensity of the
sampling effort. If one group of organisms (e.g., fish) is of particular
interest at a site, sampling focused on that component of the community will
provide the most relevant information for that site. Similarly, if a
particular group of organisms is known to be very sensitive to the site-
specific contaminants, sampling focused on that component of the community
might be sufficient to characterize actual impacts at the site. If there is a
mixture of chemicals at a site, sampling focused on different components of
the exposed ecosystems might be required to detect and fully characterize the
nature and extent of impacts to that ecosystem.
The effectiveness of quantitative measures of community structure in
characterizing actual impacts depends largely on how well the ecological
significance of any observed change in community structure can be documented.
For most quantitative measures, there is no scientific consensus on what
constitutes an ecologically significant change. Moreover, a change considered
significant for one ecosystem might not be considered so for another. The
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA 1988) has developed criteria
for the protection of aquatic ecosystems based on three indices of biotic
community structure that offers one means of establishing levels of
significance for changes in such measures (see Section 6.7).
Evaluation of the morphological or physiological condition of individual
organisms provides direct evidence of whether or not actual impacts have
occurred in the organisms of concern, and sufficient sampling can delineate
the areal extent or magnitude (e.g., number of individuals or size of
population affected) of such impacts. This approach can detect many more
subtle impacts to particular organisms or components of the community of
concern, and hence can identify sites at which ecological impacts are not
limited to changes in community structure, morphology, or physiology. Use of
-------
- 22 -
this approach can identify sites at which impacts to individual organisms have
occurred but at which community structure is not affected significantly (or
the ecological significance of any observed change in community structure
cannot be determined).
Morphological or physiological impacts can be evaluated with a variety
of techniques ranging in effort from use of historical records of mortality to
detailed field studies that require intensive sampling for one or two years at
the site and a reference environment. Historical records of mortality can
provide evidence of impacts from past releases from a site, but cannot provide
evidence of impacts from present releases. Visual examination of specimens
collected from contaminated ecosystems can provide evidence of gross injury to
individual organisms (e.g., fin erosion, skeletal abnormalities). Additional
examination using necropsy or histopathology can provide evidence of other
anatomical or physiological injuries. Detailed field studies are required to
detect changes in more subtle ecological endpoints (e.g., reproduction,
behavior, longevity, demography). The appropriate technique(s) for a given
site will be determined to a large extent by the particular contaminants
present at the site and the types of ecological receptors exposed to these
contaminants.
Evaluation of the morphological or physiological condition of individual
organisms is an approach that is complementary to evaluation of community
structure. Evaluation of community structure provides little information
about individual organisms within that community. Similarly, evaluation of
the morphological or physiological condition of individual organisms provides
little information about communities within the ecosystem. If there is little
reason to expect one type of effect more than the other at a given site, use
of both approaches together will identify sites at which effects at one or the
other level might be overlooked.
Neither of the above approaches characterizes impacts to biotic
populations. Relatively intense field studies generally are required to
obtain information on most population-level measures (e.g., density, age
structure, survivorship, reproductive rate). Historical records of fish kills
were used as evidence of population-level impacts at four Superfund sites, and
a field study of the breeding success of predatory birds was conducted at one
RCRA facility. Otherwise, no population-level studies were conducted at the
sites reviewed.
There is a clear trade-off between level of expense/effort and the
amount of information obtained about ecological impacts. Techniques of
varying sophistication (and cost) are available for characterizing impacts to
organisms and biotic communities, but the most sophisticated technique is not
necessarily the most appropriate for a given site. For example, qualitative
surveys of community diversity or vegetation stress are appropriate when
impacts are obvious or when releases or exposures are highly unlikely, but it
might be necessary to follow-up such surveys with systematic sampling to
establish the severity of any specific type of impact noted during the survey.
Evaluating both community structure and the condition of individual organisms
provides a more comprehensive characterization of the types and severity of
impacts than does either approach alone. Detailed field studies might be
-------
- 23 -
necessary to determine whether particularly valued species are being adversely
affected by site-specific contaminants. However, even a comprehensive
characterization of impacts does not provide information that can be used
directly for determining specific remedial or control actions at a given site.
Chemical- or mixture-specific benchmarks are required for establishing such
goals (see Section 4.2). Nonetheless, characterization of actual impacts is
useful for determining the ecosystems for which cleanup goals are required.
Among the OSWER sites reviewed for this study, there was considerable
variability in the type and number of approaches and techniques used, sampling
design and intensity, and the extent to which impacts were characterized.
Ecosystem- or community-level measures were used exclusively at 12 (22%) of
the sites. Individual- or population-level measures were used exclusively at
18 (33%) of the sites. Both were used at 24 (44%) of the sites. At 23 (43%)
of the sites, only one approach or technique was used. Two were used at 18
sites (33%), and three or more were used at 19 sites (35%). At most sites,
only one or two episodes of sampling or surveying were conducted. Sampling
intensity was considerably higher at others. For example, at least four
episodes of field sampling were conducted at the Palmerton Zinc site, and 12
separate quantitative samples of aquatic community structure were collected at
the Army Creek and Delaware Sand and Gravel sites.
Some of the variability among sites resulted from the type of ecosystem
in which impacts were being characterized. More than one approach or
technique was used for 11 aquatic ecosystems (23% of all aquatic ecosystems).
In contrast, more than one approach or technique was used for only one wetland
(5%) and one terrestrial ecosystem (4%). Some variability resulted from the
level of assessment required at a given site. For example, at Confidential
site # 5, only a simple qualitative survey was required to document several
miles of a severely damaged stream ecosystem. Some variability probably
resulted from the general lack of policy, guidance, and scientifically proven
approaches for characterizing ecological impacts (even in the absence of
guidance, a sound ecological assessment method would be used consistently by
qualified ecologists). Some probably also resulted from resource and/or
personnel constraints.
From the manner in which data and results were presented in the
documents reviewed, ecological assessments at most sites probably were
conducted by individuals with sufficient ecological expertise. However, at 15
(28%) of the sites, possible impacts that were noted in site-specific
documents apparently were not investigated further. At two of these sites
(58th Street Landfill and Marion-Bragg), a reason for not investigating these
possibilities was given: it was noted that aquatic biota probably were
contaminated, but high "background" levels of the contaminant in the receiving
waters would make it difficult to link the contamination to the site. At the
rest of the sites, there might have been valid reasons for not investigating
these possibilities, but these reasons were not provided in the documents
reviewed. In addition, most assessments did not adequately incorporate
information on the areal extent of impacts, and the ecological significance of
observed impacts often was not described clearly at most sites. Again, these
inadequacies might have resulted from a lack of policy, guidance, methods, and
resources.
-------
CHAPTER 4
SITE-SPECIFIC METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS AT OSWER SITES
In this chapter, we describe and summarize the methods used to
characterize potential site-specific ecological impacts at CERCLA and RCRA
sites and evaluate their effectiveness in characterizing these impacts.
As a preliminary step in this analysis, all methods were organized
according to the type of ecosystem to which they were applied. For each
ecosystem of concern, we determined the frequency with which particular
elements were used to characterize receptors, hazard, and exposure. Receptors
were classified according to the biotic level of organization, taxonomic group
of organism, and specific endpoint(s) used. Hazard was classified according
to whether contaminants of concern were selected on the basis of ecological
risks or human health, the type of site-specific toxicity measures used (i.e.,
media toxicity tests), and the type of ecological benchmark used. Exposure
was classified according to whether sampling points were selected to evaluate
ecological or health risks, the exposure pathways considered (e.g., water
column, food chain, ingestion of contaminated sediments), the types of
assumptions used to estimate intake and/or dose, and how chemical
concentrations at the receptor were determined.
Methods also were classified according to which particular approaches to
risk assessment were used. Elements of risk assessment included the general
type of method used (e.g., qualitative evaluation, quotient method) and how
impacts above threshold, areal extent, reversibility of impacts, and
uncertainty of the risk assessment were characterized. An analysis of the
frequency with which each element was used at the OSWER sites reviewed is
presented in Appendix B, and a site-by-site listing of these elements is
presented in Appendix D. These can be found in the accompanying technical
appendices to this document.
In the remainder of this chapter, we describe and evaluate the main
approaches used to characterize potential impacts at OSWER sites. The types
of contamination scenarios noted in each type of ecosystem were described
previously (Chapter 3). The four main approaches used to characterize
potential impacts are described and evaluated in Section 4.1. A general
discussion of approaches used to characterize potential impacts at OSWER sites
is presented in Sectron 4.2.
4.1 Approaches Used to Characterize Potential Impacts
Potential impacts to one or more types of ecosystems were characterized
at 56 (82%) of the OSWER sites reviewed. Four main approaches were used to
characterize potential ecological impacts at these sites: comparison of
environmental concentrations of contaminants to ecological benchmark levels
(i.e., the quotient method), evaluation of potential impacts from estimates of
exposure potential, evaluation of potential impacts from estimates of hazard
potential (based on media toxicity test results), and at one site,
quantitative modeling to predict the likelihood of adverse effects to the
-------
- 25 -
ecosystem. The main techniques and endpoints used to characterize potential
impacts using these approaches are listed in Exhibit 8.
Comparison of environmental concentrations of contaminants to ecological
benchmarks was used at 45 (80%) of the sites at which potential impacts were
characterized (Exhibit 9). This approach was used less frequently for
terrestrial ecosystems than for other types of ecosystems (Exhibit 10).
Qualitative evaluation of potential impacts from estimates of exposure
potential was used at 24 (43%) of the sites. This approach was used more
frequently for ecosystems with a terrestrial component than for those with an
aquatic component. Evaluation of potential impacts from estimates of hazard
potential was used at 14 (25%) of the sites. This approach was used
exclusively for aquatic ecosystems and the aquatic component of wetland
ecosystems. Quantitative risk modeling was used at one estuarine site. Each
of these approaches is discussed in a separate section below.
4.1.1 Comparison of. Environmental Concentrations of Contaminants to
Ecological Benchmark Levels (Quotient Method)
Description In this approach, concentrations of contaminants in
environmental media (e.g., soil, sediment, surface water) or biota were
compared to ecological benchmark levels derived from toxicity studies with
laboratory organisms. The purpose was to determine whether contaminant
concentrations had reached a level known to result in adverse effects in those
organisms. Measured or projected contaminant concentrations in the water
column are equivalent to exposure levels, at least for aquatic organisms. For
contaminants in soils, sediments, and biota, ecological benchmarks generally
are based on exposure, and additional information (e.g., bioavailability of
contaminants, behavioral attributes of the receptors) is required to estimate
exposure from measured or projected concentrations. This discussion includes
both concentration- and exposure-based benchmarks.
Ecological benchmarks used most frequently for aquatic ecosystems and
the aquatic component of wetlands were ambient water quality criteria (AWQC)
developed by EPA's Office of Water3 and state water quality standards (Exhibit
11). At some sites, additional benchmarks for contaminants in soil,
sediments, or biota were derived from chronic lowest-observed-effect levels
(LOELs), chronic no-observed-effect levels (NOELs), and acute LC50s or dietary
LD50s. At nearly all sites, these benchmarks were applied "correctly" (i.e.,
3 There are four types of EPA-reviewed aquatic toxicity values. For
approximately 35 substances, EPA has derived chronic or acute criteria from
toxicity tests with a wide variety of species from different taxa. These two
types of criteria are designed to protect 95% of aquatic species from chronic
and acute adverse effects, respectively. For approximately 60 other
substances, data are insufficient to derive acute or chronic criteria, and EPA
has identified the lowest identified LC50 or lowest-observed-effect-level
(LOEL) in the peer-reviewed literature. For most substances, the LOELs are
from pre-1980 studies and might be out of date. These two types of values do
not offer the same level of protection to aquatic species as do acute or
chronic criteria.
-------
EXHIBIT 8
APPROACHES, TECHNIQUES, AND ENDPOINTS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS AT OSWER SITES
Approach
Techniques
Endpoints
Comparison of Measured and/or
Projected Contaminant
Concentrations to Ecological
Benchmarks
Measured Concentrations
Projected Concentrations
Mortality
Reproduction
Growth
Community Structure
Estimate of Exposure
Potential (no Benchmark)
Measured Concentrations
Projected Concentrations
Qualitative Evaluation
Mortality
Reproduction
Growth
Community Structure
Ni
Estimate of Hazard Potential
(Media Toxicity Tests)
Laboratory Toxicity Tests
In situ Toxicity Tests
Mortality
Reproduction
Growth
Tissue Residue Levels
Quantitative Risk Modeling
- Fault-Tree Analysis^
- Fish Reproductive Failure
The specific model used was not described in detail in the available documents.
-------
- 27 -
EXHIBIT 9
APPROACHES FOR CHARACTERIZING POTENTIAL
IMPACTS AT OSWER SITES
o
ui
I
O
<
O
cc
Q.
d.
<
X
o
X
I-
UJ
t
CO
1 UU
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
•-
37
-
-7
-
-
20
?W1
xx>
K§
§§?
&v
"xV>
vvs<
i
Xx>
SA?S
•
12 7
^ ^.
/// \/ \
Superfund Sites
RCRA Subtitle C Facilities
C J Contaminant Concentration vs.
Ecological Benchmark
J5»v<5^ Estimate of Exposure Potential
^///\ Estimate of Hazard Potential
T__Z] Quantitative Risk Modeling
Not Evaluated
Number above bar represents number of sites at which approach used.
-------
EXHIBIT 10
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH PARTICULAR APPROACHES WERE USED
TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL IMPACTS IN SPECIFIC TYPES OF ECOSYSTEMS
Q
UJ
_i
0.
Q.
<
I
O
<
O
cc
CL
Q.
<
I
O
I
O
UJ
H
(S)
>
V)
O
O
UJ
90
80
70 -
60
50
40 -
30
20 -
10
00
Concentration vs. Benchmark Exposure Potential
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
Type of Ecosystem:
Terrestrial
Terr/Aquatic
Wetland
Freshwater
Hazard Potential
Estuarlne/Marine
-------
- 29 -
EXHIBIT 11
BENCHMARKS AND ENDPOINTS USED IN COMPARISONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS WITH ECOLOGICAL BENCHMARK LEVELS
Q
Ul
V)
z>
h-
Z
o
0.
o
ui
X
o
Ul
m
i
o
CO
111
H
(0
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30 -
20
10
39
15
12
10
Benchmark
Ecological Endpoint
Ambient Water Quality Criterion
50% Mortality Level
State or Local Standard
NOEL or LOEL
Other
Not Specified
Mortality
Growth
Reproduction
Community Structure
Other
Not Specified
Number above bar represents number of sites at which benchmark or endpoint used
-------
- 30 -
acute benchmarks were used to assess impacts from acute exposures). However,
at only a few sites were safety factors applied to acute or chronic toxicity
measures to adjust for species sensitivity differences and/or acute-to-chronic
ratios.
At most sites, no specific ecological endpoints were identified in the
documentation (Exhibit 11). AWQC are based on population-level effects but
are designed to protect aquatic ecosystems. At sites where endpoints were
specified, population-level endpoints in vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g.,
excess mortality, depressed growth or reproduction) were selected most
frequently. Endpoints at the community level were selected less frequently;
there are few ecological benchmarks for endpoints at this level of
organization.
Concentrations of contaminants at receptors were measured directly in
the medium, were projected or modeled (e.g., discharge of contaminated ground
water to surface water), or were calculated using information on contaminant
bioavailability and behavioral attributes of the consumers (e.g., dietary
levels of contaminants in consumers). The quotient method was used to
determine whether measured, projected or calculated concentrations of
contaminants were found or predicted to exceed the ecological benchmark. When
concentrations in excess of benchmark' levels were found, there generally was
no discussion of the magnitude of the exceedance or possible severity of
impacts. Thus, potential impacts generally were characterized in a
dichotomous manner (i.e., adverse impacts were or were not likely). In the
reports reviewed, there usually was little discussion of areal extent,
reversibility, and uncertainty (see Appendix B).
Evaluation Ecological benchmarks generally are derived from laboratory
toxicity studies using a variety of species from different taxonomic groups.
The responses of individual organisms (e.g., death, reproductive impairment)
generally are expressed as measures of impacts to populations (e.g., mortality
of 50% of the population, reproductive impairment in some members of the
population). Unless the purpose is to determine the likelihood of adverse
effects in a population of "valued" organisms, the inherent assumption is that
population-level effects are valid surrogates for ecosystem-level effects (see
Section 3.1.2). For a few contaminants, benchmarks based on altered community
structure are available in the literature.
There are several inherent limitations to the quotient method.t First,
EPA-reviewed benchmarks (AWQC) are available for only a limited number of
substances found frequently at high concentrations at OSWER sites*. Chronic
benchmarks are based on toxicity tests using a variety of ecological
endpoints, some chronic criteria are adjusted for bioconcentration potential,
and some are adjusted because the chemical is particularly toxic to algae.
Although toxicity measures for aquatic organisms are available in the original
4 EPA-identified toxicity measures for aquatic organisms are available
for only about half of all substances found frequently at high concentrations
at CERCLA and RCRA sites, and chronic ambient water quality criteria are
available for less than 15 percent of these substances (ICF 1988a).
-------
- 31 -
literature for a much larger number of chemicals, such measures are based on a
variety of test conditions, organisms, and endpoints. Second, this approach
does not consider the impacts of the additive, synergistic, or antagonistic
effects of exposure to multiple chemicals, which is the usual situation at
OSWER sites. Third, widely-reviewed benchmarks are not available for
contaminants in air, soils, or sediments. Hence, to use the quotient method
for these media, site-specific benchmarks must be derived. Fourth,
concentration levels at which substances can be quantified accurately in
environmental media are greater than benchmark levels for many substances.
For example, the concentration level protective of ecological receptors is
below the concentration level quantifiable by current technology as specified
by the CERCLA or RCRA program for approximately 30 percent of those substances
with EPA-identified benchmarks for the protection of aquatic organisms (IGF
1988b). Finally, this approach does not provide a means to estimate the
severity of impacts when the benchmark levels are exceeded.
Comparison of environmental concentrations of contaminants to ecological
benchmarks provides information on whether adverse ecological impacts might
occur. In principle, information on the nature and areal extent of these
potential impacts can be provided by this approach. For example, EPA's Office
of Water's Water Quality Criteria Documents provide considerable information
on the specific types of adverse effects associated with each contaminant and
the organisms in which these effects have been noted. If these potential
effects are linked to the particular organisms present in the ecosystem of
concern, the nature of the potential impacts to the ecosystem might be
determined more specifically. The areal extent of contamination above
benchmark levels also can be measured or estimated. In practice, this
information was rarely provided.
In principle, the quotient method also can provide some qualitative
information on the relative likelihood and severity of adverse impacts. If
concentrations of contaminants exceed benchmark levels by an order of
magnitude, it is more likely that adverse impacts will occur than if the
exceedance is by a few percentage points; it also is likely that the effects
will be more severe. Similarly, if exceedances are noted for multiple
contaminants, it generally is more likely that adverse effects will occur than
if an exceedance is noted for only one contaminant. Finally, if measured or
calculated concentrations are compared with an exposure-response curve,
information on impacts above (or below) benchmark can be obtained. In
practice, this information rarely was utilized at the sites reviewed.
4.1.2 Qualitative Evaluation of Potential Impacts from Estimates of
Exposure Potential
Description Qualitative evaluation of potential impacts from estimates
of exposure potential consisted of three components: an estimate of exposure
potential, a description of the types of ecological receptors likely to be
exposed, and a discussion of the types of impacts that might occur in those
receptors. This approach differs from the quotient method primarily because
no ecological benchmark is used to determine a threshold level of exposure.
-------
- 32 -
Three techniques were used to estimate exposure potential (Exhibit 8).
At 13 sites, measured or modeled concentrations of contaminants were found in
excess of background concentrations in soils, sediments, or other media for
which no widely-accepted ecological benchmarks have been established (Exhibit
12). It was assumed that ecological receptors would be exposed to these
contaminants, and the types of impacts to those receptors were described, but
the likelihood of such impacts was not evaluated. At nine sites, the specific
contamination scenario was such that the likelihood that ecological receptors
would be exposed to site-specific contaminants was considered to be low (e.g.,
the areal extent of contamination was extremely small or the likelihood of
release was very low), so there was little effort to evaluate or characterize
potential ecological impacts. At six sites, potential contamination of nearby
ecosystems was noted, but no sampling or fate-and-transport analysis had been
conducted for those ecosystems, so the likelihood of contamination could not
be determined. Again, potential receptors and impacts were described in
general, but the likelihood of such impacts was not evaluated.
Endpoints selected most frequently were excess mortality, depressed
reproduction or growth, and changes in community structure (Exhibit 12).
Specific receptors identified most frequently were birds, mammals, and plants,
but at most sites, endpoints and organisms were not specified. There was
virtually no discussion of the severity, areal extent and reversibility of
impacts, and the uncertainty of the characterization.
Evaluation The basic assumption of this approach is that the likelihood
of adverse ecological effects is related to the likelihood of exposure.
Because no benchmark is used, the main information provided by this approach
is the likelihood that ecological receptors will be exposed to site-specific
contaminants and the types of adverse impacts that might occur as a result.
No information is provided as to (a) whether these potential exposures will be
at levels sufficient to result in adverse impacts, and (b) how severe these
impacts might be. Moreover, the evaluation of potential impacts is largely
subjective. In principle, information on the areal extent and reversibility
of the potential impacts can be provided, but in practice this information
rarely was provided.
4.1.3 Evaluation of Potential Impacts from Estimates of Hazard
Potential
Description In this approach, potential ecological impacts were
evaluated based on media toxicity tests (Exhibit 8). Two types of media
toxicity tests were used (Exhibit 13): laboratory toxicity tests, in which
organisms are exposed to contaminated media in a controlled laboratory
setting, and in situ toxicity tests, in which organisms are exposed to
contaminated media in the field. The purposes were to determine what adverse
effects would result from such exposures, and/or the potential for uptake and
bioconcentration of contaminants. Toxicity tests were conducted using
sediments, leachate, and surface water. Organisms used in the laboratory
toxicity tests were fish (e.g., fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas).
daphnids (e.g., Ceriodaphnia. Daphnia). and bacteria. Fish and shellfish were
used in the in situ toxicity tests.
-------
- 33 -
EXHIBIT 12
TECHNIQUES AND ENDPOINTS USED IN QUALITATIVE EVALUATION
OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS BASED ON ESTIMATES OF EXPOSURE POTENTIAL
80
Q)
(0
=3
£
O
a
c
ill
o
3
"5
JC
U
t-
£
JJ
JC
a>
*rf
0)
60
40
20 -
10
Y VI
k x>\ I
Techniques Used
Measured Concentrations
of Contaminants
Qualitative Estimate of
Exposure Potential
Modeled Concentrations
of Contaminants
Not Specified
Ecological Endpoints
{' .3 Mortality
K^S6I Community Structure
V//\ Reproduction
k\\N Growth
l/\/l Other
1C XI Not Specified
-------
- 34 -
EXHIBIT 13
TYPES OF TOXICITY TESTS AND ENDPOINTS USED IN EVALUATION
OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS BASED ON ESTIMATES OF HAZARD POTENTIAL
Q
Ul
V)
=>
I-
z
o
Q.
o
z
UJ
\
V)
UJ
o
X
o
H
X
O
UJ
100
14
14
80
60
40 -
20 -
Type of
Toxicity Test
Laboratory Toxicity Test
In-Situ Toxicity Test
Ecological Endpoint
r~~l Mortality
PW1 Reproduction
Y/A Growth
k\\l Tissue Residual Levels
USD Other
-------
- 35 -
Endpoints used were either at the population level (e.g., excess
mortality, depressed reproduction, decreased bacterial bioluminescence [an
indirect measure of mortality]) or at the individual level (e.g., tissue
residue levels) [Exhibit 13]. The specific toxicity test protocols used
usually were not described, although several standardized protocols were
referenced. Among the sites reviewed, this approach was used exclusively for
aquatic ecosystems or the aquatic components of wetlands (Exhibit 10).
Toxicity test results generally were presented quantitatively (e.g., mortality
of 85% of the test organisms), but the relationship between such results and
potential impacts within exposed ecosystems generally was not described
clearly.5 Areal extent, reversibility, and uncertainty were rarely discussed.
Evaluation In this approach, laboratory or site-specific organisms in
controlled (i.e., laboratory) or constrained (i.e., in situ) exposure
conditions are used as surrogates for other organisms in the ecosystem. The
basic assumption is that if adverse effects are noted in these surrogates
under the exposure conditions of the toxicity test protocol, similar effects
would occur in free-living populations of site-specific species. The
ecological assumptions inherent in this approach depend on its purpose. If
the purpose of this approach is to determine the likelihood of adverse effects
in "valued" organisms, no ecological assumptions are inherent. Otherwise,
population-level effects are assumed to be valid surrogates for ecosystem-
level effects (see Section 3.1.2).
The major advantage of this approach is that media toxicity tests can be
used to evaluate the potential impacts of site-specific mixtures of
contaminants. Toxicity tests also are appropriate for media for which no
widely-accepted ecological benchmarks exist. Moreover, because no chemical
quantitation is required, media toxicity tests can be conducted even if
chemical concentrations are below quantitation limits. Hence, this approach
can overcome many of the limitations inherent in comparisons of environmental
concentrations of contaminants with ecological benchmarks (i.e. the quotient
method).
Media toxicity tests provide information on the likelihood and severity
of particular adverse effects (e.g., mortality, reduced reproduction) to
populations of organisms exposed to site-specific contaminants. However,
interpretation of toxicity test results can be difficult. For example,
mortality was very high in toxicity tests using leachate at two sites, but it
was concluded that it would be difficult to ascribe similar effects in
organisms inhabiting nearby receiving waters to leachate from the site because
of other sources of pollution in those waters. Similarly, at another site
(Marathon Battery), the mortality of fish from a nearby population exposed in
situ to contaminated water was greater than that observed in a local
population of the same species of fish living in the contaminated water,
suggesting that the local population had adapted to site-specific
contaminants. Moreover, "acceptable" levels of impacts observed in a given
5 EPA policy on significant effect levels in media bioassays was
described recently for the NPDES permitting process (EPA/OW 1985, 1987). This
policy was not referenced in any site documents reviewed.
-------
- 36 -
toxicity test were not provided at any site, although current NPDES permit
guidelines (EPA/OW 1985,1988) were not referenced (see also Section 6.4).
Hence, it was not possible to determine the difference between the observed
results and "acceptable" levels.
4.1.4 Quantitative Modeling of Adverse Effects to Ecosystem
Description At one site (Confidential # 1), a mathematical model was
used to evaluate the likelihood of a significant impact to the ecosystem
(i.e., catastrophic failure of fish reproduction). This model incorporated a
fault-tree analysis of reproductive failure resulting from mortality,
decreased population density, insufficient food, and failure of eggs to hatch.
At this site, sediments and biota were contaminated with PCBs. The likelihood
that fish would fail to reproduce in the ecosystem was modeled using an
assumed food web, exposure/intake assumptions, and bioconcentration factors.
Specific details of the model and its assumptions were not provided in the
available documents.
Evaluation It is difficult to evaluate this approach because the
particular model used at the one site was not described in detail in the
available documents. The information provided was a specific probabilistic
statement of the likelihood of a significant impact to the ecosystem
(catastrophic failure of fish reproduction). The level of effort required to
produce and apply the model clearly was very high. This effort probably was
undertaken because a substantial fish and shellfish industry was affected by
the site. Such an effort may be beyond the scope of most site-specific
evaluations of potential ecological impacts.
4.2 General Evaluation of Approaches Used to Characterize Potential Impacts
In the previous section, four approaches for characterizing potential
impacts at OSWER sites were identified and evaluated. These are: comparison
of environmental concentrations of contaminants to ecological benchmark
levels, qualitative evaluation of potential impacts from estimates of exposure
potential, evaluation of potential impacts from estimates of hazard potential,
and quantitative modeling of adverse effects to ecosystems. In this section,
these approaches are discussed according to the level of effort required and
the types of information provided by that level of effort (Exhibit 14).
A qualitative evaluation of exposure potential provides information on
the types of ecosystems and organisms that might be exposed to site-specific
contaminants and the possible types of impacts that might result, but it does
not provide any information on the likelihood, severity, or ecological
significance of such impacts.
Comparison of environmental concentrations of contaminants with
ecological benchmarks provides dichotomous (yes/no) information on whether
adverse ecological impacts are likely. This approach provides little
information about the severity of effects if benchmark concentrations are
exceeded, although higher rates in general will be correlated with more severe
impacts. This approach also provides little information on the effects
resulting from exposure to multiple contaminants.
-------
EXHIBIT 14
SUMMARY EVALUATION OF APPROACHES USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS AT OSWER SITES
Approach/Technique
Information Provided
Information Not Provided
Information Gained
Comparison of Measured
and Projected
Contaminant
Concentrations to
Ecological Benchmarks
Yes/no information as
to whether impacts are
likely
Impacts resulting from
direct exposures to
contaminated media and
indirect exposures via
food chains
Quantitative measure of
severity of impacts if
benchmarks are exceeded
Impacts to communities
or the ecosystem (unless
benchmarks specifically
account for these)
Ecologically-based cleanup
criteria for single
contaminants
to
Estimate of Exposure
Potential
Types of ecosystems and
receptors potentially
exposed to contaminants
Likelihood or severity
of potential impacts
Identification of sites
with potential ecological
Identification of potential
exposure pathways
-------
EXHIBIT 14 (continued)
SUMMARY EVALUATION OF APPROACHES USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS AT OSWER SITES
Approach/Technique
Information Provided
Information Not Provided
Information Gained
Estimate of Hazard
Potential (Media
Toxicity Tests)
Quantification of
likelihood and severity
of impacts to populations
of test organisms
Identification of hazards
to site-specific populations
Areal extent of impacts (if
media tested at sufficient
number of locations)
Impacts to communities
or the ecosystem
Ecologically-based cleanup
criteria for mixtures of
contaminants-'
Ecologically-based cleanup
criteria for contaminants
in soils and sediments
CO
CO
Quantitative Risk
Modeling
Likelihood of specific
impacts to individual
organisms, populations,
communities, or the
ecosystem
Severity of impacts
Areal extent of impacts
not known-/
Quantification of
ecological risks for risk
management decisions
a/ NPDES permit guidelines (EPA/OW 1985, 1987) define toxicity test-based cleanup criteria for some
ecosystems.
-/ The specific model used was not described in detail in the available documents.
-------
- 39 -
Within this general approach, there numerous specific techniques are
available. Each provides different types of information. Evaluating measured
or projected contaminant concentrations in media provides information about
potential impacts resulting from exposures via direct contact with such media.
Calculated contaminant concentrations at various trophic levels in a food
chain provides information about impacts resulting from indirect exposures.
Calculated exposure levels in receptors from measured or projected contaminant
concentrations in biota and/or media such as sediments or soils allows
incorporation of additional information (e.g., bioavailability of
contaminants, behavioral attributes of receptors) critical to evaluating
potential impacts. Evaluations could be limited to substances with widely-
accepted ecological criteria (i.e., AWQC), or they could include site-specific
benchmarks for additional substances that are derived from other toxicity
data. Evaluations could consider each substance singly, or could incorporate
hazard indices to evaluate potential effects from exposure to multiple
chemicals. As more of the above techniques are incorporated into this
approach, the likelihood of detecting a site with potential ecological impacts
will increase.
Toxicity tests provide information on the likelihood and severity of
particular adverse effects to populations of organisms exposed to site-
specific contaminants. The results from toxicity tests also can be used to
evaluate hazards to site-specific organisms if the test organisms are valid
surrogates (e.g., they are particularly sensitive to site-specific
contaminants). Toxicity tests are particularly effective at identifying
hazardous conditions at sites with complex mixtures of chemicals and at sites
where contaminants are present in media for which no widely-accepted
benchmarks exist (e.g., soils, sediments). In principle, toxicity tests can
indicate the relative severity of potential impacts. For example, the
dilution at which an aquatic sample is lethal to 50% of the test organisms is
an inverse measure of relative severity. Such information can be used to
identify levels of concern for toxicity test results, as has been done for the
NPDES permitting program (see Section 6.2.2). At the sites reviewed, levels
of concern for toxicity test results were not identified in the available
documents.
Use of toxicity tests is an approach that is complementary to comparison
of environmental concentrations of contaminants with ecological benchmarks,
because each identifies a different aspect of potential ecological impact.
The former approach evaluates the bioavailability of and hazards associated
with particular mixtures of substances at a site, while the latter approach
evaluates the potential impacts associated with specific contaminants of
concern. Hence, use of both approaches at a particular site will increase the
likelihood of detecting potential ecological impacts.
At present, comparison of environmental concentrations of contaminants
to ecological benchmarks can aid directly in the selection of a mitigative
remedy because most remedies are chemical-concentration specific (e.g.,
removal of all soil with concentrations of PCBs above 50 ppm). In principle,
toxicity tests also can be used to select a mitigative remedy (e.g., removal
of all soil toxic to more than 10% of the test organisms), but in practice a
-------
- 40 -
prohibitively large number of tests might be required (e.g., to define the
three-dimensional boundaries of the area to be remediated).
Quantitative risk modeling provides a specific probabilistic prediction
of the likelihood of a particular adverse effect in a given ecosystem. At
present, there is no widely-accepted methodology for such an approach. It
might be possible to develop generalized models for certain contamination
scenarios so that only minor adaptations of the model to site-specific
conditions would be required. In most cases, however, it probably will be
necessary to develop models on a site-specific basis. This is an expensive
and time-consuming effort. Quantitative risk modeling probably is the only
way to quantitatively evaluate risks to a specific element of an ecosystem
(e.g., a commercial fishery) that is of concern at a particular site.
Numerous widely-accepted emissions, transport, and fate models are
available at present and could be applied to a variety of terrestrial and
aquatic systems to quantify exposure, chemical persistence, and other key risk
assessment elements. These models, if incorporated into a tiered and
integrated modeling/data collection and analysis process, could provide more
accurate risk estimates in a resource-efficient manner. Exposure models were
used a some of the sites reviewed, primarily to estimate chemical
concentrations in specific media and biota.
There is a clear trade-off between level of expense/effort and the
amount of information obtained about potential ecological impacts. However,
the most intensive approach is not necessarily the most appropriate for a
given site. For example, qualitative evaluation of impacts from exposure
potential is appropriate when releases are highly unlikely, and a
quantitative, probabilistic risk assessment might be appropriate only when
evaluating impacts to critically important biotic resources. Media toxicity
tests might be required to fully determine the potential ecological impacts
from exposures to multiple chemicals at a site, but such information might not
be required to determine the specific remedial or control actions for the
site. Guidance in selecting the appropriate level of effort for a given site
is needed.
Within the sample of sites reviewed, there was considerable variability
among sites in the number of approaches and techniques used, how specific
approaches, particularly the quotient method, were used, and the extent to
which potential impacts were characterized. Individual- or population-level
measures were used exclusively or in combination with ecosystem- or community-
level measures at 55 (98%) of the sites. At 31 (55%) of the sites, only one
approach or technique was used. Two were used at 22 sites (39%) , and three
were used at 3 sites (5%).
Some of the variability among sites resulted from the type of ecosystem
in which impacts were being characterized. More than one approach or
technique was used for 12 aquatic ecosystems (23% of all aquatic ecosystems)
and 5 wetland ecosystems (28%). In contrast, more than one approach was used
for only 3 terrestrial ecosystems (11%). Some variability resulted from the
level of assessment required at a given site. For example, at Confidential
site y/5, the only practical remedy was total elimination of contaminant
-------
- 41 -
(asbestos) release. Although severe damage had been documented in nearby
ecosystems, complete source control would eliminate future damage, so there
was little need to characterize potential ecological impacts. In contrast,
potential ecological impacts were investigated at the O'Connor site in part to
determine whether cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments in a nearby brook was
necessary. Some variability probably resulted from the general lack of
policy, guidance, and scientifically proven approaches for characterizing
potential ecological impacts and/or from resource or personnel constraints.
The use of the quotient method (i.e., comparison of contaminant
concentrations to ecological benchmarks) was especially variable among sites.
This variability included selection of contaminants of concern, application of
safety factors to toxicity values, derivation of ecological benchmarks for
terrestrial ecosystems, and the degree to which contaminant concentrations
exceeded benchmarks was used to characterize hazard. At 39 (67%) of the
sites, ecological assessments of aquatic ecosystems focused exclusively on
substances for which AWQC existed. At the remainder of the sites, substances
with other toxicity values, including those from the open literature, were
used in the ecological assessment. At all sites the preferred ecological
benchmark was a chronic or acute criterion, but at several sites (e.g., Fultz
Landfill), substances with an EPA-identified LOEL or lowest-observed LC50 were
not used in the ecological assessment.
Safety factors were applied at only 8 (33%) of .the 24 sites at which a
LOEL or LC50 was used to derive a benchmark. Specific safety factors also
varied among sites. Chronic safety factors applied to an LC50 included 1/100
(at four sites) and 1/20 (at one site). Acute safety factors applied to an
LC50 included 1/3 (at one site) and 1/5 (at one site). A safety factor of
1/10 was used with a LOEL at one site (International Paper Co. Treated Wood
Products Plant). At two sites (Tyson's Dump and National Industrial
Environmental Services), the benchmark used was the geometric mean of the
maximum allowable toxicant concentration (MATC). The MATC was calculated from
LC50 values in fish using the technique of Suter et al. (1983).
Derivation of ecological benchmarks for terrestrial ecosystems was
particularly variable. A LOEL or NOEL was used at six sites, an LD50 was used
at four sites, and other measures were used at three sites. An acute safety
factor of 1/5 was used with an LC50 at two of the sites.
For most substances, the greater the degree to which contaminant
concentrations exceed the ecological benchmark, the greater the likelihood of
adverse ecological impacts. However, the magnitude of exceedance was used to
characterize hazard at only one site (Liquid Disposal). At other sites, no
distinction was made between situations in which the measured or modeled
exceedance was relatively small (e.g., a few percentage points) and those in
which it was high (e.g., more than one order of magnitude greater).
From the manner in which data and results were presented in the
documents reviewed, ecological assessments at most sites probably were
conducted by individuals with sufficient ecological expertise. However, at 26
(38%) of the sites, information in site-specific documents suggested that
potential impacts in some ecosystems or via some exposure pathways were not
-------
- 42 -
investigated. At most of these sites, the reasons for not investigating these
potential impacts were not given in the documents reviewed. In addition, most
assessments did not adequately incorporate information on the areal extent or
reversibility of impacts, the uncertainty of the characterization, and the
societal or ecological significance of the potential impacts (see Appendix D).
Again, these inadequacies might have resulted from a lack of policy, guidance,
methods, and/or resources.
-------
CHAPTER 5
METHODS USED IN REGULATORY AND POLICY STUDIES TO CHARACTERIZE
ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS AT OSWER SITES
In this chapter, we describe and summarize the methods used to
characterize ecological impacts at OSWER sites in regulatory and policy
studies and evaluate their effectiveness in characterizing these impacts. The
methods reviewed are divided into two categories: (1) screening-level
analyses for establishing policy and regulatory priorities, and (2) specific
methods for evaluating potential impacts based on a comparison of
environmental concentrations of contaminants to ecological benchmarks (Exhibit
15). The methodological approaches used in each category are described and
evaluated in Sections 5.1 and 5.2. A general discussion of methods used in
policy and regulatory studies is presented in Section 5.3.
A second type of screening-level analysis, used in the Superfund
program, is not included in this review. The Superfund program uses the
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) as a screening-level device for establishing
remedial priorities at hazardous waste sites. The HRS score is used to
determine whether a site is placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) and
thus eligible for Superfund-financed remediation. The HRS is a scoring system
that evaluates factors (e.g., toxicity of substances, number and type of
potential receptors) that are indicators of the risks to human health or the
environment associated with a given site. Both the current HRS and the
proposed revisions to the HRS (53 Fed. Reg. 51962, December 23, 1988) consider
ecological risks to a specified list of "sensitive environments", but in both
models human health risks are weighted more heavily than ecological risks.
Under the current HRS, a site cannot be included on the NPL solely on the
basis of ecological concerns, although such concerns can contribute to NPL
inclusion. The final form of the revised HRS will not be available until
early 1990. Although it will expand consideration of ecological concerns, the
extent to which this will affect NPL inclusion cannot be determined at
present.
An evaluation of the HRS was beyond the scope of this project for two
reasons. First, our review of Superfund sites was limited to those already on
the NPL, so all sites already had passed through the screening process before
being identified for this study. Second, EPA's Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response currently is sponsoring a comprehensive review and
evaluation of the proposed revisions to the HRS, and thus it was unnecessary
to attempt to duplicate such an effort.
5.1 Screening-Level Analyses for Establishing Policy and Regulatory
Priorities
The purpose of these screening-level analyses is to provide a broad
overview of the overall nature and extent of ecological impacts associated
with diverse problem areas or different types of facilities, wastes, or waste
management practices. Four general types of screening-level analyses were
used: (1) proximity analyses, (2) surveys of damage case studies,
-------
- 44 -
EXHIBIT 15
APPROACHES USED TO CHARACTERIZE ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
IN POLICY AND REGULATORY STUDIES
Screening-Level Analyses
Specific Methods
Proximity Analyses
Survey of Damage Case Studies
Quantitative Modeling Based
on Damage Case Studies
Comparative Risk Estimation
Hazard Index for Multiple Contaminants
Ecosystem Exposure-Response Model
-------
- 45 -
(3) quantitative modeling of potential impacts based on damage case scenarios,
and (4) comparative risk estimation. The procedural steps used in each
approach are summarized in Exhibit 16. Each approach is described and
evaluated in a separate section below.
5.1.1 Proximity of Waste Sites to Sensitive Environments
Description Evaluation of the proximity of waste sites to sensitive
environments was used in the Oil and Gas Report to Congress (EPA/OSW 1987b),
the Coal Utilities Report to Congress (EPA/OSWER 1988), and the Mining Wastes
Report to Congress (EPA/OSWER 1985). The basic procedure is to determine how
many waste sites are located within or in close proximity to sensitive or
valued environments. The term sensitive environment refers to many types of
environmental areas that are either ecologically critical, unique, or
vulnerable; are of particular cultural or historical significance; or have
been set aside for the purpose of conservation. Categories of sensitive
environments include endangered and threatened species habitats, wetlands,
National Forests, and National Parks. Locations of these environments are
identified from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Nature Conservancy
National Heritage Program, and U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle maps. A
predetermined radius is used to define "close proximity". For example, in the
Coal Utilities Report to Congress, all sensitive environments within a 5-km
radius of coal combustion waste sites were identified.
Evaluation The basic assumptions inherent in this approach are that
impacts to sensitive environments are of greater concern to society than are
comparable impacts to other environmental areas. Hence, waste sources located
near or in sensitive environments have a greater potential for environmental
impact than do those that are not located in or near such environments.
Although the proximity of waste sources to sensitive environments is not an
explicit criterion for determining the potential for ecological impacts, it is
an effective screening-level tool that provides a preliminary assessment of
potential impacts. This approach does not attempt to provide information on
the general types of impacts possible or the likelihood of such impacts. It
also does not attempt to provide information useful for site-specific
decisions.
5.1.2 Survey of Damage Case Studies
•
Description The purpose of damage case surveys is to characterize and
identify the nature of actual impacts associated with the types of activities
under review and identify the major factors (e.g., waste types, disposal
technologies, environmental settings) that are associated with such damages.
This approach was used in the Oil and Gas Report to Congress (EPA/OSW 1987b)
and the Smelting and Refining Report to Congress (EPA/OSW 1988b). The initial
steps are to identify specific facilities where damages have been noted
(usually by contacting various personnel in Federal, Regional, and State
agencies responsible for monitoring such facilities), collect and review
documentation for these facilities, and summarize the information contained in
these documents (Exhibit 16). For example, information contained in the Oil
and Gas damage case summaries included the date, location, type, and volume of
wastes released, whether the release involved a violation of state
-------
EXHIBIT 16
PROCEDURAL STEPS USED IN SCREENING-LEVEL APPROACHES IN POLICY AND REGULATORY STUDIES
Proximity Analyses
Survey of Damage Cases
Quantitative Modeling
Comparative Risk
Estimation
Select sample of sites
for analysis
Define "sensitive"
environments
Define proximity radius
Evaluate proximity of
sites to environments
Identify damage cases
and gather documentation
Identify major factors
associated with
ecological damages
Combine factors into
"typical" scenarios
Evaluate actual impacts
from "typical" scenarios
Evaluate potential
impacts from "typical"
scenarios
Identify damage cases
and gather documentation
Identify major factors
associated with
ecological damages
Combine factors into
"typical" scenarios
Model contaminant
releases from "typical"
facilities
Define problem areas,
ecological stressors,
and ecosystems
Evaluate ecological
risks for each problem
area/stressor/
ecosystem combination
Aggregate risk
estimates across
problem area/stressor/
ecosystem combinations
Derive final ranking
for problem areas by
consensus
-------
- 47 -
regulations, the type of waste management technology involved, and the nature
and extent of the resultant damage. The various damage case descriptions then
are combined into one or more "typical" damage case scenarios according to
geographic area and specific affected media, waste types, and waste management
practices.
Evaluation A survey of damage case studies provides a broad overview of
the nature of ecological impacts observed and the types of contaminant and
waste management scenarios responsible for those impacts. It also identifies
areas for additional detailed investigation. Because it is focused on a
nationwide perspective, this approach does not attempt to provide information
that is useful for site-specific decisions. The description of ecological
impacts also is largely qualitative because information usually is not
collected from all areas nationwide, the sites selected are not a
representative sample of sites, and the information evaluated is limited to
that contained in the available documentation. Thus, it is difficult to
determine how well the "typical" damage case scenarios identified in the
review are representative of actual conditions nationwide.
5.1.3 Quantitative Modeling of Potential Impacts Based on Damage Case
Scenarios
Description Quantitative modeling of potential impacts was used in the
Mining Wastes Report to Congress (EPA/OSWER 1985) and the Oil and Gas Report
to Congress (EPA/OSW 1987b). This approach builds upon the analysis of damage
case scenarios discussed in the above section. In the Oil and Gas Report to
Congress, damage case scenarios were used to construct "typical" model
scenarios to represent the major combinations of waste types, waste management
techniques, and environmental settings for each geographical region of the
U.S. Only one scenario involved an estimation of potential ecological
impacts. This was the direct discharge of produced waters or drilling pit
wastes from stripper oil wells6 to surface waters. In the Smelting and
Refining Report to Congress, concentrations of eight constituents in 17
representative waste streams were estimated in receiving surface waters based
on ground water discharge and surface runoff. In both studies, modeled
concentrations of constituents in the receiving waters were compared to AWQC
to determine whether ecological benchmark levels would be exceeded. Hence,
the estimate of potential impacts was based on population-level ecological
endpoints.
Evaluation This approach provides an additional screening-level
analysis of the potential for ecological impacts for certain types of
production facilities. Because AWQC were used, this approach assumed that
populations were valid surrogates for ecosystem-level impacts. Because this
type of modeling is based on "typical" scenarios and facilities, the approach
does not attempt to provide information useful for site-specific decisions.
Scenarios modeled for the Oil and Gas Report to Congress were based partially
on risks to human health, so very few waste constituents were selected on the
6 Stripper oil wells are low-level production wells that generate
relatively small waste volumes.
-------
- 48 -
basis of ecological toxicity, and some potential ecological exposure pathways
were not considered.
5.1.4 Comparative Risk Estimation
Description Comparative risk estimation is a method used to rank the
relative ecological impacts associated with diverse problem areas for the
purpose of establishing policy and regulatory priorities. Risk estimation has
been conducted only on those problem areas and their components for which EPA
has statutory authority. Three comparative risk estimates were conducted
recently: the OSWER Comparative Risk Project (EPA/OSW 1988a), the National
Comparative Risk Project (EPA/OPA/OPPE 1987), and the Regional and State
Comparative Risk Project (IGF 1987). The OSWER Comparative Risk Project
focused exclusively on 24 OSWER problem areas (e.g., municipal landfills, PCB
wastes, exempt underground storage tanks). The National and the Regional and
State Comparative Risk Projects focused on a broader range of problem areas
(e.g., criteria air pollutants, acid deposition, stratospheric ozone
depletion), some of which also are OSWER problem areas (e.g., active hazardous
waste sites, inactive hazardous waste sites, municipal waste sites,
underground storage tanks). In each project, separate workgroups evaluated
and ranked each problem area according to its relative impacts to health,
welfare, and the environment. These separate rankings then were combined to
obtain the overall priority ranking of each problem area. In this review, we
focused only on the methods used to evaluate ecological impacts.
Although the specific methods differed among the three comparative risk
projects, certain steps were common to all (Exhibit 16). These included:
defining problem areas, ecological stressors7, and ecosystems of concern,
estimating ecological risks for each problem area/stressor/ecosystem
combination, aggregating the risk estimate across problem area/stressor/
ecosystem combinations, and deriving a final consensus ranking for each
problem area. Dividing the evaluation into problem area/stressor/ecosystem
combinations is necessary because different numbers and types of stressors are
associated with each problem area, and the ecological impacts associated with
a given stressor depend to a large part on the type of ecosystem exposed to
the stressor. As many as 24 different stressors and 16 types of ecosystems
were identified in these projects. The risk estimate for each problem
area/stressor/ecosystem combination generally was based on exposure potential
(including the areal extent of exposure), hazard potential (including
reversibility of impacts), and modifying factors such as uncertainty, trend,
and existing controls in place. Scoring methods, aggregation procedures, and
the final consensus ranking process were semi-quantitative and relied
considerably on professional judgment. Specific methodological approaches
used in each project are described below.
7 Ecological stressors are constituents or activities that adversely
affect ecosystems and their biotic components. These include toxic
constituents (e.g., metals, organic chemicals), conventional pollutants (e.g.,
B.O.D., nutrients, sediments), and physical activities (e.g., road
construction, habitat destruction).
-------
- 49 -
In the OSWER Comparative Risk Project, the ecological workgroup
characterized both actual and potential impacts associated with each problem
area semi-qualitatively based on available data and professional judgment.
For each problem area, information was compiled for a number of data elements,
and each was scored from 1 to 5. These data elements were grouped into four
data composites: (1) number of sources and releases, (2) concentration of
contaminants to which receptors were exposed, (3) number, size, and uniqueness
of receptors exposed, and (4) the toxicity of constituents to receptors. The
final ranking was derived from the four data composite scores. Stressors
considered were limited to toxic constituents; ecosystems were defined in the
receptor and toxicity data composites.
In the National and Regional and State Comparative Risk Projects, the
hazard potential of each stressor on each ecosystem was evaluated and given a
qualitative or numeric score. Severity of impacts included the intensity of
effects caused by the stressor, biotic level(s) of organization affected, and
reversibility of impacts. Levels of exposure of each ecosystem to each
stressor also were determined. Exposure levels were measured directly,
modeled, or estimated from the magnitude or pattern of major releases of the
stressor. An important component of exposure was the areal extent of the
ecosystem exposed. Finally, the scores were combined across stressors and
ecosystems to derive a relative risk ranking for each problem area. Both
projects attempted to evaluate actual and potential impacts given patterns of
exposure and severity of impacts associated with such exposures.
Evaluation Comparative risk estimation provides a broad overview of the
relative ecological hazards and/or impacts associated with each problem area
being analyzed. Because its purpose is to identify which problem areas pose
the greatest ecological threats, this approach does not attempt to provide new
information on ecological impacts or information that is useful for site-
specific decisions. Instead, it relies largely on data from existing studies
to estimate impacts or risks. Moreover, considerable professional judgment is
required to estimate risks or impacts from problem areas for which few data
are available. Because the risk estimates are largely qualitative, problem
areas can be grouped into general categories of relative risk, but specific
ordering within each general category is not possible. The ecological
assumptions inherent in the approach depend on the methods and techniques used
to provide the data upon which the risk evaluation is based.
5.2 Specific Methods for Evaluating Potential Ecological Impacts
Several specific methods for evaluating potential ecological impacts
based on a comparison of environmental concentrations of contaminants to
ecological benchmarks have been used in regulatory and policy studies. This
general approach has been described and evaluated in Chapter 4. Two specific
methods are reviewed here (Exhibit 15): the hazard index approach for
multiple contaminants used in the analysis of hazardous waste tank systems
(EPA/OSW 1987a), and the ecosystem exposure-response model developed for the
RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model (EPA/OSW 1984). Each is described and evaluated
in a separate section below.
-------
- 50 -
5.2.1 Hazard Index for Multiple Contaminants
Description The purpose of a hazard index is to provide a standardized
methodology for determining ecological risks posed by the release of
contaminant mixtures. The approach reviewed here was used to evaluate
environmental risks posed by the release of contaminants from hazardous waste
tanks. The hazard index is based on the work of Barnthouse et al. (1986) and
the Office of Pesticide Programs (EPA/OPP 1986). A quotient method is used in
which measured or modeled environmental concentrations (EC) of each
contaminant are compared to its ecological benchmark (B). The benchmarks are
AWQC or LOELs or NOELs divided by safety factors. The quotients for
individual chemicals are summed to derive a hazard index, and the hazard index
is compared to predetermined concern levels8 to determine the likelihood of
ecological impacts. If the hazard index is less than or equal to 1:0, a low
probability of ecological impacts is assumed. A hazard index between 1.0 and
10.0 is assumed to indicate possible ecological impacts. A hazard index
greater than or equal to 10.0 is assumed to indicate probable ecological
impacts.
Both aquatic and terrestrial receptors are considered, and endpoints are
focused at the population level. Toxicity values are based on indicator
species which most closely resemble the sensitivity of potential site-specific
receptors. For aquatic species, the ecological benchmark for a given chemical
is set equal to EPA's chronic AWQC. If a chronic AWQC is not available, a
chronic LOEL divided by 10, or an acute LOEL divided by 100 (whichever is
lower) is used. For terrestrial species, the ecological benchmark for a given
chemical is set equal to the lowest acute NOEL divided by 100 or the lowest
chronic NOEL divided by 10. An additional safety factor of 10 is used when
evaluating potential impacts to endangered or threatened species.
Evaluation Dose additivity is based on the assumption that the
components of the mixture have the same mode of action and elicit the same
effect. This approach also assumes equivalent slopes of dose-response curves,
although thresholds can differ. As a result, potential antagonistic,
synergistic, or potentiating interactions are not considered. Because only
endpoints at the population level are considered, the approach also assumes
that populations are valid surrogates for community- or ecosystem-level
effects. If impacts to endangered species are being evaluated, however, this
additional assumption does not apply. Within the limits of its assumptions,
this approach provides a quantitative estimate of the likelihood of adverse
ecological effects resulting from multiple contaminants at a site. In
principle, it also can be used to derive site-specific cleanup criteria,
although to our knowledge it has not been used for this purpose. The approach
does not consider certain exposure pathways (e.g., food chains), it has not
been validated, and it does not quantify uncertainty.
8 This approach assumes additivity of effect (i.e., the same mode of
action for different chemicals). Levels of concern are the same levels of
concern that would be used for single-chemical quotient estimation of impact.
-------
- 51 -
5.2.2 Ecosystem Exposure-Response Model
Description The ecosystem exposure-response model was developed for the
RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model (EPA/OSW 1984). The purpose of this approach is
to provide a consistent method for analyzing the relative risks and costs of
different RCRA waste management practices. The model also includes modules to
assess risks to human health, but these are not reviewed here. The basic
approach is to compare environmental concentrations of contaminants to an
empirically-derived ecosystem exposure-response curve rather than a simple
threshold benchmark. Risks are calculated on a relative scale rather than an
absolute scale.
Risks to both terrestrial and aquatic organisms are assessed, but the
environmental setting for a given site is defined almost exclusively in terms
of surface water (i.e., lakes, rivers, marshes, and coastal areas). The risk
assessment is based on the most toxic constituent present. Toxicity is
assessed by constructing an ecosystem exposure-response curve such that the
ecosystem threshold is equal to the threshold concentration for the most
sensitive species, and the range of concentrations between the threshold and a
"catastrophic" level is 2.5 orders of magnitude higher. The model's ecosystem
damage function varies between 0 (no impact) when the concentration of the
constituent is at or below threshold and 1.0 (100% impact) at pollutant
concentrations 2.5 or more orders of magnitude greater than threshold. This
range of effects is based on four case studies where minimal to catastrophic
impacts were observed.
Empirical safety factors, based on data quality and completeness,
exposure duration, and the absence of an experimental threshold, are used to
address uncertainty in deriving the ecosystem threshold value. For chemicals
that bioconcentrate extensively, the ecosystem threshold is assumed to be five
orders of magnitude below the catastrophic concentration. Surface water
concentrations are estimated downgradient from the point of release with a
simple steady-state model based on the flow rate of the water body, release
rate of the chemical, and overall decay rates. Risk is determined by the
point at which this concentration falls on the ecosystem exposure-response
curve.
Evaluation This approach provides a quantitative estimate of the
severity of impacts to the ecosystem above threshold levels. Because the
ecosystem exposure-response curve is derived empirically, the assumption is
that the data from which it is derived are representative of most substances
and ecosystems, which is unlikely to be the case. This approach does not
evaluate impacts due to multiple contaminants. In principle, the approach can
be used to quantify the areal extent of impacts at a given risk level.
However, the ecosystem-exposure response relationships are based on an
extremely limited data base and have not been validated. Moreover, no
particular "acceptable" impact level has been identified.
5.3 General Evaluation of Methods Used in Regulatory and Policy Studies
In the previous sections, four screening-level approaches used in policy
and regulatory studies were identified. These were: evaluation of the
-------
- 52 -
proximity of waste sites to sensitive environments, survey of damage case
studies, quantitative modeling of potential impacts, and comparative risk
estimation. Two specific methodologies also were identified: the hazard
index for multiple contaminants, and the ecosystem exposure-response model.
In this section, these approaches are discussed according to the level of
effort required and the types of information provided by that level of effort
(Exhibit 17).
Evaluating the proximity of waste sites to sensitive environments
provides information on the number and types of waste sites that are found in
close proximity to environments that have particular societal or economic
value. This relatively low-effort screening approach does not provide
information on the general types of impacts that might occur to these
environments or the likelihood that they will occur. However, if there is
very little geographic overlap between waste sites and sensitive environments,
it is unlikely that adverse impacts to those environments will occur.
Surveys of damage case studies provide information on the nature of
actual impacts associated with the types of activities under review. Such
surveys also identify the major factors (e.g., waste types, disposal
technologies, environmental settings) that are associated with such damages
and areas for additional detailed investigation. Although the information on
ecological impacts is based on particular site-specific conditions, this
information is combined into generalized scenarios for analysis. Hence,
analyses are largely qualitative and are not intended to provide information
useful for site-specific decisions. Moreover, the completeness of the
analysis depends entirely on how adequately documentation can be obtained.
This approach can identify the types facilities or practices that are not
located near sensitive environments but are causing adverse impacts to non-
sensitive environments.
Quantitative modeling of potential impacts based on damage case surveys
provides information on the potential impacts associated with the types of
activities and major factors associated with observed damages. Although the
modeling also is based on "typical" facilities and scenarios, it can identify
potential impacts that have not been observed in the past. Hence, it can
identify particular types of facilities or waste management practices that
might pose risks to ecological receptors, even if no adverse impacts actually
have been associated with such facilities.
Comparative risk estimation provides a broad overview of the relative
ecological hazards and/or impacts associated with each problem area being
analyzed. Because it is not limited strictly by data availability, it can
identify particular problem areas that have a high potential for ecological
damage about which there is little documentation of actual impacts (e.g.,
ozone depletion). It also can identify problem areas for which there is a
great deal of documentation but a relatively small potential for ecological
damage. There are several different approaches to this process. The ranking
procedure can be based entirely on potential impacts, potential impacts and
likelihood of exposure, and/or actual impacts resulting from known levels of
exposure. Information on known impacts provides a more precise evaluation of
the current extent of ecological problems, while information on potential
-------
EXHIBIT 17
EVALUATION OF APPROACHES USED TO CHARACTERIZE ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS IN POLICY AND REGULATORY STUDIES
Approach/Technique
Information Provided
Information Not Provided
Information Gained
Screening-Level Analyses
Proximity of Waste
Sites to Sensitive
Environments
Survey of Damage
Case Studies
Quantitative
Modeling Based
on Damage Case
Studies
Comparative Risk
Estimation
Number of sites located
in or In close proximity
to sensitive environments
Types of impacts associated
with activities under
review
Contaminants and settings
associated with impacts
Potential impacts
associated with activities
under review
Types of contaminants and
releases associated with
potential impacts
Estimate of relative
ecological risks/impacts
associated with problem
area under review
Types of impacts possible
Likelihood of impacts
Estimate of the extent of
actual impacts associated
with activities under
review
Estimate of the extent of
potential ecological
impacts associated with
activities under review
New information about
ecological impacts
Quantitative estimates
of ecological risks
Screening-level
identification of types of
sites with potential for
ecological impacts
Identification of types of
facilities and settings
that have resulted in the
greatest amount of
ecological damage in the
past or at present
Identification of types of
facilities that pose the
greatest potential for
ecological impacts
Identification of problem
areas that pose the
greatest (and least)
ecological risks
-------
EXHIBIT 17 (continued)
EVALUATION OF APPROACHES USED TO CHARACTERIZE ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS IN POLICY AND REGULATORY STUDIES
Approach/Technique
Information Provided
Information Not Provided
Information Gained
Specific Methodologies
Hazard Index for
Multiple
Contaminants
Ecosystem Exposure-
Response Model
Estimate of the likelihood
of population-level impacts
from the additive effects
of multiple contaminants
Quantitative estimate of
the likelihood of ecosystem-
level impacts from single
contaminants
Estimate of the likelihood
of population-level
impacts from synergistic,
antagonistic, or
potentiating effects
Estimate of the likelihood
of ecosystem-level impacts
from multiple contaminants
Cleanup criteria for
mixtures of contaminants2'
01
Cleanup criteria for
single contaminants based
on ecosystem-level
impacts3'
-1 Method was not used for this purpose in documents reviewed.
-------
- 55 -
impacts provides a more precise evaluation of the extent of potential
ecological problems.
The hazard index for multiple contaminants and the ecosystem exposure -
response model are relatively low-effort methods because they utilize readily-
available chemical-specific data. The hazard index provides an estimate of
the relative likelihood of population-level impacts from the additive effects
of multiple contaminants. Use of this index could identify potential
ecological impacts at sites at which each contaminant singly was below its
respective benchmark. The ecosystem exposure-response model provides a
quantitative estimate of the relative likelihood of ecosystem-level impacts
from single contaminants. Both methods could be used to establish cleanup
criteria at specific sites. The basic limitation in using these methods is
that neither has been validated adequately.
-------
CHAPTER 6
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADDITIONAL METHODS DEVELOPMENT
In this chapter, we outline several ways in which additional methods
development could make ecological assessments at OSWER sites more
comprehensive and standardized. These suggestions are presented in a risk
assessment context; methods development opportunities are categorized
according to exposure (Section 6.1), hazard (Section 6.2), exposure-response
(Section 6.3), and risk characterization (Section 6.4). Although these
methods opportunities are important from an overall OSWER perspective, the
importance of specific methods development opportunities for selected OSWER
programs or activities might differ (see Chapter 7).
The suggestions outlined below could be implemented through specific
policy statements, guidance documents outlining the general elements to be
considered in an ecological assessment, or formalized assessment procedures.
Many of these suggestions also could be implemented by expanding the role of
Regional bioassessment groups9 in the CERCLA site-specific review process and
incorporating such groups into the RCRA site-specific review process.
Bioassessment groups have been very effective in providing guidance for
sampling protocols, data analysis and interpretation, use of toxicity data,
and other specific suggestions outlined below. These groups also have been
extremely effective in providing guidance in selecting the appropriate level
of effort for a given site. One efficient way to implement the suggestions
outlined below might be to provide formalized guidance for specific approaches
and techniques and rely on bioassessment groups to provide guidance on
selecting the specific approaches and techniques that are most appropriate for
a given site.
Increased communication among OSWER programs, EPA offices, other state
and federal agencies (e.g., NOAA, Fish and Wildlife Service) is an essential
element in any effort to develop a systematic and comprehensive ecological
assessment: methodology. Regular exchange of information about new techniques,
new guidelines, and new applications of existing techniques among Regional and
Headquarters personnel would facilitate the rapid adoption and standardization
of practical methods nationwide. Implementation of most of the suggestions
outlined below also would be facilitated by a coordinated effort from several
offices and agencies. For example, increasing the toxicity data base for
terrestrial organisms could be facilitated if OSWER published a list of
substances and species for which data were required, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife service devoted some toxicity testing resources to those substances,
and/or EPA sponsored efforts to develop guidelines for using laboratory
mammals and agricultural crops as surrogates for wild plants and animals.
9 Regional bioassessment groups include representatives from Superfund
and the two agencies designated as national resource trustees: the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
These groups review, evaluate, and amend proposed ecological assessment
protocols at Superfund NPL sites.
-------
- 57 -
6 .1 Characterizing Exposure
6.1.1 Standardizing Exposure and Intake Assumptions
There was considerable variation among OSWER sites reviewed in the
exposure and intake assumptions used to evaluate exposure potential. For most
types of organisms, information required to develop such assumptions generally
is available in the open literature for most types of organisms, although
considerable effort is required to extract such data. Ecological assessments
at OSWER sites could be more systematic if a common set of exposure and intake
assumptions were developed for each type of indicator organism. Such
assumptions might include metabolic rate, body mass and volume, lipid content
and turnover, diet, daily food and water intake, longevity, age to maturity,
and position in trophic web. As a starting point, a common set of assumptions
could be developed for those organisms selected as organisms of concern for
given ecosystems (see Section 6.4.1).
6.2 Characterizing Hazard
6.2.1 Characterizing Hazards from Single and Multiple Contaminants
There was considerable variability among OSWER sites in how the degree
to which contaminant concentrations exceeded benchmark levels was used in
characterizing hazard (see Section 4.2). One way in which to standardize
ecological hazard characterizations at OSWER sites would be to develop a
uniform quotient method establishing levels of concern for single chemicals
and a uniform hazard index establishing levels of concern for multiple
chemicals based on a comparison of the environmental concentration (EC) with
the benchmark (B). In the RCRA program, a hazard index based on work by
Barnthouse et al. (1986) and the Office of Pesticide Programs (EPA/OPP 1986)
was used to establish levels of concern for the release of multiple -
contaminant waste streams from hazardous waste tanks (see Section 5.2.1). If
this and/or some other hazard indices were adopted by OSWER on a program-wide
basis, these indices could serve as the basis for a uniform method for
evaluating hazard from multiple contaminants.
6.2.2 Guidance in Using Media Toxicity Tests
Media toxicity tests were used at a number of OSWER sites to determine
whether mixtures of contaminants in soils, leachate, sediments, and the water
column are potentially toxic to site-specific aquatic or terrestrial
organisms. Several standard toxicity test protocols exist, and others are
under development by EPA's laboratories. However, in none of the site-
specific documents reviewed was there a clear statement defining a
"significant" ecological hazard based on a media toxicity test result (see
Section 4.1.3). Characterizing ecological hazard based on media toxicity
tests could be standardized by (1) summarizing the types of media toxicity
tests available, the species to which they can be applied, the endpoints they
measure, and the ecological significance of changes in those endpoints, and
(2) developing guidance for using toxicity test results to determine
ecological benchmark levels, and denoting levels of concern for each toxicity
-------
- 58 -
test. Such guidance was developed recently for the NPDES permitting process
(EPA/OW 1985, 1987) and could be adopted directly by OSWER to establish levels
of concern and cleanup criteria for some ecosystems.
6.2.3 Data Needs
Three main data needs currently are limiting the extent to which
ecological hazards can be characterized comprehensively and systematically at
OSWER sites. The first is threshold toxicity data for terrestrial and aquatic
organisms. Although acute and chronic toxicity data are available for more
chemicals and species in aquatic ecosystems than in any other type of
ecosystem, additional data are needed. In the near term, methods to predict
toxicity levels from chemical structure-activity relationships might be used
to provide advisory benchmark levels for additional substances. In the long
term, toxicity testing concentrated on substances found most frequently at
high concentrations at OSWER sites would provide a toxicity data base of
particular utility to OSWER.
The second major data need is information on the relationship between
tissue residue levels and adverse effects in biota. Elevated tissue residue
levels generally can be used only to determine whether biota have been exposed
to contaminants. The third major data need is the effect of.chemical mixtures
on aquatic and terrestrial biota. In the near future, this need probably can
be filled only by using media toxicity tests to determine the potential
ecological impacts from site-specific mixtures.
6.3 Characterizing Exposure-Response
6.3.1 Derivation of Ecological Benchmarks
Ecological benchmarks are critical in establishing levels for limiting
concentrations or releases of substances in the CERCLA remedial process and in
RCRA programs such as permitting, delisting, and corrective action. There was
considerable variability among the OSWER sites reviewed in selecting
contaminants-of-concern based on the types of widely-recognized ecological
benchmarks available (i.e., EPA's ambient water quality criteria) and in
derivation of additional benchmarks from toxicity data (see Section 4.2).
Ambient water quality criteria are available for a limited number of
substances found frequently at high concentrations at CERCLA and RCRA sites
(IGF 1988a), and they generally apply only to aquatic organisms. Although
toxicity data are not available for many contaminants and organisms, existing
data are not being used fully. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has compiled a data base of acute toxicity data for 410 chemicals and
66 species of freshwater animals (USFWS 1986), EPA's Gulf Breeze Laboratory
has compiled a data base of acute toxicity data for 197 chemicals and 52
species of estuarine organisms (EPA 1987), and other toxicity values are
available in the open literature and through on-line data bases. There also
are considerable toxicity data for laboratory mammals and agricultural crops,
but no guidelines exist for using such data to develop benchmarks for wild
plants and animals.
-------
- 59 -
Analysis of the relatively extensive toxicity data base for aquatic
organisms also has enabled the derivation of models for determining safety
factors applicable to acute and/or chronic toxicity data to adjust for acute-
to-chronic toxicity ratios and/or differences in species sensitivity (e.g.,
Suter et al. 1983, EPA/OTS 1984). Methods to predict toxicity levels for
additional chemicals from chemical structure-activity relationships also are
under development by EPA's Office of Water and the Duluth laboratory. EPA's
Office of Water also has proposed a methodology for deriving ambient water
quality advisories10 from more limited toxicity data. This methodology is
scheduled to be released for public comment in early 1989 and finalized by
mid-1989. These methods might be used to provide benchmark levels for
additional substances.
6.3.2 Wider Use of Existing Techniques and Approaches
Many promising, cost-effective techniques such as histopathology and
necropsy were used at only a small proportion of the OSWER sites reviewed (see
Section 3.1.2). Use of such techniques on a more widespread and systematic
basis could be encouraged by (1) summarizing the types of techniques
available, the species to which they can be applied, the endpoints they
measure, and the ecological significance of changes in those endpoints, (2)
developing guidance for using such techniques, and (3) collecting and
disseminating information on the way in which particular techniques and
approaches were used to characterize impacts at specific sites.
6.3.3 Exposure-Response Data
One data need currently is limiting the extent to which ecological risks
can be characterized comprehensively and systematically at OSWER sites. This
is exposure-response data for terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Most
toxicity data in the literature are presented as acute toxicity levels (e.g.,
LC50s, LD50s, or EC50s or chronic LOELS or NOELS). It is difficult to predict
effects above threshold levels with data of this nature.
6.4 Characterizing Risk
6.4.1 Receptor Characterization
One key element limiting the standardization of ecological assessments
is a lack of consensus on which ecological receptors should be used to
characterize ecological impacts. Elements of receptor characterization
include biotic level of organization, taxonomic group of organism, and
specific ecological endpoint used (see Sections 3.1 and 4.1). There was a
great deal of variability among OSWER sites in how receptors were
characterized (see Sections 3.2 and 4.2). Some of this variability could be
reduced by delineating a standard set of organisms and ecological endpoints
that would serve as surrogates for particular ecosystems of concern. Such a
10 These advisories are benchmarks designed to protect aquatic
ecosystems in the same manner as do ambient water quality criteria but are
based on more limited toxicity data (see IGF 1988c).
-------
- 60 -
set need not be comprehensive at first; delineation of a minimum set would
provide a starting point that could be amended in the future. For example, a
starting list of organisms might include commercially important organisms
(e.g., fish, shellfish, game animals) and endangered species. Organisms might
be identified generically (e.g., microtine rodents, vermivorous birds) rather
than specifically. Additional organisms and endpoints could be added on a
site-specific basis. Guidance in selecting organisms most relevant for a
given site could be developed. Elements of such guidance might include
relative likelihood of exposure, sensitivity to site-specific contaminants,
ability to bioaccumulate, and position in the food chain. A standard set of
organisms and endpoints also might assist efforts to develop additional
ecological benchmarks (see Section 6.3).
6.4.2 Determining Areal Extent and Reversibility of Impacts
An estimate of the areal extent or reversibility of ecological impacts
rarely was included in ecological assessments at OSWER sites (see Sections 3.2
and 4.2). As a result, no distinction was made between a situation in which
the majority of a given type of ecosystem in an area is affected or threatened
and one in which only a very small proportion of an ecosystem is potentially
affected. Such information is particularly important when community-level
endpoints are used to characterize risks. For example, a small change in a
community diversity measure over a widespread area might be more ecologically
significant than a large change over a very restricted area. Guidance in
characterizing and interpreting areal extent and reversibility of impacts
would make ecological assessments more systematic at OSWER sites.
6.4.3 Determining the Ecological Significance of Impacts
At no OSWER site reviewed was there a clear statement as to what was
considered a "significant" ecological impact based on evaluations of community
structure and other characterizations of actual ecological impacts (see
Section 3.1). There appeared to be considerable uncertainty about the natural
range in variation in most ecosystem-, community-, and population-level
endpoints used at these OSWER sites and hence what should be considered an
ecologically significant change. This uncertainty could be reduced by efforts
to compile information on the natural range of variation in these endpoints,
both on a short-term (e.g., diel) and long-term (e.g., seasonal) basis, and in
establishing levels of concern based on the magnitude of change in these
endpoints. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA 1988) recently
developed water quality standards based on measures of community structure.
These standards incorporate levels of concern for changes in community
diversity indices based on natural community diversity in unpolluted
ecosystems. Once levels of concern have been established for a given type of
ecosystem, characterizing level of impact based on community structure
measures is cost-effective when compared to media contaminant sampling and
analysis. Such a methodology could be adopted by OSWER, although a
significant investment in resources would be required to establish levels of
concern for aquatic ecosystems nationwide.
-------
- 61 -
6.4.4 Quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment Methodology
Currently there is no widely-accepted method for quantifying ecological
risks at OSWER sites. Current approaches are limited primarily to comparing
observed contaminant levels in media or biota with ecological benchmark values
and/or a qualitative or semi-quantitative evaluation of the likelihood of
adverse effects in various biota resulting from various exposure scenarios.
These approaches do not provide information on the relative severity of
effects at concentrations above the threshold values, or the potential effects
of exposures to multiple contaminants.
Components of a methodology to quantify ecological risks might include
(1) selection of appropriate constituents of concern and ecosystem- and
species-level endpoints, (2) evaluation of threshold effects and exposure-
response relationships in these endpoints, (3) selection of appropriate
locations for measuring exposure potential and an evaluation of exposure
potential at these locations (including potential for bioaccumulation and
food-chain exposure), (4) evaluation of the areal extent or proportion of the
ecosystem affected, and (5) evaluation of the reversibility of adverse
effects.
In the near future, it will be difficult to develop a comprehensive,
quantitative risk assessment methodology because there is little scientific
consensus on appropriate receptors, endpoints, exposure assumptions, and
exposure-response relationships, and it is difficult to generalize results
from one ecosystem or species to another. However, some quantitative methods
are being developed by EPA's Office of Research and Development.
-------
CHAPTER 7
GENERAL IMPLICATIONS FOR OSWER AND SPECIFIC METHODS DEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SELECTED OSWER PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
In this chapter, we briefly discuss the general implications of this
review and analysis for OSWER. For several selected OSWER programs and
activities, we also identify specific methods needs, how existing methods are
or could be used to meet these needs, and which specific methods development
opportunities are most important. Specific RCRA programs include regulatory
development, hazardous waste definition and determination, Subtitle C
permitting, and Subparts F and S corrective action. Specific CERCLA programs
and activities include the removal program, pre-remedial activities, selection
of remedy, and implementation and completion of remedy. General implications
are discussed in Section 7.1, and specific program needs and opportunities are
identified in Section 7.2.
7.1 General Implications for OSWER
There was considerable variability among OSWER sites reviewed in the
type and number of approaches and techniques used in ecological assessments,
the sampling intensity and level of effort devoted to such assessments, and
the manner in which particular approaches (e.g., use of toxicity data and
ambient water quality criteria to establish benchmarks) were applied at a
given site (see Sections 3,2 and 4.2). Some of this variability resulted from
differences among sites in the need for ecological assessment and in the types
of ecosystems being assessed. Some might have resulted from resource and
personnel constraints. However, the general lack of policy and guidance for
conducting ecological assessments apparently has resulted in the development
of numerous independent approaches in methods, level of effort, and resources
devoted to such assessments.
Currently there is no OSWER policy or guidance for selecting for a
particular site the appropriate receptors and ecological endpoints of concern;
background values and/or reference sampling locations; approaches, techniques,
and level of effort; and contaminants of concern. There also is no OSWER
policy or guidance for use of existing toxicity data, interpretation "of survey
and toxicity test results, and presentation and discussion of results in site-
specific documents. The absence of policy or guidance in many cases is due to
a lack of appropriate scientific knowledge and data, and additional
fundamental research addressing these data gaps clearly is needed. Policy
decisions that could be reached given current knowledge and data were
identified in Chapter 6 and are discussed for selected OSWER programs and
activities in this chapter. In the absence of clear policy and guidance,
evaluations of ecological impacts at OSWER sites will continue to be highly
variable in scope and quality.
Without clear policy guidelines, it is not certain whether information
about ecological impacts can play a significant role in risk management
decisions or the extent to which it should do so. The limited ecological
input to remediation and control goals (see EPA/OPA 1989b) suggests that
-------
- 63 -
current approaches, as applied, provide information that is not widely used in
risk management decisions. If a decision is reached to use ecological impacts
information in risk management decisions, additional guidance in conducting
ecological assessments will be required. Without additional policy and
guidance, the information provided by these approaches probably will continue
to play only a limited and inconsistent role in risk management decisions.
If a decision is reached to include information on ecological impacts in
risk management decisions at OSWER sites, moderate investment of resources in
developing guidance, modifying and standardizing current approaches, and
further development of promising techniques and methods will result in a more
systematic and comprehensive approach to ecological assessments. Several
suggestions for such developments were outlined in Chapter 6. If developments
proceed along any of these lines, there will be additional implications for
current OSWER and EPA programs. For example, the Office of Water's ambient
water quality criteria (AWQC) are the most widely-used ecological benchmarks
at OSWER sites. If these or the newly-developed ambient water quality
advisories (AWQA) are to be considered the only valid benchmarks for
evaluating aquatic impacts, it would be useful to develop additional AWQC and
AWQA for all chemicals found most commonly at high concentrations at OSWER
sites.
Currently there is no widely-accepted method for quantifying ecological
risks at OSWER sites, it is unlikely that such a method will be developed in
the near future, and quantitative ecological risk assessment is not being
conducted at many sites. For example, a quantitative risk model was used at
only one of the sites reviewed for this study. Without a quantitative risk
assessment method, it will not be possible to utilize information on
ecological impacts in remedial, regulatory, and control decisions in the same
manner in which comparable information about risks to human health is
utilized. For example, while it sometimes is possible to estimate the human
health consequences of various remedial alternatives (e.g., 1 x 10~6 excess
cases of cancer with alternative A, 1 x 10"5 excess cases with alternative B) ,
it will not be possible to predict the ecological consequences of various
remedial alternatives with any degree of precision. Hence, if a decision is
reached to include information on ecological impacts in risk management
decisions, it will be necessary to rely largely on analyses of actual impacts,
qualitative evaluations of potential impacts, and professional judgment.
7.2 Methods Development Opportunities for Selected OSWER Programs and
Activities
In this section, we identify for selected OSWER programs and activities
specific methods needs, how existing methods are being or could be used to
meet these needs, and which specific methods development opportunities
outlined in Chapter 6 are most important. Descriptions and evaluations of
specific methods identified in this section can be found in Chapters 3, 4, and
5. To provide some context for each program, we also briefly outline the
major activities of the program and the basic policy issues that need to be
addressed before a standardized ecological assessment methodology can be
developed. These activities and needs are described in greater detail in
EPA/OPA (1989b) and ICF (1988d). The relationship between the specific
-------
- 64 -
methods reviewed in this report and general objectives of ecological
assessment methods identified in a recent review (EPA/OPA 1988) is discussed
in Section 7.2.1. Selected RCRA programs are discussed in Section 7.2.2, and
selected CERCLA programs and activities are discussed in Section 7.2.3.
7.2.1 Relationship to General Objectives of Ecological Assessment
Methods
EPA's Office of Policy Analysis recently sponsored a review of 20
ecological risk assessment methods developed and used by EPA and other Federal
and state agencies (EPA/OPA 1988). Five general objectives of these
ecological assessment methods were identified in that review and other related
documents: setting standards, setting priorities, assessing damages,
quantifying and managing risks, and monitoring ecological change over time.
Setting standards refers to the process of establishing ambient environmental
criteria, advisories, or other exposure standards (e.g., AWQC). Setting
priorities refers to the process of allocating resources among programs, waste
sites, or other entities on the basis of hazard, exposure potential, or other
key variables driving ecological risk. Assessing damages refers to the
process of evaluating the monetary cost of ecological injury. For this
discussion, we will generalize this to evaluating any observed ecological
impacts, whether or not the cost of those impacts is estimated. Quantifying
and managing risks refers to full quantitative ecological risk assessment.
Monitoring ecological change over time refers to the process of monitoring one
or more ecological endpoints (e.g., community structure, toxicity of water to
Daphnia in a toxicity test protocol) repeatedly over a period of time.
The specific objectives for which the methods reviewed in this report
have been or could be used are shown in Exhibit 18. Note that OSWER is not
responsible for setting standards. Specific objectives for each of the OSWER
programs or activities discussed in the remainder of Section 7.2 are listed in
Exhibit 19. The particular programs or activities in which the methods
reviewed in this report have or could be used are shown in Exhibit 20.
Important methods development opportunities for each OSWER program are listed
in Exhibit 21 and discussed in Sections 7.2.2 and 7.2.3.
7.2.2 Opportunities for Methods Development in the RCRA Program
In this section, opportunities for methods development are outlined for
four RCRA programs: regulatory development, hazardous waste definition and
determination, Subtitle C permitting, and Subparts F and S corrective action.
Each is described in a separate section below.
7.2.2.1 Regulatory Development
Background A major focus of RCRA regulatory development efforts
is an evaluation of the benefits, costs, and economic impacts of proposed
rulemakings and regulatory alternatives.
Policy Issues The basic policy issue in evaluating regulatory impacts
is what emphasis to place on ecological impacts, particularly those that have
no readily-apparent economic or societal costs.
-------
EXHIBIT 18
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN METHODS USED BY OSWER AND GENERAL OBJECTIVE OF ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT METHODS
Screening Characterizations
Proximity Analyses
Damage Case Surveys
Quantitative Modeling
Comparative Risk Estimation
Characterizing Actual Impacts
Areal Extent of Contamination
Biotic Community Structure
Individual Morphology/Physiology
Characterizing Potential Impacts
Exposure Potential
Quotient Method (Benchmarks)
Hazard Potential (Toxicity Tests)
Quantitative Risk Modeling
General Objective of Ecological Assessment Method
Methods
Used by OSWER
Setting
Priorities
Assessing
Damages
Quantifying
& Managing
Risks
Monitoring
Ecological
Change
X
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
X
X
(X)
X
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
X
X currently being used for this objective
(X) might be used for this objective under certain conditions
note: OSWER is not responsible for one additional objective (i.e., setting standards)
-------
EXHIBIT 19
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT METHODS AND OBJECTIVES OF PARTICULAR OSWER PROGRAMS
RCRA Programs
Methods Used by OSWER
Setting Priorities
Assessing Damages
Quantifying and Managing Risks
Monitoring Ecological Change
Hazardous
Regulatory Waste
Development Definition
X X
X
X
Subtitle C
Permitting
X
X
X
X
Corrective
Action
X
X
X
X
CERCLA Programs
Pre-
Removal Remedial Selection
Program Activities of Remedy
X
XXX
X
X
Implementation
and Completion
of Remedy
X
-------
EXHIBIT 20
USE AND POTENTIAL USE OF OSWER METHODS BY OSWER PROGRAMS
Methods Used by OSWER
Screening Characterizations
Proximity Analyses
Damage Case Surveys
Quantitative Modeling
Comparative Risk Estimation
Characterizing Actual Impacts
Areal Extent of Contamination
Biotic Community Structure
Individual Morphology/Physiology
Characterizing Potential Impacts
Exposure Potential
Quotient Method (Benchmarks)
Hazard Potential (Toxicity Test)
Quantitative Risk Modeling
RCRA Programs
Hazardous
Regulatory Waste Subtitle C Corrective
Development Definition Permitting Action
X
X (X)
X
X
X
X X
(X) X X
X
XXX X
XXX
X XX
CERCLA Programs
Pro-
Removal Remedial Selection
Program Activities of Remedy
X
(X) X X
(X) X
(X) X
(X) (X)^/ X
( A ) — X
X
X
Implementation
and Completion
of Remedy
X
X
X
X
X has been or could be used
(X) might be used under certain conditions
—' Proposed revisions to the HRS include evaluations of exposure and use of benchmarks.
-------
EXHIBIT 21
METHODS DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES57 IMPORTANT TO SELECTED OSWER PROGRAMS
Methods Used by OSWER
Exposure Characterization
Exposure/Intake Assumptions
Hazard Characterization
Single vs. Multiple Contaminants
Toxicity Test Guidance
Data Needs
Exposure-Response Characterization
Ecological Benchmarks
Wider Use of Techniques
Exposure-Response Data
Risk Characterization
Receptor Characterization
Areal Extent, Reversibility
Ecological Significance
Quantitative Risk Assessment
RCRA Programs
Hazardous
Regulatory Waste Subtitle C
Development Definition Permitting
X
XX
XX XX
XX XX XX
XX XX
X X
XX XX
X
XX X
X
Corrective
Action
X
XX
XX
XX
XX
X
XX
XX
X
XX
X
CERCLA Programs
Pre-
Removal Remedial Selection
Program Activities of Remedy
X
XX XX
XX XX
XX XX XX
XX XX XX
X
XX
XX
X
XX XX XX
X
Implementation
and Completion
of Remedy
XX
XX
XX
XX most important needs
X less important needs
&/ Opportunities are described in Chapter 6.
-------
- 69 -
Methods Needs The major method needs include a protocol for considering
qualitative or quantitative measures of ecological impact/benefits at the
national level in regulatory decision-making, and predictive methods or models
that can be applied to limited data.
Available Methods Four methodological approaches are available and
appropriate for ecological assessments in a regulatory development context:
proximity analyses, damage case analysis, modeling of facility scenarios, and
comparative risk estimation (see Chapter 5). All have been used by OSWER.
Opportunities for Methods Development Existing methodological
approaches generally are adequate for qualitative or semi-quantitative
ecological assessments in a regulatory development context. Guidance in
applying approaches to regulatory evaluations, standardizing these approaches,
and determining the ecological significance of potential impacts would lead to
more complete and comprehensive incorporation of ecological impacts into
evaluations. Ecological assessments in this context ultimately depend on the
availability and quality of information about ecological impacts, including
site-specific impacts. It thus is important for individuals conducting these
types of ecological assessments to communicate specific data needs (e.g., data
on the toxicity of mining wastes to terrestrial organisms) to the appropriate
regulatory programs or agencies. It also is important that the regulatory
programs or agencies be informed of newly-developed techniques and approaches
for obtaining information about ecological impacts, particularly where
existing data are scarce (Exhibit 21).
7.2.2.2 Hazardous Waste Definition and Determination
Background The major activities of the hazardous waste definition and
determination program are (1) identification and listing of wastes that are
hazardous to human health and/or the environment and hence subject to
regulation under RCRA, and (2) delisting specific waste streams from
particular generating facilities.
Policy Issues The basic policy issues include a determination of the
general types of ecological impacts, if any, to consider in listing and
delisting decisions, and the threshold or "significant" effect and exposure
levels to define for each general type of ecological impact. Two specific
policy actions would increase the importance of ecological impacts in defining
and determining hazardous wastes: (1) expansion of the TC regulatory levels
to include environmental effects thresholds as well as human health risk
thresholds, and (2) expansion of the VHS modeling approach to consider
exposures other than through the consumption of contaminated drinking water.
Methods Needs The major methods need is one or more protocols for
identifying the ecological toxicity of waste stream constituents and/or
mixtures.
Available Methods Two methodological approaches developed by EPA's
Office of Water are available for defining hazardous wastes and determining
significant effect and exposure levels. Ambient water quality criteria (AWQC)
and advisories (AWQA) establish significant exposure levels for freshwater and
-------
- 70 -
marine life using single-constituent toxicity tests. NPDES permit protocols
establish significant exposure levels for freshwater and marine life using
multiple-constituent toxicity tests (media toxicity tests). To our knowledge,
these methodologies have not been used in the Hazardous Waste Definition and
Determination Program.
Opportunities for Methods Development Existing toxicity testing methods
and protocols available from the Office of Water and other sources generally
are adequate for defining and determining wastes that are hazardous to aquatic
organisms. However, EPA-identified toxicity measures for aquatic organisms
are available for only about half of all substances found frequently at high
concentrations at CERCLA and RCRA sites, and chronic ambient water quality
criteria are available for less than 15 percent of these substances (ICF
1988a). Hence, derivation of additional benchmarks for aquatic organisms is
particularly important to this program (Exhibit 21). Communicating needs for
additional substance-specific effect and exposure levels to the Office of
Water would facilitate development of new AWQC and AWQA relevant to this
program.
Existing toxicity testing methods and protocols are not adequate for
determining hazards to terrestrial organisms. Definition and determination of
wastes that are hazardous to terrestrial organisms would be facilitated by (1)
guidelines for using laboratory mammals and agricultural crops as surrogates
for wild plants and animals, and (2) development of protocols for establishing
significant exposure and effect levels for terrestrial organisms. Elements of
such protocols might include selection of a standard set of organisms and
endpoints of concern and development of standard exposure and intake
assumptions for those organisms.
7.2.2.3 Subtitle C Permitting
Background Major Subtitle C permitting activities include issuing and
modifying operating permits to all facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
wastes defined as hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA. Most new facilities are
designed to ensure that hazardous wastes are not released into the
environment, so surrounding ecosystems should be unaffected. Certain releases
to the environment are permitted at existing facilities and some types of new
facilities (e.g., air emissions from thermal treatment facilities). Most
ecological assessments in support of permitting are conducted for the purpose
of evaluating the level of cleanup required to address past releases rather
than to determine-the potential impacts from future releases.
Policy Issues There are three basic policy issues. The first is to
determine what general types of ecological impacts, if any, to consider in
permitting decisions. The second is to determine the types of facilities at
which ecological impacts will be considered. For example, should ecological
impacts be considered for all treatment, storage, and disposal facilities or
only for those facilities listed as having a moderate to high risk potential
within the RCRA program (i.e., facilities conducting activities pertaining to
land disposal of hazardous wastes; PCB wastes; mixed wastes; and hazardous
waste storage and treatment tanks, drums, and containers; the combustion of
hazardous waste; land treatment of hazardous waste)? The final issue is to
-------
- 71 -
determine the extent to which permitting should focus on cleaning up past
releases versus preventing future releases.
Methods Needs The major methods needs are (1) methods for evaluating
actual ecological impacts that have resulted from past releases and for
linking actual impacts with releases from specific sites, and (2) methods for
identifying permitting conditions needed to prevent future ecological impacts,
including selecting appropriate receptors and endpoints of concern (including
sensitive species) and acute and chronic exposure levels likely to result in
significant ecological impacts.
Available Methods Numerous methodological approaches and techniques are
available within OSWER and have been used in RCRA Subtitle C permitting
decisions. These include methods for characterizing actual ecological impacts
(i.e., evaluation of biotic community structure, analysis of the
morphological/physiological condition of individual organisms, and detailed
field population studies) and methods for characterizing potential impacts
(i.e., evaluation of exposure potential, comparison of environmental
concentrations of contaminants with ecological benchmarks, evaluation of
hazard potential using media toxicity tests, and quantitative risk modeling).
In addition, NPDES permit protocols developed by EPA's Office of Water
establish significant exposure levels for freshwater and marine life using
media toxicity tests.
Opportunities for Methods Development Existing ecological assessment
methods generally are adequate for Subtitle C permitting activities, although
most of the general opportunities for making these methods more comprehensive
and standardized are relevant to this program. The most important of these to
Subtitle C permitting activities are derivation of additional benchmarks,
guidance in the use of toxicity tests, characterizing hazards from single and
multiple contaminants, and data needs (Exhibit 21). One specific area of
methods development is especially important: methods for evaluating potential
ecological impacts associated with permitted releases at certain types of
facilities (e.g., air emissions from thermal treatment facilities or
incinerators).
Two specific areas of guidance appear to be particularly important to
Subtitle C permitting. The first is to include other pertinent agencies and
expertise (e.g., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA) in the permitting
process as early as possible. This would maximize the opportunities for
individuals trained and experienced in ecological assessments to review permit
applications. Formation of RCRA regional bioassessment groups or involving
RCRA personnel in CERCLA bioassessment groups might be an expeditious means by
which this can be accomplished. The second area is developing guidelines and
protocols for including environmental assessments and exposure information as
an integral part of the permit decision process, particularly for the purpose
of identifying potential ecological problems associated with part B permit
applications. This might reduce the number of future corrective actions.
-------
- 72 -
7.2.2.4 Subparts F and S Corrective Action
Background Corrective action under Subpart F is triggered at certain
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) when
constituent concentrations in ground water exceed either background
concentrations or MCLs. Owners or operators of TSDFs may petition to modify
their permit conditions to set the levels of hazardous constituents that are
allowed in the ground water at an alternate concentration level (ACL) based on
the hydrogeologic characteristics of the site and the expected threat to human
health and the environment resulting from exposure to these constituents.
Ecological receptors are implicitly protected by requiring cleanup when
background levels are exceeded. The main activities under Subpart F
corrective action are identification and management of corrective action
remedial measures and review of ACL petitions to determine whether the
suggested ACL levels are appropriate and the facility permit conditions should
be modified accordingly.
Corrective action under Subpart S is quite similar to the CERCLA
remedial process. The first part of the process is the RCRA Facility
Assessment (RFA), an inspection of facilities to determine whether past
releases of hazardous wastes have occurred. If a facility is found to have
experienced a release, a more detailed investigation, the RCRA Facility
Investigation (RFI), is conducted to determine the extent of contamination.
Corrective action- is triggered at those facilities that are found through the
RFI to have released hazardous constituents in concentrations that pose a
threat to human health or the environment. In such instances, the owner or
operator of the facility is required to conduct a Corrective Measures Study
(CMS) to identify alternative remedies. EPA then will oversee implementation
of the remedy by the owner or operator. The major actions under Subpart S
corrective Action will be conducting RCRA Facility Assessments (RFAs), RCRA
Facility Investigations (RFIs), and Corrective Measures Studies (CMSs) and
overseeing implementation of the remedy.
Basic Policy Issues Guidance and regulations for the ACL process
clearly require that ecological impacts as well as human health impacts be
considered when setting ACLs. Petitioners often base their requested ACLs on
ecological toxicity data for the constituents in question because
environmental exposures are more likely than human exposures in most facility
settings. However, no specific effects of concern have been established. The
basic policy issue under both Subpart F and Subpart S corrective action is
what general types of ecological impacts (including impacts to terrestrial
ecosystems) to consider in permitting decisions and what level of impact will
warrant Agency action.
Methods Needs The major methods needs under Subpart F corrective action
are (1) screening-level protocols at the initial stages of the process to
identify when ecological impacts should be considered, and (2) methods for
characterizing actual and potential ecological impacts, including selecting
appropriate receptors and endpoints of concern, identifying sensitive species
or ecosystems, and determining acute and chronic exposure levels likely to
result in significant ecological impacts.
-------
- 73 -
The major methods needs under Subpart S corrective action are (1)
screening-level protocols for setting priorities for RFAs (and possible
incorporation of ecological considerations in such priority-setting), (2)
procedures for conducting RFIs, including characterization of actual and/or
potential ecological impacts, (3) definition of appropriate contaminant
concentration levels in air, water, and soil that exceed ecological benchmarks
and thus trigger corrective action, (4), procedures for including ecological
impacts in a CMS, and (5) procedures for setting remedial cleanup standards
that incorporate ecological considerations.
Available Methods Numerous methodological approaches and techniques for
characterizing ecological impacts are available within OSWER and could be used
in the corrective action programs (see Exhibit 20). Methods for
characterizing actual ecological impacts include evaluation of biotic
community structure, analysis of the morphological/physiological condition of
individual organisms, and detailed field population studies. Methods for
characterizing potential ecological impacts include evaluation of exposure
potential, comparison of environmental concentrations of contaminants with
ecological benchmarks, evaluation of hazard potential using media toxicity
tests, and quantitative risk modeling. Ambient water quality criteria (AWQC)
and advisories (AWQA) developed by EPA's Office of Water establish significant
exposure levels for freshwater and marine life using single-constituent
toxicity tests. NPDES permit protocols developed by EPA's Office of Water
establish significant exposure levels for freshwater and marine life using
multiple-constituent toxicity tests (media toxicity tests). Finally, levels
of concern for changes in community diversity indices have been developed for
some types of aquatic ecosystems by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
Opportunities for Methods Development Existing ecological assessment
methods generally are adequate for Subpart F and Subpart S corrective action
activities, although most of the general opportunities for making these
methods more comprehensive and standardized are relevant to these programs.
The most important of these to corrective action are receptor
characterization, characterizing hazard from single and multiple contaminants,
derivation of ecological benchmarks, guidance in the use of media toxicity
tests, defining the ecological significance of impacts, and data needs
(Exhibit 21).
Development of guidance in two specific areas also is important: (1)
applying ambient water quality criteria and advisories and/or toxicity data,
including safety factors, to evaluate potential ecological impacts, and (2)
evaluating ecological changes over time to establish whether or not a given
corrective action was effective. One specific opportunity for methods
development important for corrective action is a Hazard Ranking System (HRS)-
type site screening method to identify facilities with potential for
ecological impacts. For facilities with actual or potential impacts to
terrestrial ecosystems, other important opportunities are the development of
methods for evaluating potential ecological impacts to terrestrial ecosystems
and establishing cleanup criteria in soils.
-------
- 74 -
7.2.3 Opportunities for Methods Development in CERCLA Programs and
Activities
In this section, opportunities for methods development are outlined for
four CERCLA programs or activities: the removal program, pre-remedial
activities, selection of remedy, and implementation and completion of remedy.
Each is described in a separate section below.
7.2.3.1 Removal Program
Background Emergency removal actions generally occur in response to
time-critical situations involving actual or potential releases of hazardous
substances. The main tasks of the removal program are to identify situations
that require emergency removal actions, take appropriate action to mitigate
immediate hazards to human health and the environment, and verify that the
immediate hazards are mitigated.
Basic Policy Issues Basic policy issues include whether ecological
hazards should be considered when contemplating removals, emergency removal
actions should be initiated because of ecological concerns, and ecological
concerns should be used to determine the extent of a removal.
Methods Needs The major methods need is a screening-level protocol for
quickly assessing whether removal action is needed based upon limited
ecological data.
Available Methods Currently there is no specified method for
identifying situations that require emergency removal actions on the basis of
acute ecological hazards or verifying that these hazards have been mitigated
as the result of removal activities. The screening-level methods reviewed in
this report are not adequate for the removal program because they provide
limited information for site-specific decisions.
Opportunities for Methods Development The methods development
opportunities suggested in Chapter 6 are not particularly relevant for the
removal program. Two different types of opportunities are possible ways to
incorporate ecological information into the removal decision process. The
first would be to include a trained ecologist in the emergency response teams
and to rely on his or her professional judgment to make the appropriate
decisions. The second approach would be to develop a simple rapid assessment
technique, based on limited data, that would not require extensive ecological
expertise. One approach to such a technique would be to employ simple
qualitative or quantitative criteria (e.g., presence of a threshold quantity
of a substance) to trigger a removal action. Another potential method would
be a model that follows the basic approach of the Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
used in the remedial program (i.e. , an evaluation of chemical hazard, exposure
potential, and targets of concern).
7.2.3.2 Pre-Remedial Activities
Background To allocate Superfund program resources efficiently and set
priorities for further investigation and action, sites that pose the greatest
-------
- 75 -
hazards to health, welfare, and the environment must be identified. The first
stage in the screening process is the Preliminary Assessment (PA). The PA is
generally a low-cost initial evaluation of the magnitude of the potential
hazard and the source and nature of any release. The PA does not normally
include a site visit or sampling. At this stage, a yes/no decision is made as
to whether conditions at the site might warrant further action by the
Superfund program.
If results of the PA suggest that further action might be warranted, the
next stage in the screening process is the Site Investigation (SI). Site-
specific data on chemical hazard, exposure potential, and nearby targets are
evaluated with a numeric scoring model, the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
Sites which score above a threshold value (28.5) are placed on the National
Priorities List (NPL). Because of the large number of PAs and Sis that must
be made, screening assessments must be conducted within constrained time and
financial budgets. In discussing methods development opportunities at the PA
and SI stages of the remedial process, consideration must be given both to the
basic tasks outlined above and these constraints.
Basic Policy Issues The basic policy issue is the extent to which
ecological impacts should be considered in determining whether or not further
action is required at a Superfund site. At the PA stage, there is no clear
policy articulating the extent to which ecological hazards must be considered.
At the SI stage, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) requires that the HRS be revised so that "to the maximum extent
feasible, [it] accurately assesses the relative degree of risk to human health
and the environment posed by sites and facilities subject to review ..."
(Section 105(c)(l)).
Methods Needs The major methods need is a screening-level protocol for
quickly assessing whether further action by Superfund is needed based upon
limited ecological data.
Available Methods At the SI stage, some ecological hazards are
considered in the HRS, and the proposed revisions to the HRS include a more
extensive characterization of potential ecological hazards. However, the
proposed revised HRS scores only potential hazards to sensitive environments,
focusing primarily on aquatic ecosystems.
Opportunities for Methods Development None of the methods development
opportunities suggested in Chapter 6 are relevant for pre-remedial activities.
Two different types of opportunities are possible ways to incorporate more
ecological information into the screening-level decision process. At the PA
stage, a screening methodology that incorporated salient features of the HRS
(e.g., presence of sensitive environments within a target distance from the
site) might provide a consistent means to identify sites with potential
ecological hazards. At the SI stage, methods for incorporating information on
observed effects, hazards to terrestrial organisms or non-sensitive
ecosystems, and non-human food chain exposures into the HRS would improve its
ability to prioritize sites on the basis of ecological hazards.
-------
- 76 -
7.2.3.3 Selection of Remedy
Background Once a site is placed on the NPL, Superfund-financed
remediation can begin. The first part of the remedial process is a detailed
study of the site that culminates in a legal agreement between EPA and the
responsible parties, if any, that outlines the mitigative actions to be taken
and the cleanup criteria to be met in the remediation. The first step in this
process is the Remedial Investigation (RI), a detailed study that
characterizes the types and concentrations of contaminants in all media, the
areal extent of actual and potential contamination, the types and number of
human and ecological targets actually or potentially exposed to contaminants,
and the actual or potential adverse effects to health, welfare, and the
environment. In the Feasibility Study (FS), information collected during the
RI is used to develop and evaluate cleanup alternatives on the basis of
expected costs and benefits. The selection of remedial alternatives is
formalized and explained in the Record of Decision (ROD).
Basic Policy Issues There is a general policy under Superfund to
protect human health and the environment. For example, CERCLA and the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) mandate the protection of natural resources,
and the Department of the Interior regulations set forth procedures for
conducting natural resource damage assessments. Moreover, CERCLA cleanups are
required to comply with ARARS, some of which are related to environmental
protection. At present, however, it is unclear how consistently this general
policy of protection of the environment is being implemented at NPL sites.
Methods Needs The major methods needs for this part of the remedial
process are (1) methods for characterizing actual and potential ecological
impacts, including selecting appropriate receptors and endpoints of concern,
identifying sensitive species or ecosystems, and determining acute and chronic
exposure levels likely to result in significant ecological impacts, (2)
protocols for setting remedial cleanup standards that incorporate ecological
considerations, and (3) protocols for including ecological impacts in the
final selection of remedy.
Available Methods Numerous methodological approaches and techniques for
characterizing ecological impacts are available within OSWER and are being
used in the Superfund remedial program (see Exhibit 20). Methods for
characterizing actual ecological impacts include evaluation of biotic
community structure, analysis of the morphological/physiological condition of
individual organisms, and detailed field population studies. Methods for
characterizing potential ecological impacts include evaluation of exposure
potential, comparison of environmental concentrations of contaminants with
ecological benchmarks, evaluation of hazard potential using media toxicity
tests, and quantitative risk modeling. Ambient water quality criteria (AWQC)
and advisories (AWQA) developed by EPA's Office of Water establish significant
exposure levels for freshwater and marine life using single-constituent
toxicity tests. NPDES permit protocols developed by EPA's Office of Water
establish significant exposure levels for freshwater and marine life using
multiple-constituent toxicity tests (media toxicity tests). Finally, levels
of concern for changes in community diversity indices have been developed for
some types of aquatic ecosystems by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
- 77 -
Opportunities for Methods Development Existing ecological assessment
methods generally are adequate for activities involved in selection of a
remedy at NPL sites, although most of the general opportunities for making
these methods more comprehensive and standardized are relevant to these
activities. The most important of these in selection of a remedy are receptor
characterization, characterizing hazard from single and multiple contaminants,
derivation of ecological benchmarks, guidance in the use of media toxicity
tests, defining the ecological significance of impacts, data needs, and a
quantitative ecological risk model (Exhibit 21). Data and methods for
assessing ecological impacts to terrestrial ecosystems and evaluating the
ecological hazard of contaminants in soil, air, and sediments are of
particular importance. Guidance in selecting the appropriate receptors,
endpoints, benchmarks, approaches and techniques, and level of effort to
devote to ecological assessments at a particular site, and in interpreting the
results of ecological assessments for risk management decisions at that site,
also is important.
7.2.3.4 Implementation and Completion of Remedy
Background Once a remedial action is specified for a site in its ROD,
the remedial design and remedial action processes begin. After the remedies
are in place or have been completed, the site enters the operation and
maintenance stage. The main tasks during these stages are to ensure that the
goals of the ROD are met and that adequate protection of health and the
environment are maintained. Although the EPA Superfund program provides
oversight for all sites undergoing remediation, it does not manage actual
remedial activities. Management is provided by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for Superfund-lead sites and by States and responsible parties for
those sites for which they have lead responsibility. States have the
responsibility for operation and maintenance activities once the remedial
actions have been completed.
Basic Policy Issues The basic policy issue is the extent to which
ecological receptors must be protected during a remedial action and how human
health and ecological concerns must be balanced during implementation and
completion of the remedy.
Methods Needs The main methods needs are protocols to determine whether
or not adverse ecological effects are occurring during implementation and
completion of the remedy.
Available Methods Currently there are no standard protocols for
monitoring the ecological effects associated with ongoing remedial activities.
Several of the methodological approaches and techniques for characterizing
ecological impacts currently used within OSWER could be applied for this
purpose (see Exhibit 20). Methods for monitoring ongoing remedial activities
might include use of in situ toxicity tests, monitoring contaminant
concentrations in media or biota, and conducting field studies to monitor the
status of biotic populations that might be affected by remedial activities.
Changes in community diversity indices, such as those developed by the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA 1988) , also could be used for this
-------
- 78 -
purpose. Long-term monitoring might be the only way to determine whether or
not certain ecological goals of the ROD (e.g., reduction of tissue residue
levels of persistent substances) have been met and continue to be met
following completion of remedial activities.
Opportunities for Methods Development Existing ecological assessment
methods generally are adequate for activities involved in implementation and
completion of the remedy at an NPL site, and many of the general opportunities
for making these methods more comprehensive and standardized are relevant to
these activities. Of particular importance are derivation of ecological
benchmarks, guidance in the use of media toxicity tests, and data needs
(Exhibit 21). The primary data needs appear to be information on the natural
range of variation in end points used in the monitoring process. These ranges
might be used to establish threshold levels that would serve as early warning
signs of potential adverse effects.
-------
CHAPTER 8
LITERATURE CITED
Barnthouse, L.W., Suter, G.W., Bartell, S.M., Beauchamp, J.J., Gardner, R.H.,
Linder, E., O'Neill, R.V., and Rosen, A.E. 1986. User's Manual for
Ecological Risk Assessment. Environmental Sciences Division Publication
No. 2679. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1987. Acute Toxicity Handbook of
Chemicals to Estuarine Organisms. Environmental Research Laboratory,
Gulf Breeze, FL, April 1987. EPA/600-8-87-017.
Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Policy Analysis (EPA/OPA). 1989a.
The Nature and Extent of Ecological Risks at Superfund Sites and RCRA
Facilities. Washington, D.C., June, 1989. EPA/230-03-89-043.
Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Policy Analysis (EPA/OPA). 1989b.
Ecological Risk Management in the Superfund and RCRA Programs.
Washington, D.C., June, 1989. EPA/230-03-89-045.
Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Policy Analysis (EPA/OPA). 1988.
Review of Ecological Risk Assessment Methods. Washington, D.C.,
November, 1988. EPA/230-10-88-041.
Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Policy Analysis/Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation (EPA/OPA/OPPE). 1987. Unfinished Business: A
Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems. Washington, D.C.,
February, 1987.
Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Pesticide Programs (EPA/OPP). 1986.
Hazard Evaluation Division. Standard Evaluation Procedure, Ecological
Risk Assessment. Washington, D.C., June 1986. EPA/540-9-85-001.
Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid Waste (EPA/OSW). 1984. The
RCRA Cost-Analysis Model. Phase III Report. Submitted to the Office of
Solid Waste Economic Analysis Branch, Washington, D.C., March 1, 1984.
Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid Waste (EPA/OSW). 1987a.
Technical Resource Document for Variances from the Secondary Containment
Requirements of Hazardous Waste Tank Systems. Volume II: Risk-based
Variance. Washington, D.C., 1987.
Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid Waste (EPA/OSW). 1987b.
Onshore Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and Production: Human
Health and Environmental Risk Assessment. Technical Support Document to
Report to Congress. Washington, D.C., December, 1987.
Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid Waste (EPA/OSW). 1988a.
Ecological Risk Characterization Methodology. Final Report.
Washington, D.C., April 1988.
-------
- 80 -
I
Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid Waste (EPA/OSW). 1988b. Solid
Waste from Selected Metallic Ore Processing Operations. Draft Report to
Congress. Washington, B.C., July 15, 1988.
Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(EPA/OSWER). 1985. Wastes from the Extraction and Beneficiation of
Metallic Ores, Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, Overburden from Uranium Mining,
and Oil Shale. Report to Congress. Washington, D.C., December 1985.
EPA/530-SW-85-033.
Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(EPA/OSWER). 1988. Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric
Utility Power Plants. Report to Congress. Washington, D.C., February,
1988. EPA/530-SW-88-002.
Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Toxic Substances (EPA/OTS) 1984.
Estimating "Concern Levels" for Concentrations of Chemical Substances in
the Environment. Environmental Effects Branch, Health and Environmental
Review Division, Washington, D.C. February, 1984.
Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Water (EPA/OW). 1985. Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. Washington,
D.C., September, 1985. EPA/440-4-85-032.
Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Water (EPA/OW). 1987. Permit
Writer's Guide to Water-Quality Based Permitting for Toxic Pollutants.
Washington, D.C., July, 1987. EPA/440-4-87-005.
ICF Incorporated. 1987. Regional and State Comparative Risk Project:
Approaches for Ranking based on Ecological Risk/Impact. Working Paper
prepared for the Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., December 14, 1987.
ICF Incorporated. 1988a. Availability of Ecological Criteria for Aquatic
Organisms for Substances of Concern Under CERCLA and RCRA. Draft report
prepared for the Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. August 3, 1988.
ICF Incorporated. 1988b. Comparison of Ecological Criteria with Health-Based
Criteria and with Quantitation Limits. Draft report prepared for the
Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. August 2, 1988.
ICF Incorporated. 1988c. Status of the Development of EPA Ambient Water
Quality Criteria. Memorandum to Craig Zamuda, Dexter Hinckley, and
Michael Cox, Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. August 15, 1988.
ICF Incorporated. 1988d. Ecological Risk Assessment Needs in the RCRA and
CERCLA Programs. Memorandum to Michael Cox, Office of Policy Analysis,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. September 2,
1988.
-------
- 81 -
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 1988. Biological Criteria
for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume I. The Role of Biological
Data in Water Quality Assessment. Volume II. User's Manual for
Biological Field Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters. Division of Water
Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus,
Ohio.
Suter, G.W.,II, Vaughan, D.S., and Gardner, R.H. 1983. Risk assessment by
analysis of extrapolation error: A demonstration for effects of
pollutants on fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2: 369-378.
Technical Resources Incorporated (TRI). 1987. Ecological Risk Assessment,
End Points Selection Criteria. Draft Report Prepared for the Exposure
Assessment Group, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Manual of Acute Toxicity:
Interpretation and Data Base for 410 Chemicals and 66 Species of
Freshwater Animals. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C.
Resource Publication 160, 1986.
-------
APPENDICES
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXHIBIT A-l: LIST OF CERCLA SITES REVIEWED (ALPHABETIZED BY REGION) ... i
EXHIBIT A-2: LOCATION (EPA REGION) OF CERCLA SITES AND RCRA
FACILITIES REVIEWED ii
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF SITE-SPECIFIC METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE
ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS A-l
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF SITE-SPECIFIC METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE
POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS B-l
APPENDIX C: SITE-BY-SITE LISTING OF METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE
ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS C-l
APPENDIX D: SITE-BY-SITE LISTING OF METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE
POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS D-1
APPENDIX Er GLOSSARY OF ENTRIES IN APPENDICES E-l
-------
PREFACE
In these Appendices, we list and summarize elements of site-specific
methods used to characterize actual and potential ecological impacts at CERCLA
and RCRA sites, as reported in the site-specific documents we obtained. The
name and location (EPA Regions) of each site or facility reviewed are listed
in Exhibits A-l and A-2.
Elements of methods used to characterize actual ecological impacts are
organized according to the type of ecosystem (i.e., terrestrial, terrestrial
associated with aquatic , freshwater, estuarine, marine, and wetland) to which
they were applied. For each ecosystem of concern, we list the elements used
to characterize receptors and the general approach used to characterize these
impacts. Receptors are classified according to the biotic level of
organization (i.e., ecosystem, community, population, individual), taxonomic
group of organism (e.g., bird, mammal, invertebrate, plant), and specific
ecological endpoint used (e.g., reproduction, community diversity).
Approaches used to characterize impacts are classified according to the type
of method employed (e.g., qualitative survey of the ecosystem, systematic
field sampling, media bioassay), the type of ecological benchmark used (e.g.,
lowest-observed-effect level, acute LC50, ambient water quality criterion),
and whether sampling points were selected on the basis of ecological concerns,
human health concerns, or both. An analysis of the frequency with which each
element was used is presented in Appendix A. A site-by-site listing of these
elements is presented in Appendix C.
Elements of methods used to characterize potential ecological impacts are
organized according to the type of ecosystem to which they were applied. For
each ecosystem of concern, we list the elements used to characterize
receptors, hazard, and exposure. Receptors are classified according to the
biotic level of organization, taxonomic group of organism, and specific
endpoint(s) used. Hazard is classified according to whether contaminants of
concern were selected on the basis of ecological risks or human health, the
type of site-specific toxicity measures (i.e., media bioassays) used, and the
type of ecological benchmark used. Exposure is classified according to
whether sampling points were selected to evaluate ecological or health risks,
the exposure pathways considered (e.g., water column, food chain, ingestion of
contaminated sediments), the types of assumptions used to estimate intake
and/or dose, and how chemical concentrations at the receptor were determined.
Methods also are classified according to which particular approaches to risk
assessment were used. Elements of risk assessment include the general type of
method used (e.g., qualitative evaluation, quotient method) and how impacts
above threshold, areal extent, reversibility of impacts, and uncertainty of
the risk assessment are characterized. An analysis of the frequency with
which each element was used is presented in Appendix B. A site-by-site
listing of these elements is presented in Appendix D.
A glossary of all entries in each Appendix is provided in Appendix E.
•*• An ecosystem in which terrestrial organisms might be exposed to
contaminants through ingestion of contaminated surface water or aquatic biota.
-------
EXHIBIT A-l
LIST OF CERCLA SITES REVIEWED (ALPHEBATIZED BY REGION)
EPA Region I EPA Resion 5
O'Connor
Old Springfield Landfill
Re-Solve
Sullivan's Ledge
Confidential #1
Confidential #3
Confidential #6
EPA Region 2
Chemical Control
Clothier Site
Hudson River
Lipari Landfill
Marathon Battery
EPA Region 3
Army Creek Landfill
Chisman Creek
Delaware Sand and Gravel
Douglassville Disposal
L.A. Clarke
New Castle Steel
Palmerton Zinc
Tybout's Corner Landfill
Tyson's Dump
West Virginia Ordnance
Wildcat Landfill
Winchester Tire Fire Site
EPA Region 4
American Creosote Works
58th Street Landfill
Geiger Site
Harris Corporation
Mowbray Engineering
Munisport Landfill
Newport Dump
Parramore Surplus
Sapp Battery Salvage
62nd Street Dump
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Eau Claire
Fort Wayne Reduction
Fultz Landfill
Liquid Disposal
Marion/Bragg Landfill
Outboard Marine
Schmalz Dump
Seymour Recycling
Velsicol Site
EPA Region 6
Mid-South Wood Products
United Nuclear
Wichita Mountain
EPA Region 7
no sites
EPA Region 8
Confidential #2
Confidential #4
EPA Region 9
Iron Mountain Mine
Confidential #5
EPA Region 10
Queen City Farms
-------
EXHIBIT A-2
LOCATION (EPA REGION) OF CERCLA SITES REVIEWED
Site Name
American Creosote Works
Army Creek Landfill
Chemical Control
Chisman Creek
Clothier Site
Delaware Sand and Gravel
Douglassville Disposal
Eau Claire
58th Street Landfill
Fort Wayne Reduction
Fultz Landfill
Geiger Site
Harris Corporation
Hudson River
Iron Mountain Mine
LA Clarke
Lipari Landfill
Liquid Disposal
Marathon Battery
Marion/Bragg Landfill
Mid-South Wood Products
Mowbray Engineering
Munisport Landfill
New Castle Steel
Newport Dump Site
0'Connor
EPA Region Site Name
4 Old Springfield Landfill
3 Outboard Marine
2 Palmerton Zinc
3 Parramore Surplus
2 Queen City Farms
3 Re-Solve
3 Sapp Battery Salvage
5 Schmalz Dump
4 Seymore Recycling Corp.
5 62nd Street Site
5 Stauffer Chemical Co.
4 Sullivan's Ledge
4 Tybouts Corner Landfill
2 Tyson's Dump
9 United Nuclear
3 Velsicol Site
2 West Virginia Ordnance
5 Wichita Mountain
2 . Wildcat Landfill
5 Winchester Tire Fire Site
6 Confidential #1
4 Confidential #2
4 Confidential #3
3 Confidential #4
4 Confidential #5
1 Confidential #6
Site Name
LOCATION (EPA REGION) OF RCRA FACILITIES REVIEWED
EPA Region Site Name
Allied Chemical
ARCO Prudhoe Bay Unit
Defense General Supply
International Paper Co.
IRECO Chemicals
Kennedy Space Center
Koppers Company
Monroe Auto
3
10
3
7
8
4
5
4
Nat. Industr. Env. Serv.
Pratt and Whitney
Rohm & Haas
SACO Defense, Inc
Southern Dye Co.
Southern Wood Piedmont
Union Carbide Agricultural
Wyman-Gordon
EPA Region
1
5
3
4
10
1
4
5
5
4
4
1
3
3
6
5
3
6
3
3
1
8
1
8
5
1
EPA Region
7
4
3
1
4
4
4
1
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF SITE-SPECIFIC METHODS USED TO
CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
-------
APPEBDDC A
SUMMARY OF SITE-SPECIFIC METHODS DSED TO EVALUATE ACTUAL
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem Level of
of Concern Organization Taxonomic Group
TERRESTRIAL (33)^ Ecosystem (1) n/a (1)
Community (14) Plant (14)
Mammal (4)
Bird (4)
Reptile (2)
Invert (2)
Other (1)
Population (1) Bird (1)
Individual (7) Mammal (6)
Plant (2)
Bird (2)
Invert (1)
Not Specif (2) Not Specif (2)
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
Other^U)
Veget Absence (11)
Veget Stress (3)
Commun Divers (4)
Common Divers (4)
Commun Divers (2)
Coranun Divers (2)
Common Divers (1)
Reproduction (1)
Behavior (1)
Tissue Residue (3)
Mortality (1)
Disease/Abnorm (1)
Other^ (1)
Tissue Residue (2)
Mortality (1)
Tissue Residue (1)
Tissue Residue (1)
Contain Media (2)
ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS IX Tklimi*>TPATi ECOSYSTEMS ^—
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
Type(s) of Derivation of Sampling
Method(s) Employed of Benchmark Point(s)
Field Sampling (1) n/a (1) Ecol (1)
Qualitative Survey (10) Not Specified (14) Ecol (13)
Field Sampling (3) ' Not Spec (1)
OtherS/ (1)
Field Sampling (1) Not Specified (1) Ecol (1)
Field Sampling (5) Background (6) Ecol (5)
Other*^ (2) n/a (1) Hum (1)
n/a (1)
• Media Sampling (2) Detection (1) Both (2)
Background ( 1 )
— Number of sites given in parentheses
— For an explanation of entries, see Glossary (Appendix E)
- Impacts were not assessed at 11 sites
-/ See Palmerton Zinc Site (Appendix C)
-' Aerial photography
— Chemical burns on lifestock straying into contaminated area
^ Histopathological examination
- Historical records of bird carcasses
-------
AtTEBlXDC A (continued)
a/b/
SOMMAHY OF SITE-SPECIFIC HETBODS USED TO EVAUIATE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS !• TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTHB ASSOCIATED WITH AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS -'-
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem Level of
of Concern Organization
TERR -AQUATIC (8)-'' Community (2)
Type(s) of Type(s) of
Taxonomic Grout) End Pointfs) Method(s) Employed
Plant (2) Commun Divers (2) Qualitative Survey (2)
Bird (2)
Mammal (2)
Amphibian (2)
Reptile (2)
Selection
Derivation of Sampling
of Benchmark Point(s)
Not Specified (2) Ecol (2)
Individual (1)
Mammal (1)
Tissue Residue (1)
Disease/Abnorm (1)
Field Sampling (1)
Background (1)
Ecol (1)
-' Number of sites given in parentheses
-/ For an explanation of entries, see Glossary (Appendix E)
-^ Impacts were not assessed at five sites
-------
APFERDIX A (continued)
SGMHABY OF SITE-SPECIFIC tKIOODS USED ID EVALUATE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS IB FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS ='-'
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem Level of Type(s) of
of Concern Organization Taxonomic Grout) End Point(s)
FRESHWATER (53)-7 Community (21) Invert (15) Commun Divers (14)
Indie Species (2)
Fish (13) Commun Divers (12)
Plant (3) Commun Divers (2)
Veget Stress (1)
Population (5) Fish (5) Mortality (5)
Growth (1)
Migration (1)
Individual (21) Fish (21) Tissue Residue (19)
Disease/Abnorm (8)
Invert (4) Tissue Residue (4)
Plant (2) Tissue Residue (2)
Amphibian (2) Tissue Residue (2)
Reptile (1) Tissue Residue (1)
Bird (1) Tissue Residue (1)
Not Specif (13) Not Specif (13) Contain Media (12)
Not Specified (1)
Type(s) of
Method(s) Employed
Field Sampling (13)
Qualitative Survey (8)
Other^7 (4)
Field Sampling (1)
Field Sampling (18)
Other57-7 (7)
Bioass-In Situ (1)
Media Sampling (12)
Qualitative Survey (1)
Derivation
of Benchmark
Background (7)
Not Specified (14)
Not Specified (5)
Background (13)
FDA (4)
Other67 (1)
Not Specified (4)
AWQC (10)
Local Std (2)
Background (2)
Not Specif (2)
Mort-50 (1)
LOEL (1)
Selection
of Sampling
Point (s)
Ecol (19)
Both (2)
n/a (4)
Ecol (1)
Ecol (11)
Hum (7)
Both (3)
Both (6)
Ecol (3)
Hum (3)
Not Spec (1)
-' Number of sites given in parentheses
— For an explanation of entries, see Glossary (Appendix E)
— Impacts were not assessed at 13 sites
-7 Historical records of fish kills
— Data from STORE! and other monitoring programs
tJ
Histopathological examination and/or gross necropsy
Species-specific contaminant levels determined by
California Department of Fish and Game
-------
APPEHDEC A (caotinaed)
SDMABY OF SITE-SPECIFIC tCTBQDS DEED TO EVALUATE ACTUAL
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem Level of Type(s) of
of Concern Organization Taxonomic Group End Point(s)
ESTUARINE (S)-7' Community (4) Invert (4) Caiman Divers (4)
Indie Species (1)
Plant (1) Commun Divers (1)
Fish (1) Commun Diver's (1)
Population (2) Invert (2) Tissue Residue (1)
Mortality (1)
Individual (4) Invert (3) Tissue Residue (2)
Disease/Abnorm (1)
Fish (2) Tissue Residue (1)
Disease/Abnorm (1)
Not Specif (2) Not Specif (2) Contam Media (2)
ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS H ESTUARIHE BOOSYSTEfC &-'
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Type(s) of
Method(s) Employed
Qualitative Survej4/ (2)
Field Sampling (2)
Qualitative Survey-'' (1)
Field Sampling (1)
Field Sampling (4)
Others/ (1)
Media Sampling-7 (2)
Derivation
of Benchmark
Background (2)
Not Specified (2)
Background ( 1 )
n/a (1)
Background (3)
Not Specified (1)
AWQC (1)
Background (1)
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Ecol (4)
Ecol (2)
Ecol (2)
Both (1)
Hum (1)
Ecol (1)
Both (1)
- Number of sites given in parentheses
— For an explanation of entries, see Glossary (Appendix E)
— Impacts were not assessed at one site
— At one site, data from sampling in nearby areas by Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
— Histopathological examination
-------
APPEHDIX A (continued)
SDMttRY OF SITE-SPECIFIC ICIBOOS USED TO EVALUATE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS IV MARUE ECOSYSTEMS
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
Ecosystem Level of Type(s) of Type(s) of Derivation of Sampling
of Concern Organization Taxonomic Group End Point(5) Method(a) Employed of Benchmark Point(s)
MARINE (1) Not Specif (1) Not Specif (1) Contam Media (1) Media Sampling (1) Detection (1) Both (1)
—' Number of sites given in parentheses
- For an explanation of entries, see Glossary (Appendix E)
-------
AFFEHDIX A (continued)
SUMARY OF SITE-SPECIFIC METHODS DSHD TO EVALUATE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS IX WEILABU KtUSXSTKMi •=• ='
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem Level of
of Concern Orsanization Taxonomic Group
WETLAND (26)£/ Community (12) Plant (11)
Fish (4)
Bird (2)
Invert (2)
Mammal (1)
Amphibian (1)
Not Specif (1)
Other5/ (1)
Population (1) Plant (1)
Individual (7) Plant (5)
Fish (2)
Reptile (1)
Mammal (1)
Amphibian (1)
Other-/ (1)
Not Specif (6) Not Specif (5)
Plant (1)
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
Veget Stress (7)
Common Divers (5)
Commun Divers (4)
Commun Divers (2)
Common Divers (2)
Commun Divers (1)
Commun Divers (1)
Commun Divers (1)
Commun Divers (1)
Mortality (1)
Tissue Residue (2)
Growth (2)
Mortality (1)
Reproduction (1)
Tissue Residue (1)
Disease/Abnorm (1)
Tissue Residue (1)
Disease/Abnorm (1)
Tissue Residue (1)
Reproduction (1)
Tissue Residue (1)
Tissue Residue (1)
Con tarn Media (4)
Not Specif (1)
Growth (1)
Not Specif (1)
Selection
Type(s) of Derivation of Sampling
Method(s) Employed of Benchmark Point(s)
Qualitative Survey (8) Background (2) Ecol (12)
Othet^/ (3) Not Specified (10)
Field Sampling (2)
Qual Survey (1) Not Specified (1) Ecol (1)
Field Sampling (6) Background (6) Ecol (6)
Qualitative Survey (1) Not Specified (1) Human (1)
Media Sampling (4) Background (3) Ecol (4)
Not Specified (1) AWQC (1) Both (1)
Media Sampling (1) Other^/ (1) Not Spec (1)
Qualitative Survey (1) Not Specified (2)
-/ Number of sites given in parentheses
-/ For an explanation of entries, see Glossary (Appendix E)
- Impacts were not assessed at seven sites
- Aerial photography
£ Benthic algae
— Zooplankton and phytoplankton
£ Soil concentration considered "toxic" to plants
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF SITE-SPECIFIC METHODS USED TO
CHARACTERIZE POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
-------
APPEHDIX B
SUMAHT OF METHODS USED TO EVALUATE POTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS H TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS - -
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem Level of Taxonomic
of Concern Organization Grouc
TERRESTRIAL (31)-/ Population (10) Mammal (9)
Bird (7)
Reptile (1)
Invert (1)
Plant (1)
Individual (3) Bird (2)
Mammal (2)
Not Specif (6) Not Specif (A)
Mammal (2)
Reptile (2)
Bird (1)
Amphibian (1)
Plant (1)
Selection of
Type(s) of Contaminant(s)
End Point (s) of Concern
Reproduction (3) Ecol (A)
Mortality (3 Hum (A)
Other^/S/ (3) Both (2)
Not Specified (3)
Reproduction (3)
Mortality (3)
Other^/S/ (3)
Not Specified (1)
Mortality (1)
Reproduction (1)
Reproduction (1)
Mortality (1)
Cither^/ (3)
Mortality (1) Ecol (2)
Other*/ (1) Hum (1)
Not Specified (1)
Mortality (2)
Other*/ (1)
Not Specif (6) Hum (A)
Both (2)
Site-Specific Derivation
Toxicity of
Measure (s) Benchmark
None (10) Mort-50 (3)
LOEL (3)
BAF (2)
NOEL (1)
Other^/ (1)
Not Spec (A)
None (2) Other-/ (1)
n/a (1) Not Spec (1)
n/a (1)
None (6) AWQC (1)
Not Spec (5)
— Number of sites given in parentheses
-/ For an explanation of entries, see Glossary (Appendix E)
— Impacts were not evaluated at 13 sites
- At one site, numerous endpoints were specified
-' Unspecified "chronic effects"
— Soil concentration "toxic to plants"
* Deafening from explosions
— Tissue residue levels known to cause adverse effects
-------
APPENDIX B (continued)
SltWAKY OK MKTHUUS IKED TO EVALUATE KJTOrTlAL EUULUU1CAL IMPACTS Ifl TKKKKSTK1AL UUUUYUTUB (continued)
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION RISK ASSESSMENT
Level of
Orsanization
Population
Individual
Not Specified
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Hum (5)
Ecol (2)
Both (2)
N.S. (1)
Ecol (2)
N.S. (1)
Hum (2)
Both (2)
N.S. (1)
Pathway(s)
Considered
Cent/Derm (8)
Ingestion (6)
Food Chain (5)
Inhalation (1)
Cont/Dertn (1)
n/a (2)
Cont/Derm (4)
Food Chain (2)
Ingestion (2)
Inhalation (1)
Not Specif (1)
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
N.S. (6)
Quant (3)
n/a (1)
Qual (1)
N.S. (1)
n/a (1)
Qual (1)
N.S. (5)
Chemical Type(s) of
Concentration Method
at Receptor Employed
Measured (5) Qual Eval (6)
Modelled (3) Quot-Sing (6)
Qual Eval (1)
n/a (1)
Qual Eval (1) Qual Eval (2)
n/a (2) Quot-Sing (1)
Measured (2) Qual Eval (6)
Qual Eval (2)
N.S. (2)
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Qual Eval (1)
Not Spec (5)
n/a (4)
Qual Eval (1)
n/a (2)
Not Spec (5)
n/a (1)
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Qual Eval (4)
Not Specif (3)
n/a (3)
Qual Eval (1)
Not Specif (1)
n/a (1)
Qual Eval (1)
Not Specif (4)
n/a (1)
Characterization
of Uncertainty
Adequate (7)
Inadequate (3)
Adequate ( 3 )
Inadequate (5)
Adequate (1)
-------
AFPEHDEK B (continued)
SUMMARY OF METHODS USED TO EVALUATE POTEHTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS IB* TEBRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS ASSOCIATED WITH AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS -'-'
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem Level of Taxonomic
of Concern Organization Group
TERR-AQUAT (21)-/ Population (3) Mammal (3)
Bird (3)
Reptile (1)
Selection of
Type(s) of Contaminant(s)
End Point(s) of Concern'
Reproduction (2) • Ecol (1)
Mortality (1) Hum (1)
Disease/Abnorm (1) Both (1)
Not Specified (1)
Reproduction (2)
Mortality (1)
Disease/Abnorm (1)
Not Specified (1)
Reproduction (1)
Site-Specific Derivation
Toxicity of
Measure (s) Benchmark
None (3) LOEL (2)
NOEL (1)
MORT-50 (1)
BCF (1)
Not Spec (1)
Individual (2) Mammal (2)
Bird (1)
Tissue Residue (1)
Reproduction (1)
Not Specif (1)
Tissue Residue (1)
Reproduction (1)
Ecol (2)
None (2)
Not Spec (2)
Not Specif (2)
Plant (1)
Mammal (1)
Bird (1)
Reptile (1)
Amphibian (1)
Not Spec (1)
Not Specif (2)
Hum (1)
Both (1)
None (2)
Not Spec (2)
— Number of sites given in parentheses
— For an explanation of entries, see Glossary (Appendix E)
c/
— Impacts were not evaluated at 14 sites
-------
APPEMDIX B (continued)
Level of
Organization
Population
Individual
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Ecol (2)
Hum (1)
Ecol (1)
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Pathway(s) Intake/Dose
Considered Assumptions
Food Chain (3) Quant (2)
Ingestion (2) n/a (1)
Cont/Derm (1)
Food Chain (2) N.S. (2)
Ingestion (1)
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Modelled (2)
n/a (1)
Measured (1)
Qual Eval (1)
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
Quot-Sing (2)
Qual Eval (2)
Quot-Sing (1)
Qual Eval (1)
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Qual Eval (2)
n/a (1)
Not Spec (1)
n/a (1)
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Qual Eval (2)
n/a (1)
Qual Eval (1)
Not Specif (1)
Characterization
of Uncertainty
Adequate (3)
Adequate (1)
Not Spec (1)
Not Specified Both (1) Cont/Derm (2) Qual (1)
N.S. (1) Food Chain (1) N.S. (1)
Inhalation (1)
Measured (1) Qual Eval (2) Not Spec (2)
Not Specif (1)
Not Specif (2)
Inadequate (2)
-------
AFFEBDIX B (continued)
SUMMRT OF MEIBDDS USED ID EVALUATE POTEHTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS IB FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS -
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of
of Concern Organization Group End Point(s)
FRESHWATER (54)-/ Community (3) Invert (3) Comma) Divers (2)
OtherS' (1)
Population (18) Fish (18) Mortality (13)
Reproduction (5)
Other^7 (5)
Growth (3)
Not Specified (2)
Disease/Abnorm (1)
Migration (1)
Invert (13) Mortality (10)
Repr oduc t i on ( 6 )
Other^/ (3)
Growth (2)
Pop Density (1)
Respiration (1)
Osmoregulation (1)
Not Specified (1)
Plant (1) Not Specified (1)
Individual (2) Invert (1) Tissue Residue (1)
Fish (1) Tissue Residue (1)
Reptile (1) Tissue Residue (1)
Not Specif (31) Not Spec (29) Contain Media (29)
Fish (2) Not Specif (2)
Invert (1)
Selection of
Contaminant(s)
of Concern
Ecol (1)
Hum (1)
Not Spec (1)
Ecol (12)
Hum (5)
Both (2)
Ecol (2)
Hum (15)
Both (9)
Ecol (7)
Site-Specific Derivation
Toxicity of
Measure (s) Benchmark
n/a (3) LOEL (1)
Not Spec (2)
Bioassay-Lab (7) Other^ (6)
Bioassay-In Situ (1) Mort-50 (6)
None (10) LOEL (5)
AWQC (4)
Loc Std (3)
BCF (2)
Bkgd (2)
Not Spec (3)
Bioassay-In Situ (1) Bkgd (2)
None (1)
None (31) AWQC (28)
Loc Std (7)
Mort-50 (4)
BCF (2)
LOEL (1)
Number of sites given in parentheses
— For an explanation of entries, see Glossary (Appendix E)
— Impacts were not evaluated at nine sites
-' Unspecified "community" effects
-'
OX effect level in bioassay
- Unspecified "chronic" effects
-------
APPEBDtt B (cautioned)
SOM1AHY OF HETBDDS DSHD TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS Bl FBESBHAIER EOOSTbTlJG (continued)
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION RISK ASSESSMENT
Level of
Organization
Comnunity
Population
Individual
Not Specified
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Ecol (1)
Hum (1)
N.S. (1)
Ecol (12)
Hum (5)
N.S. (1)
Ecol (2)
Hum (12)
Both (11)
Ecol (6)
N.S. (2)
Pathway(s) Intake/Dose
Considered Assumptions
Sed-Contact (3) n/a (3)
Water Col (3)
Sed-Ingest (2)
Water Col (18) n/a (18)
Sed-Contact (2)
Sed-Ingest (2)
Food Chain (2)
Sed-Contact (1) Qual (1)
Sed-Ingest (1) n/a (1)
Water Col (1)
Water Col (26) n/a (31)
Sed-Contact (3) Quant (1)
Sed-Ingest (3)
Food Chain (2)
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Modelled (2)
Measured (1)
Measured (7)
Modelled (6)
Qual Eval (1)
n/a (6)
n/a (2)
Measured (20)
Modelled (11)
Qual Eval (1)
Not Specif (1)
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
Qual Eval (3)
Quot-Sing (1)
Quot-Sing (11)
Bioassay (8)
Qual Eval (2)
Bioassay (1)
Quot-Sing (1)
Quot-Sing (27)
Qual Eval (4)
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Qual Eval (1)
Not Spec (1)
n/a (1)
Qual Eval (4)
Not Spec (11)
n/a (3)
Qual Eval (1)
Not Spec (1)
Qual Eval (2)
Not Spec (24)
n/a (5)
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Qual Eval (1)
Not Specif (1)
n/a (1)
Qual Eval (3)
Quant Estim (1)
Not Specif (11)
n/a (3)
Qual Eval (1)
Not Specif (1)
Qual Eval (5)
Not Specif (22)
n/a (4)
Characterization
of Uncertainty
Adequate (2)
Inadequate (1)
Adequate (12)
Inadequate (4)
Not Specif (2)
Adequate (1)
Not Specif (1)
Adequate (14)
Inadequate (14)
Not Specif (3)
Not Specif (5)
-------
AFPEHDIX B (continued)
SDHUBY OF METHODS USED TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL ECOLOGIC
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of
of Concern Organization Group End Point(s)
ESTUARINE (7) Ecosystem (1) Fish (1) Reproduction (1)
Community (1) Fish (1) Common Divers (1)
Invert (1) Commun Divers (1)
Plant (1) Commun Divers (1)
Population (4) Invert (3) Mortality (3)
Reproduction (1)
Growth (1)
Fish (2) Mortality (2)
Reproduction (1)
Growth (1)
Plant (2) Mortality (2)
Reproduction (1)
Growth (1)
Not Spec (1) Mortality (1)
Not Specif (4) Not Spec (4) Contam Media (4)
U. IMPACTS IB ESTDARIBE ECOSYSTEMS =/S'
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Selection of Site-Specific Derivation
Contaminant(s) Toxicity of
of Concern Measure(s) Benchmark
Both (1) None (1) AWQC (1)
LOEL (1)
Mort-50 (1)
Other-/ (1)
Both (1) None (1) AWQC (1)
LOEL (1)
Mort-50 (1)
Other2/ (1)
Ecol (3) Bioassay-Lab (4) Other^/ (4)
Both (1)
Both (2) None (4) AWQC (4)
Hum (1) Loc Std (1)
Ecol (1)
Number of sites given in parentheses
-' For an explanation of entries, see Glossary (Appendix E)
- Site-specific sediment criterion
-1 OX effect level bioassay
-------
B (continued)
Level of
Ecosystem
Community
Population
Not Specified
SuTMARV OF METHODS USED TO EVALUA1
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose
Point(s) Considered Assumptions
Both (1) Water Col (1) Quant (1)
Sed-Contact(l)
Sed- Ingest (1)
Food Chain (1)
Both (1) Water Col (1) Quant (1)
Sed-Contact(l)
Sed-Ingest (1)
Food Chain (1)
Ecol (3) Water Col (3) n/a (4)
Both (1) Sed-Contact (1)
Sed-Ingest (1)
Both (3) Water Col (4) n/a (4)
Ecol (1)
X KJTEHTiAL HXUOGICAL IMPACTS IN ESTUARlM KUUBYSTtMi (continued)
RISK ASSESSMENT
Chemical ' Type(s) of Evaluation of Characterization
Concentration Method Impacts Above of Areal Extent/ Characterization
at Receptor Employed Threshold Reversibility of Uncertainty
Measured (1) Quant Model (1) Qual Eval (1) Qual Eval (1) Adequate (1)
Modelled (1)
Measured (1) Quot-Sing (1) Quant Est (1) Quant Est (1) Adequate (1)
Modelled (1)
.
n/a (4) Bioassay (4) Qual Eval (1) Not Specif (4) Adequate (3)
Not Spec (3) Not Specif (1)
Measured (3) Quot-Sing (4) Not Spec (4) Quant Estim (1) Adequate (2)
Modelled (3) Qual Eval (1) Inadequate (2)
Not Specif (2)
-------
AFFEHDIX B (continued)
SUMURX OF METHODS USED TO EVALUATE FOTEBTIAL ECOjOGICAL IMPACTS IB HAKOE ECOSYSTHC ys/
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem
of Concern
MARINE (2)
Selection
Level of of Sampling
Organization Point(s)
Population Ecol (1)
Not Specified Both (1)
Ecol (1)
Level of Taxonomic
Organization Group
Population (1) Plant (1)
Invert (1)
Not Specif (2) Hot Spec (2)
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Pathway(s) Intake/Dose
Considered Assumptions
Water Col CD n/a (1)
Sed-Contact (1)
Sed- Ingest (1)
Water Col (1) n/a (2)
Food Chain (1)
Not Specif (1)
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
Mortality (1)
Reproduction (1}
Mortality (1)
Reproduction (1)
Contain Media (2)
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
n/a (1)
Measured (2)
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Selection of Site-Specific Derivation
Contaminant(s) Toxicity of
of Concern Measure(s) Benchmark
Ecol (1) Bioassay-Lab (1) Other^ (1)
Hum (1) None (2) AWQC (2)
Ecol (1)
RISK ASSESSMENT
Type(s) of Evaluation of Characterization
Method Impacts Above of Areal Extent/ Characterization
Employed Threshold Reversibility of Uncertainty
Bioassay U) Not Spec (1) Not Specif (1) Adequate (1)
Quot-Sing (2) Not Spec (2) Not Specif (2) Adequate (1)
Inadequate (1)
Number of sites given in parentheses
- For an explanation of entries, see Glossary (Appendix E)
-/ 0% effect level in bioassay
-------
APPEHDIX B (continued)
SUMURT OF METHODS USED TO EVALUATE POTEHTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS 9 WETLAND ECOSTSTEMS *-'
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem Level of Taxonomic
of Concern Organization Group
WETLAND (25)-^ Community (3) Invert (1)
Plant (1)
Not Spec (1)
Population (7) Fish (4)
Invert (4)
Plant (2)
Mammal (2)
Bird (1)
Not Spec (1)
Individual (1) Plant (1)
Reptile (1)
Araphibi an ( 1 )
Not Specif (10) Not Spec (9)
Plant (1)
Selection of Site-Specific
Type(s) of Contaminant(s) Toxicity
End Point(s) of Concern Measure(s)
Comoiun Divers (1) Ecol (2) None (1)
Coranun Divers (1) Not Spec (1) n/a (1)
Not Specified (1)
Mortality (3) Ecol (4) None (4)
Reproduction (2) Hum (2) Bioassay-Lab (3)
Growth (1) Not Spec (1)
Other^ (1)
Mortality (3)
Reproduction (3)
Growth (2)
Pop Density (1)
Mortality (2)
Reproduction (1)
Reproduction (1)
Not Specified (1)
Not Specified (1)
Mortality (1)
Not Specified (1) Ecol (1) None (1)
Contam Media (7) Hum (5) None (10)
Not Specified (1) Both (3)
Not Specif (1) Ecol (2)
Derivation
of
Benchmark
LOEL (1)
Bkgd (1)
Not Spec (1)
LOEL (3)
Other^S/ (3)
Mort-50 (1)
NOEL (1)
AWQC (1)
Bkgd (1)
Not Spec (1)
AWQC (71
Loc Std (1)
Not Spec (4)
- Number of sites given in parentheses
-/ For an explanation of entries, see Glossary (Appendix E)
-^ Impacts were not evaluated at eight.sites
Unspecified "ecotoxicity test results"
e/
-' OX effect level in bioassay
- Unspecified "chronic effects"
-------
APFEBDIX B (continued)
SIMttRT OF METBDDS USED ID EVALUATE POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS IB NETLARD EOOSTSTOE (continued)
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION RISK ASSESSMENT
Level of
Orsanization
Conmunity
Population
Individual
Not Specified
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Ecol (2)
N.S. (1)
Hum (3)
Ecol (3)
N.S. (1)
N.S. (1)
Hum (5)
Both (3)
Ecol (1)
n/a (1)
Pathway(s) Intake/Dose
Considered Assumptions
Water Col (3) Quant (1)
Sed-Contact (2) n/a (2)
Sed- Ingest (1)
Food Chain (1)
Water Col (7) Quant (1)
Contact/Derm (2) N.S. (1)
Food Chain (2) ' n/a (5)
Sed-Contact (2)
Sed- Ingest (1)
Water Col (1) N.S. (1)
Sed-Contact (1)
Water Col (7) Qual (1)
Sed-Contact (3) n/a (10)
Sed- Ingest (3)
Food Chain (3)
Ingestion (3)
Not Specif (2)
n/a (1)
Chemical Type(s) of Evaluation of Characterization
Concentration Method Impacts Above of Areal Extent/ Characterization
at Receptor Employed Threshold Reversibility of Uncertainty
Measured (2) Qual Eval (3) Qual Eval (1) Qual Eval (2) Inadequate (2)
Modelled (1) Quot-Sing (1) n/a (2) n/a (1) Adequate (1)
Qual Eval (1)
Measured (3) Quot-Sing (4) Qual Eval (1) Qual Eval (1) Adequate (5)
Modelled (3) Bioassay (3) Not Spec (3) Not Specif (3) Inadequate (1)
n/a (3) Qual Eval (2) n/a (3) n/a (3) Not Specif (1)
Qual Eval (1) Qual Eval (1) n/a (1) Qual Eval (1) Adequate (1)
Measured (8) Quot-Sing (7) Qual Eval (1) Qual Eval (1) Inadequate (8)
Qual Eval (3) Qual Eval (4) Not Spec (9) Not Specif (9) Adequate (2)
-------
APPENDIX C
SITE-BY-SITE LISTING OF METHODS USED TO
CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
-------
APPEHDIX C
HETBQDS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s) Level of Taxonomic
Site of Concern Organization Grouo
EPA REGIOH 1
O'CONHER TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITY PLANT,
BIRD,
MAMM
TERR- AQUATIC COMMUNITY PLANT,
BIRD,
MAMM,
AMPHIB
FRESHWATER COMMUNITY FISH
INDIVIDUAL FISH,
AMPHIB
WETLAND COMMUNITY PLANT,
AMPHIB
INDIVIDUAL AMPHIB
LANDFILL
RE SOLVE FRESHWATER ' COMMUNITY INVERT
INDIVIDUAL FISH
NS NS
WETLAND NS NS
Type(s) of Derivation
Type(s) of Method(s) of
End Point(s) Emoloved Benchmark
COM DIV QUAL SURV N/A
COM DIV QUAL SURV N/A
COM DIV QUAL SURV N/A
TIS RES FIELD SAMP BKGD^/
COM DIV QUAL SURV N/A
TIS RES FIELD SAMP EKGD^/
COM DIV FIELD SAMP AWQC
TIS RES FIELD SAMP AWQC
CTM MED MEDIA SAMP AWQC
CTM MED MEDIA SAMP BKGD
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
Background = reference area nearby.
No observed impacts reported in available documentation; however, documentation is incomplete.
-------
AFPEHDIX C (continued)
HETBQDS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
Site of Concern
SULLIVAH'S LEDGE TERRESTRIAL
TERR-AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
CONFIDENTIAL fl TERR-AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
CONFIDEHTIAL #3 ESTUARINE
CONFIDEHTIAL *6 FRESHWATER
Level of Taxonoraic
Organization Group
COMMUNITY PLANT,
BIRD,
MAMMAL,
AMPHIB,
REPT
COMMUNITY PLANT,
BIRD,
MAMM.
AMPHIB,
REPT
COMMUNITY FISH,
BENTHIC
COMMUNITY PLANT
INDIVIDUAL FISH,
SHELL,
INVERT
NS NS
NS NS
Type(s) of Derivation Selection
Type(s) of Method(s) of of Sampling
End Point(s) Employed Benchmark Point(s)
COM DIV QUAL SURV N/A ECO
COM DIV QUAL SURV N/A ECO
COM DIV QUAL SURV N/A ECO
COM DIV QUAL SURV N/A ECO
TIS RES FIELD SAMP^ BKGD BOTH
CTM MED FIELD SAMP^/ BKGD BOTH
CTM MED MEDIA SAMP AWQC-AC.CC, BOTH
AL.CL.NSF,
MORT 50-NSF
No observed impacts reported in available documents; documentation incomplete.
Available documentation focused mainly on evaluating potential impacts; existing impacts described in introductory sections included
contaminated biota, sediments, and water.
-------
APPEHDIX C (continued)
METHODS USED ID CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s) Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of
Site of Concern Organization Group End Point(s)
EPA REGIOH 2
CHEMICAL CONTROL ESTUARINE COMMUNITY IKVERT
INDIVIDUAL INVERT
NS NS
CLOTHIER SITE TERRESTRIAL INDIVIDUAL MAMMAL,
PLANT
FRESHWATER INDIVIDUAL FISH
PLANT
WETLAND COMMUNITY PLANT
INDIVIDUAL PLANT,
FISH
HUDSON RIVER TERRESTRIAL INDIVIDUAL PLANT
NS NS
FRESHWATER INDIVIDUAL FISH
INVERT -MACRO
INVERT-OTHER-7
INVERT-SHELL
NS NS
COM DIV,
IND SPE,
TIS RES
CTM MED
TIS RES
TIS RES,
DIS/ABN
TIS RES
COM DIV
DIS/ABN
TIS RES
CTM MED
TIS RES
TIS RES
TIS RES
TIS RES
CTM MED
Type(s) of Derivation
Method(s) of
Employed Benchmark
FIELD SAMP2/
FIELD SAMP27
MEDIA SAMP37
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
QUAL SURV
QUAL SURV
FIELD SAMP
MEDIA SAMP
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
BIOASS/IN SITU
MEDIA SAMP
NS
AWQC
BKGD
BKGD
BKGD
BKGD
BKGD
BKGD
BKGD
FDA
BKGD
BKGD
BKGD
AWQC
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
BOTH
BOTH
HUM
HUM
HUM
HUM
HUM
Sampling not conducted for site - data from Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sampling at nearby sites.
Zooplankton, blue crabs, and freshwater clams.
-------
APPEHDIX C (continued)
HETBODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
(continued)
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s) Level of Taxonomic
Site of Concern Organization Group
LIPARI LAHDFILL FRESHWATER COMMUNITY FISH,
OTHER^/
NS NS
WETLAND INDIVIDUAL PLANT
NS NS
MARATBOH BATTERY^ TERR-AQUATIC INDIVIDUAL MAMMAL
NS
FRESHWATER INDIVIDUAL FISH
NS
WETLAND COMMUNITY PLANT
OTHER-/
INDIVIDUAL PLANT
OTHER^/
REFT
MAMMAL
Type(s) of
End Point(s)
COM DIV
TIS RES
CTM MED
MDRT
CTM MED
TIS RES
DIS/ABN
TIS RES
CTM MED
VEG STR
COM DIV
TIS RES
TIS RES
TIS RES,
DIS/ABN
TIS RES,
REPROD
Type(s) of
Method(s)
Employed
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
MEDIA SAMP
FIELD SAMP
MEDIA SAMP
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
MEDIA SAMP
OTHER-7
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NS
FDA
AWQC.AC.CC;
LOG STD
N/A
BKGD^/
BKGD
BKGD
BKGD
AWQC-CC.AC,
NSF, LOC STD
NS
NS
BKGD
BKGD
BKGD
BKGD
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
ECO
HUM
BOTH
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
Phytoplankton.
Benchmark is background because no standards or guidelines exist for soils/sediments.
c Available documentation was not complete.
Infrared photograph.
e Benthic algae.
Phytoplankton, Zooplankton.
-------
APPEHDIX C (continued)
METBGOS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Site
Ecosystem(s)
ot Concern
Level of
Organization
Taxonomic
Group
Type(s) of
End Point(s)
Type(s) of
Method(s)
Employed
Derivation
of
Benchmark
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
EPA REGION 3
AHMY CREEK LAHDFIU. FRESHWATER
COMMUNITY
FISH
COM 0IV
FIELD SAMP NS
ECO
INVERT
INDIVIDUAL FISH
NS NS
CHISMAN CREEK FRESHWATER INDIVIDUAL PLANT,
FISH
FISH
ESTUARINE INDIVIDUAL OYSTERS
COMMUNITY MACRO-
BENTHIC
COM DIV,
IND SPE
DIS/ABN,
TIS RES
CTM MED
TIS RES
DIS/ABN
TIS RES
DIS/ABN
COM DIV
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
MEDIA SAMP
FIELD SAMP BKGD^7 ECc£7
OTHER-7 BKGD^7
FIELD SAMP BKGD27 ECO
OTHER-7 NS
FIELD SAMP BKGD&7 ECO
Background values for fish as reported in the USFWS National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program and in the original literature.
Whole in residue levels used.
Histopathogical examination.
BKGD = reference area nearby.
Background values from a reference area and in the original literature.
Histological examination.
8 BKGD = reference area nearby.
-------
APFEMDIX C (continued)
HETHGOS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s) Level of Taxonomic
Site of Concern Organization Group
DELAWARE SAHD AHD FRESHWATER COMMUNITY FISH
GRAVEL
INVERT
INDIVIDUAL FISH
NS NS
DOUGLASVILLE FRESHWATER INDIVIDUAL FISH
NS NS
LA CLARKE FRESHWATER COMMUNITY INVERT-
BENTHIC
INDIVIDUAL FISH
WETLAND NS NS
NEW CASTLE STEEL FRESHWATER NS NS
WETLAND NS NS
Type(s) of
End Point(s)
COM DIV
COM DIV,
IND SPE
DIS/ABN,
TIS RES
CTM MED
TIS RES
CTM MED
COM DIV
DIS/ABN
NS
CTM MED
CTM MED
Type(s) of
Method(s)
Employed
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
MEDIA SAMP
OTHERS/
MEDIA SAMP
FIELD SAMP
OTHER£/
NS*/
MEDIA SAMP
MEDIA SAMP
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NS
BKGD
OTHER-7
REFERENCE
AREA^7
REFERENCE
AREA^7
NS
AWQC-CC.AC
AWQC-CC.AC
Selection
of Sampling
Point (s)
ECO
BOTH
BOTH
ECO
ECO
ECO
BOTH
BOTH
Data from STORET and other monitoring programs.
b Sampling points included an upstream reference area, an area of potential maximum impact, and an area of downstream impact.
c Gross necropsy, histopathology.
d Sampling points were an upstream reference area and an area of downstream impact.
e As part of the RI, the USFWS conducted a wetland assessment. Results were presented in documents not available at the time of review.
-------
AFPEHDIX C (continued)
DSHD TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
Site of Concern
FALMEBTON ZIHC TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
TYBOUTS COEHER WETLAND
TTSON'S DUMP TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
WEST VA ORDINANCE TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Level of
OtRanization
ECOSYSTEM
COMMUNITY
INDIVIDUAL
CCmJNITY
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
Taxonomic
Group
N/A
PLANT,
VERT,
INVERT
FISH
PLANT
NS
PLANT
FISH,
MACRO
PLANT
VERT,
MACRO
PLANT
BIRD,
MAM1
FISH
FISH,
MAMM,
BIRD
Type(s) of
End Potnt(s)
OTHERa/
VEG ABS,
COM DIV
TIS RES
VEG SIR
COM DIV
VEG SIR
COM DIV
VEG STR
COM DIV
VEG ABS
COM DIV
COM DIV
COM DIV
Type(s) of
Method(s)
Employed
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
QUAL SURV
OTHER-7
QUAL SURV
OTHER-7
QUAL SURV
FIELD SURV
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NONE
NONE
BKGD
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
2000 acres of deciduous woodland completely defoliated. Numerous surveys document the absence of soil microflora; depressed lichen communities;
reduced arthropod density; absence of earthworms, slugs, snails, toads, and salamanders; and elevated metal tissue residue levels in fish.
Aerial infrared photography used to determine whether vegetation on site and in wetlands is stressed.
-------
APPEIDIX C (continued)
HETBOOS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystera(s)
Site of Concern
WILDCAT LANDFILL TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
ESTUARINE
WETLAND
WINCHESTER TIRE
FIRE SITE FRESHWATER
Level of Taxonomic
Organization Group
COMJNITY PLANT,
INVERT,
VERT
INDIVIDUAL MAMM
COMMUNITY FISH,
INVERT-
BENTHIC
INDIVIDUAL FISH
COMMUNITY PLANT,
INVERT,
VERT
COMMUNITY PLANT,
INVERT,
VERT
COMMUNITY MACRO-
BENTHIC
Type(s) of
End Point(s)
COM DIV
DIS/ABN
COM DIV
DIS/ABN
COM DIV
COM DIV
COM DIV
Type(s) of
Method(s)
Employed
QUAL SURV
OTHER-7
FIELD SAMP
OTHER-/
QUAL SURV
QUAL SURV-/
FIELD SAMP
Derivation
of
Benchmark
N/A
BKGD^/
BKGD*-/
BKGD^/
N/A
N/A
REFERENCE
AREA
Selection
of Sampling
Point (s)
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
a Histopathological examination of specimens sampled from field.
BKGD = nearby reference areas and similar habitat in Maryland.
c Aerial photography used to document permanent loss of 29.1 acres of tidal wetland and permanent alteration of 7.9 acres of tidal wetland to
upland palustrine (isolated) wetland.
-------
APPEHDEC C (continued)
HETBODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
Site of Concern
EPA REGIOH 4
AMERICA!! CREOSOTE TERRESTRIAL
WORKS, INC.
MARINE
58th STREET LANDFILL WETLAND
GEIGEH SITE TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
MDHHRAY ENSIHEERUK FRESHWATER
WETLAND
a Original literature concentration of lead
b Historical records of fish kills.
Type(s) of
Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of Method(s)
Organization Group End Point(s) Employed
NS NS CTM MED MEDIA SAMP
NS NS CTM MED MEDIA SAMP
NS NS QUAL SURV NONE
COMMUNITY PLANT VEG ABS QUAL SURV
NS NS CTM MED MEDIA SAMP
POPULATION PLANT MORT MEDIA SAMP
COMMUNITY PLANT, COM DIV FIELD SAMP
FISH,
INVERT
POPULATION FISH MORT OTHER-/
INDIVIDUAL FISH TIS RES FIELD SAMP
CO>MJNITY PLANT VEG STR OTHER2-/
INDIVIDUAL PLANT TIS RES FIELD SAMP
(100-400 ppm in soil) considered toxic to agricultural plants.
Derivation
of
Benchmark
DETECT
DETECT
ECO
N/A
AWQC-CC
OTHER-/
N/A
N/A
FDA
N/A
BKGD
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
BOTH
BOTH
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
N/A
HUM
ECO
ECO
-------
AFPEBDIX C (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Site
MDNISPCRT LANDFILL
NEWPORT DUMP SITE
PARHAMCKE SURPLUS
SAPP BATTERY
62nd STREET SITE
STADFFER CHEMICAL
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
WETLAND
Level of
Organization
INDIVIDUAL
INDIVIDUAL
Taxonomi c
Group
FISH
FISH
Type(s) of
End Point(s)
TIS RES
TIS RES
Type(s) of Derivation
Method(s) of
Employed Benchmark
FIELD SAMP BKGD
FIELD SAMP BKGS
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
BOTH
BOTH
INDIVIDUAL
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
ECOSYSTEM
INDIVIDUAL
COMMUNITY
POPULATION
COMMUNITY
INDIVIDUAL
FISH
INVERT-
BENTHIC
PLANT
FISH,
MACRO
OTHER-7
FISH,
SHELL
PLANT
FISH
PLANT
FISH
TIS RES, FIELD SAMP BKGD
DIS/ABN
COM DIV
VEG ABS
COM DIV27
TIS RES
VEG ABS
MORI
VEG STR
TIS RES
QUAL SURV NS
QUAL SURV N/A
FIELD SAMP N/A
FIELD SAMP NS
QUAL SURV N/A
OTHER£/ N/A
QUAL SURV N/A
FIELD SAMP BKGD
HUM
ECO
ECO
ECO
HUM
ECO
N/A
ECO
HUM
Field sampling revealed a severely stressed ecosystem with altered community diversity of organisms living on, in, and near contaminated sediments.
Algae, phytoplankton. •
c The only evaluation of observed effects was a fish kill (in 1976) in the adjacent breeding ponds.
-------
APPEHDIX C (coottnoed)
teiBODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s) Level of Taxonomic
Site of Concern Organization Group
EPA REGIOH 5
FORT HAYNE REDUCTION TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITY PLANT,
BIRD,
MAMM
FRESHWATER COMMUNITY FISH
ESTUARINE INDIVIDUAL FISH
FULTZ LANDFILL FRESHWATER NS NS
LIQUID DISPOSAL FRESHWATER COMMUNITY MACRO-
INVERT
INDIVIDUAL FISH,
OTHER-'
. NS NS
WETLAND COMMUNITY PLANT
Type(s) of
Type(s) of Method(s)
End Point(s) Employed
COM DIV
COM DIV
DIS/ABN
CTM MED
COM DIV
TIS RES3-
CTM MED
VEG STR
QUAL SURV
QUAL SURV
FIELD SAMP
MEDIA SAMP
FIELD SAMP
' FIELD SAMP
MEDIA SAMP
FIELD SURV
Derivation
of
Benchmark
N/A
N/A
NS
AWQC-AC, CC
NS
FDA
LOC STD,
BKGD, AWQC,
OTHER-'
N/A
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
ECO
ECO
ECO
BOTH
BOTH
HUM
ECO
Problem is contaminated ground water; no impacts to biota are expected.
Elevated tissue residue levels of PCBs and DDT metabolites; source concluded that leachate does not reach river; contamination in river from
ground water.
Crayfish.
Great Lakes water quality criteria.
-------
APFEBDDC C (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS C coo tinned)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
Site of Concern
MARICB/HRAGG LABDPILL TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
OUTBOARD HARIHE FRESHWATER
SCHMALZ DDHP FRESHWATER
SEYMC8E RECYCLMG TERRESTRIAL
CORPOBATIOH
FRESHWATER
VELSICOL SITE FRESHWATER
Level of . Taxonomic Type(s) of
Organization Group End Point (s)
POPULATION PLANT VEG SIR
NS NS CTM MED
COMMUNITY FISH, COM DIV
INVERT3'
INDIVIDUAL FISH, TIS RES
SHELL,
BIRD,
MACRO-
BENTHIC
NS NS CTM MED
INDIVIDUAL BIRD.MAMM MORT
INVERT -MACRO TIS RES
MAM1AL • TIS RES
POPULATION FISH MORT
INDIVIDUAL FISH, OTHER£/ TIS RES
REPT TIS RES
Type(s) of
Method(s)
Employed
QUAL SURV
MEDIA SAMP
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
MEDIA SAMP
OTHER£/
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
OTHER-/
FIELD SAMP
FIELD SAMP
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NONE
AWQC
N/A
NONE
AWQC- AC, CC,
LOELb/
N/A
BKGD
BKGD
N/A
BKGD
BKGD
Selection
of Sampling
Point (s)
ECO
HUM
ECO
ECO
HUM
N/A
ECO
ECO
N/A
ECO
ECO
a Benthic macroinvertebrates, phytoplanakton, zooplankton.
b A chronic LOEL literature value for PAHs on fish.
c Reported sightings of dead individuals.
d Documented fish kills.
8 Crayfish.
-------
APPEBDIX C (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
Site of Concern
EPA REGIOII 6
MID-SOOTH WOOD TERRESTRIAL
PRODUCTS
FRESHWATER
UHITED HUCLEAR TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
HICHTIA HDUHTAIM TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
EPA REGION 8
OONFIDE1ITIAL #2 TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
CONFIDEHTIAL #4 TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
Type(s) of Derivation
Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of Method(s) of
Organization Group End Point(s) Employed Benchmark
COMMUNITY PLANT VEG ABS FIELD SAMP N/A
POPULATION FISH MDRT OTHER-/ N/A
INDIVIDUAL MAM£X TIS RES FIELD SAMP BKGD
INDIVIDUAL FISH TIS RES FIELD SAMP FDA
INDIVIDUAL MAMM OTHER-/ OTHER-/ N/A
CCmJNITY FISH COM DIV FIELD SAMP NS
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
N/A
N/A
HUM
HUM
N/A
ECO
Historical record of fish kill.
Livestock.
No impacts specified, although available documentation was incomplete.
Chemical burns noted on livestock straying into contaminated area.
Historical records.
-------
APPEBDDC C (continued)
HETBODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL BCOjOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
Site of Concern
EPA RECTOS 9
MOB (CONTAIN MIHE TERR-AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
CONFIDENTIAL #5 TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
EPA REGION 10
QUEEH CITY FARMS TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Type(s) of Derivation
Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of Method(s) of
Organization Group End Point(s) Employed Benchmark
POPULATION FISH MORT, FIELD SAMP AWQC,
GROWTH, OTHER-7
MIGRATE
COMMUNITY PLANT VEG ABS QUAL SURV NONE
COWUNITY PLANT VEG ABS QUAL SURV NONE
COMMUNITY PLANT VEG STR QUAL SURV N/A
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
Species-specific contaminant levels determined by the State of California's Department of Fish and Game.
-------
RCRA
APPEBDIX C (continued)
METHODS DSED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTIIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
Site of Concern
RCRA f 1
WYMAN-GOEDOH FRESHWATER
RCRA 4 2
WETLAND
ALLIED CHEMICAL ESTUARINE
RCRA # 3
DEFENSE GENERAL FRESHWATER
SUFPLT CEHTER
RCRA #4
Level of Taxonomic
Organization Group
COMMUNITY PLANT
COMMUNITY PLANT
INDIVIDUAL PLANT
COMMUNITY INVERT-
BENTHIC
INDIVIDUAL SHELL
COMMUNITY INVERT-
BENTHIC
Type(s) of
End Point(s)
COM DIV
COM DIV
VES SIR,
REFROD,
GROWTH
COM DIV
TTO DFcC/
I ID KEi&~~
COM DIV
Type(s) of Derivation
Method(s) of
Employed Benchmark
QUAL SURV BKGDS/
FIELD SAMP BKGD3-/
FIELD SAMP EKGDa/
FIELD SAMP EKGD^/
FIELD SAMP BKGD^X
FIELD SAMP BKGD^X
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
HUM
ECO
Nearby reference area.
Background = reference area and other studies in Baltimore Harbor area.
Only muscle tissue analyzed (focus on human health).
Tissue residue levels correlated with environmental concentrations, compared with residue levels elsewhere in the northeast.
Reference area downstream.
-------
AFPEHDIX C (continued)
METBQDS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (COTtinned)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Site
RCRA f5
RCRA f«
MONROE AUTO
RCRA #7
RCRA *8
SOUTHERN DYE CO.
RCRA *9
^rtrrfTFow unrm
EcosystemCs)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
FRESHWATER
WPTT A Km
Type(s) of Derivation
Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of Method(s) of
Organization Group End Point(s) Employed Benchmark
NS NS NS QUAL SURV NS
INDIVIDUAL FISH TIS RES FIELD SAMP BKGD
HOT FUAT UATFn--.
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
NS
HUM
PIEDMONT RCRA flO
UHIOH CARBIDE TERRESTRIAL
AGBICOLTURAL PRODUCTS
COMPAHY. IHC ESTUARINE
RCRA fll
POPULATION
SHELL
NOT EVALUATED
MORT FIELD SURV
ECO
Documentation for site incomplete.
Reference areas within estuary.
-------
APPENDIX C (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
IMPACTS CHARACTERIZATION
Site
HOPPERS CCMPAHY. DC
RCRA #12
TVTBlWAYTrWAT VADfTD
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
tTSTPQUUATTTB
Type(s) of
Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of Method(s)
Organization Group End Point(s) Employed
COM1UNITY PLANT VEG ABS QUAL SURV
wnr JTVAT itifirn
Derivation
of
Benchmark
N/A
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
NS
CO.. TREATED HOOD
PRODUCTS PLANT
RCRA #13
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TERRESTRIAL
KHViMCtMEHTAL SERVICES
RCRA #14
FRESHWATER
IRBCO CHEMICALS TERRESTRIAL
RCRA #15
EASTERN OPERATING AREA
INDIVIDUAL BIRD TIS RES FIELD SAMP BKGD
COMMUNITY INVERT, COM DIV FIELD SAMP BKGDS/
FISH
INDIVIDUAL FISH TIS RES, FIELD SAMP, BKGD
DIS/ABH OTHER-'
POPULATION BIRD REPROD, FIELD STUDIES N/A
BEHAVIOR
ECO
ECO
BOTH
ECO
Background = typical communities for this type of stream in South Central Kansas.
Pathological examination for internal and external evidence of tumors, lesions, morphological abnormalities, disease, parasites, and toxic or
pollutant related stress.
-------
APPENDIX D
SITE-BY-SITE LISTING OF METHODS USED TO
CHARACTERIZE POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
-------
APPEHDDC D
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE TOTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s) Level of
Site of Concern Organization
O'COHHOR TERRESTRIAL POPULATION
.
TERR-AQUATIC POPULATION
FRESHWATER COMMUNITY.
POPULATION
NS
WETLAND COMMUNITY,
POPULATION
NS
Taxonoraic
Group
BIRD,
MAMMAL
BIRD,
REPTILE ,
MAMMAL
MICRO,
MICRO,
MACRO
FISH
NS
MICRO,
MACRO
MAMMAL
NS
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
REPROD
REPROD
COM DIV,
POP DENSITY,
GROWTH, REPROD
MORT
CTM MED
COM DIV,
POP DENSITY,
GROWTH, REPROD
REPROD
CTM MED
Selection of
Contaminant (s)
of Concern
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
Site-Specific Derivation
Toxicity of
Measure(s) Benchmark
NONE LOEL,BAF-/
NONE LOEL, BCF-/
NONE LOEL
NONE AWQC-CC
NONE LOEL
NONE AWQC-CC
Estimated dietary intake and composition in predator and bioaccumulation factor (or measured tissue residue levels) in prey used to determine
site-specific contaminant levels in soils or sediments that would lead to exceedance of dietary LOEL in predator.
-------
0'CONNCR (continued)
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
RISK ASSESSMENT
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
TERR-AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
ECO CONT/DERM,
INGEST, FOOD
CHAIN
ECO FOOD CHAIN
ECO SED -CONTACT,
SED-INGEST,
WAT COLUMN
NS WAT COLUMN
ECO SED-CONTACT,
SED-INGEST,
NS WAT COLUMN
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
OTHER-7
OTHER^7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
MODEL
MODEL
MODELS/
MEAS
MODELS/
MEAS
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
QUOT-SING,^
QUAL EVAL
QUOT-SING
QUOT-SING,
QUAL EVAL
QUOT-SING
QUAL-EVAL
QUOT SING±X
QUOT-SING
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
Birds assumed to eat 20% of weight daily; small mammals assumed to eat 200-3001 of weight daily. Risks calculated for birds eating 253!, 50%, 75%
and 100Z terrestrial arthropods and earthworms. Small mammals assumed to eat 35Z earthworms and 65% arthropods.
Quotient method used for primary carnivores; risks to secondary carnivores evaluated qualitatively.
Tissue residue in bethic macroinvertebrates estimated from sediment concentrations of contaminants and bioconcentration factors.
e Concentrations in water column estimated from concentration in sediment.
Risks to mammals via direct contact and/or ingestion of contaminated water and sediments only could be estimated qualitatively.
-------
APPEBDIX D (continued)
METBCDS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEHTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
OLD SPKIRGFIELD
LAHDFILL
Ecosystem(s) of
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL NS
FRESHWATER NS
Ecosystem(s) Level of
of Concern Organization
TERRESTRIAL POPULATION
FRESHWATER POPULATION
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose
Point(s) Considered Assumptions
CONT/DERM, OTHER-''
INGEST ,
FOOD CHAIN
WAT COLUMN N/A
Taxonomic Type(s) of
Group End Point(s)
MANUAL, REPROD
BIRD.
INVERT
FISH, REPROD.
INVERT- MORT
BENTHIC
Chemical Type(s) of
Concentration Method
at Receptor Employed
MODEL QUOT-SING,
QUAL EVAL-/
MEAS, QUOT-SING
MODEL-'
Selection of
Contaminant (s)
of Concern
ECO
ECO
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
N/A
NONE
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
NONE
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
N/A
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
LOEL,BAF-X
AWQC-CC,
MORT-50-SF-X
BKGD,-X
BCF
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
Estimated dietary intake, dietary habits, and bioaccumulation factors in prey used to derive site-specific soil criteria for birds.
Safety Factor of 100 applied to LC5Q
c BKGD = background tissue residue levels in fish in N.E. US.
Birds assumed to eat 20% of weight daily; home range size of receptors used as a qualitative estimate by relative likelihood of exposure.
e Potential for adverse effects in mammals evaluated qualitatively.
Tissue residue levels in fish and benthic invertebrates estimated from BCFs.
-------
APPEBDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
RE SOLVE
Ecosystem(s)
TERR-AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERR-AQUATIC^
FRESHWATER
EXPOSURE
Selection
of Sampling Pathway (s)
Point(s) Considered
Level of
Organization
POPULATION
NS
CHARACTERIZATION
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
BOTH FOOD CHAIN FDA
BOTH WAT COLUMN, OTHER-/
FOOD CHAIN
Taxonomic
Group
MAMMALS
NS
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
MEAS, MODEL
MODEL
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
OTHER-/
CTM MED
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
QUOT-SING
QUOT-SING
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
BOTH
BOTH
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
NONE
NONE
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
NONE
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
AREAL EXTENT
AREAL EXTENT
Derivation
of
Benchmark
FDA,
BIOACCUM
AWQC-CC
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
Human health endpoints used as surrogates for wildlife.
Numerous parameters in WASTOX model required intake/dose assumptions>
-------
APPEHDDC D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE FOTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s) Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of
Site of Concern Organization Group End Point(s)
SULLIVAN'S LEDGE TERRESTRIAL NS PLANT, NS
BIRD,
MAMMAL,
AMPHIB,
REPT
TERR-AQUATIC NS PLANT, NS
BIRD.
MAMMAL,
AMPHIB,
REPT
FRESHWATER NS FISH, CTM MED
INVERT
WETLAND NS PLANT CTM MED,
NS
Selection of Site-Specific
Contaminant (s) Toxicity
of Concern Measure(s)
BOTH NONE
BOTH NONE
BOTH NONE
BOTH NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NONE
NONE
AWQC-AC.CC,
NSF
AWQC-AC.CC,-''
NSF; NONE
a For aquatic species; no benchmark for terrestrial species.
-------
SULLIVAH'S LEDGE (CGKTIHUED)
RISK ASSESSMENT
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
TERR-AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Selection
of Sampling Pathway (s)
Point(s) Considered
BOTH CONT/DERM,
INHAL, FOOD
CHAIN
BOTH INGEST,
INHAL,
FOOD CHAIN
BOTH WAT COLUMN,
SED-INGEST,
SED-CONTACT,
FOOD CHAIN
BOTH FOOD CHAIN,
WAT COLUMN,
SED-INGEST,
SED-CONTACT,
INGEST, INHAL
Chemical
Intake/Dose Concentration
Assumptions at Receptor
QUAL EVAL-X MEAS
QUAL EVAL-X MEAS
JJ/A MEAS
N/A, MEAS
QUAL EVAL-'
Type(s) of Evaluation of
Method Impacts Above
Employed Threshold
QUAL EVAL NONE
QUAL EVAL NONE
QUOT-SING NONE
QUOT-SING,£/ NONE
QUAL EVAL
Characterization
of Areal Extent/ Characterization
Reversibility of Uncertainty
NONE INADEQUATE
NONE INADEQUATE
NONE INADEQUATE
NONE INADEQUATE
b Home range size and habitat requirements used qualitatively to estimate potential for exposure.
c Quotient used for aquatic species; qualitative evaluation for terrestrial species and plants.
-------
AFPEHDIX D (ccntlnaed)
METBQOS USED TO CHARACTERIZE FOTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Selection of
Ecosystem(s) Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of Contaminant ( s )
Site of Concern Organization Group End Point(s) of Concern
CONFIDENTIAL #1 TERR-AQUATIC POPULATION BIRD,
MAMMAL
FRESHWATER NS NS
WETLAND POPULATION PLANT,
BIRD,
MAMMAL
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection Chemical
Ecosystem(s) of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose Concentration
of Concern Point(s) Considered Assumptions at Receptor
TERR-AQUATIC HUM FOOD CHAIN, -' OTHER-' MODEL2'
INGEST
FRESHWATER HUM WAT COLUMN N/A MEAS
WETLAND HUM CONT/DERM, N/A MEAS
HUM WAT COLUMN, OTHER-' MODEL-'
FOOD CHAIN
NS5' HUM
NS HUM
MORT HUM
NS3' HUM
NS HUM
RISK
Type(s) of Evaluation of
Method Impacts Above
Employed Threshold
QUOT-SING N/A
QUOT-SING NONE
QUOT-SING NONE
QUOT-SING N/A
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
N/A
NONE
NONE
N/A
Derivation
of
Benchmark
LOEL,
NOEL,
MORT-50-SF-'
AWQC-CC
MORT-50
LOEL, NOEL
MORT-50-SF-'
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
Numerous endpoints listed in hazard section, but none specifically noted in risk assessment.
Safety factor of 5 applied to LC5Q to protect against acute hazards.
Food chain evaluated for birds, direct ingestion of water evaluated for mammals.
Ducks assumed to consume 10% of their weight daily, 20X of which is aquatic invertebrates. Mamnals assumed to drink IX of body weight daily.
Concentrations of contaminants in aquatic invertebrates calculated from literature BCFs measured in short-term bioconcentration studies.
-------
AFFEHDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE FOTBTTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s) Level of
Site of Concern Organization
CONFIDENTIAL #3 ESTUARINE ECOSYSTEM
COMMUNITY,
POPULATION
POPULATION
Taxonomic
Group
FISH
FISH,^/
CRUSTACEANS ,
MOLLUSCS,
ANNELIDS,
PLANKTON
FISH,
AMPHIPODS
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
REPROD2/
COM DIV£/,
MORT,
GROWTH
MORT,
REPROD
Selection of Site-Specific
Contaminant (s) Toxicity
of Concern Measure (s)
BOTH N/A
BOTH N/A
BOTH BIOASS-LAB,
LAB ORGS
Derivation
of
Benchmark
AWQC-CC.AC,
SF; LOEL-
SF; MQRT-50
OTHER^
AWQC-CC.AC,
SF; LOEL-
SF; MORT-50
OTHER-/
OTHER-/
Failure of adult fish to spawn assumed to be an indication of adverse impacts to ecosystem.
b „
Representative species selected to represent all trophic levels in the aquatic food web and both pelagic and benthic lifestyles.
Endpoints based on most sensitive endpoint in taxonomic group evaluated (e.g., altered species diversity selected for algae, chronic mortality in
invertebrates.
NOEL concentration of PCBs in sediments.
0% effect level in bioassay.
-------
CONFIDENTIAL *3 (COHTINDED)
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
RISK ASSESSMENT
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
ESTUARINE
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
Pathway(s)
Considered
WAT COLUMN,
SED-CONTACT,
SED- INGEST,
FOOD CHAIN
WAT COLUMN,
SED-CONTACT,
SED- INGEST,
FOOD CHAIN
SED-CONTACT,
SED- INGEST
Chemical
Intake/Dose Concentration
Assumptions at Receptor
OTHER MEAS, MODEL .
OTHERS/ MEAS.k/
N/A N/A
Type(s) of Evaluation of
Method Impacts Above
Employed Threshold
OTHER— QUAL
QUOT-SING QUANTA-/ "I/
BIOASSAY NONE
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
QUAL
QUANT-/
NONE
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
Qualitative fault-tree analysis of reproductive failure resulting from mortality, decreased population density, insufficient food, and a failure
of eggs to form.
* Numerous assumptions required by Hydro Qual's Food Chain Model.
Biomagnification through food chain modelled through use of Hydro Qual's Food Chain Model.
Toxicity Quotient (TQ) method used to evalute relative severity of effects resulting from exposure to PCBs. TQ defined as Expected Environmental
Concentration (EED/Benchmark. Scale of effects: TQ < 0.1 = no adverse effects; 0.1 < TQ < 10.0 = possible adverse effects; TO < 10.0 =
probable adverse effects.
J Dietary intake exposure-response data from literature was used to derive a "scale" of adverse effects ranging from histological changes to
reproductive failure.in fish.
-------
APPESDIX D (cantlnaed)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE FOTERTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (cantlnaed)
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystera(s)
Site of Concern
CONFIDEHTIAL SITE #6 TERR-AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
Selection of
Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of Contaminant ( s )
Organization Group End Point(s) of Concern
NS NS CTM MED ECO
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
AWQC-AC.CC,
AL.CL.NSF;
MORT 50-NSF
LOElX
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
RISK ASSESSMENT
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
TERR-AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
BOTH
WAT COLUMN
N/A
NOT EVALUATED
MEAS QUOT-SING
NONE
NONE
INADEQUATE
LC,Q for leopard frog from literature; chronic LOEL estimated by equation: In (chronic) =0.78 (In
,-1.87
-------
APPEBDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE EOTEHTIAL EOOUJGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
Site of Concern
CHEMICAL CONTROL TERR-AQUATIC
ESTUARINE
Level of
Organization
N/S
Taxonotnic
Group
N/S
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
Ecosystem(s) of Sampling Pathway(s)
of Concern Point(s) Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Selection of
Type(s) of Contaminant ( s )
End Point(s) of Concern
CTM MED ' HUM
RISK
Type(s) of Evaluation of
Method Impacts Above
Employed Threshold
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Derivation
of
Benchmark
AWQC-AC,NSF
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ESTUARINE
BOTH
WAT COLUMN
N/A
MEAS, MODEL
QUOT-SING
NONE
NONE
INADEQUATE
-------
APPENDIX D (continued)
METBDOS USED TO CHARACTERIZE BOTERTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Selection of Site-Specific Derivation
Ecosystem(s) Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of Contaminant(s) Toxicity of
Site of Concern Organization Group End Point (s) of Concern Measure (s) Benchmark
CLOTHIER SITE TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION RISK ASSESSMENT
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Note: Basically,
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
because there
Chemical
Pathway(s) Intake/Dose Concentration
Considered Assumptions at Receptor
is no evidence that contaminants have migrated
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
off-site and no
Evaluation of Characterization
Impacts Above of Areal Extent/
Threshold Reversibility
evidence of actual ecological impacts, an
Characterization
of Uncertainty
evaluation of
potential impacts under the no-action alternative is unnecessary.
-------
APPEKDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE HJTtNTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TFTJPITQTtJTAT
Level of
Organization
Taxonomic
Group
Selection of
Type(s) of Contaminant (s)
End Point (s) of Concern
«rvr PT/AT iiiTpn
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
Derivation
of
Benchmark
TERR-AQUATIC NOT EVALUATED-
FRESHWATER NOT EVALUATED-
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION RISK ASSESSMENT
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TFRRFSTRTAT
Selection
of Sampling
Point (s)
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Hrvr wt
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
MiiATirn--
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
TERR-AQUATIC NOT EVALUATED-
FRESHWATER NO
-------
AFFEHDDC D (continued)
METBGOS USED TO CHARACTERIZE FOTERTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
LIPARI LANDFILL
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of
Organization Group End Point(sJ
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
Derivation
of
Benchmark
Hnr CDTr^TPTPna' -
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
RISK ASSESSMENT
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
-NOT SPECIFIEDa
I.
-NOT SPECIFIEDa'
Documents not available.
-------
APPEHDDC D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEHTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
MARATHON
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
BATTERY TERR- AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Level of
Organization
INDIVIDUAL
INDIVIDUAL
POPULATION
POPULATION
Taxonomic
Group
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
MAMMAL TIS RES, REPROD
INVERT
FISH
FISH, OTHER£/
TIS RES
MORT
DIS/ABN,
MORT, REPROD
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERR-AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
ECO FOOD CHAIN
ECO WAT COLUMN,
SED- INGEST,
SED-CONTACT
ECO WAT COLUMN
ECO WAT COLUMN
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
NS
N/A
N/A
N/A
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
MEAS
N/A
N/A
MODEL
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
RISK
Type(s) of Evaluation of
Method Impacts Above
Employed Threshold
QUOT-SING
BIOASS
BIOASS
QUOT-SING
NS
NONE
QUAL EVAL-X
NONE
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
N/A
BIOASS/INSITU-''
BIOASS/INSITU-/
N/A
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
NS
QUAL EVAL
NS
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NS
BKGD
NS
MORT 50-AC,
BCF
Characterization
of Uncertainty
NS
NS
NS
ADEQUATE
NOTE: Available documentation was not complete.
Bioassay was a bioaccumulation study.
Fish transplanted from a nearby area failed to survive. Conclusion was that genetic selection is occurring in contaminated area!
Blue crabs and cladocerans.
Concluded that genetic selection was occurring, but did not report how this conclusion was derived.
-------
APFEHDLX D (continued)
METBCOS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
ARMY CHEEK LANDFILL
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
Level of
Organization
POPULATION
Taxonomic
Group
INVERT,
FISH
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
MORI,
RE PROD
Selection of
Contaminant(s)
of Concern
BOTH
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
BIOASS/LAB ,
LAB ORG
Derivation
of
Benchmark
OTHER-X
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATIOH
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
RISK ASSESSMENT
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
FRESHWATER
ECO
WAT COLUMN
N/A
N/A
BIOASS
NONE
NONE
INADEQUATE
0% effect level in bioassay.
-------
APPEHDIX D (continued)
METBGDS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
Site of Concern
CHISMAH CREEK FRESHWATER
ESTUARINE
Level of
Organization
POPULATION
NS
POPULATION
NS
Taxonoroic
Group
FISH,
DAPANIA
NS
OTHER,-7
PLANT
NS
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
MORT
CTM MED
MORT,£/
REPROD,
OTHER-7
CTM MED
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
Ecosystem(s) of Sampling Pathway(s)
of Concern Point(s) Considered
FRESHWATER ECO WAT COLUMN
ECO NS
ESTUARINE ECO WAT COLUMN,
SED- INGEST,
SED-CONTACT
ECO NS
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
N/A
MEAS
N/A
MEAS
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
BIOASS
QUOT-SING
BIOASS
QUOT-SING
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
BIOSS-QUANT
OTHER-7
BIOASS-QUANT
OTHER57
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
BIOASS-LAB
N/A
BIOASS-LAB
N/A
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
OTHER-7
AWQC-CC
OTHER-7
AWQC-CC
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
Not specified, but assumed to be OZ effect level in bioassay.
Sea urchin, marine bacteria, marine microalgae, grass shrimp, blue mussel.
Mortality of sea urchin sperm cells.
Bioluminescence of marine bacteria.
Criteria exceedances noted, but media bioassays need to determine nature of risks.
-------
APPEHDIX D (continued)
METBODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
DELAWARE SARD AND
GRAVEL
Ecosystera(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
Level of
Organization
POPULATION
Taxonomic
Group
INVERT,
FISH
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
MORT,
REPROD
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
BOTH
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
BIOASS/LAB,
LAB OR6
Derivation
of
Benchmark
OTHER-/
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION RISK ASSESSMENT ^
Selection Chemical Type(s) of Evaluation of Characterization
Ecosystera(s) of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose Concentration Method Impacts Above of Areal Extent/ Characterization
of Concern Point(s) Considered Assumptions at Receptor Employed Threshold Reversibility of Uncertainty
FRESHWATER ECO WAT COLUMN N/A N/A BIOASS NONE NONE INADEQUATE
OX effect level in bioassay.
-------
APPERDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEHTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
DOUGLASVILLE
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
Level of
Orxanization
NS
Taxonomic
Group
NS
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
CTM MED
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystera(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
HUM
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Derivation
of
Benchmark
BKGD
Characterization
of Uncertainty
FRESHWATER
BOTH
NS
NS
MEAS
QUAL EVAL
NONE
NONE
INADEQUATE
-------
APPEHDIX D (continued)
METBDDS USED TO CHARACTERIZE FOTEHTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystemf s) Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of
Site of Concern Organization Group End Point(s)
LA CLARKE FRESHWATER POPULATION DAPHNIA MORT,
REPROD
FISH MORT, GROWTH,
OTHER-7
BACTERIA OTHER-7
MOLLUSC MORT, OTHER£/
NS FISH OTHERS/
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection Chemical Type(s) of
Ecosystera(s) of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose Concentration Method
of Concern Point(s) Considered Assumptions at Receptor Employed
FRESHWATER ECO N/A N/A N/A BIOASS
ECO WAT COLUMN N/A MODEL QUOT-SING
Selection of Site-Specific Derivation
Contaminant (s) Toxicity of
of Concern Measure(s) Benchmark
N/A BIOASS-LAB-/ REF AREA-7
ECO N/A LOC STD,
LOEL, NSF
RISK ASSESSMENT
Evaluation of Characterization
Impacts Above of Areal Extent/ Characterization
Threshold Reversibility of Uncertainty
QUAL EVAL QUANT ADEQUATE
NONE NONE ADEQUATE
Bioassays included those using water column (Ceriodaphnia, fish bacteria) and sediments (fish, molluscs).
Samples used in the bioassays included an upstream reference area, an area of potential maximum impact, and an area of downstream impact.
Respiration, osmoregulation.
The MICROTOX assay uses bioluminescence as an indirect measure of mortality.
"Sublethal deleterious effects" described in a document not available at the time of review.
-------
APPEHDLX D (continued)
METBGDS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTERTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
HEM CASTLE
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Ecosystera(s)
of Concern
STEEL FRESHWATER
WETLAND
EXPOSURE
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
BOTH WAT COLUMN
BOTH WAT COLUMN
Level of
OrRanization
NS
NS
CHARACTERIZATION
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
NONE
NONE
Taxonomic
Group
NS
NS
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
MEAS
MEAS
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
CTM MED
CTM MED
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
QUOT-SING
QUOT-SING
Selection of
Contaminant (s)
of Concern
BOTH
BOTH
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
NONE
NONE
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
NONE
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
NONE
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
AWQC-AC,CC
AWQC-AC.CC
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
-------
AFPEHDEX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEHTIAL'ECCHjOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s) Level of
Site of Concern Organization
PALMERTOH ZIBC TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
Ecosystem(s) of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose
of Concern Point(s) Considered Assumptions
TERRESTRIAL --
FRESHWATER - - ~
Selection of
Taxonomic Type(s) of Contaminant (s)
Group End Point (s) of Concern
a/
RISK
Chemical Type(s) of Evaluation of
Concentration Method Impacts Above
at Receptor Employed Threshold
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Derivation
of
Benchmark
Characterization
of Uncertainty
a Observed impacts are very extensive and well characterized.
Efforts have focused on one operable unit (the terrestrial ecosystem) to date.
-------
APPEHDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED ID CHARACTERIZE FOTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
LANDFILL
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
WETLAND
Ecosystem(s) Level of
of Concern Orsanization
WETLAND POPULATION
NS
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose
Point(s) Considered Assumptions
HUM WAT COLUMN N/A
HUM NS N/A
Selection of
Taxonomic Type(s) of __ Contaminant ( s )
Group End Point (s) of Concern
FISH, MORI N/A
DAPHNIA
NS NS HUM
RISK
Chemical Type(s) of Evaluation of
Concentration Method Impacts Above
at Receptor Employed Threshold
N/A BIOASSAV N/A
MEAS QUOT-SING, NONE
QUAL EVAL£/
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
BIOASS-LAB ,
N/A
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
N/A
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
OTHER-/
AWQC-CC,AL,
SF^
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
0% effect level in bioassay.
For substances with no chronic criteria, approximate acute-to-chronio ratio calculated from the lowest fraction for the parameter class of compound.
Potential impacts from high BOD, COD discussed qualitatively.
-------
AFH3DIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTESTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
TYSOHS DUMP
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Level of
Organization
POPULATION
POPULATION
Taxonomic
Group
FISH
FISH
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
OTHER-X
OTHER-71
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
HUM WAT COLUMN,
FOOD CHAIN^
HUM WAT COLUMN
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
N/A
N/A
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
MODEL
MODEL
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
QUOT-SING£/
QUOT-SING^
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
HUM
HUM
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
NONE
NONE
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
N/A
N/A
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
NONE
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
OTHER-/
OTHER-/
Characterization
of Uncertainty
INADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
a Unspecified "chronic effects against fish".
b Geometric mean of the maximum allowable toxic concentration from LCQ values in fish using method of Suter et al (1983).
0 Assumed chronic fish criteria will also protect invertebrate and plant life.
Potential impacts to aquatic organisms from ingesting contaminated biota not considered despite suggestive evidence for elevated tissue residue
levels in fish and freshwater clams.
-------
AFFERDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE FOTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
NEST VA OEDI
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
Ecosystem(s) Level of
of Concern Organization
HAHCE TERRESTRIAL POPULATION
FRESHWATER POPULATION
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose
Polnt(s) Considered Assumptions
HUM CONT/DERM, N/A
FOOD CHAIN
HUM WAT COLUMN-/ '& N/A
Taxonomic Type(s) of
Group End Point(s)
BIRD, MORT,
MAMMAL OTHER-7
FISH MORT,
OTHER-'
Chemical Type(s) of
Concentration Method
at Receptor Employed
N/A QUAL EVAL
MEAS QUOT-SING
Selection of
Contaminant (s)
of Concern
HUM
HUM
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
NONE
NONE
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
NONE
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
QUAL EVAL
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NONE
MORT-50,SF-X
Characterization
of Uncertainty
INADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
Qualitative evaluation of the likelihood of acute mortality or "chronic effects".
An acute-to-chronic safety factor of 100 was used.
No evaluation of potential exposures via contact with or ingestion of known contaminated sediments.
Criteria for the protection of human health (i.e., soil, sediment, and water column) included an estimate of tissue residue levels in fish, but
no attempt was made to evaluate the potential for significant wildlife exposure via ingestion of these fish.
-------
APPEHDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEHTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s) Level of
Site of Concern Organization
WILDCAT LAHDFILL TERRESTRIAL INDIVIDUAL
FRESHWATER POPULATION
INDIVIDUAL
NS
ESTUARINE POPULATION
WETLAND POPULATION
Taxonomic
Group
. MAMMAL
FISH,
DAPHNIA,
BACTERIA
FISH,
REPT
NS
FISH,
DAPHNIA,
BACTERIA
FISH,
DAPHNIA,
BACTERIA
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
TIS RES
MORT,
GROWTH.
REPROD
TIS RES
CTM MED
MORT
MORT,
GROWTH,
REPROD
Selection of
Contaminant (s)
of Concern
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
N/A
BIOASS-LAB-/
N/A
N/A
BIOASS-LAB
BIOASS-LAB-/
Derivation
of
Benchmark
OTHER-/
OTHER2/
OTHER-/
AWQC-CC
OTHER-/
OTHER2/
a Values from literature used to determine whether observed tissue levels exceeded those known to cause adverse effects in the biota being sampled.
Adverse effects included "stress", excess mortality, reduced growth and reproduction; abnormal development and behavior, and metabolic alterations.
Bioassays performed on leachate and on sediment evaluate.
c Not specified, but assumed to be OX effect level in bioassay.
-------
WILDCAT LAHDFILL (COHTINOED)
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
RISK ASSESSMENT
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
ESTUARINE
WETLAND
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
Pathway(s)
Considered
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
QUAL EVAL-/
N/A
QUAL EVAL-/
N/A
N/A
N/A
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
N/A
N/A
N/A
MEAS
N/A
N/A
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
QUOT-SING
BIOASS
QUOT-SING
QUOT-SING
BIOASSAY
BIOASSAY
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
OTHER-/
QUAL EVAL
N/A
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
N/A
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
Tissue residue levels examined only in organisms known to be present on-site and whose home ranges were contained exclusively or largely within
site (in other words, organisms most likely to be expressed to contaminants over most of their lifetime).
Benchmark exceedances were linked to bioassay results by spatial association (water samples in which benchmark were exceeded were acutely toxic
to freshwater life in bioassays).
-------
AFPEHDUX D (contlnaed)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
WINCHESTER
SITE
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TIKE FIHE FRESHWATER
EXPOSURE
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
HUM N/A
HUM N/A
Level of
Organization
POPULATION
NS
CHARACTERIZATION
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
N/A
N/A
Taxonoroic
Group
FISH,
DAPHNIA
NS
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
N/A
MEAS
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
NSS/
CTM MED
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
BIOASS2/
QUOT-SING^
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
HUM
HUM
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
NS
NS
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
BIOASS-LAB,
LAB ORG
N/A
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
NS
NS
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NS^
AWQC-CC
Characterization
of Uncertainty
NS
NS
a "Acute and chronic" toxic effects mentioned in available documentation; original documentation not available at time of review.
b Assumed to be OX effect level in bioassay; not described in available documentation.
c Descriptions of Risk Assessments in available documentation inadequate.
-------
APPEBDIX 0 (continued)
METHODS USED 10 CHARACTERIZE FOTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATIOH
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s) Level of
Site of Concern Organization
AMERICAN CREOSOTE MARINE NS
HOKKS, DC.
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
Ecosystera(s) of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose
of Concern Point(s) Considered Assumptions
MARINE BOTH WAT COLUMN, NONE
FOOD CHAIN
TFRRFRTRTAT •,
Selection of Site-Specific Derivation
Taxonomic Type(s) of Contaminant ( s ) Toxicity of
Group End Point(s) of Concern Measure(s) Benchmark
NS CTM MED HUM NONE AWQC-AL.CL,
NSF
RISK ASSESSMENT
Chemical TypeCs) of Evaluation of Characterization
Concentration Method Impacts Above of Areal Extent/ Characterization
at Receptor Employed Threshold Reversibility of Uncertainty
MEAS QUOT-SING NONE NONE INADEQUATE
Hrvr PUAI iiATFn
-------
APPEBDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (contluaed)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
58th Street Landfill
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
WETLAND
Level of
Organization
Taxonomic
Group
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
CTM MED
Selection of
Contaminant (s)
of Concern
HUM
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
AWQC-AC.CC
OTHER-/
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
RISK ASSESSMENT
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
WETLAND
HUM
NS
N/A
MEAS
QUOT-SING
NONE
OMITTED
INADEQUATE
Florida Water Quality Standards.
-------
APPEBDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHAHACTERIZE POTEFTIAL ECOtOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
GEIGER SITE
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
TERR-AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Level of
Or Rani zat ion
POPULATION
INDIVIDUAL
INDIVIDUAL
NS
INDIVIDUAL
Taxonomic
Group
PLANT
BIRD
BIRD. MAMM
FISH
PLANT, REPT
AMPHIB
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
MORT
NS
NS
CTM MED
NS
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
TERR-AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
ECO CONT/DERM
NS FOOD CHAIN
NS FOOD CHAIN,
INGEST
ECO WAT COLUMN
NS WAT COLUMN
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
MEAS
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
MEAS
QUAL EVAL'
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
QUOT-SING
QUAL EVAL£/
QUAL EVAL-/
QUOT-SING
QUAL EVAL£/
Selection of
Contaminant(s)
of Concern
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
NONE
N/A
N/A
NONE
N/A
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
footnote^/
footnote-
footnote^
QUAL EVAL
footnote^
Derivation
of
Benchmark
OTHER^
NS
NS
AWCC-CC
NS
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
Soil concentrations considered toxic to plants.
Noted small area devoid of vegetation.
0 Qualitative Evaluation of Exposed Potential concluded that exposures would be minimal; therefore impacts would be limited>
Small areal extent of contamination and lack of apparent migration of contaminants were factors affecting qualitative conclusions.
-------
APPEHDDC D (continued)
METHODS USED ID CHARACTERIZE POTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (caDtinaed)
Site
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
Level of
Organization
Taxonomic
Group
Type(s) of
End Point(s)
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Selection of
Contaminant(s)
of Concern
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
Derivation
of
Benchmark
HARRIS CORPCRATIOH
ESTUARINE
POPULATION
NS
MORI
ECO
BIOASS/LAB
OTHER-/
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
RISK ASSESSMENT
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ESTUARINE
ECO
WAT COLUMN
N/A
N/A
QUAL EVAL
NONE
NONE
NS
0% effect level in bioassay.
-------
AFEEBDDC D (continued)
METBODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
(OffiRAT
Ecosystem(s
of Concern
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Selection of Site-Specific Derivation
Ecosystero(s) Level of Taxonoroic Type(s) of Contaminant (s) Toxicity of
of Concern Orsanization Group End Point(s) of Concern Measure(s) Benchmark
ENGINEERING FRESHWATER NS NS NS BOTH NONE AWQC-CC
WETLAND NS NS NS BOTH NONE NONE
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION RISK ASSESSMENT
Selection Chemical Type(s) of Evaluation of Characterization
) of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose Concentration Method Impacts Above of Areal Extent/ Characterization
Point(s) Considered Assumptions at Receptor Employed Threshold Reversibility of Uncertainty
BOTH WAT COLUMN, N/A QUAL EST QUAL EVAL-X NONE NONE ADEQUATE
SED-CONTACT .
SED-INGEST
BOTH FOOD CHAIN, N/A MEAS QUAL EVAL-X NONE NONE ADEQUATE
WAT COLUMN,
SED-INGEST,
SED-CONTACT,
INGEST
Site-specific sampling was insufficient to conduct a risk assessment. The resulting assessment was highly qualitative.
-------
APFEHDIX D (continued)
METBOOS USED TO CHARACTERIZE FGTERTIAL EOTjOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
*
Site
MUHISPORT
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
ESTUARINE
Ecosystem(s)
o f Cone ern
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
ESTUARINE
EXPOSURE
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
BOTH FOOD CHAIN
INGESTION
BOTH WAT COLUMN
N/A N/A
BOTH WAT COLUMN
N7'A N/A
Level of
Organization
POPULATION
NS
POPULATION
NS
POPULATION
CHARACTERIZATION
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
& OTHERS/
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Taxonomic Type(s) of
Group End Point (s)
BIRD, OTHER-/
MAMMAL
NS CTM MED
FISH, MORT
DAPHHIA
NS CTM MED
SEA URCHINS, MORT
MICROALGAE
Chemical Type(s) of
Concentration Method
at Receptor Employed
MODEL QUOT-SING
MEAS QUOT-SING
N/A BIOASSAY
MEAS QUOT-SING
N/A BIOASSAY
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
BOTH
BOTH
N/A
BOTH
N/A
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
N/A
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
N/A
N/A
BIOASS-LAB,
LOCAL SPECIES
N/A
BIOASS-LAB,
LOCAL SPECIES
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
N/A
EQUAL EVAL
NONE
QUAL EVAL
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NOEL, LOEL,-/
MORT-50-SF
AWQC-CC.AL;
LOCSTDS
OTHER-/
AWQC-CC.AL;
LOCSTDS
OTHER-/
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
a Numerous endpoints cited in hazard assessment, none specified in risk assessment.
b Safety factor of 1/5 applied to LC5Q.
0 0% effect level in bioassay.
Food chain evaluation for birds; direct ingestion of contaminated water evaluated for mammals.
e Intake assumption: birds assumed to take 50% of diet from site; mammals assumed to drink 17X of body weight daily.
-------
APPEHDDC D (continued)
MKTUJJS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (conttnued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
Site of Concern
HEWPCRT DUMP SITE TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
Level of
Organization
POPULATION
POPULATION
NS
Taxonomic
Group
BIRD,
MAMMAL
FISH,
DAPHNIA
NS
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
NS
MORT,-/
REPROD
CTM MED
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
Ecosystem(s) of Sampling Pathway(s)
of Concern Point(s) Considered
TERRESTRIAL HUM CONT/DERM,
FOOD CHAIN,
INGEST
FRESHWATER ECO WAT COLUMN
HUM NS
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
NONE
N/A
N/A
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
QUAL EVAL
N/A
MEAS
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
QUAL EVAL£/
BIOASSAY
QUOT-SING
Selection of
Contaminant (s)
of Concern
HUM
N/A
HUM
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
NONE
N/A
N/A
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
N/A
BIOASS-LAB ;
LAB ORGS
N/A
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
NONE
N/A
N/A
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NONE
OTHER-/
AWQC-CC.AL;
LOG STD
Characterization
of Uncertainty
INADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
Only acute mortality evaluated.
0% effect level in bioassay.
Highly qualitative evaluation threat exposures, and hence, impacts are unlikely.
-------
APPEHDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE PDTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
PARRAMCRE
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
SURPLUS TERRESTRIAL
Level of
Organization
NS
Taxonomic
Group
NS
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
NS
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
»
Ecosystera(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
HUM
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NONE
Characterization
of Uncertainty
TERRESTRIAL
HUM
NS
NONE
NS
QUAL EVAL
NONE
AREAL EXTENT
INADEQUATE,
-------
AFFERDDC D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE KJTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s) Level of
Site of Concern Organization
SAPP BATTERY FRESHWATER NS
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
Ecosystem(s) of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose
of Concern Point(s) Considered Assumptions
FRESHWATER HUM WAT COLUMN-' N/A
Selection of Site-Specific Derivation
Taxonomic Type(s) of Contaminant ( s ) Toxicity of
Group End Point(s) of Concern Measure(s) Benchmark
NS NS BOTH NONE LOC STD,
AWQC-CC
RISK ASSESSMENT
Chemical Type(s) of Evaluation of Characterization
Concentration Method Impacts Above of Areal Extent/ Characterization
at Receptor Employed Threshold Reversibility of Uncertainty
MODEL-/ QUOT-SING NONE NONE ADEQUATE
No food chain pathways evaluated despite evidence of contaminated fish and freshwater clam tissue residues.
Concentrations in water column modelled from sediment concentrations.
-------
AFPEBDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
.
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
WETLAND
Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of
Organization Group End Point (s)
Selection of
Contaminant (s)
of Concern
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
Derivation
of
Benchmark
LOG SID-''
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
RISK ASSESSMENT
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
FRESHWATER
WETLAHP
HUM
WAT COLUMN
N/A
MEAS QUOT-SING
NOT EVALUATED
NONE
NONE
NONE
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation standard to lead.
-------
AFFERDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE FOTERTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
WETLAND
Level of
Organization
NS
Taxonomic
Group
NS
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
CTM MED
Selection of
Contaminant (s)
of Concern
HUM
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
NONE
Derivation
o£
Benchmark
AWQC-CC
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
RISK ASSESSMENT
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
WETLAND
HUM
WAT COLUMN^
SED-CONTACT,
SED-INGEST,
FOOD CHAIN
N/A
MEAS
QUOT-SING^ • -1' NONE
NONE
INADEQUATE
Pathways discussed only in a qualitative sense. No real impacts evaluation.
Additional studies planned.
Available documents incomplete.
-------
APPEHDIX 0 (continued)
MEIBGOS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEMTIAL ECffljOGICAL IMPACTS (cootinaed)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATIOK
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
EAD CLAJBE
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
Level of
Organization
NS
Taxonomic Type(s) of
Group End Point (s)
NS CTM MED
Selection of
Contaminant (s)
of Concern
HUM
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
AWQC-CL.NSF
LOG STD,
MORT-50-NSF
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
RISK ASSESSMENT
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
FRESHWATER
BOTH
WAT COLUMN
N/A
MODELa/
QUOT-SING
N/A
N/A
ADEQUATE
Concentrations in receiving waters estimated from ground water discharges.
-------
APFEHDIX D (continued)
METBDDS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEHTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
FCRT WAYHE
REDUCTION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
EXPOSURE
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
HUM CONT/DERM,
FOOD CHAIN,
INGEST
ECO WAT COLUMN^
ECO WAT COLUMN^/
Level of
Organization
NS
POPULATION
NS
CHARACTERIZATION
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
NONE
NA
NA
Taxonomic
Group
NS
FISH,
MACRO,
MICRO
NS
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
QUAL EVAL
MEAS. MODEL£/
MEAS, MODEL-/
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
NS
MORT
CTM MED
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
QUAL EVAL
QUOT-SING
QUOT-SING
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
HUM
HUM
HUM
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
NONE
NONE
NONE
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
NONE
NONE
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
NONE
NONE
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NONE
MORT-50-SFS/
AWQC-CC
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
a Safety factor = 1/3 for acute effects; 1/20 for chronic effects applied to lowest identified LC5Q.
Exposures via food chain and sediments not evaluated despite known contamination of sediments and bioaccumulation of substances on site.
0 Concentrations in leachate measured and modelled in receiving waters below mixing zone.
-------
APPEHDIX D (continued)
MEIBQDS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
FULTZ LANDFI
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERR-AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
Ecosystem(s) Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of
of Concern Ornanization Group End Point(s}
Selection of Site-Specific Derivation
Contaminant (s) Toxicity of
of Concern Measure(s) Benchmark
LL ItKK AyuATiU NOT EVALUATED —
FRESHWATER NS NS CTM MED BOTH NONE BCF,
AWQC-AC.CL
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection • Chemical Type(s) of
of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose Concentration Method
Point(s) Considered Assumptions at Receptor Employed
BOTH WAT COLUMN NONE MODEL QUOT-SING
RISK ASSESSMENT
Evaluation of Characterization
Impacts Above of Areal Extent/ Characterization
Threshold Reversibility of Uncertainty
NONE NONE INADEQUATE
-------
AFFERDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE FOTEFTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
Ecosystem(s) of
of Concern
FRESHWATER NS
WETLAND NS
NS
Ecosystem(s) Level of
of Concern Oraanization
FRESHWATER COMMUNITY
WETLAND COMMUNITY
POPULATION
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose
Point(s) Considered Assumptions
WAT COLUMN N/A
SED-CONTACT
WAT COLUMN, N/A
SED-CONTACT
WAT COLUMN, N/A
SED-CONTACT,
SOIL -CONTACT
Selection of
Taxonomic Type(s) of Contaminant ( s )
Group End Point (s) of Concern
INVERT- COM DIV NS
BENTHIC
"AQUATIC NS NS
ORGANISMS"
NS MQRT NS
RISK
Chemical Type(s) of Evaluation of
Concentration Method Impacts Above
at Receptor Employed Threshold
MEAS QUAL EVAL N/A
QUAL EVAL QUAL EVAL-^ N/A
MEAS QUOT-SING N/A
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
N/A
N/A
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
N/A
NONE
N/A
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NS
N/A
AWQC, OTHER-'
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
ADEQUATE-'
Unspecified "ecotoxicity test results".
Potential impacts to terrestrial receptors in nature reserve (80 acres) not evaluated.
Stressed vegetation noted; because vegetation is less sensitive to contamination than aquatic organisms, aquatic organisms probably also stressed.
Exceedance of AWQC suggest that acute or chronic toxicity might occur, but there is no evidence of this at this time.
-------
APFEHDIX D (cootinaed)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTETTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (cootinaed)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
MARION/BRAGG
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
TERR-AQUAT
Level of
Organization
POPULATION
NS
Taxonomic
Group
MAMMALS
NS
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
NS HUM
CTM MED ' HUM
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NONE
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NONE
AWQC-AC.CC
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
TERR-AQUAT
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
HUM INGEST
CONT/DERM
HUM WAT COLUMN
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
NONE
NONE
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
MEASURED
MEAS, MODEL
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
QUAL EVAL
QUOT-SING
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
NONE
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
NONE
NONE
Characterization
of Uncertainty
INADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
-------
AFPEHDIX D (conttnoed)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE FOTERTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
Site of Concern
OUTBOARD MARINE TERR-AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
Level of
Organization
POPULATION
ECOSYSTEM
POPULATION
Taxonoenic
Group
BIRD,
MAMMAL
N/A
PHYTO-
PLANKTON
FISH
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
REPROD,
MORT,
DIS/ABN
OTHERS/
PHOTO-
SYNTHESIS
GROWTH,
REPROD,
MORT
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
Ecosystem(s) of Sampling Pathway(s)
of Concern Point(s) Considered
TERR-AQUATIC ECO FOOD CHAIN
FRESHWATER ECO N/A
WAT COLUMN,
FOOD CHAIN
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
N/A
N/A
N/A
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
N/A
MEAS
MEAS
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
QUAL EVAL
QUOT-SING
QUOT-SING
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
BOTH
BOTH
BOTH
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NONE
NONE
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
Derivation
of
Benchmark
N/A
AWQC-CC
AWQC-CC
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
a Reduced elasticity of ecosystem, greater vulnerability to new sources of stress.
-------
APPEHDIX D (continued)
METB3OS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEHTIAL ECOjOGICAL IMPACTS (contiaued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
SCTOALZ DUMP
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Level of
Organization
COMMUNITY
NS
Taxonomic
Group
INVERT
NS
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
OTHER8
NS
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
HUM SED-INGEST,
SED-CONTACT ,
WAT COLUMN
HUM N/S
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
NONE
N/A
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
MODEL
QUAL EVAL
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
HUM
HUM
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
NONE
NONE
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NONE
N/A
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
NONE
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NONE
NS
Characterization
of Uncertainty
INADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
Unspecified "community effects".
-------
APPEHDIX D (continued)
METBGOS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTETTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATIOH
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
SEYMQRE RBCYCLIHG
CCRKKATIOH
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
TERR-AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
Level of
Organization
NS
Taxonomic
Group
NS
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
CTM MED
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s) of
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
TERR-AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
Selection
Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
NS CONT/DERM,
FOOD CHAIN
NS CONT/DERM,
FOOD CHAIN
HUM WAT COLUMN
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
NS
NS
N/A
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
NS
NS
MODEL
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
QUOT-SING
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
HUM
HUM
HUM
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
N/A^
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NS
NS
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
N/A*X
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NS
NS
AWQC-CL.AL;
MORT 50; BCF
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
NOTE: Endangered species occur near the site, but the site is not essential habitat. Exposure to these species is unlikely.
No exceedances predicted.
-------
APPEBDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEHTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATIOH
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
Ecosystera(s) Level of
of Concern Organization
FRESHWATER NS
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATIOH
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose
Foint(s) Considered Assumptions
HUM WAT COLUMN, N/A
SED-CONTACT,
SED- INGEST
Selection of
Taxonomic Type(s) of Contaminant ( s )
Group End Point(s) of Concern
NS NS HUMa/
RISK
Chemical Type(s) of Evaluation of
Concentration Method Impacts Above
at Receptor Employed Threshold
MEAS QUAL EVAL-/ NONE
Site-Specific Derivation
Toxicity of
Measure (s) Benchmark
NONE AWQC-CC
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/ Characterization
Reversibility of Uncertainty
NONE NONE
Examined only pesticide contamination in fish (for potential effects on human health), although other organics and inorganics recognized as
potential problems.
Highly qualitative evaluation. There "is a potential for exposure through the surface water/sediment pathway." Potential exposures through food
chain evaluated over the human health.
-------
AFPEHDIX D (contlimed)
METBDDS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEHTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
PRODUCTS
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Level of
Organization
Taxonomic
Group
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
Derivation
of
Benchmark
FRESHWATER
-NOT EVALUATED-
FRESHWATER
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
RISK ASSESSMENT
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TFRPFSTRTAT
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
.-MOT 1TVAT IIATTTri -
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
-NOT EVALUATED-
-------
AFFEHDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEHTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
Site
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystero(s)
of Coneern
Level of
Organization
Taxonocnic
Group
Type(s) of
End Point(s)
Selection of
Contaminant(s)
of Concern
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
Derivation
of
Benchmark
UNITED NUCLEAR
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
NOT EVALUATED
NOT EVALUATED
RISK ASSESSMENT
Type(s) of Evaluation of Characterization
Method Impacts Above of Areal Extent/ Characterization
Employed Threshold Reversibility of Uncertainty
-NOT EVALUATED
-NOT EVALUATED
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem!s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
-------
AFPEHDEf D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEHTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FDFQHLJ4TF13
Selection of
Ecosystem(s) Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of Contaminant ( s )
of Concern Organization Group End Foint(s) of Concern
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION RISK
Selection Chemical Type(s) of Evaluation of
of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose Concentration Method Impacts Above
Point(s) Considered Assumptions at Receptor Employed Threshold
__ __ _ __ -_ __ _ HOT 1TUAT ItATCTi _ _
Site-Specific Derivation
Toxicity of
Measure (s) Benchmark
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/ Characterization
Reversibility of Uncertainty
-------
AFFEHDEC D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
CONFIDENTIAL
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
#2 TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
EXPOSURE
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
HUM CONT/DERM
INGEST
HUM WAT COLUMN
Level of
Organization
INDIVIDUAL
POPULATION
CHARACTERIZATION
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
N/A
N/A
Taxonomic
Group
PLANT,
MAMMAL
FISH,
INVERT
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
MEAS
MEAS
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
OTHER-7,
MORT
MORI,
OTHER-'
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
QUOT-SING
QUOT-SING
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
HUM
HUM
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
N/A
N/A
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NONE
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
QUAL EVAL
N/A
Derivation
of
Benchmark
LOC STD^,
MORT-50
AWQC-CC,
LOC STD,
LOEL,
MORT-50-SFa/
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
Chronic, sublethal effects in humans (unspecified) from ingestion of contaminated crops and livestock.
State standards for livestock and plants set to protect humans via consumption.
Unspecified chronic effects.
Safety factor of 1/100 applied to
values.
-------
APPEBDDC D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
CCHFIDEHTIAL
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
#4 TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Level of
Organization
POPULATION
NS
POPULATION
NS
Taxonomic Type(s) of
Group End Point(s)
BIRD MORT
BIRD, OTHERb
PLANT, REPROD,
MAMMAL MORT
NS NS
FISH, OTHER-'
AQUATIC,
INVERT
NS CTM MED
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
HUM CONT/DERM
HUM CONT/DERM,
INGEST ,
FOOD CHAIN
HUM WAT COLUMN
HUM WAT COLUMN,
SED-CONTACT,
SED- INGEST
FOOD CHAIN
N/A N/A
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
NONE
NONE
N/A
N/A
N/A
Chemical Type(s) of
Concentration Method
at Receptor Employed
MEAS QUOT-SING
QUAL EVAL QUAL EVAL
MEAS QUOT-SING
QUAL EVAL QUAL EVAL
N/A QUAL EVAL-X
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
N/A
NONE
NONE
NONE
N/A
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
N/A
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
N/A
NONE
NONE
NONE
N/A
Derivation
of
Benchmark
MORT-50-/
NONE
AWQC-AC.CL,
NSF
NONE
N/A
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
ADEQUATE
8-day LC,~ for mallards, bobwhite.
Unspecified "chronic toxic effects".
Potential contamination of nearby wetland noted.
-------
APPEHDIX D (continued)
METBDOS USED 10 CHARACTERIZE POTEHTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
IKON MOUHTAIH
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
HIRE
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
EXPOSURE
Level of
Organization
POPULATION
CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose
Point(s) Considered Assumptions
Taxonomic
Group
FISH
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
MORT, GROWTH,
MIGRATE
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
Selection of
Contaminant (s)
of Concern
ECO
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Derivation
of
Benchmark
AWQC,
OTHER3'
Characterization
of Uncertainty
FRESHWATER
ECO
WAT COLUMN
N/A
MEAS
QUOT-SING
NONE
MEAS
NS
Contaminant concentrations protective of salmon and steelhead developed by the California State Department of Fish and Game.
-------
APPOTOIX D (continued)
METBDOS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTHTTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (contlnaed)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s) Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of
Site of Concern Organization Group End Point (s)
CDHFID£NTIAL SITE *5 TERRESTRIAL POPULATION BIRD, MAMM.
REPTILE
FRESHWATER NS NS
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection Chemical
Ecosystem(s) of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose Concentration
of Concern Point(s) Considered Assumptions at Receptor
TERRESTRIAL BOTH INGEST, INHAL NONE MEAS
FRESHWATER BOTH NS NONE NS
NS
NS
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
QUAL EVAL
QUAL EVAL
Selection of Site-Specific Derivation
Contaminant (s) Toxicity of
of Concern Measure(s) Benchmark
BOTH NONE NONE
BOTH NONE NONE
RISK ASSESSMENT
Evaluation of Characterization
Impacts Above of Areal Extent/ Characterization
Threshold Reversibility of Uncertainty
NONE AREAL EXTENT ADEQUATE
NONE AREAL EXTENT INADEQUATE
-------
APPEHDrX D (continued)
METBOOS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEHTLAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
QUEER CITY
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
TERR AQUATIC
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Ecosystem(s) Level of
of Concern Organization
FAME TERRESTRIAL NS
FRESHWATER NS
WETLAND NS
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose
Point(s) Considered Assumptions
HUM NS-X NONE
HUM WAT COLUMN-7 N/A
HUM WAT COLUMN-7, £/ N/A
Taxonomic Type(s) of
Group End Point (s)
NS NS
NS CTM MED
NS CTM MED
Chemical Type(s) of
Concentration Method
at Receptor Employed
MEAS QUAL EVAL
MEAS. QUOT-SING
MEAS QUOT-SING
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
HUM
HUM
HUM
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
NONE
NONE
NONE
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NONE
NONE
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
NONE
NONE
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
AWQC-CC-7
AWQC-CC
AWQC-CC-7
Characterization
of Uncertainty
INADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
a AWQC-CC used as benchmarks for terrestrial organisms. This is clearly a misapplication.
No evaluation of potential impacts due to food chain exposure although bioconcentrating chemicals found in soils and sediments.
0 No evaluation of potential impacts due to contact/ingestion of contaminated sediments.
-------
APPEBDEf D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
SACO DEFENSE
RCRA fl
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
Level of Tax on oral c
Organization Group
NS NS
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
NS
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
HUM
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
LOG STDa/
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
RISK ASSESSMENT
Type(s) of
Method
Employed _
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
FRESHWATER
NS
WAT COLUMN
N/A
MEAS
QUOT-SING
NS
NS
NS
Evaluation only in planning stage. AWQC not mentioned specifically, although "any other relevant criteria" are required.
-------
APFEHDEC D (continued)
METBGOS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (conttnoed)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
WMAR-GOKDON
RCRA fi
Ecosystero(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Level of
Organization
NS
COMMUNITY
Taxonomic
Group
NS
PLANT
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
CTM MED
COM DIV
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
Selection
of Sampling Pathway (s)
Point(s) Considered
ECO WAT COLUMN-''
ECO WAT COLUMN
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
N/A
N/A
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
MODEL
MEAS
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
QUOT-SING
QUAL-EVAL
Selection of
Contaminant (s)
of Concern
ECO
ECO
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
N/A
N/A
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s )
NONE
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
N/A
QUAL-EVAL
Derivation
of
Benchmark
AWQC-CC
BKGD
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
Effects due to ingestion of or contact with sediments not evaluated.
-------
APPEBDDC D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTENTIAL EOGL06ICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
ALLIED CHEMICAL ESTUARINE
BALTIMORE HCRKS
KCRA #3
Level of
Organization
INDIVIDUAL
NS
Taxonocnic
Group
CRABS
NS
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
TIS RES
CTM MED
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
ESTUARINE
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
ECO WAT COLUMN
ECO WAT COLUMN
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
N/A
N/A
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
N/A
MEAS.fe/
MODEL
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
QUOT-SING
QUOT-SING
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
HUM
ECO
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
NONE
NONE
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
N/A
N/A
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
NONE
QUANT EST-/
Derivation
of
Benchmark
OTHERa/
AWQL-CL
Characterization
of Uncertainty
ADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
a Tissue residue level, 4.0 mg total Cr/kg (dry weight), from literature associated with "adverse organismal or ecological effects".
b Near-field concentrations measured, far-field (long-term, steady state) concentrations modelled.
0 State regulations require that the cross-sectional area of the mixing zone not exceed 10% of the cross-sectional area of the surface water body.
-------
APPEBDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTETTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
DEFENSE GEHERAL
SUPPLY CENTER
RCRA #*
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
Level of
Organization
NS
POPULATION
Taxonomic
Grow
NS
FISH,
DAPHNIA
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
NS
MORI
REPROD
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
HUM
ECO
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
NONE
BIOASS-LAB,
LAB ORG
Derivation
of
Benchmark
AWQC-CC
BKGD-7
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
RISK ASSESSMENT
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
FRESHWATER
HUM
ECO
WAT COLUMN
WAT COLUMN
N/A
N/A
MEAS
N/A
QUOT-SING
BIOASS
NONE
NONE
NONE
Reference area downstream.
Bioassays not conducted at the time of review.
-------
AFPEHDDC D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEHTLAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
a/
RCRA *5
EcosystemCs)
of Concern
Ecosystem(s) Level of
of Concern Organization
TERRESTRIAL
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose
Point(s) Considered Assumptions
Taxonomic Type(s) of
Group End Point ( s )
Chemical Type(s) of
Concentration Method
at* Receptor Employed
Selection of Site-Specific
Contaminant ( s ) Toxi ci ty
of Concern Measure(s)
RISK ASSESSMENT
Evaluation of Characterization
Impacts Above of Areal Extent/
Threshold Reversibility
Derivation
of
Benchmark
Characterization
of Uncertainty
Documentation for site incomplete.
-------
APPEHDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEHTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Level of
Organization
Taxonomic
Group
Type(s) of
End Point(s)
Selection of
Contaminant(s)
of Concern
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
Derivation
of
Benchmark
KENNEDY SPACE CEHi'KH
RCBA t6
TERRESTRIAL
WETLAND
-NOT EVALUATED-
-NOT EVALUATED-
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
RISK ASSESSMENT
Ecosystem( s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
.-HOT CT7AT IIATim--
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
' Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
WETLAND
-NOT EVALUATED-
-------
APPEHDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED ID CHARACTERIZE FOTQfTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
MONROE AUTO
MEHT
RCRA f 7
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
EQUIP- FRESHWATER
Level of
Organization
POPULATION
Taxonomic
Group
PLANT,
FISH
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
CTM MED
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
Selection of
Contaminant (s)
of Concern
HUM
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Derivation
of
Benchmark
AWQL-CL.NSF;
MORT-50, NSF
Characterization
of Uncertainty
FRESHWATER
HUM
WAT COLUMN
N/A
MEAS
QUOT-SING
N/A
N/A
ADEQUATE
-------
APPENDIX D (continued)
METBODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEHTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
PRATT AND HH
RCRA fB
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
TERR-AQUATIC
Ecosystera(s) Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of
of Concern Organization Group End Point(s)
ITHEY TERRESTRIAL NOT
TERR-AQUATIC - " ~ -NOT
FRESHWATER -- - - — ~ " " NOT
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection Chemical Type(s) of
of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose Concentration Method
Point(s) Considered Assumptions at Receptor Employed
NOT EVAT.IIATFn —
Selection of Site-Specific Derivation
Contaminant(s) Toxicity of
of Concern Measure(s) Benchmark
RISK ASSESSMENT
Evaluation of Characterization
Impacts Above of Areal Extent/ Characterization
Threshold Reversibility of Uncertainty
-------
APPESDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE FOIERTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
SOUTHERN DYE CO.
HCBA #9
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
Level of
Organization
NS
Taxonomic Type(s) of
Group End Point (s)
NS CTM MED
Selection of
Contaminant (s)
of Concern
HUM
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
AWQC-CC,
MORT-50-NSF
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
RISK ASSESSMENT
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
FRESHWATER
HUM
WAT COLUMN
N/A
MEAS
QUOT-SING^
NONE
NONE
INADEQUATE
52 hazardous constituents in contaminated ground water no attempt to use hazard index approach.
-------
APPENDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE FOTERTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continned)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
SOUTHERN HOOD
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
WETLAND
Level of
Organization
POPULATION
Taxonocnic
Group
FISH,
ALGAE,
DAFHNIA
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
MORT,
REPROD
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
ECO
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
BIOASS-LAB,
LAB ORG
Derivation
of
Benchmark
BKGD-/
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
RISK ASSESSMENT
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
WETLAND
ECO
WAT COLUMN
N/A
N/A
BIOASSAY
NS
NS
NS
Background = upgradient reference well.
-------
AFPEBDIX D (continued)
METffiDS USED ID CHARACTERIZE POTEBTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
ONIOH CAKBIDE
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
Level of
Organization
NS
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT
CCMPANY, IHC
HCRA fll
ESTUARINE
NS
Taxonomic Type(s) of
Group End Point (s)
MAMMAL, NS
REPT
NS CTM MED
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
ESTUARINE
Selection
of Sampling Pathway(s)
Point(s) Considered
BOTH CONT/DERM
INGEST
BOTH WAT COLUMN
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
NONE
N/A
Chemical Type(s) of
Concentration Method
at Receptor Employed
QUAL EVAL QUAL EVAL
MODELS/ QUOT-SING
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
BOTH
BOTH
RISK
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
N/A
NONE
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NONE
NONE
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
N/A
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
NONE
AWQC-CC.AL,
NSF
Characterization
of Uncertainty
INADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
Modelled concentrations of contaminants in "acute zone" and "chronic zone" from discharge of ground water.
-------
AFPEBDIX D (continued)
METBGDS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (cootlnned)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
KurFEKs cunt
inc.
RCRA #12
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
Selection of
Ecosystem(s) Level of Taxonotnic Type(s) of Contaminant ( s )
of Concern Organization Group End Point(s) of Concern
fKtbHwAlbK " nui cvALUAicu
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION RISK
Selection Chemical Type(s) of Evaluation of
of Sampling Pathway(s) Intake/Dose Concentration Method Impacts Above
Point(s) Considered Assumptions at Receptor Employed Threshold
- unr FUit iiiTFn
Site-Specific Derivation
Toxicity of
Measure (s) Benchmark
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/ Characterization
Reversibility of Uncertainty
-------
APPEHHX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEITIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
PRODUCTS FLAHT
RCRA #13
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
INTERNATIONAL PAPER
CO. TREATED HOGO
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
FRESHWATER
Level of
Organization
NS
Taxonomic
Group
NS
Type(s) of
End Point(s)
CTM MED
Selection of
Contaminant ( s )
of Concern
HUM
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
NONE
Derivation
of
Benchmark
AWQC-AL-CL,
SF-'; LOCSTD
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystetn(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
RISK ASSESSMENT
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
FRESHWATER
HUM
WAT COLUMN
N/A
MODEL
QUOT-SING
NONE
NONE
NONE
Safety factor of 1/100 used with AL, 1/10 used with CL. Dilution factor of 1/15 used for groundwater discharge to stream.
-------
APFEHDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE FOTETTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Selection of
Ecosystem(s) Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of Contaminant (s)
Site of Concern Organization Group End Foint(s) of Concern
RATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TERRESTRIAL NS NS NS HUM
ENVHtOmENTAL SERVICES
RCHA *14 FRESHWATER NS NS CTM MED NUM
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Selection Chemical
Ecosystera(s) of Sampling Fathway(s) Intake/Dose Concentration
of Concern Point(s) Considered Assumptions at Receptor
TERRESTRIAL N/A N/A N/A QUAL EVAL
FRESHWATER ECO WAT COLUMN N/A MODEL
RISK
Type(s) of Evaluation of
Method Impacts Above
Employed Threshold
QUAL EVAL N/A
QUOT-SING^ N/A
Site-Specific Derivation
Toxicity of
Measure (s) Benchmark
NONE NONE
NONE AWQC-CC ,
MORT-50-SF-/
ASSESSMENT
Characterization
of Areal Extent/ Characterization
Reversibility of Uncertainty
QUAL EVAL ADEQUATE
N/A INADEQUATE
Chronic criterion (Geometric Mean maximum allowable toxicant concentration, GMATC) calculated from Suter (1983) as: In GMATC = 0.78 in
LC
-1.87
50
, where LC5Q is 96 hr. for fish.
35 constituents tested; 84 chemicals present at site (no toxicity data for remainder).
-------
APPEHDIX D (continued)
METHODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE FOTERTIAL ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
XRECO CHEMICALS
RCRA #15
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
TERRESTRIAL
Level of
Organization
INDIVIDUAL
Taxonomic
Group
BIRD,
MAMMAL
Type(s) of
End Point (s)
MORT,
OTHER^
Selection of
Contaminant (s)
of Concern
N/A
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure (s)
N/A
Derivation
of
N/A
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
RISK ASSESSMENT
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
TERRESTRIAL
ECO
N/A
N/A
N/A
QUAL EVAL
N/A
N/A
ADEQUATE
Deafening from explosions.
-------
AFPEBDH D (continued)
METBODS USED TO CHARACTERIZE POTEBTIAL EOCLOGICAL IMPACTS (continued)
RECEPTOR CHARACTERIZATION
HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION
Site
UNIT-EASTERN
RCRA #16
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Selection of
Level of Taxonomic Type(s) of Contaminant (s)
Organization Group End Point (s) of Concern
Site-Specific
Toxicity
Measure(s)
Derivation
of
Benchmark
EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION
Ecosystem(s)
of Concern
Selection
of Sampling
Point(s)
Pathway(s)
Considered
Intake/Dose
Assumptions
Chemical
Concentration
at Receptor
Type(s) of
Method
Employed
RISK ASSESSMENT
Evaluation of
Impacts Above
Threshold
Characterization
of Areal Extent/
Reversibility
Characterization
of Uncertainty
TERRESTRIAL
FRESHWATER
WETLAND
-NOT EVALUATED-
-NOT EVALUATED-
-NOT EVALUATED-
Qualitative screening evaluation only.
-------
APPENDIX E
GLOSSARY OF ENTRIES IN APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX E
GLOSSARY OF ENTRIES USED IN APPENDICES
AC
AL
AMES
AMPHIB
AWQC
BCF
BIOACCUM
BIOASS
BIOASS/LAB
BIOASS/INSITU
BIRD
BKGD
BOTH
CC
CL
COM
COM DIV
CONT/DERM
CTM MED
DETECT
DIS/ABN
ECO
EST
FDA
FIELD SAMP
FISH
FOOD CHAIN
GROWTH
HUM
IND
IND SPE
INGEST
INHAL
INSITU
INVERT
LAB
LAB ORG
LOCSTD
LOEL
MICRO
MACRO
MAMM
DEFINITION
ACUTE CRITERION
ACUTE LC50
AMES TEST
AMPHIBIAN
AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
BIOCONCENTRATION FACTOR
BIOACCUMULATION FACTOR
MEDIA BIOASSAY
MEDIA BIOASSAY CONDUCTED IN LABORATORY
MEDIA BIOASSAY CONDUCTED IN SITU
BIRD
BACKGROUND
HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL
CHRONIC CRITERIA
CHRONIC LOEL '
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY DIVERSITY/DIVERSITY INDEX
DIRECT CONTACT OR INGESTION DURING
GROOMING OR PREENING
CONTAMINATED MEDIA
DETECTION LIMIT
DISEASE, LESIONS, ABNORMALITIES, ETC.
ECOLOGICAL
ESTIMATE
FDA ACTION LEVEL
FIELD SAMPLE
FISH
UPTAKE THROUGH FOOD CHAIN
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
HUMAN HEALTH
INDIVIDUAL
PRESENCE/ABSENCE OF INDICATOR SPECIES
DIRECT INGESTION
INHALATION
IN SITU
INVERTEBRATE
LABORATORY
LABORATORY ORGANISM
STATE OR LOCAL STANDARD OR CRITERION
LOWEST OBSERVED EFFECT LEVEL
MICROINVERTEBRATE
MACROINVERTEBRATE
MAMMAL
-------
APPENDIX E (continued)
GLOSSARY OF ENTRIES USED IN APPENDICES
TERM
MEAS
MEDIA SAMP
MIGRATE
MODEL
MORT
MORT 50
MULT
N/A
NE
NOEL
NONE
NS
NSF
OMIT
PLANT
POP
QUAL EST
QUAL EVAL
QUAL SURV
QUANT
QUOT-SING
REF AREA
REPROD
REPT
SED- INGEST
SED- CONTACT
SF
SHELL
SITE ORG
STD
TIS RES
VEG ABS
VEG STR
VERT
WAT COLUMN
DEFINITION
SAMPLING/MEASUREMENT
MEDIA SAMPLE
MIGRATION
QUANTITATIVE MODELING
MORTALITY
LD50, LC50, EC50
MULTIPLE CHEMICAL
NOT APPLICABLE
NOT EVALUATED
NO OBSERVED EFFECT LEVEL
NONE
NOT SPECIFIED
NO SAFETY FACTOR USED
OMITTED
OTHER (explanation below table in footnote n)
PLANTS
POPULATION
QUALITATIVE ESTIMATE
QUALITATIVE EVALUATION
QUALITATIVE SURVEY
QUANTITATIVE
QUOTIENT METHOD, SINGLE CHEMICAL
REFERENCE AREA
REPRODUCTION
REPTILE
INGESTION OF SEDIMENT
DIRECT CONTACT WITH SEDIMENT
SAFETY FACTOR USED
SHELLFISH
SITE-SPECIFIC ORGANISM
STANDARD
TISSUE RESIDUE LEVELS
ABSENCE OF VEGETATION
VEGETATIVE STRESS
VERTEBRATE
WATER COLUMN
------- |