United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
                 Office of Emergency and
                 Remedial Response
                 Emergency Response Division
Environmental
Response
Team
&EPA
Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund

Environmental Response Training Program

-------
                                      FOREWORD
This manual is for reference use of students enrolled  in scheduled training courses of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While it will be useful to anyone who needs information
on the subjects covered, it will have its greatest value as an adjunct to classroom presentations
involving discussions among the students and the instructional staff.

This manual has been developed with a goal of providing the best available current information;
however, individual instructors may provide additional material to cover special aspects of their
presentations.

Because of the limited availability of the manual, it should not be cited in bibliographies or other
publications.

References to products and manufacturers are for illustration only; they do not  imply endorsement
by EPA.

Constructive suggestions for improvement of the content and format of the manual are welcome.

-------
             RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE  FOR  SUPERFUND

                                       (165.6)

                                       4 Days
This course provides  participants  with  the  fundamentals of human health  and ecological risk
assessment as applied to the Superfund cleanup process. The course, as stated in EPA's Superfund
risk  assessment guidance manual,  is specifically designed for Superfund  risk assessors, risk
assessment reviewers, remedial project managers, and risk managers.  The course is based on the
following EPA documents: Risk Assessment Outdance for Superfund:  Volume I - Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Parts A, B, and C); Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:  Volume II -
Environmental Evaluation Manual;  and Ecological Assessments of Hazardous Waste Sites:  A Field
and Laboratory Reference Document.

The risk assessment process is presented  in three stages:  baseline risk assessment, development of
preliminary remediation goals,  and evaluation of cleanup alternatives.  In addition, the following
topics are discussed:   overview of risk assessment, data collection and evaluation, exposure
assessment,  toxicity  assessment,  absorption efficiency,  overview  of Parts   B and  C,  risk
characterization, principles of ecological assessment, framework for ecological assessment, and
ecological assessment methods. Current  technical and information resources are also discussed.

After completing this course,  participants will be able to:

       •      Identify the applicable statutes, regulations, and guidance pertinent to human health
             and ecological risk assessments under  Superfund.

       •      Describe each  of the four  steps of the  baseline risk assessment process.

       •      Identify and describe  various assessment methods used to evaluate the  effects of
             contaminants on the ecosystem.

       •      Perform a baseline risk assessment and an ecological assessment using EPA's risk
             assessment guidance documents.
                        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
                            Environmental Response Team

-------
                                  CONTENTS


SECTION 1-OBJECTIVES AND VISUALS

   OBJECTIVES

      Overview: Risk Assessment
      Planning/Scoping/Data Collection
      Chemical Data Evaluation
      Exposure Assessment
      Quantifying Exposure
      Toxicity Assessment: Noncarcinogenic Effects
      Toxicity Assessment: Carcinogenic Effects
      Risk Characterization
      Absorption Efficiency
      Overview of Parts B and C
      Principles of Ecological Assessments
      Framework for Ecological Assessment
      Ecological Assessment Methods

   VISUALS

      Overview: Risk Assessment
      Principles of Ecological Assessments
      Framework for Ecological Assessment


SECTION 2—CASE STUDY - SPRENGER'S LANDFILL/CENTRAL MARSH SITE


SECTION 3-SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE
                  i
   Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance: Standard Default Exposure Factors
   Supplemental Guidance to RAGS:  Calculating the Concentration Term
   Quantifying Exposure


SECTION 4-INFORMATION SOURCES FOR TOXICITY VALUES

   Toxicity Values Information Sources and Hierarchy
   Integrated Risk Information System - Chlordane
   EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office/Superfund Technical Support Center
   Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
                                        111

-------
SECTION 5-ECOLOGICAL BULLETINS

   ECO Update Volume 1, Number 1
   ECO Update Volume 1, Number 2
   ECO Update Volume 1, Number 3
   ECO Update Volume 1, Number 4
   ECO Update Volume 1, Numbers
   USEPA Regional Coordinators/Contacts
SECTION 6—APPENDICES

   Appendix A - Bibliography
   Appendix B - Supplementary Materials
                                     IV

-------
Section 1

-------
OVERVIEW:   RISK ASSESSMENT
    PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES


    At the end of this lesson, participants will be able to:

    •    Define risk assessment

    •    : Define risk  assessment,  using the National  Academy of
         Science definition

    •    Describe the differences between risk assessment and risk
         management

    •    Define the target audience for the EPA Superfund risk
         assessment guidance process

    •    List possible disciplines needed on a risk assessment team

    •    Identify the  applicable statues, regulations, and guidance
         pertinent to EPA Superfund risk assessment

    •    List the four steps of the human health evaluation baseline
         risk assessment process

    •    Identify the organization that is mandated by  CERCLA/
         SARA to perform health assessments

    •    Define baseline risk assessment

    •    Identify a natural resource trustee.

-------
      PLANNING/SCOPING/
       DATA  COLLECTION
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
At the end of this lesson, participants will be able to:

•    State the  goals of the following processes:   remedial
     investigation/feasibility study, human health evaluation, and
     environmental evaluation

•    State the purpose of the scoping meeting

•    Define  the following terms:   data quality objectives,
     sampling and analysis plan, field sampling plan, and quality
     assurance project plan

•    Identify four types of data to be considered in planning the
     data collection phase

•    Provide 10 examples of types of site information that may
     be available as background data

•    Describe several approaches used in establishing locations
     for background samples

•    Identify seven steps of an overall strategy for sample
     collection.

-------
CHEMICAL DATA EVALUATION
   PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES


   At the end of this lesson, participants will be able to:

   •     Evaluate quantitation limits

   •     Identify  the data qualifiers and codes provide by the
        QA/QC review of laboratory data from site samples

   •     Compare  concentrations  detected  in  blanks  with
        concentrations detected in samples

   •     Define the term "tentatively identified compounds"

   •     Compare  sample  concentrations   with  background
        concentrations

   •     Develop a set of chemical data and information for use in
        the risk assessment

   •     Summarize data collection and evaluation results.

-------
  EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES






At the end of this lesson, participants will be able to:




•   Identify the three steps of the exposure assessment process




•   Characterize an exposure setting




•   Identify exposure pathways.

-------
  QUANTIFYING  EXPOSURE
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES


At the end of this lesson, participants will be able to:

•    Identify five common variables used to quantify exposure

•    Define the term "reasonable maximum exposure" (RME)

•    Distinguish between an intake (administered dose) and an
     absorbed dose

•    Select the most appropriate chemical intake calculation and
     variables to represent the exposure pathway of interest

•    List assumptions associated with each exposure calculation

•    Discuss  the  uncertainty associated with the exposure
     estimated in the calculation

•    Identify sources of information on exposure variables.

-------
   TOXICITY  ASSESSMENT:
IMOIMCARCIIMOGEIMIC  EFFECTS
  PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
 At the end of this lesson, participants will be able to:

 •    Define the following dose-response relationship and non-
      carcinogenic effect terms:  physiological reserve capacity,
      threshold response,  reference dose (RfD), and reference
      concentration

 •    Explain the use of the following values as they apply to
      dose-response evaluation: no observed adverse effect level
      (NOAEL), lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL),
      uncertainty factor (UF), modifying factor (MF), and RfD

 •    Distinguish among RfDs based on chronic, subchronic, and
      developmental exposure periods

 •    Identify the three primary types of information that are
      considered in toxicity assessments

 •    Identify the appropriate exposure periods for which toxicity
      values will be applied

 •    Identify the appropriate toxicity values for noncarcinogenic
      endpoints

 •    Introduce and contrast the hierarchy of toxicity information.

-------
  TOXICITY ASSESSMENT:
  CARCINOGENIC  EFFECTS
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
At the end of this lesson, participants will be able to:

•   Define  the following dose-response relationship  and
    carcinogenic effect terms:   nonthreshold response, slope
    factor (SF), and unit risk

•   Explain the use of the following terms as they apply to dose-
    response evaluation:  weight of evidence, SF, and excess
    cancer risk

•   Identify the appropriate toxicity values for carcinogenic
    endpoints

•   Identify the limitations of dose-response data obtained from
    laboratory studies.

-------
 RISK  CHARACTERIZATION
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
At the end of this lesson, participants will be able to:

•    Formulate conclusions regarding  the health risks from
     hazardous  waste  sites  and  other  environmental
     contamination problems given toxicity  information and
     exposure estimates

•    Identify limitations of the risk assessment process.

-------
  ABSORPTION  EFFICIENCY
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
At the end of this lesson, participants will be able to:

•   List  three  situations where  absorption efficiency
    adjustments may be needed

•   Calculate intakes and toxicity values based on absorption
    efficiency.

-------
OVERVIEW  OF  PARTS  B AND  C
   PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES


   At the end of this lesson, participants will be able to:

   •     Define "preliminary remediation goal"

   •     List the three types of PRGs and state which one  is
         discussed in Part B

   •     State the two criteria for the PRGs

   •     Describe  how  radiotoxicity PRGs are  different from
         chemical toxicity PRGs

   •     Define "short-term risk" and "long-term risk" as used  in
         Part C

   •     List five noncarcinogenic, short-term toxicity values

   •     State the main source for carcinogenic short-term toxicity
         values.

-------
           PRINCIPLES OF
ECOLOGICAL  ASSESSMENTS
 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES


 At the end of this lesson, participants will be able to:

 •   Discuss objects of study in ecological assessments

 •   Differentiate among several types of ecosystems

 •   Describe the effects of contaminants on ecosystems through
     changes in population size and structure

 •   Identify  six factors influencing the ecological effects of
     contaminants

 •   Compare various technical specialists available to help site
     managers with information data collection

 •   Identify regional BTAGs and their responsibilities in the risk
     assessment process.

-------
FRAMEWORK  FOR  ECOLOGICAL
                ASSESSMENT
    PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
   At the end of this lesson, participants will be able to:

   •    Define the ecological risk assessment framework proposed
        by the risk assessment forum and differentiate it from the
        human health risk assessment framework

   •    Define the ecological assessment framework presented in the
        ECO Update bulletin

   •    State four steps of problem formulation

   •    Define assessment endpoint and measurement endpoint and
        'differentiate between the two

   •    State three key elements in exposure assessment

   •    State three types of information for characterizing ecological
        receptors in exposure assessment

   •    State   two  methods  used  to  quantify  exposure-point
        concentrations

   •    State the three components of ecological effects assessment

   •    List  several  possible  sources   of  ecological  toxicity
        information

-------
•    State the  function  of  field assessment  methods in  the
     ecological effects assessment

•    State the function of toxicity testing in the ecological effects
     assessment

•    Identify where each  step of  the  ecological assessment
     framework occurs in the various stages of the RI/FS process.

-------
ECOLOGICAL  ASSESSMENT
                METHODS
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
At the end of this lesson, participants will be able to:

•     State the purpose for using the toxicity-based approach for
      estimating the toxicity of environmental media potentially
      contaminated with hazardous waste

•     Define toxicity test and biomarker

•     Identify the differences between direct and indirect toxicity
      tests

•     Identify the differences between acute, chronic, and life-
      cycle toxicity tests

•     Identify various examples of Class I and Class II toxicity
      tests

•     State the differences between onsite  and in situ toxicity
      tests

•     List four advantages and disadvantages of toxicity testing
      and biomarkers

•     List the advantages of using indigenous organisms in field
      assessments

-------
•      Describe activities involved in an initial site visit

•      Identify objects of study in terrestrial field assessments

•     ' Distinguish   between  field  methods  required   when
       examining vegetation and animal populations

•      State  the  four  categories   of  organisms  in  aquatic
       environments.

-------
                                               NOTES
ROLE OF HUMAN HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS IN THE
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL PROCESS
Site
Discovery *

MRS Scoring
*™ + NPL Listing *
RI/FS .> QR7fy
~ Selection

Environmental
Evaluation
Human Health
bvaluation

 SUPERFUND HUMAN HEALTH
     EVALUATION PROCESS
  • Analysis of baseline risks

  • Basis for determining cleanup goals

  • Basis for comparing remedial
   alternatives

  • Consistent process
 HHEM, page 1-1
       RISK ASSESSMENT
  "Risk Assessment is the use of a
  factual base to define the health
  effects of exposure of individuals
  or populations to hazardous materials
  or situations."
 National Research Council
8/93
Overview

-------
      NOTES
                                    RISK MANAGEMENT

                                "Risk Management is the process of
                                weighing policy alternatives and
                                selecting the most appropriate
                                regulatory action, integrating the
                                results of risk assessment with
                                engineering data and with social,
                                economic, and political concerns
                                to reach a decision."
                              National Research Council
                                    TARGET AUDIENCE
                                • Risk manager

                                • Remedial project manager (RPM)

                                • Risk assessor

                                • Risk assessment reviewer


                              HHEM, pages Hi, 1-2; EEM, page 3
Overview
8/93

-------
                                        NOTES

DISCIPLINES CONTRIBUTING TO
ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONS
Laboratory Discipline based:
and Chemistry
Field Work Biology
_ C^onlnnv
Toxicology
Epidemiology
^r ^7
\S
Risk Multiple scientific disciplines:
Assessment Chemistry, biology, etc.
Statistics
Medicine
Models
Science policy
^ *7
\/
Risk Multiple disciplines:
Management Risk assessment
Economics
Politics
Law
Social values, concerns


8/93
Overview

-------
        RISK INFORMATION ACTIVITIES IN THE RI/FS PROCESS
Project
Scoping
1
fc

Review data
collected
in site
inspection
Review
sampling/
data
collection
plans
Formulate
PRGs
Determine
level of
effort (or
baseline risk
assessment
-*
Site
Characterization
(Rl)


Conduct
baseline
risk •
assessment

Establishment of Development & Detailed
Remedial Action Screening of Analysis of
Objectives (FS) Alternatives (FS) Alternatives (FS)

Re
PRGs
> on
assessr
AR

fine
based
rirlr
nent and
ARs


Conduc
evaluat
alterna

t risk
on of
dial
lives

NOTES
Overview
8/93

-------
                                                  /VOTES
           HHEM-PartA
 • Part A of this series assists in defining
   and completing a site-specific
   baseline risk assessment

 • Much of the information in  Part A is
   necessary background for Parts B
   andC

 Human Health Evaluation Manual (HHEM)
 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
  Assessment of risks that might exist if
  no remediation or institutional controls
  were applied at a site
 HHEM. page 1-11
 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
 	General Policy	
   Use the baseline risk assessment to
   determine whether:

   •  A release or threatened release
      poses an unacceptable risk to
      human health or the environment
      that warrants remedial action
 Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy
 Selection Decisions
8/93
Overview

-------
      NOTES
                               BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
                              	General Policy	

                                 Use the baseline risk assessment to
                                 determine whether:

                                 •  A site presents an imminent and
                                   substantial endangerment
                              Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment In Supertund Remedy
                              Selection Decisions
                               BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
                              	Primary Purpose	

                                •  Provide risk managers with an
                                  understanding of the actual and
                                  potential risks to human health and
                                  the environment posed by the site
                                  and the uncertainties with the
                                  assessment
                              Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment In Superfund Remedy
                              Selection Decisions
                                        HHEM-Part B
                                Part B provides guidance on using
                                EPA toxicity values and exposure
                                information to derive risk-based
                                preliminary remediation goals (PRGs)
                              Human Health Evaluation Manual (HHEM)
Overview
8/93

-------
                                                   NOTES
           HHEM-Part C
  Part C assists RPMs, site engineers,
  risk assessors, and others in using
  risk information both to evaluate
  remedial alternatives during the FS
  and to evaluate the selected remedial
  alternative during and after its
  implementation
Human Health Evaluation Manual (HHEM)
  PART A: BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
             Data Collection
             and Evaluation
Exposure Assessment

... t

Risk
                       Toxicity Assessment
            Risk Characterization
HHEM, page 1-7
    DOCUMENTS GOVERNING
 SUPERFUND RISK ASSESSMENT

     STATUTES
     •  Comprehensive Environmental
        Response, Compensation and
        Liability Act of 1980
        (CERCLA or Superfund)

     •  Superfund Amendments and
        Reauthorization Act of 1986
        (SARA)
HHEM, page 2-2
8/93
Overview

-------
       NOTES
                                         STATUTES
                              CERCLA/SARA: Sections 104,105,121

                                • EPA's mandate

                                • "...Protection of human health and
                                  the environment..."
                              HHEM. page 2-3; EEM, page 7
                                       CERCLA/SARA
                                    Other Requirements
                              • Notification of natural resource
                                trustees

                              • Creation/direction of Agency for Toxic
                                Substances and Disease Registry
                                (ATSDR)
Overview
8/93

-------
         NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES
                                                                          NOTES
                       State
                     Slat* Governor
Indian Tribes
                                     Tribal Chairman
                       designated:
                       State Official
  designated:
  Individual
                                        or request
                                        DOI Bureau ol
                                        Indian Affairs
                                        as trustee
   delegated:
   Regional
   Environmental
   Officer
ECO Update, Volume 1, Number 3
8/93
                                                    Overview

-------
       NOTES
                                      NATURAL RESOURCE
                                      TRUSTEES STUDIES
                                   Preliminary Natural Resource Survey
                                   (PNRS)

                                   A simple screening study of a site by
                                   a trustee to determine whether trustee
                                   resources may have been affected and
                                   whether further attention is warranted
                               EEM, page 8
                                      NATURAL RESOURCE
                                      TRUSTEES STUDIES
                                 • Natural Resource Damage Assessment
                                   (NRDA)

                                   A damage assessment conducted by
                                   one or more trustees if response action
                                   will not sufficiently restore or protect
                                   natural  resources damaged by release


                               EEM, pageB
                                     NATURAL RESOURCE
                                      TRUSTEES STUDIES
                                  Natural Resource Damage Assessment
                                  (NRDA)

                                  Purpose: To determine the appropriate
                                  level of compensation from a responsible
                                  party to trustee resource
                               EEM, page 8
Overview
10
8/93

-------
      (   Profiles  J  S*	\ (  Re86arCh  )
      V       y / Exposure/ N
      \^__^^  (  Disease  1
4T80A Pvtttc NMซI Aww*nซnf OuMuic* Mmaf
   EPA RAs and ATSDR HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
    EPA Risk Assessments
    • Quantitative
ATSDR Health Assessments
• Qualitative
    • Statistical and/or biological • Medical or public health
     models are used

    • Facilitate remediation or
     risk management actions

    • Selection of remediation
    • Regulatory
 perspectives are weighted

• Evaluate human health impacts


• Pilot health effects studies.
 surveillance, epidemiologlcal
 studies, or exposure registry

• Advisory
B. L Johnton. 1991. ACQIH • Conference on RAs In DOD
     DOCUMENTS GOVERNING
 SUPERFUND RISK ASSESSMENT
                  i
     REGULATION
     •   National Oil and Hazardous
        Substances Pollution Contingency
        Plan (NCP)
                                                                NOTES
 HHEM, page 2-2
8/93
                   11
Overview

-------
      NOTES
                                      NCP IMPLEMENTATION

                                 • Required under CERCLA/SARA Section
                                  105

                                 • The NCP Revision Section 300.120
                                  (FR 3/8/90) charges the site-specific
                                  OSC/RPM with
                                  - Identifying potential impacts on public
                                     health, welfare, and the environment

                                  - Setting priorities for this protection

                                EEM, page 8 (40 CFR Pan 300)
                               	NCP GOALS	

                                • Protect human health and the
                                  environment over the long term

                                • Minimize untreated waste

                                • Outline responsibilities of federal and
                                  state agencies

                                • Establish criteria for the remedy
                                  selection process
                               HHEM, Chapters 1 and 2; FR 3/8/90 (NCP Final Rule)
                                               NCP
                                 "...the lead agency shall conduct a
                                 site-specific baseline risk assessment
                                 to characterize the current and
                                 potential threats to human health and
                                 the environment..."
                               40 CFR Part 300.430 (d)(4)
Overview
12
8/93

-------
                                              NOTES
    DOCUMENTS GOVERNING
  HUMAN HEALTH EVALUATION

 Guidance
 •  Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
    (RI/FS)

 •  Risk Assessment Guidance for
    Superfund (RAGS)
    - Human Health Evaluation Manual
      (HHEM)
    - Environmental Evaluation Manual
      (EEM)

HHEM, page 2-2
    DOCUMENTS GOVERNING
  HUMAN HEALTH EVALUATION

 Guidance

 •  Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
   Requirements (ARARs)

 •  Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual
   (SEAM)
HHEM. page 2-2
8/93
13
Overview

-------
                                                     /VOTES
ROLE OF HUMAN HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS IN THE
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL PROCESS
Site
Discovery ^

.... HRS Scoring
~* ' NPL Listing

*
Rl/

Environmental
Evaluation




FS



*
Selection

Human Health
Evaluation



   ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT


   ".. .a qualitative and/or quantitative
   appraisal of the actual or potential
   effects of a hazardous waste site on
   plants and animals other than people
   or domesticated species."


 RAGS Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual
   ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT IN
    THE SUPERFUND PROCESS
 • Determine the appropriate level of detail

 • Decide whether,remedial action is necessary
   based on ecological considerations

 • Evaluate the potential ecological effects of the
   remedial action itself

 • Design monitoring strategies for assessing the
   progress and effectiveness of remediation
8/93
Principles

-------
      /VOTES
                                     ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTS
                                       Levels of Organization
                                          Population (same species)
                                       Community (groups of populations)
                                  Trophic
                                  structure
Food
chain
                                             Living + nonliving
                                                matter
                                              ECOSYSTEM
                                     ECOSYSTEM ENERGY FLOW
                                                     Secondary
                                                      Consumers
                                       Heat
                                                             Decomposers
                                     SUNLIGHT     NUTRIENTS
                                       Trophic Level-Food Chain
                                   SUN j Freshwater Ecosystem
                                     Secondary Consumers
Principles
   8/93

-------
                                               NOTES
    LEVELS OF ORGANIZATION
           • Genes
           • Cells
           • Organs
           • Organisms
           • Populations
           • Communities
      BASIC CONCEPTS FOR
    ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
  •  Objects of study in ecology
  •  Types of ecosystems
  •  Effects of contaminants on ecosystems
  •  Factors influencing the ecological effects
    of contaminants
    TYPES OF ECOSYSTEMS
           • Terrestrial
           • Wetland
           • Freshwater
           • Marine
8/93
Principles

-------
     NOTES
                          EFFECTS OF CONTAMINANTS
                               ON ECOSYSTEMS

                          • Reduction in population size
                          • Changes in community structure
                          • Changes in ecosystem structure and
                            function
                            FACTORS INFLUENCING
                             ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

                             • Classification of chemicals
                             • Physical/chemical properties
                             • Frequency of release
                            FACTORS INFLUENCING
                             ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
                            Toxicity
                            Physical/chemical characteristics of
                            environment
                            Biological factors
Principles
8/93

-------
                                                             NOTES
              EXAMPLES OF
       TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS
  EPA Environmental Response Team (ERT)

  EPA Regional Assistance (Regions 1-5)

  1  Superfund Environmental Assessment Team (SEAT)
  2  Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG)
  3  Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG)
  4  Ecological Technical Assistance Group (ETAG)
  5  Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG)
              EXAMPLES OF
       TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS

  EPA Environmental Response Team (ERT)

  EPA Regional Assistance (Regions 6-10)

  6  No formal group at this time
  7  Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG)
  8  No formal group at this time
  9  Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG)
  10 Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG)
             EXAMPLES OF
      TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS

 EPA Research Laboratories

 Athens Environmental Research Lab
 Cincinnati Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab
 Corvallis Environmental Research Lab
 Duluth Environmental Research Lab
 Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Lab
 Las Vegas Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab
 Narragansett Environmental Research Lab
8/93
Principles

-------
      NOTES
                                        EXAMPLES OF
                                  TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS


                              Regional/Field Offices

                              U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
                              National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                              Administration (NOAA)
Principles
8/93

-------
                                                                            NOTES
            ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
                       Framework
           Discussion
            Between A \ k
           RAandRM^ ' r
           (Planning)
Ecological Risk Assessment
. > PROBl

A
L
8
8


EM FORMU


LATION
<


1
ChvKterin Chmctsrlze
1 ! T






<

* *
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
A 	
         U.S. EPA. 1992. Franwwor* tor Ecological Risk Assessment.
         EPA/63CM-92/OOI.
             ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
                      Overview
                    Problem Formulation
                    Risk Characterization
                     Remedial Objectives
                       Analysis ol
                    Remedial Alternatives
                    Remedy Selection,
                    ROD, Remedial Design,
                    Remedial Action
           ECO Update, Volume 1, Number 2, page 3
8/93
Framework

-------
      NOTES
                                    PROBLEM FORMULATION

                                  •  Qualitatively evaluate contaminant release,
                                    migration, and fate

                                  •  Identify:
                                    - Contaminants of concern
                                    - Receptors
                                    - Exposure pathways
                                    - Known effects

                                  •  Select endpoints of concern

                                  •  Specify objectives and scope
                               ECO Update, Volume 1, Number 2
                                  ASSESSMENT ENDPOINT

                                 A formal expression of the actual
                                 environmental value to be protected
                                 -  Reduction of key population
                                 -  Disruption of community structure

                                 Long-term persistance, abundance, or
                                 production of populations of key
                                 species or key habitats
                                         EXAMPLES OF
                                   ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS

                                       • Population
                                        -  Extinction
                                        -  Abundance

                                       • Communities
                                        -  Market sport value
                                        -  Recreational quality

                                       • Ecosystems
                                        -  Productive capability
Framework
8/93

-------
                                                    NOTES
    MEASUREMENT ENDPOINT

  The physical, chemical, biological, or
  ecological condition that is quantified
  ".. .approximate, represent, or lead to the
  assessment endpoint using field or
  laboratory methods (Suter 1989)."
  ".. .assessment endpoint may have more
  than one measurement endpoint associated
  with it."
 ECO Update, Volume 1, Number 2, page 4
           EXAMPLES OF
   MEASUREMENT ENDPOINTS
        • Individual
          - Death
          - Overt symptomology

        • Population
          - Occurrence
          - Abundance
 U.S. EPA 1989. Ecological Assessment of HazaiOous Waste Sites:
 A Field and Laboratory Reference. EPA/600/3-89/013.
           EXAMPLES OF
  MEASUREMENT ENDPOINTS
         •  Community
           - Number of species
           - Species diversity

         •  Ecosystem
           - Productivity
           - Nutrient dynamics
 U.S. EPA. 1989. Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites:
 A Field and Laboratory Reference. EPA/600/3-89/013.
8/93
Framework

-------
      NOTES
                                   ASSESSMENT
                                   ENDPOINTS
                                   Commercial fish species
                                   Reproductive health
     MEASUREMENT
vs.     ENDPOINTS

 Female reproductive hormones
 Number of:
  - Eggs fertilized
  - Embryos hatched
  - Fry
  - Young of year
  - Spawning adults

 1 Chemical concentration to reduce
  survival, growth, and reproduction
                                   EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

                                 •  Quantify release, migration, and fate
                                 •  Characterize receptors
                                 •  Measure or estimate exposure point
                                   concentrations

                                ECO Update, Volume 1. Number 2

                                    CHARACTERIZATION OF
                                        CONTAMINATION

                                    •  Documentation of all releases
                                      - Volume
                                      - Duration
                                      - Release mechanism
                                    •  Routes of migration
Framework
                   8/93

-------
                                              NOTES
    CHARACTERIZATION OF
       CONTAMINATION

   Evaluate physiochemical properties
   -  Solubility
   -  Biomagnification potential

   Mechanisms of pathways
   -  Spatial aspects
   -  Temporal aspects
 ENVIRONMENTAL RECEPTORS

    • Characterize receptors
      - Life history
      - Feeding habits
      - Habitat preference

    • Exposure point concentrations
      - Actual1
      - Estimated
      - Quantitative
     ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
         ASSESSMENT

          • Literature


          • Toxicity testing


          • Field studies

 ECO Update, Volume 1, Number 2
8/93
Framework

-------
        NOTES
                                           RISK CHARACTERIZATION


                                                •  Current adverse effects

                                                •  Future adverse effects

                                                •  Uncertainty analysis

                                                •  Ecological significance

                                       ECO Update, Volume 1, Number 2


                                             Ecological Assessment in the RI/FS Process
                                       PA/SI
                                        NPL
                                        Listing
LRI/FS
Scoping
                                                        Remedial  Development S
                                                   Sit*   Action   Screening ol  Analyst ol
                                                Characterization Objectives Altwnallvn  Alternatives
                                                   (Rl)    
-------
Section 2

-------
                            CASE STUDY

           SPRENGER'S LANDFILL/CENTRAL MARSH SITE

                             CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION	1

SITE FEATURES INVESTIGATION  	1

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES INVESTIGATION  	'	4

HYDROLOGICAL INVESTIGATION	4

     Surface Water - Sprenger's Landfill Unnamed Stream	4
     Sediment	5

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS 	5
                                                              i
     Soil	5
     Groundwater	 . :	5

CHEMICAL DATA EVALUATION	6

QUANTIFYING EXPOSURE  	10

TOXICITY ASSESSMENT/RISK CHARACTERIZATION	 17

BIOTA INVESTIGATION  	24

EXPOSURE PATHWAYS  	26

     Aquatic Exposure Pathways	26
     Wetland/Terrestrial Exposure Pathways	26
     Risk Assessment	32
     Aquatic Exposure  	32
     Wetland/Terrestrial Exposure	33
     Carnivorous Birds	33
     Insectivorous Birds  	35
     Carnivorous and Omnivorous Mammals	35

REFERENCES   	36

LIST OF FIGURES

     Figure 1.    Location map 	2
     Figure 2.    Site map	3

-------
       Figure 3.     Biota sampling stations	27
       Figure 4.     Central Marsh food-chain pathway model  .  .		31

LIST OF TABLES  '

       Table 1.      Groundwater analytical data	7
       Table 2.      Group exposure pathway assignments	 11
       Table 3.      Case study intake concentrations	 12
       Table 4.      Dermal exposure assessment parameters	 15
       Table 5.      Intake values	.16
       Table 6.      Case study toxicity values	 18
       Table 7.      Chronic hazard index estimates	 19
       Table 8.      Subchronic hazard index estimates	'. .  . . 20
       Table 9.      Cancer risk estimates	21
       Table 10.     Risk characterization summary	22
       Table 11.     PCB concentrations  in biota samples collected
                    in Middle Marsh	 28
       Table 12.     Lethal and sublethal effects of PCB (Aroclor 1254)
                    on wildlife  .	'. .... 34
                                           11

-------
             RISK ASSESSMENT  GUIDANCE FOR SUPERFUND

                                    CASE STUDY

               SPRENGER'S  LANDFILL/CENTRAL MARSH  SITE
INTRODUCTION

The Sprenger's Landfill Superfund site consists of about 12 acres on the northwestern outskirts of
the city of Charterstown.  The site is a former granite quarry, bounded on the north and south by
highways and on the east and west by commercial development (Figure 1).

Quarry operations began in the late 1800s and continued until 1932.  According to local sources, as
many as four separate quarry pits with estimated depths up to  ISO feet deep were worked on the
property (Figure 2).  In 1935, the City of Charterstown assumed ownership of the property and
initially used the two southern pits for disposal of used automobiles. From the mid 1940s to about
1968, the pits and adjacent areas were used by local industry as a disposal site for wastes such as
electrical transformers and capacitors, fuel oil, volatile liquids, used tires, glass, metal, smoke stack
soot, and scrap rubber.  The site was also used for disposal of other debris such as brush and trees,
demolition materials,  and large timber. Industrial waste disposal was curtailed by  the city in 1968
and the site was backfilled during the early 1970s.  In early 1982, the State Department of Works
conducted a test boring program on the site in anticipation of construction of a commuter parking
lot. The project was tabled when electrical capacitors were encountered in the borings.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA)  investigation of the site prior to the current
remedial investigation (RI) included installing four monitoring wells and conducting an air sampling
program in 1983  and  1984, respectively. The site was also fenced by the city in 1984 in response
to an EPA order.
SITE FEATURES INVESTIGATION

This investigation was conducted to obtain  pertinent  site  information,  such as land use and
demography, local environmental resources, and climatology, and to describe the setting of the site
prior to the RI field study. In general, the 12-acre site is atypical of land use in the immediate area.
The  land to the east and west is zoned commercial.  Interstate Route 66 and its interchange with
Route 1 separate the site from significant residential development to the south.  The City Country
Club golf course occupies the entire area immediately to the north of the site.

The  site  consists of two operable units.   The first  operable unit is the aforementioned 12-acre
disposal area. The study area was at one time a forested wetland similar to Potoka Swamp, but was
filled in during the depression-era construction of the golf course by the Civilian Conservation Corps.
The  second operable unit, Central Marsh, is located within the city golf course, which is bounded
to the south by the southern banks of a tributary of Unnamed Stream, on the north by the Potoka
Swamp, and on the east and west by fairways of the golf course.  This operable  unit excludes
Unnamed Stream, which travels from culverts under Ditzel Road, continues northward through the

8/93                                       1                                  Case Study

-------
                                               .
                                      X   CfenjtfaT  \
                                      \   v.—:
Figure 1.  Location map.

-------
               ^ V >.
Hotel
   Contaminated pits
   Standing water
   Brush and trees
   Flow direction
Soli test pit
Monitoring well
Soil/sediment site
Seep
2OO  O  2OO
      •Ei
      feet
 Figure 2.  Site map.

-------
golf course in a well-defined channel, bisects Central Marsh, eventually drains into the golf course
water hazards, and finally travels under the Conrail tracks and into the main body of Potoka Swamp.
The study area for this operable unit includes a 13-acre wooded wetland called Central Marsh, a 1.5-
acre wetland area bordering the Unnamed Stream 400 feet upstream of Central Marsh, and portions
of the golf course fairways and associated floodplain and watershed areas.

All wetlands in the study area are classified as bordering vegetated wetlands under state Wetlands
Protection Regulations.   Central Marsh  is predominantly  freshwater, consisting of broad-leaved
deciduous forested wetland. Based on hydrologic sampling and quantitative hydrologic and hydraulic
studies, all of Central Marsh and large areas of the golf course lie within the 25- and 100-year
floodplain.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES INVESTIGATION

Very little specific information is available regarding wastes disposed at this site because no records
were kept, either by the city or by the industries involved. A wide variety of hazardous constituents,
including  volatile organic  compounds  (VOCs),  acid and  base/neutral  extractable  organics,
poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and toxic metals, may be present in these wastes or may result
from interaction of the wastes with one another or with the local environment.  These constituents
include those that are comparatively mobile in aqueous media (e.g., volatile organics), as well as less
water-soluble species, such as PCBs and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In addition, past
occurrence of fires at the site may have led to the formation of dioxins and dibenzofurans.
HYDROLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

The objective of this investigation was to physically characterize surface waters in the site vicinity
with reference to their possible role in contaminant movement, either in solution or through erosion
and deposition of contaminated soils.  Unnamed Stream was characterized by means of a water
balance calculation, which apportions precipitation falling onto the site into the various components
of the hydrologic cycle.  Results of the water balance indicated that 55 percent is returned to the air
as evapotranspiration, 36-40 percent infiltrates into the soils and contributes to groundwater, and the
remainder occurs as direct surface runoff. Groundwater is believed to discharge to the surface water
in the marsh area and in local streams. 'Unnamed Stream is a "gaining stream," as indicated by
increasing discharge measurements along the stream segment.  Potential flooding during peak flows
indicates  that a very small portion of the northwest periphery of the site area would be inundated if
the 100-year peak discharge appeared at culverts under Ditzel Road.
Surface Water - Sprenger's Landfill Unnamed Stream

Surface water throughout the study area is affected by contaminants associated with the site.  Site
contaminants enter Unnamed Creek as  dissolved constituents from  overland  runoff and from
groundwater seeps. During the hydrological investigation, 13 surface water stations were sampled.
VOCs  and inorganic contaminants were detected in groundwater seeps located at the eastern edge
of the site and in lesser concentrations in the receiving stream.
Case Study                                   4                                        8/93

-------
Sediment

Soils have eroded from the site into the Unnamed Stream and have been transported from the site.
PCBs, PAHs, and some inorganics have been found throughout the sediments in Unnamed Stream,
Central Marsh, four golf course water hazards, and a portion of the Potoka Swamp.  Concentrations
of the constituents show a general decrease away from the source location of the Sprenger Landfill
Superfund site. A more extensive description of sediment contaminants in Central Marsh is provided
in the ecological  assessment portion of this case study.
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS
Soil

Most of the Sprenger's Landfill site is covered with a layer of fill that overlies the bedrock and
quarry pits.  The fill is found throughout the site property, except in the northwest corner of the site
where bedrock outcrops were observed, and the southeast corner of the site, where glacial till and
swamp deposits were found. Soil samples generally contained low total concentrations of VOCs.
Unsaturated soils were primarily contaminated with PCBs, PAHs, and metals. Surficial soil samples
were taken at nine offsite locations (on the golf course). PCBs were detected in all but one sample,
with the highest concentrations  found near the wetland between Central Marsh and the landfill.
Groundwater

A total of 14 bedrock monitoring wells were installed within the Sprenger's Landfill site and 6 more
were scattered around the golf course.  In addition to standard borehole geophysical logging, both
seismic refraction and electromagnetic (EM) conductivity surveys were run.  The geological and
geophysical evidence  indicates that the  shallow bedrock  is highly fractured,  so it will exhibit
properties of a porous medium, and groundwater will flow through the bedrock in the direction of
the hydraulic gradient. Aquifer tests, including slug tests and short-term pump tests, were conducted
and samples were collected for VOCs and full laboratory analysis for constituents on the target
compound list (TCL) and target analyte list (TAL).

Groundwater was found to be contaminated in both the overburden and the bedrock in the landfill
area.  Both flow systems were hydraulically connected and were found to discharge to the surface
waters within the study area. Within the site, groundwater movement was found to be predominantly
horizontal or downward, whereas north of the site, on the golf course, predominant upward vertical
gradients were found from the bedrock to the unconsolidated materials.  The overall groundwater
flow direction within the study area is to the north and northeast, with groundwater impacted by the
site eventually reaching Potoka Swamp.  Contaminant concentrations were found to be reduced to
near background levels by the time groundwater reached the upgradient edge of the swamp.
8/93                                        5                                  Case Study

-------
                         CHEMICAL DATA EVALUATION
1.     Objective
       Develop a list of chemicals of potential concern for use in a baseline risk assessment.  An
       analytical data package will be reviewed according to guidance presented in Chapter 5 of the
       Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A.

2.     Problem

       Preliminary environmental screening at a site revealed the potential presence of organic and
       inorganic contaminants in groundwater beneath several abandoned quarries.  Groundwater
       could be used as a drinking water source for residences and commercial facilities in the area.
       Concern for public health resulted in the installation of 13 bedrock monitoring wells. (Well
       screens vary in depth between 100 and 200 hundred feet  below ground surface.)

       Several sampling rounds were conducted to obtain groundwater analytical data for a human
       health risk assessment.   The data package for this exercise consists of volatile organics
       analyses for samples from four of the monitoring wells.  The  sampling  results have  been
       validated by the analytical laboratory and the quality assurance officer.
                                                                                1
       Table 1 presents the available volatile organic analytical  results for the groundwater plume
       sampling effort at the quarry. Qualifiers located to the right of the individual  concentration
       are those assigned by the laboratory; qualifiers to the left have been assigned by the quality
       assurance officer. Trip blanks were prepared and analyzed in conjunction with the sampling
       and analysis plan.  Analytical  results for the blank samples are included with the data
       package.    Duplicate  samples  were collected in  conjunction  with  sampling  efforts  at
       monitoring well MW-22.   Analytical results from these samples  were evaluated and
       incorporated as  the analyte  concentration  at a particular monitoring well location if the
       duplicate sample concentration was higher than the actual well sample concentration.

3.     Method

       Each person will complete the following steps:

       a.      Evaluate the validation codes associated with the data.

       b.      Identify those chemicals that are positively detected in at least one sample, including:

              •       Chemicals with no qualifiers attached

              •       Chemicals with qualifiers attached that indicate known identities but unknown
                     concentrations (example: data qualified  "J").

       c.      Compare the concentrations at each well to concentrations found in the background
              well (MW-11 is to be used as the source of background groundwater information).


Case Study                                  6                                          8/93

-------
              TABLE 1. GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL DATA
                            (units in //g/L)
Volatile Organic Compound
Chloromethane
Bromoethane
Vinyl chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Vinyl acetate
Bromodichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
c/s-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethene
Dibromochloromethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Benzene
trans-l ,3-Dichloropropene
Bromoform
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Hexanone
Tetrachloroethene
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
MW6
10 (/•
10 U
130
10 U
310
10 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
700
5 U
5 U
10 U
5 U
5 U
10 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
180
5 U
5 U
30
5 U
5 U
10 U
10 U
5 U
5 U
Sample Location
MW1 1 MW22 GCA-1
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
5 (/
10U
5 I/
5 (/
5 U
5 (/
o/3
5 U
10 L/
5 U
5 (/
10 ฃ/
5 U
5 I/
5 U
5 I/
5 <;
5 U
5 I/
5 U
5 (/
10 U
10 U
5 ฃ/
5 U
10U
10 t;
4,800 j"
10 :;
./ 5,300 EC
J 2,000 flJ
5 U
5 (/
5 (/
53,000
5 U
5 C/
J 4,400 &/
5 d/
5 U
10 C/
5 U
5 L/
5(y
J 1 80,000
5 U
5 U
93
5 L/
5 U
J 5,900 J
10 U
5 C/
5 (/
10(/
10 (/
690
10 U
5 (/
620
5 U
5 I/
5 L/
39,000
5 U
5 t/
280
5 U
5 
-------
   TABLE 1.  (cont.)
Volatile Organic Compound MW6
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylene (total)
5f
58
5U
SU
SU
Sample Location
MW11 MW22 GCA-1
SU
5U
SU
5U
5(/
12,000
5U
1,000 J
9,900
5(/
280
300
280
5
-------
       d.     Compare concentrations at each well with concentrations found in the blank sample.

       e.     Select those chemicals that should be included on the list of chemicals of potential
              concern.  The entire class will participate in the  final selection process.
8/93                                          9                                    Case Study

-------
                            QUANTIFYING EXPOSURE


1.     Objective

       Assess the exposure to onsite and offsite contaminated media using the following steps:

       •      Characterize exposure settings
       •      Determine contaminant concentrations for each pathway
       •      Calculate intake values for exposure pathways.

2.     Problem

       The  second phase  of  the baseline  risk  assessment is the completion of  an exposure
       assessment,  which  includes evaluation of potential site-related exposure pathways  and
       exposure intake quantification.   Potential  exposure pathways for this site were discussed
       during the exposure assessment lecture. For the purposes of the case study, each group will
       be assigned  two exposure pathways  for evaluation.   A noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic
       intake value will be calculated for each assigned pathway.  Class groups will evaluate select
       exposure pathways (Table 2). The intake values generated during this exercise will be used
       in the risk characterization phase of the baseline risk assessment.

3.     Method

       a.     Identify  and record  the  appropriate  intake equation for each  exposure pathway.
              Intake equations are located in Chapter 7 of the  Human Health Evaluation Manual,
              Part A (HHEM) and in the Quantifying Exposure document in Section 3.  Document
              the rationale for selecting these equations.

       b.     Identify the exposure parameters that must be defined to calculate the intake for each
              equation.   Table 3  provides the range of concentrations and  the  maximum
              concentration for each  chemical  for  all media.   For calculation purposes, the
              maximum concentration for each contaminant of concern should be used.

       c.     Determine appropriate exposure parameter values for each of the exposure settings.
              Exposure values are found in the following EPA documents:  Standard Default
              Exposure Factors: Supplemental Guidance, Exposure Factors Handbook, and Dermal
              Exposure Assessment Guidance.  Table 4 provides K,,, T, t*, and B values  for the
              indicated chemicals.  These  values were  obtained  from EPA's dermal exposure
              assessment guidance. Identify the assumptions associated with each selected exposure
              parameter value.

       d.     Calculate the intake values using the intake concentrations provided and the exposure
              parameter values. Calculate both noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic intake values for
              each pathway.  Record the intake values on Table 5.

              SAVE ALL EXERCISE-RELATED PAPERWORK.


Case Study                                 10                                       8/93

-------
          TABLE 2. GROUP EXPOSURE PATHWAY ASSIGNMENTS
Group
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Current land use:
Future land use:
Current land use:
Current land use:
Current land use:
Current land use:
Current land use:
Future land use:
Future land use:
Current land use:
Future land use:
Future land use:
Future land use:
Current land use:
Current land use:
Current'land use:
Pathway
Ingestion of chemicals of potential concern in onsite soils by
site visitors (8-18 years old)
Dermal contact with chemicals of potential concern in
groundwater used by residents (adult)
Ingestion of chemicals of potential concern in groundwater
used by residents (caretaker - adult)
Dermal contact with chemicals of potential concern in offsite
soils by visitors (8-18 years old)
Inhalation of chemicals of potential concern volatilized indoors
from groundwater during home use by residents (caretaker -
adult)
Dermal contact with chemicals of potential concern in
groundwater used by residents (caretaker - adult)
Ingestion of chemicals of potential concern in offsite soils by
visitors (8-18 years old)
Dermal contact with chemicals of potential concern in onsite
soils by residents (adult)
Ingestion of chemicals of potential concern in groundwater
used by residents (adult)
Dermal contact with chemicals of potential concern in offsite
sediments by visitors (8-18 years old)
Inhalation of chemicals of potential concern volatilized indoors
from groundwater during home use by residents (adult)
Dermal contact with chemicals of potential concern in onsite
soils by residents (adult)
Ingestion of chemicals of potential concern in onsite soils by
residents (child through adult)
Dermal contact with chemicals of potential concern in offsite
sediments by visitors (8-18 years old)
Ingestion of chemicals of potential concern in offsite
sediments by visitors (8-18 years old)
Dermal contact with chemicals of potential con'cern in
groundwater during home use by residents (caretaker - adult)
8/93
11
Case Study

-------
            TABLE 3. CASE STUDY INTAKE CONCENTRATIONS
               (units are t/gIL or i/g/kg unless otherwise noted)
Location/Chemical
Onsite Groundwater
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Aroclor 1 254'
Barium
Chromium
Manganese
Zinc
Groundwater (Caretaker's Well)
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Barium
Manganese
Zinc
Onsite Soils0
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Naphthalene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Concentration Range

3-1200
5-300
3.7 - 39,000
4-202
14-22
40-12,000
81-180,000
23-6900
0.55-933
17-1910
4.4-13
37-20,500
27.5-174

30"
58b
700"
180"
130"
29b
5150"
79"

34-650
59-12,000
38-1,500
44-78,000
3.1-38,000
9.5-28,000
Intake Concentration

1200
300
39,000
202
22
1 2,000
1 80,000
6900
933
1910
13
20,500
174

30
58
700
180
I130
29
5150
79

650
12,000
1,500
78,000
38,000
28,000
Case Study
12
8/93

-------
TABLES, (cont.)
Location/Chemical
Onsite Soils (cont.)
Aroclor 1 254
Barium
Chromium
Manganese
Zinc
Offsite Surface Soils
Dibenzofuran
Toluene
Aroclor 1 254
Barium
Chromium
Manganese
Zinc
Offsite Sediments
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Aroclor 1 254
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Offsite Surface Water
Benzene
Concentration Range

1.2-2.7E + 7
7.4-2,230
2.4-127
6.8-1,020
13-25,300

230
21-2,600
260-1,400
802-945
13-489
100-739
18-88

16-340
45-960
130-170
65-2,000
270
67-1,900
5-140
14-94
83-9E + 4
7.2-1,580
3.9-423
5.2-418
54-1,870
15-927

12-160
Intake Concentration

2.7E + 7
2,230
127
1,020
25,300

230
2,600
1,400
945
489
739
88

340
960
170
2,000
270
1,900
140
94
9E + 4
1,580
423
418
1,870
927

160
8/93
13
Case Study

-------
TABLES,  (cont.)
Location/Chemical
Offsite Surface Water (cont.)
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Naphthalene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Aroclor 1 254
Barium
Chromium
Manganese
Zinc
Concentration Range

2.1-14
3-99
5
1-10
4-15
1.7
1-810
4-17
3.7-5,360
2-179
Intake Concentration

14
99
5
10
15
1.7
810
17
5,360
179
  • Aroclor 1254 = PCB 1254
  b Actual contamination in MW-6, the caretaker's well
  0 Within quarry area.
Case Study                                  14                                      8/93

-------
          TABLE 4.  DERMAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS
Chemical
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorobenzene
Dibenzofuran
trans-"\ ,2-Dichloroethene
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Aroclor 1 254
Barium"
Chromium"
Manganese"
Zinc"
K,
(cm/hr)
2.1E-2
1.2E + 0
4.1E-2
NA*
1 .OE-2
3.6E-1
6.9E-2
5.5E-3
4.5E-2
1 .6E-2
7.3E-3
1.3E + 0
1 .OE-3
1 .OE-3
1 .OE-3
1 .OE-3
r
(hr)
2.6E-1
2.9E + 0
4.3E-1
NA
3.4E-1
1.5E + 0
5.3E-1
3.3E-1
3.2E-1
5.5E-1
2.1 E-1
5.3E + 0
__c
"
~
"
t*
(hr)
6.3E-1
1.4E + 1
1.0E + 0
NA
8.2E01
7.3E + 0
2.2E + 0
7.9E-1
7.7E-1
1.3E + 0
5.1 E-1
2.5E + 1
~
~
-
-
B
1.3E-2
1.3E + 2
6.9E-2
NA
7.2E-3
8.9E + 0
2.0E-1
2.9E-3
5.4E-2
2.6E-2
2.3E-3
3.2E + 2
-
--
~
ซ
Source: U.S. EPA. 1992. Dermal exposure assessment: principles and applications. Interim Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Table 5-8.
* NA - not available
" Default value for inorganic compounds
c -- indicates not applicable.
8/93
15
Case Study

-------
                       TABLE 5.  INTAKE VALUES
Land Use: Current Future (circle one)
Receptor:
Pathway:
Chemical












,













Concentration


























CDI Noncancer
(mg/kg-day)


























CDI Cancer
(mg/kg-day)


























Case Study
16
8/93

-------
           TOXICITY ASSESSMENT/RISK CHARACTERIZATION
1.     Objectives
       Using the toxicity assessment and risk characterization steps, complete the quantitative risk
       assessment  for human health  due to  exposure  to ground water, surface water,  soil, and
       sediments from the site.
2.     Problem
       To characterize the existing and potential human health risk from exposure to the site, a risk
       characterization will be performed using information from the quantifying exposure exercise.
       Toxicity information will be obtained through a review of available toxicity databases. The
       quantitative risk assessment will combine this information  and result in the development of
       risk values and hazard indices for all appropriate exposure pathways.
3.     Methods
       Each group will quantify the risk associated with two exposure pathways using the following
       steps:          :

       a.      The following toxicity information was obtained from the Integrated Risk Information
              System  (IRIS) and  the  Health  Effects Assessment Summary  Tables  (HEAST)
              databases (Table 6):

              •      Reference  doses  (RfD) or reference  concentrations  (RfC) for  chemicals
                     associated with noncarcinogenic effects.  RfC values should be converted to
                     RfD  values  using  the procedure  outlined in the HHEM.   Record all
                     information on the cancer risk and chronic hazard estimation summary sheets
                     (Tables 7-10).

              •      Slope factors (SF) or unit risks  (for inhalation when an SF is  not available)
                     for chemicals associated with carcinogenic  effects. Unit risk  values should
                     be converted to SF values using the procedure outlined in the HHEM.

              •      Additional  information indicated on the summary sheets (do this if  time
                     allows; this information is not essential for  completion of the exercise).

       b.      Obtain  exposure (intake) information from the exposure assessment exercise answer
              sheet and record this information on the summary sheets.

       c.      Calculate the hazard quotient  (HQ)  for each  chemical associated with non-
              carcinogenic effects.

       d.      Calculate the hazard index (HI) for noncarcinogenic effects for multiple chemicals in
              the same pathway.
8/93                                       17                                  Case Study

-------
                   TABLE 6.  CASE STUDY TOXICITY VALUES
                               Do Not Cite or Quote
Constituent
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorobenzene
Dibenzofuran
trans-} ,2-Dichloroethylene
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Aroclor 1 254
Barium
Chromium VI
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
RfD/RfC
(oral/inhalation)
NA1
NA
2E-2b/2E-2c
NA
2E-2VNA
4E-2/NA
4E-2d/NA
6E-1/NA
3E-2/NA
2E-1/4E-1
BE-S^/NA
NA
NA
7E-2/5E-4"
5E-3/NA
NA
5E-3/1.1E-4
3E-1/NA
Slope Factor
(oral/inhalation)
2.9E-2/2.9E-2
5.8E + 0/6.1 E + 0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1E-2-/1.7E-2*
1.9E + 0C/2.4E-2C
7.7E + 0/NA
NA
NA/4.2E + 1
NA
NA
NA
Note: All values are from 1992 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) files unless otherwise noted.
* NA - not available
                 *
b Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST), January 1991
c HEAST, March 1992
* Under review
* For use in this class only.
Cose Study
18
8/93

-------
                            TABLE 7. CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES
Pathway:
Chemical


















GDI
(mg/kg-day)


















CCH
adjusted for
absorption?


















RfD
(mg/kg-day)


















Confidence
Level


















Critical
Effect


















RfD
Source


















RfD
Basis
(vehicle)


















RfD
Uncertainty
Adjustments


















Modifying
Factor
-

















Pathway Chronic Hazard Index
Hazard
Quotient
(CDI/RfD)



















VO

-------
                           TABLE 8.  SUBCHRONIC HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES
I
Pathway:
Chemical


















SDI
(mg/kg-day)


















SDI
adjusted for
absorption?


















RfD,
(mg/kg-day)


















Confidence
Level


















Critical
Effect


















RfD.
Source


















RfD,
Basis
(vehicle)


















RfD.
Uncertainty
Adjustments


















Modifying
Factor


















Pathway Subchronic Hazard Index
Hazard
Quotient
(SDI/RfD.I



















to
o
I
Uj

-------

                                  TABLE 9. CANCER RISK ESTIMATES
Pathway:
Chemical












-





CDI
(mg/kg-day)










-







CDI
adjusted for
absorption?


















SF
(mg/kg-day)-1















.


Weight of
Evidence


















Type of
Cancer


















SF Source


















SF Basis
(vehicle)


















Pathway Cancer Risk
Chemical-Specific
Risk
(CDI x SF)



















I
I

-------
             TABLE 10. RISK CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY
Exposure Pathway
Groundwater
Ingestion - current (caretaker)
Ingestion - future (resident)
Inhalation - current (caretaker)
Inhalation - future (resident)
Dermal contact - current (caretaker)
Dermal contact - future (resident)
Current exposure - caretaker
Future exposure - resident
Soil
Ingestion onsite - current (visitor)
Ingestion offsite - current (visitor)
Ingestion onsite - future (resident)
Dermal contact offsite - current (visitor)
Dermal contact onsite - future (resident)
Exposure onsite - current
Exposure onsite - future
Sediment
Ingestion offsite - current (visitor)
Dermal contact offsite - current (visitor)
Exposure offsite - current (visitor)
Surface Water
Dermal contact - current (visitor)
Dermal contact - current (golfer)
Totals
Current exposure onsite
Current exposure offsite
Future exposure onsite
Risk























HI













•









Case Study
22
8/93

-------
       e.      Identify the combination(s) of pathways that affect the same individual (or population)
              for the above chemicals and calculate the HI for multiple pathways, if appropriate.

       f.      Calculate the excess  cancer risk  estimate for  each chemical  associated  with
              carcinogenic effects.

       g.      Calculate the  total excess cancer risk estimate for multiple  chemicals within a
              pathway, if appropriate.

       h.      Identify the combination(s) of pathways that affect the same individual (or population)
              for the  above  chemicals  and calculate the excess cancer risk estimate for multiple
              pathways, if appropriate.

       i.      Examine all phases of the case study  exercise and identify areas of uncertainty in the
              risk assessment.

       The information to be included in the group's final analysis includes:

       a.      HQ values for individual chemicals

       b.      Excess cancer risk values for individual chemicals

       c.      HI and  risk values for multiple substances within each pathway

       d.      HI and  risk values for multiple pathways, if appropriate.

       e.      Underlying assumptions and uncertainties associated  with the above values.

       Guidance for the toxicity assessment and risk characterization processes can be found in
       Chapters 7 and 8 of the HHEM.  The following references will be available to each group:
       IRIS data sheets, HEAST tables,  and Exposure Factors Handbook.

       The instructors will have additional summary sheets and will distribute them on request.
8/93                                         23                                   Case Study

-------
BIOTA INVESTIGATION
A biological investigation was conducted for Unnamed Stream, Central Marsh, and Potoka Swamp,
which are habitats potentially impacted by wastes emanating from Sprenger's Landfill. These initial
investigations included aquatic biota sampling at predetermined stations, analysis of water  quality
parameters, and characterization of aquatic and terrestrial habitats.

Aquatic benthic macroinvertebrates were collected, identified, and enumerated at several stations in
Unnamed Stream and at three upstream reference stations.  Fewer organisms were collected and
significantly fewer species were seen in areas near the seeps. Potoka Swamp yielded the highest
community of invertebrates, possibly attributable to the forested wetland habitat.

EPA consulted with the State Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Natural Heritage and Endangered
Species program, to determine the potential occurrence of any endangered species including state-
listed "species of special concern."  According  to the Natural Heritage and Endangered  Species
Program, two state-listed species of special concern had been collected in Potoka  Swamp.  The
spotted turtle (Clemmys guttatd) and the mystic valley amphipod (Crangonyx abberans) may co-occur
on the site.

Based on the results of the wetland delineation, additional wetland areas identified in Central Marsh
include emergent wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands, and forested upland areas.  An analysis of wetland
functions  and values was conducted for both wetlands using the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers
Wetland Evaluation Technique Volume II  (WET II).  The results indicate that Central Marsh 1) is
highly effective in providing breeding, migration, and wintering habitat for wildlife and 2) does not
provide an abundance of habitat for open water species, but will support  aquatic life such  as
invertebrates, tadpoles, mollusks, and crayfish. In addition, several wildlife  species were evaluated
using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP). Central Marsh was
determined to be suitable for semiaquatic carnivores such as mink (Mustela vision), but less suitable
for  mammals that require permanent water (e.g., muskrat)  and mass producing trees (e.g., grey
squirrel).

Field observations for wildlife indicate frequent occurrence of songbirds and small mammals,  as well
as frogs,  snakes, turtles, and invertebrates in streambank and inundated habitats.   Other animals
observed at the swamp include the red-tailed hawk, American robin, raccoon, deer mouse, and green
frog.  A species of special concern, the spotted turtle (Clemmys  guttatd), was observed in Central
Marsh.

A biological  survey showed the presence of obligate  aquatic organisms, including amphipods,
freshwater clams (Spheriidae),  isopods, alderfly  larvae (Sialis sp.), cranefly larvae (Tipula sp.),
midge larvae (Chironomidae), tadpoles, and leeches (Hirudinea). This area could potentially support
small fish, tadpoles,  mollusks, and crayfish which,  in turn,  could  serve  as  food for  several
indigenous predatory mammals and  possibly birds.

The adjacent wetland is not  large enough to warrant high habitat value, but it can support various
species of birds and nocturnal mammals.
Case Study                                   24                                        8/93

-------
As part of additional studies of Central Marsh, EPA conducted biological and chemical sampling
based, in part, on the concerns of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for waterfowl, passerine birds,
and food for anadromous fish  using the habitat.  The study consisted of collecting sediment, soil,
surface water, and biota samples.

During 1990, 98 sediment/soil samples,  17 pore water samples, and 14 surface water samples were
collected.  Surface samples were taken with a hand auger.  The top  6 inches  of  substrate was
composited with  multiple core holes combined from a  10-foot radius.   Subsurface  cores  were
collected from four individual  6-inch segments of increasing depth for each 2-foot core.

Pore water samples were collected from water that seeped into  the 2-foot core holes  left  from
previous sampling.  A perforated PVC  well point was inserted into the core hole and water was
removed using a PVC bailer.  Surface water samples were collected by directly filling the sample
containers  at each sampling location.  Samples for metals were filtered in the laboratory using a
0.45-micron filter.  Total (unfiltered) and dissolved (filtered) metals and PCBs were  of interest for
the ecological risk assessment.  A quality assurance project plan and a sampling and analysis plan
were followed throughout the study. These documents were developed and approved by EPA prior
to sampling. The samples were  analyzed for TCL PCBs, pesticides,  and semivolatile and volatile
organics and for TAL metals.  Total organic carbon was  analyzed to facilitate comparison of PCB
levels with the EPA's interim sediment quality criteria.

Twenty-seven of the thirty stations sampled in the Central Marsh study area had PCB contamination.
The highest  PCB concentration  in  the  marsh was found near  the Unnamed Stream  and in the
upstream or upgradient areas.  This finding appeared to be correlated to elevation and the frequency
of flooding, especially in areas near the  stream that flood  at an interval of 3 months or  more. The
highest concentrations of PCBs in the entire study  area were encountered in the adjacent wetland,
upstream of the marsh. Concentrations  at other stations  decreased with increasing  elevation and
distance from the site.

VOCs  were detected in 13 surface soil samples that were widely distributed in the marsh within the
3-month floodplain.  VOCs were virtually undetected in  the adjacent wetland and the  golf course
areas.

Semivolatile organic compounds were found in all  25 sampling stations in the marsh and in 18 of
23 stations sampled in the  adjacent wetland and the golf course.  Compounds that were detected
include PAHs, phenols, furans,  phthalates, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and benzoic acid.  PAHs  ranged
from 0.040 to 2.1 mg/kg in the marsh and from 0.055 to  0.140 mg/kg in the adjacent wetland. As
with VOC concentrations, semivolatile concentrations did not exhibit a strong pattern of distribution,
but were detected mpre frequently at several stations near the Unnamed Stream.

The only metals to exceed site-specific background  levels were manganese (22.3-1,807 mg/kg) and
iron (2,306-167,000 mg/kg), which were widely distributed in the marsh and the adjacent wetland.
The presence of iron appears to be related to disposal practices at the site, as evidenced by the dark
orange color of the sediments downstream of the disposal area.  Chromium, copper, lead, vanadium,
and zinc were present in a pattern similar to that of PCBs.  Sampling stations were located in
semipermanently flooded areas of the marsh in palustrine  emergent wetland.
8/93                                        25                                   Case Study

-------
Analytical results of subsurface sediment samples from 14 stations in the marsh and the adjacent
wetland indicate that most contamination rapidly decreases with increasing depth.

Pore water  samples were compared with ambient  water  quality criteria.   In  filtered  samples,
dissolved PCB concentrations ranged from undetected (0.05 /*g/L) to 4.4 jig/L, which exceed
ambient water quality criteria (0.014 jtg/L). In unfiltered samples, PCB concentrations ranged from
1.8/ig/Lto29
Biota samples consisted of benthic macroinvertebrates, small mammals, amphibians, earthworms,
and plants (Figure 3).  All samples were analyzed for pesticides and PCBs. Aroclor 1254 was the
only contaminant found in tissue  samples.  Aroclor 1254, the principle contaminant of Sprenger
Landfill, was also found in samples of sediment, soil, unfiltered water, small mammals, benthic
invertebrates, earthworms, and frogs.  The highest concentrations, ranging from 0. 19 to 0.73 mg/kg,
were found in the green frog (Rana clamitans melanotd) (Table 11).
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Detailed  physical, chemical, and biological information was collected and evaluated for Central
Marsh to identify aquatic and wetland/terrestrial exposure pathways critical to the transfer of PCBs
in Central Marsh and the adjacent wetland.


Aquatic Exposure Pathways

In the aquatic environment, sediment-dwelling or benthic organisms are at the base of the food chain.
These organisms are in intimate contact with the interstitial (pore) water of the sediments and many
emerge in later life stages as aquatic insects.  Furthermore, in all aquatic organisms, contact with
water through respiration is an important route of uptake. Thus, aquatic species accumulate PCBs
through several pathways, including direct exposure to water and food chain bioaccumulation.

EPA evaluated  areas within  Central Marsh to  identify those areas which support an aquatic food
chain and, thus, an aquatic exposure pathway.  Based on field observations, EPA determined that
the area west of the stream in the northwest portion of Central Marsh was connected to the stream
over most of the year.  Therefore, this area could be a feeding area  for stream animals and could
contribute plant and animal  material to the stream on a continuing  basis.   The area was further
identified as an aquatic area, based on the invertebrate surveys (which identified aquatic organisms
in this area), the topography, and  the fact that the area is permanently flooded.  Therefore, this
northwest portion of Central Marsh could  represent  an area that supports a  significant aquatic
pathway for the biological transfer  of contaminants.


Wetland/Terrestrial  Exposure Pathways

Wetland and terrestrial species, such as terrestrial insects, small mammals, and birds, are not in
intimate contact with surface water or pore water.  For these species, direct sediment/soil contact
and food chain exposure are predominant.  In soil-dwelling organisms  such as earthworms and mice,
dermal contact  may play a significant role.   However, in upper level consumers, PCB uptake is
primarily due to food chain (trophic) bioaccumulation.

Case Study                                  26                                        8/93

-------
N
               O  Sampling station



                   Trap line



                   Aquatic habitat



              |;;:;;;j  Surface water



              - - -  Wetland boundary
 Figure 3.  Biota sampling stations.
Bioaccumulation
Terrestrial Food
Pathway
Soil-earthworm
Soil-frog
Soil-meadow vole
Soil-white-footed mouse
Soil-deer mouse
Sediment-aquatic insects
Factors
Chains
BAF
0.16-0.29
0.22
0.02
0.07
0.08-0.09
0.19

Sample Type
Benthic invertebrates
Amphibian
Plant
Earthworm
Mammal
(E = East, W =
Stations
1,2,3
1,2,3,8,E
1-8
4.E.W
4.E.W
West)

-------
             TABLE 11.  PCB CONCENTRATIONS IN BIOTA SAMPLES
                          COLLECTED IN MIDDLE MARSH*
       Location
                Species Sampled
     PCB
Concentration
   (mg/kg)
 Station 1
 Station 2
 Station 3
 Station 4
 Station 5
 Station 6
Benthos
Green frog (Rang clamitans)
Rose hips (Rosa multiflora)

Benthos
Green frog (Rana clamitans)
Rose hips (Rosa multiflora)
Grass seed heads fPhalioris arundinacea)

Benthos
Green frog (Rana clamitans)
Rose hips (Rosa multiflora)
Grass seed heads (Phalioris arundinacea)

Benthos
Earthworm
Meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus)
Short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda)
Rose hips (Rosa multiflora)

Benthos
Grass seed heads (Phalioris arundinacea)

Green frog (Rana clamitans)
Rose hips (Rosa multiflora)
Grass seed heads (Phalioris arundinacea)
    0.1 If
    0.25
    0.1  U

    0.35
    0.27
    0.1  U
    0.1  U

     0.4
    0.68
    0.1  U
    0.1  U

    0.1  U
    0.1  U
    0.1  U
0.38-0.98 (2)c
    0.1  U

    0.1  U
    0.1  U

    0.19
    0.1  U
    0.1  U
Cose Study
                    28
           8/93

-------
TABLE 11.  (cont)
                                                                              PCB
                                                                          Concentration
       Location                        Species Sampled                       (mg/kg)
 Station 7
                        Benthos                                              0.1 U
                        Green frog (Rana clamitans)                              0.73
 East Bank
                        Earthworm                                             2.3
                        Green frog (Rana clamitans)                              0.39
                        Meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus)               0.36-1.6 (3)d
                        Deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus)                0.1 4/-0.64 (3)
 West Bank
                        Earthworm                                             1.8
                        Deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus}                  0.27-1  (2)
                        White-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus)            0.68-0.84 (3)
 Station 8
                        Green frog (Rana clamitans)                              1.02
•Source: Charters.  1991.
b U - the analyte was not detected at the indicated concentration
c (2)  - Indicates two individuals of the species
d (3)  - indicates three individuals of the species.
8/93                                       29                                  Cose Study

-------
Figure 4 depicts a food chain pathway model that was developed for the Central Marsh Operable
Unit to represent the trophic relationships between the species present in Central Marsh. Site-specific
tissue data and literature information on the life histories and feeding habits of selected species were
used to select critical food chain pathways and  target species  for protection.  The model  was
developed to 1) evaluate  the  effects of contamination on environmental receptors, 2) determine
ecological assessment endpoints for remediation, 3) evaluate  the  impacts of remediation on the
wetland area, and 4) identify appropriate mitigating  measures.

Species included in the food chain pathway model for Central Marsh were selected because they are
integral parts of important transfer pathways.  Selections were based on observed abundance at the
site, presence of suitable  habitat  for the species,  and likelihood of exposure.  Abundance of the
species  was judged by the number of sightings during sediment/soil and wetland  studies and by
trapping conducted by EPA.  Habitat suitability was based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
HEP (U.S. FWS 1980).   Species with frequent or constant exposure to sediment, soil, and water,
such as earthworms,  insects, and small mammals, were included in the model.  Conversely, species
were excluded from the model if they were  assumed to have little or no exposure to site contaminants
or if they have been  shown to have very high tolerances to the contaminants.

Specifically, raccoon were included because their tracks were observed and their food species include
small mammals, frogs, worms, and reptiles.   Mink were included in the model because Central
Marsh provides  the basic habitat requirements for mink, because mink are known to be susceptible
to PCBs,  and because of their position as  a top level consumer in an area where site-specific data
showed that many of the  mink's  food sources are contaminated with  PCBs.  Mink may also use
aquatic food sources such as fish, crayfish, tadpoles, and mollusks when an aquatic feeding area is
available, as well as  small birds during a substantial portion of the year.  Mink are expected to use
the Central Marsh Operable Unit because they have historically occurred in the region and they have
been recently  sighted  in nearby areas including the Apponagansett Swamp and ,as road kills  in
neighboring Dartmouth, Massachusetts.  Finally, mink tracks and the tracks of other small animals
were recently observed and photographed in Central Marsh near the Unnamed Stream.

Small mammals such as mice and shrews were included because they burrow in the soil  and are
frequently prey  of reptiles and other small mammals such as raccoons and mink.  In addition, the
shrew is a voracious insectivore,  feeding on terrestrial  insects that are in intimate contact with the
sediment and soil. Amphibians such as the green frog were included because of their abundance,
because of site-specific data indicating PCB body burdens, and because they are frequently prey  of
reptiles  and mammals.                                                             '

American robin (Turdus migratorius) and American woodcock (Philohela minor) were included  in
the food chain pathway  model because they are carnivorous and their principal  food source  is
earthworms, which were found to carry body burdens of PCBs up to 2.3 mg/kg  in Central Marsh
(Charters 1991). Earthworms  also  play an important role in mobilizing PCBs into the food chain
because of their contact with sediment, soil, and water.  Insectivorous birds that feed on terrestrial
insects such as beetles, pill bugs, and centipedes have also been included. Although the snapping
turtle is a top level carnivore and was frequently observed in Central Marsh, it is not a target species
because of its high  level of body fat and associated resistance to  PCBs and other lipophilic
contaminants.  The spotted turtle is  largely herbivorous and, based on site-specific plant tissue data
indicating undetected PCB concentrations, has not been included.  The red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis) was observed onsite on a number of occasions, but was not included as a target species


Case Study                                   30                                         8/93

-------



Red-
tailed Raccoon Mink
hawk
t " T t "
| 	 -i |

Nc
Wฃ
sn
*
Deer mouse 1
Insectivorous Mallard White-footed Qreen Sp)
birds duck mouse ป tu
A ป (0.09,0.07) x '
^ ^ •+•
I T t T
. •
Meadow Insec
vole (0.02) (0.19)

Soil and Vegetation

Decomposers, Detritus, Decaying Vegel




>rthern
iter
ake
t f
1
otted American
rt|e Salamander robln>
Woodcock

T

ts Earthworm
1 (0.16-0.29)




ation


Figure 4. Central Marsh food-chain pathway model.

-------
because its home range is 0.5-2.2 square miles.  Central Marsh comprises only about a maximum
of 4 percent of the hawk's range, thus reducing the percent of its diet that would come from Central
Marsh.
Risk Assessment

A variety of methods were used to assess exposure of Central Marsh wildlife species through both
aquatic and wetland/terrestrial exposure pathways.  For aquatic exposure pathways, the equilibrium
partitioning method was used as a method of developing sediment quality criteria (SQC) for aquatic
portions of Central Marsh. For wetland/terrestrial pathways, exposure of upper level consumers was
evaluated by calculating potential dietary levels and comparing those levels to the toxicity data.  The
ecological risk assessment for aquatic and wetland/terrestrial exposure pathways is discussed below.
Aquatic Exposure

Interim SQC were used to estimate the toxicity of the sediments and the biological impact of in-place
contaminated sediments. SQC are intended to be protective of the presence and ecological functions
of benthic invertebrates and other aquatic life. SQC are based on water quality criteria and are used
to develop limits for contaminant concentrations in the pore water of sediments.   These limits are
established to protect benthic, epibenthic, and other aquatic invertebrate communities at the base of
the aquatic food chain.

EPA has derived contaminant-specific criteria for sediments from ambient water quality criteria using
the partitioning coefficient.  This allows back-calculation of  sediment levels that, within certain
probabilities, will not result in exceedance of water quality criteria in the pore water. The PCS SQC
were derived from the PCB ambient water quality criterion that was developed to safeguard against
bioaccumulation that could result in chronic reproductive  effects in upper  level consumers, as
represented by the mink (Mustela visori), a species found to be particularly sensitive.  In 1988, EPA
published interim SQC (including mean values and 95-percent confidence values) for 13 chemicals
(U.S. EPA 1988).  The proposed low, mean, and upper value freshwater SQC for PCBs were 3.87,
19.5, and 99.9 jig PCB/g carbon, respectively.

Comparison of the interim PCB SQC with  normalized PCB sediment data (in units of /xg PCB/g
carbon) in the aquatic northwest area of Central Marsh indicates that approximately 0.4 acres exceed
the mean SQC  and 0.1 acres exceed the upper SQC.  Data from the biological tissue study for
Central Marsh indicate that at the Central Marsh Operable Unit, PCBs have accumulated in benthic
organisms living in sediments where PCB-normalized concentrations exceed 200 pg PCB/g carbon,
a value two times the interim upper SQC. Specifically, PCB  concentrations of 0.35 and 0.40 mg/kg
were  found  in benthic  organisms  collected  from sediment  samples  with  normalized  PCB
concentrations of 316 and 253 pg PCB/g carbon, respectively.

In addition, PCBs  (Aroclor 1254) were detected in filtered  and unfiltered pore and surface  water
samples at levels above the ambient water quality criterion for PCBs  of 0.014 /ig/L.

Given the site-specific data indicating that bioaccumulation is occurring onsite, and due  to the
presence of aquatic environments in portions of Central Marsh with  elevated  PCB concentrations,


Case Study                                  32                                        8/93

-------
EPA has determined that contaminated sediments in the northwest portion of Central Marsh present
an unacceptable risk to biota at the Central Marsh  Operable Unit.
Wetland/Terrestrial Exposure

EPA's ecological risk assessment used bioaccumulation and toxicity data presented earlier to conduct
a wildlife exposure assessment for species indigenous to Central Marsh, and to calculate potential
levels  of contaminants in sediment and soil that would be protective of the environment.  For
wetland/terrestrial pathways, EPA evaluated exposure of upper level consumers (such as the raccoon
and mink) by calculating protective sediment levels, using lowest observed effect dietary, levels and
site-specific bioaccumulation factors.

Site-specific tissue data were used to develop bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) for species such as
small mammals, earthworms, and frogs. The BAFs developed for these species were calculated as
the ratio of PCBs in the tissue to the level  in the sediment/soil, as follows:

       Sediment/soil  x BAF =      animal tissue PCB level

                     BAF   =      animal tissue PCB level
                                   sediment/soil PCB level

This method accounts for all types of exposure, including direct contact, inhalation,  soil ingestion,
and trophic magnification or food  exposure.  This method assumes that  the exposure level of
organisms is directly proportional to the level of contaminants in the sediment/soil. This information
was used to back-calculate levels for sediment/soil that are protective of wildlife by maintaining  the
food supply of targeted upper level consumers at or below lowest observed adverse effects level
(LOAEL) (Table 12).

In the  exposure assessment presented  below, sediment/soil protective levels were back-calculated
using the following relationship:

       Cmedi.   =     LOAEL
                     BAF
where:
                   i
     Cmedi.   =    concentration  (mg/kg)  of PCBs in environmental media
                   (e.g.,  sediment, soil, water)
   LOAEL   =    dietary lowest observed adverse effect level (mg/kg)
      BAF   =    bioaccumulation factor from  the media to  the  food species consumed
                   (unitless).
Carnivorous Birds

Because of the abundance of earthworms in Central Marsh and frequent sightings of the American
robin, a sediment/soil protective level was calculated for American robin and other carnivorous birds
(e.g., woodcock) based on  a  protective dietary level of 5 ppm PCBs and a BAF of 0.29 for


8/93                                        33                                  Case Study

-------
          TABLE 12. LETHAL AND SUBLETHAL EFFECTS OF PCB
                    (AROCLOR 1254) ON WILDLIFE"
Dietary
Exposure Exposure
Species Period (mg/kg)
Ringed turtle 3 months 1 0
doves

Mourning doves 6 weeks 1 0
Chickens 5
Mink 4 months 1
8 months 2
4 months 5
1 60 days 0.64
105 days 3.57
Effect
Delayed
reproductive
impairment
Hatchability of
second clutch
severely
impaired
Delayed
reproductive
impairment
Reproductive
impairment
Reduced
reproduction
High death rate
of kits
Depressed
reproduction
Severe
reproductive
effects
Reproductive
failure, extreme
weakness, and
death
Reference
Heinz et al.
1984
Peakall et al.
1972
Tori and
Peterle 1983
Heinz et al.
1984
Ringer et al.
1972
Aulerich and
Ringer 1977
Ringer et al.
1972
Platonow and
Karstad 1973
Platonow and
Karstad 1 973
Cited in:
Eisler 1986
Eisler1986
Eisler 1986
Eisler 1 986
U.S. EPA
1980

U.S. EPA
1980

 Maughan 1993.
Case Study
34
8/93

-------
earthworms.  Assuming that earthworms comprise 75 percent of these species diet, and that Central
Marsh is 90 percent of their  feeding range, a protective level of 25.5 mg/kg is indicated by the
following equation:

       Sediment/soil protective level =         5 ppm PCB       =     25.5 mg/kg PCBs
                                           (0.29)(0.75)(0.9)
Insectivorous Birds

Insectivorous birds  are  exposed to PCBs  through the .terrestrial food  pathway  through the
consumption of terrestrial insects. A sediment/soil protective level was calculated for insectivorous
birds using a BAF of 0.19. Assuming that terrestrial insects comprise 100 percent of the bird's diet,
and that Central Marsh is 90 percent of the feeding range,  a sediment/soil protective level of 29.2
mg/kg is indicated by the following  equation:

       Sediment/soil protective level =        5 ppm PCB       =     29.2 mg/kg PCBs
Carnivorous and Omnivorous Mammals

Upper trophic level carnivorous and omnivorous mammals in Central Marsh and the adjacent wetland
include raccoon and mink.  Mink prefer aquatic food sources to terrestrial food sources when both
options are equally available (Linscombe et al.  1982).  In Central Marsh, aquatic food sources for
mink include small fish,  crustaceans, newts, mollusks, and tadpoles.  Mink will also consume a
significant number of frogs when  available.  However, during winter when the stream may be
partially  frozen  and when  frogs  are  hibernating, mink will feed largely  on small mammals
(Linscombe et al. 1982).  Because reproductive impairment can occur in mink at low dietary levels
in less than a year, the dietary level of 0.64 ppm PCBs was used as an  acute exposure level and
dietary exposure levels were calculated for the mink's winter (terrestrial) diet.  In winter, mink will
feed largely on small mammals.  Accordingly, a sediment/soil protective level for wetland terrestrial
areas outside the aquatic areas is based  on a site-specific BAF for small mammals of 0.65/0.07 =
9.14.  Because Central Marsh comprises 65 percent  of the mink's home range of 20 acres, the
protective level is adjusted accordingly to 15 mg/kg.

Raccoon, in comparison, are omnivorous, feed opportunistically, and  may consume a substantial
amount of frogs and mice when readily available, as is the case in Central Marsh. Accordingly, a
sediment/soil protective level has been calculated for raccoon.  A BAF of 0.22 for frogs, a BAF of
0.07 for mice, and a protective dietary level of 1  ppm were used in the calculations.  The raccoon
has a home range of 18-36 acres.  It was assumed that Central Marsh comprises  50 percent of the
raccoons'  feeding range and that 30 percent of their diet  is composed of frogs and  mice.   The
following sediment/soil protective level  of 45.9 mg/kg was calculated for  protection of raccoon:

       	1	    =     45.9 mg/kg PCBs
        [(0.22)(0.5) +  (0.07)(0.5)] [(
8/93                                        35                                  Case Study

-------
In summary, using the application of site-specific bioaccumulation factors for the food chain pathway
model to PCB concentrations in Central  Marsh and the adjacent wetland  reveals several areas,
totalling approximately  1.9  acres, where levels derived ,to protect mink are exceeded.  PCB
concentrations at  sampling locations ME-22, ME-38, and  SL-56 (28,  32,  and 34 mg/kg PCBs,
respectively), exceed the calculated level that is protective of carnivorous birds.  In addition, PCB
concentrations at sampling locations ME-38 (32 mg/kg PCBs) and SL-56 (34 mg/kg PCBs) exceed
the calculated level that is protective of insectivorous birds.

EPA has determined that actual or treated releases of hazardous  substances from contaminated
sediments in Central Marsh and the adjacent wetland, if not addressed by implementing the response
action selected in thejROD for this site (U.S. EPA 1991), may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to biota present in the environment at the Central Marsh Operable Unit.
REFERENCES

Aulerich, R. J., and R.K. Ringer. 1977.  Current status of PCB toxicity to mink, and effect on their
reproduction. Arch. Environm.  Contain. Toxicol. 6:279-292.

Charters, D.W.   1991.  Environmental assessment,  Middle Marsh Sullivan's  Ledge  site,  New
Bedford, Massachusetts.  Final Report.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Response Branch.     '

Eisler, R. (ed).  1986.  Polychlorinated biphenyl hazards to fish, wildlife, and  invertebrates:  a
synoptic review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (1.7).

Heinz, G.H., D.M. Swineford, and D.E. Katsman.  1984. 'High PCB residues in birds from the
Sheboygan River, Wisconsin.  In: Eisler, R. (ed).  1986.  Polychlorinated biphenyl hazards to fish,
wildlife, and invertebrates:  a synoptic review.  U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report
85 (1.7).

ICF-Clement Associates, Inc.  1988.  Endangerment assessment for the F. O'Connor site in Augusta,
Maine.  EPA Contract No. 68-01-6939.  Document Control No.  319-ES1-RT-FKJL-1.

Linscombe, G., N. Kinler, and R.J. Aulerich.  1982.  Mink (Mustela visori).  In: Wild mammals
of North America:  biology, management,  economics. J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, eds.
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, pp. 629-643.

Montz,  W.E., W.C. Card, and R.L., Kirkpatrick. 1982.  Effect of polychlorinated biphenyls and
nutritional restriction  on barbituate-induced sleeping  times  and  selected blood characteristics in
raccoons (Procyon lotor).  Bull. Environ. Contain, and Toxicol. 28:578-583.

Peakall, D.B.,  J.L. Lincer, and S.E.  Bloom.   1972.  Embryonic mortality and  chromosomal
alterations caused by  Aroclor 1254 in ringdoves. In:  Eisler, R.  (ed).   1986.   Polychlorinated
biphenyl hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates:  a synoptic review.   U.S.  Fish and Wildlife
Service Biological Report 85 (1.7).
Case Study                                  36                                        8/93

-------
Platonow, N.S., and L.H. Karstad.  1973.  Dietary effects of polychlorinated biphenyls on mink.
Can. J. Comp. Med. 30:391-400.

Ringer, R.K., R.J. Aulerich, and M. Zabik.  1972. Effect of dietary polychlorinated biphenyls on
growth and reproduction of mink.  In:  U.S. EPA.   1980.  U.S. EPA Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Polychlorinated Biphenyls.  EPA 440/5-80-68. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water Regulations and Standards.

Sanders, O.T., and R.L. Kirkpatrick.  1977.  Reproductive characteristics and corticoid levels of
female white-footed mice fed ad libitum and restricted diets containing a polychlorinated biphenyl.
Environ. Res. 13:358-363.

Tori,  G.M., and T.J. Peterle.  1983.  Effects of PCBs on mourning dove courtship behavior. In:
Eisler, R.  (ed).   1986.  Polychlorinated  biphenyl hazards to fish,  wildlife, and invertebrates:  a
synoptic review.  U.S. Fish and  Wildlife  Service Biological Report  85 (1.7).  72 pp.

U.S. EPA.  1980.  Ambient water quality criteria for polychlorinated biphenyl.  EPA  440/5-80-68.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.

U.S. EPA.  1988. Interim sediment criteria values for nonpolar hydrophobic organic compounds.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Criteria and Standards Division.

U.S. EPA.  1991. Record of decision: Sullivan's Ledge site, Middle Marsh Operable Unit, New
Bedford, Massachusetts.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2.

U.S.  FWS.  1980.  Habitat evaluation procedures (HEP) ESAM  102.  U.S. Fish  and Wildlife
Service, Division of Ecological Services.
8/93                                        37                                  Case Study

-------
Section 3

-------
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                      MAR 25  1991
                                           OFFICE Of
                                  SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
                                    OSWER Directive 9285.6-03
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:



PROM:
Human Health? Evaluation Manual, Supplemental (guidance:
"Standard Default Exposure Factors"

Timothy Fields, Jr., Acting Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
          Bruce  Diamond,  Direct   __
          Office of Waste Programs
                           forcement
TO;
Director, Waste Management Division,
  Regions I, IV, V, & VII
Director, Emergency & Remedial Response Division,
  Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division,
  Regions III, VI, VIII, & IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division,
  Region X
Purpose
     The purpose of this directive is to transmit the Interim
Final Standard Exposure Factors  guidance to be used in the
remedial investigation and  feasibility study process.   This
guidance supplements the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Human Health Evaluation Manual,  Part A that was issued
October 13, 1989.

Background

     An intra-agency workgroup was formed in March 1990 to
address concerns regarding  inconsistencies among the exposure
assumptions used in Superfund risk assessments.   Its efforts
resulted in a June 29, 1990, draft document entitled "Standard
Exposure Assumptions".  The draft  was circulated to both
technical and management staff across EPA Regional Offices and
within Headquarters.  It was also  discussed at two EPA-sponsored
meetings in the Washington, D.C.,  area.   The attached interim
final document reflects the comments received as well  as the
results of recent literature reviews addressing inhalation rates,
soil ingestion rates and exposure  frequency estimates.
                                                          Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
Objective

     This guidance has been developed to reduce unwarranted
variability in the exposure assumptions used by Regional
Superfund staff to characterize exposures to human populations in
the baseline risk assessment.
Implementation

     This guidance supplements the Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund (RAGS):  Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A.  Where
numerical values differ from those presented in Part A, the
factors presented in this guidance supersede those presented in
Part A.

     This guidance is being distributed as an additional interim
final guidance in the RAGS series.  As new data become available
and the results of EPA-sponsored research projects are finalized,
this guidance will be modified accordingly.  We strongly urge
Regional risk assessors to contact the Toxics Integration Branch
of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response  (FTS 475-9486)
with any suggestions for further improvement; as we will begin
updating and consolidating the series of RAGS documents in 1992.


Attachment


cc: Regional Branch Chiefs
    Regional Section Chiefs
    Regional Toxics Integration Coordinators
    Workgroup Members

-------
                      OSWER DIRECTIVE: 9285.6-03

                            March 25, 1991
  RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE FOR SUPERFUND

 VOLUME I:  HUMAN HEALTH EVALUATION MANUAL

          SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE

   "STANDARD DEFAULT EXPOSURE FACTORS"

              INTERIM FINAL
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
        Toxics Integration Branch
  .U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         Washington, D.C.  20460
              (202)475-9486

-------
                      *  *  *  *  NOTICE *  *  *  *
The policies set out in this document are not final Agency
action, but are intended solely as guidance.  They are not
intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights
enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States.
EPA officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in this
document, or to act at variance with the guidance, based on an
analysis of site-specific circumstances.  The Agency also
reserves the right to modify this guidance at any time without
public notice.

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This guidance was developed by the Toxics Integration Branch
(TIB) of EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division.  Janine Dinan of TIB provided
overall project management and technical coordination in the
later stages of its development under the direction of Bruce
Means, Chief of TIB's Health Effects Program.

TIB would like t;o acknowledge the efforts of the interagency work
group chaired by Anne Sergeant of EPA's Exposure Assessment Group
in the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.  Workgroup
members, listed below, and Regional staff provided valuable input
regarding the content and scope of the guidance.


Glen Adams, Region IV
Lisa Askari, Office of Solid Waste
Alison Barry, OERR/HSCD
Steve Caldwell, OERR/HSED
David Cooper, OERR/HSCD
Linda Cullen, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Steve Ells, OWPE/CED
Kevin Garrahan, OHEA/EAG
Susan Griffin, OERR/TIB
Gerry Hiatt, Region IX
Russ Kinerson, OHEA/EAG
Jim LaVelle, Region VIII
Mark Mercer, OERR/HSCD
Sue Norton, OHEA/EAG
Andrew Podowski, Region V
John Schaum, OHEA/EAG
Leigh Woodruff, Region X

-------
          TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                  Page

1.0       introduction                            1

          1.1  Background                         2

          1.2  Present and Future
               Land Use Considerations            3


2.0       Residential                             5

          2.1  Ingestion of Potable Water         5

          2.2  Incidental Ingestion of
               Soil and Dust                      6

          2.3  Inhalation of Contaminated
               Air                                6

          2.4  Consumption of Homegrown
               Produce                            7

          2.5  Subsistence Fishing                8


3.0       Commercial/Industrial                   9

          3.1  Ingestion of Potable Water         9

          3.2  Incidental Ingestion of
               Soil and Dust                      9

          3.3  Inhalation of Contaminated
               Air                                10


4.0       Agricultural                            10

          4.1  Farm Family Scenario               10

          4.1.1  Consumption of Homegrown
                 Produce                          11

          4.1.2  Consumption of Animal
                 Products                         11

          4.2  Farm Worker                        12

-------
5.0       Recreational                            12

          5.1  Consumption of Locally
               Caught Fish                        12

          5.2  Additional Recreational
               Scenarios                          13

6.0       Summary                                 14


7.0       References                              16



Attachment A


Attachment B

-------
 1.0   INTRODUCTION


 The Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund  (RAGS) has been
 divided into several parts.  Part A, of the Human Health
 Evaluation Manual  (HHEM; U.S. EPA, 1989a), is the guidance for
 preparing baseline human health risk assessments at  Superfund
 sites.  Part B, now in draft form, will provide guidance on
 calculating risk-based clean-up goals.  Part c, still in the
 early stages of development, will address the risks  associated
 with  various remedial actions.

 The processes outlined in these guidance manuals are a positive
 step  toward achieving national consistency in evaluating site
 risks and setting goals' for site clean-up.  However, the
 potential for inconsistency across Regions and among sites still
 remains; both in estimating contaminant concentrations in
 environmental media and in describing characteristics and
 behaviors of the exposed populations.

 Separate guidance on calculating contaminant concentrations is
 currently being developed in response to a number of inquiries
 from  both inside and outside the Agency.  The best method for
 calculating the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) concentration
 for different media has been subject to a variety of
 interpretations and is considered an important area  where further
 guidance is needed.

 This  supplemental guidance attempts to reduce unwarranted
 variability in the exposure assumptions used to characterize
 potentially exposed populations in the baseline risk assessment.
 This  guidance builds on the technical concepts discussed in HHEM
 Part  A and should be used in conjunction with Part A.  However,
 where exposure factors differ,  values presented in this guidance
 supersede those presented in HHEM Part A.

 Inconsistencies among exposure assumptions can arise from
 different sources:   l)  where risk assessors use factors derived
 from  site-specific data; 2)  where assessors must use their best
 professional judgement to choose from a range of factors
 published in the open literature; and  3) where assessors must
make  assumptions (and choose values)  based on extremely limited
 data.  Part A encourages the use of site-specific data so that
 risks can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  This
 supplemental guidance has been developed to encourage a
 consistent approach to assessing exposures when there is a lack
 of site-specific data or consensus on which parameter value to
 choose,  given a range of possibilities.   Accordingly, the
 exposure factors presented in this document are generally
 considered most appropriate and should'be used in baseline risk
assessments unless  alternate or site-specific values can be
clearly justified by supporting data.

-------
 Supporting  data  for  many of  the  parameters presented  in this
 guidance  can  be  found in the Exposure  Factors Handbook  (EFH; U.S.
 EPA,  1990).   In  cases where  parameter  values are not  available  in
 EFH,  this guidance adopts well-quantified or widely-accepted data
 from  the  open literature.  Finally,  for factors where there is  a
 great deal  of uncertainty, a rationally-derived, conservative
 estimate  is developed and explained.   As new data become
 available,  this  guidance will be modified to reflect  them.

 These standard factors are intended  to be used for calculating
 reasonable  maximum exposure  (RME)  estimates for each  applicable
 scenario  at a site.   Readers are reminded that the goal of RME  is
 to  combine  upper-bound and mid-range exposure factors in the
 following equation so that the result  represents an exposure
 scenario  that is both protective and reasonable; not  the worst
 possible  case:


          Intake = C x IR x  EF x ED
                        BW x  AT
           C = Concentration of the chemical in each medium
               (conservative estimate of the media average
               contacted over the exposure period)

          IR = Intake/Contact Rate  (upper-bound value)
                                             i
          EF = Exposure Frequency (upper-bound value)

          ED = Exposure Duration  (upper-bound value)

          BW = Body Weight  (average value)

          AT = Averaging Time (equal to exposure duration for
               non-carcinogens and 70 years for carcinogens)

Please note that the Agency is presently evaluating methods for
calculating conservative exposure estimates, such as RME, in
terms of which parameters should be upper-bound or mid-range
values.  If warranted, this guidance will be modified
accordingly.


1.1   BACKGROUND


An intra-agency workgroup was formed at the Superfund Health Risk
Assessment meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico (February 26 -
March 1, 1990)'.  Its efforts resulted in a June 29, 1990, draft
document entitled "Standard Exposure Assumptions".  The draft was
distributed to Superfund Regional Branch Chiefs, and members of

-------
other programs within the Agency, for their review and comment.
It was also presented and discussed at two EPA/OERR sponsored
meetings.  The meetings, facilitated by Clean Sites, Inc.,
brought members of the "Superfund community" and the Agency
together to focus on technical issues in risk assessment.

A final review draft was distributed on December 5, 1990, 'which
reflected earlier comments received as well as the results of
more recent literature reviews addressing inhalation rates, soil
ingestion rates and exposure frequency estimates (these being
areas commented on most frequently).


1.2  PRESENT AND FUTURE LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS


The exposure scenarios, presented in this document, and their
corresponding assumptions have been developed.within the context
of the following land use classifications: residential,
commercial/industrial, agricultural or recreational.
Unfortunately, it is not always easy to determine actual land use
or predict future use: local zoning may not adequately describe
land use; and unanticipated or even planned rezoning actions can
be difficult to assess.  Also, the definition of these zones can
differ substantially from region to region.  Thus,  for the
purposes of this document, the following definitions are used:


     Residential

     Residential exposure scenarios and assumptions should be
     used whenever there are or may be 'occupied residences on or
     adjacent to the site.  Under this land use, residents are
     expected to be in frequent,  repeated contact with
     contaminated media.   The contamination may be on the site
     itself or may have migrated from it.  The assumptions in
     this case account for daily exposure over the long term and
     generally result in the highest potential exposures and
     risk.
     Commercial/Industrial

     Under this type of land use, workers are exposed to
     contaminants within a commercial area or industrial site.
     These scenarios apply to those individuals who work on or
     near the site.  Under this land use, workers are expected to
     be routinely exposed to contaminated media.  Exposure may be
     lower than that under the residential scenarios, because it
     is generally assumed that exposure is limited to 8 hours a
     day for 250 days per year.

-------
Agricultural

These scenarios address exposure to people who live on the
property  (i.e., the farm family) and agricultural workers.
Assumptions made for worker exposures under the
commercial/industrial land use may not be applicable to
agricultural workers due to differences in workday length,
seasonal  changes in work habits, and whether migrant workers
are employed in the affected area.  Finally, the farm family
scenario  should be evaluated only if it is known that such
families  reside in the area.
Recreational

This land use addresses exposure to people who spend a
limited amount of time at or near a site while playing,
fishing, hunting, hiking, or engaging in other outdoor
activities.  This includes what is often described as the
"trespasser" or "site visitor" scenario.  Because not all
sites provide the same opportunities/ recreational scenarios
must be developed on a site-specific basis.  Frequently, the
community surrounding the site can be an excellent source of
information regarding the current and potential recreational
use of a site.  The RPM/risk assessor is encouraged to
consult with local groups to collect this type of
information.

In the case of trespassers, current exposures are likely to
be higher at inactive sites than at active sites because
there is .generally little supervision of abandoned
facilities.  At most active sites, security patrols and
normal maintenance of barriers such as fences tend to limit
(if not entirely prevent) trespassing.  When modeling
potential future exposures in the baseline risk assessment,
however, existing fences should not be considered a
deterrent to future site access.

Recreational exposure should account for hunting and fishing
seasons where appropriate, but should not disregard local
reports of species taken illegally.  Other activities should
also be scaled according to the amount of time they could
actually occur; for children and teenagers, the length of
the school year can provide a helpful limit when evaluating
the frequency and duration of certain outdoor exposures.

-------
2.0  RESIDENTIAL
Scenarios for this land use should be evaluated whenever there
are homes on or near the site, or when residential development is
reasonably expected in the future.  In determining the potential
for future residential land use,  the RPM should consider:
historical land use; suitability for residential development;
local zoning; and land use trends.  Exposure pathways evaluated
under this scenario routinely include, but may not be limited to:
ingestion of potable water; incidental ingestion of soil and
dust; inhalation of contaminated air; and, where appropriate,
consumption of home grown produce.


     2.1  Inaestion of Potable Water

     This pathway assumes that adult residents consume 2 liters
     of water per day, 350 days per year,  for 30 years.

     The value of 2 liters per day for drinking water is
     currently used by the Office of Water in setting drinking
     water standards.   It was originally used by the military to
     calculate tank truck requirements.   In addition, 2  liters
     happens to be quite close to the 90th percentile for
     drinking water ingestion (U.S. EPA, 1990), and is
     comparable to the 8 glasses of water per day historically
     recommended by health authorities.

     The exposure frequency (EF)  of 365  days/year for the
     residential setting used in RAGS Part A has been argued both
     inside and outside of the Agency as being too conservative
     for RME estimates.  National travel data were reviewed to
     determine if an accurate number of  "days spent at home"
     could be calculated.' Unfortunately,  conclusions could not
     be drawn from the available  literature; as it presents data
     on the duration of trips taken for  pleasure,  but not the
     frequency of such trips (OECD, 1989;  Goeldner and Duea,
     1984; National Travel Survey, 1982-89).  However, the
     Superfund program is committed to moving away from  values
     that represent the "worst possible  case."  Thus, until
     better data become available, the common assumption that
     workers take two weeks of vacation  per year can be  used to
     support a value of 15 days per year spent away from home
     (i.e.,  350 days/year spent at home).

     In terms of exposure duration (ED), the resident is assumed
     to live in the same home for 30 years.   In the EFH, this
     value is presented as the 90th-percentile for time  spent at
     one residence.  (Please note  that in the intake equation,
     averaging time (AT)  for exposure to non-carcinogenic
     compounds is always equal to ED; whereas, for carcinogens a

-------
 70 year  AT is  still  used  in order  to  compare to Agency  slope
 factors  typically  based on that  value).
 2.2   Incidental  Increstion of  Soil  and Dust

 The  combined  soil  and  dust ingestion rates used  in this
 document  were presented  in OSWER Directive 9850.4  (U.S.  EPA,
 1989b), which specifies  200 mg per day  for children aged 1
 thru 6  (6 years  of exposure)  and 100 mg per  day  for others.
 These factors account  for ingestion of  both  outdoor soil and
 indoor dust and  are believed  to represent upper-bound values
 for  soil'and  dust  ingestion  (Calabrese, et al.,  1989;
 Calabrese, et al.,  1990a,b; Davis,  et al., 1990; Van Wijnen,
 et al., 1990).   Presently, there is no  widely  accepted
 method for determining the relative contribution of each
 medium  (i.e.,  soil vs. dust)  to these daily  totals, and  the
 effect of climatic variations (e.g., snow cover) on these
 values has yet to  be determined.   Thus, a constant, year
 round exposure is  assumed (i.e., 350 days/year).

 Please note that the equation for  calculating  a  30-year
 residential exposure to  soil/dust  is divided into two parts.
 First, a  six-year  exposure duration is  evaluated for young
 children  which accounts  for the period  of highest soil
 ingestion (200 mg/day) and lowest  body  weight  (15 kg).
 Second, a 24-year  exposure duration is  assessed  for older
 children  and  adults by using  a lower soil ingestion rate
 (100  mg/day)  and an adult body weight (70 kg).
2.3  Inhalation of Contaminated Air

In response to a number of comments, the RME inhalation rate
for adults of 30 m /day (presented in HHEM Part A) was re-
evaluated.  Activity-specific inhalation rates were combined
with time-use/activity level data to derive daily inhalation
rate values (see Attachment A).  Our evaluation focused on
the following population subgroups who would be expected to
spend the majority of their time at home: housewives;
service and household workers; retired people; and
unemployed workers (U.S. EPA, 1985).  An inhalation rate of
20 m /day was found to represent a reasonable upper-bound
value for adults in these groups.  This value was derived by
combining inhalation rates for indoor and outdoor activities
in the residential setting.  This rate would be used in
conjunction with ambient air levels measured at or downwind
of the site.  Although sampling data are preferred,
procedure;s described in Hwang and Falco (1986)  and
Cowherd,  et al.  (1985) can be used to estimate volatile and
dust-bound contaminant concentrations, respectively.

-------
In cases where the residential water supply is contaminated
with volatiles, the assessor needs to consider the potential
for exposure during household water use  (e.g., cooking,
laundry, bathing and showering).  Using the same time-
use/activity level data described above, a total of
15 m /day was found to represent a reasonable upper-bound
inhalation rate for daily, indoor, residential activities.
Methods for modeling volatilization of contaminants in the
household  (including the shower) are currently being
developed by J.B. Andelman and U.S. EPA's Exposure
Assessment Group.  Assessors should contact the Superfund
Health Risk Assessment Technical Support Center for help
with site-specific evaluations (FTS-684-7300).


2.4  Consumption of Home Grown Produce

This pathway need not be evaluated for all sites.  It may
only be relevant for a small number of compounds (e.g., some
inorganics and pesticides) and should be evaluated when the
assessor has site-specific information to support this as a
pathway of concern for the residential setting.

The EFH presents figures for "typical" consumption of fruit
(140 g/day) and vegetables (200 g/day) with the "reasonable
worst case" proportion of produce that is homegrown as 30
and 40 percent, respectively.  This corresponds to values of
42 g/day for consumption of homegrown fruit and 80 g/day for
homegrown vegetables.  They are derived from data in Pao, et
al. (1982)  and USDA (1980).  EFH also provides data on
consumption of specific homegrown fruits and vegetables that
may be more appropriate for site-specific evaluations.
Although sampling data are much preferred,  in their absence
plant uptake of certain organic compounds can be estimated
using the procedure described in Briggs, et al. (1982).  No
particular procedure is recommended for quantitatively
assessing inorganic uptake at this time; however, the
following table developed by Sauerbeck (1988)  provides a
qualitative guide for assessing heavy.metal uptake into a
number of plants:

-------
     High

     lettuce
     spinach
     carrot
     endive
     cress
     beet and
     beet leaves
Plant Uptake of Heavy Metals

 Moderate        Low
 onion
 mustard
 potato
 radish
corn
cauliflower
asparagus
celery
berries
Very Low

beans
peas
melon
tomatoes
fruit
     2.5  Subsistence Fishing

     This pathway is not expected to be relevant for most sites.
     In order to add subsistence fishing as a pathway of concern
     among the residential scenarios, onsite contamination must
     have impacted a water body large enough to produce a
     consistent supply of edible fish, and there must be evidence
     that area residents regularly fish in this water body (e.g.,
     interviews with local anglers).  If these criteria are met,
     the 95th-percentile for daily fish consumption (132 g/day)
     from Pao, et al. (1982) should be used to represent the
     ingestion rate for subsistence fishermen.  This value was
     derived from a 3-day study of people who ate fish, other
     than canned, dried, or raw.  An example of this consumption
     rate is about four 8-ounce servings per week.
     This consumption rate can also be used to evaluate exposures
     to non-residents who may also use the water body for
     subsistence fishing.  In this case, the exposure estimate
     would not be added to estimates calculated for other
     residential pathways, but may be included in the risk
     assessment as an exposure pathway for a sensitive sub-
     population.


For further information regarding food chain contamination the
assessor is directed to the following documents:

     o    Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with
          Indirect Exposures to Combustor Emissions (PB-90-
          187055).  Available through NTIS.                 '

     o    Development of Risk Assessment 'Methodology for Land
          Application and Distribution and Marketing of Municipal
          Sludge (EPA/600/6-89/001).  Available from
          OHEA/Technical Information at FTS 382-7326.

     o    Estimating Exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD  (EPA/600/6-
          88/005A).  Available from OHEA/Technical Information at
          FTS 382-7326.
                                8

-------
3.0  COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL


Occupational scenarios should be evaluated when land use is (or
is expected to be) commercial/industrial.   In general, these
scenarios address a 70-kg adult who is at work 5 days a week for
50 weeks per year (250 days total).  The individual is assumed to
work 25 years at the same location (95th-percentile; Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1990).   This scenario also considers ingestion
of potable water, incidental ingestion of soil and dust, and
inhalation of contaminated air.

Please note that under mixed-use zoning (e.g., apartments above
storefronts),  certain pathways described for the residential
setting should also be evaluated.

                                                            /
     3.1  Increstion of Potable Water

     Until data become available for this pathway, it will be
     .assumed that half of an individual's daily water intake
     (1 liter out of 2) occurs at work.  All water ingested is
     assumed to come from the contaminated drinking water source
     (i.e.,  bottled water is not considered).   For site-specific
     cases where workers  are known to consume considerably more
     water (e.g., those who work outdoors in hot weather or in
     other high-activity/stress environments), it may be
     necessary to adjust  this figure.

     A lower ingestion rate is used in this pathway so that a
     more reasonable exposure estimate may be made for workers
     ingesting contaminated water.   However, it is important to
     remember that remedial actions are often based on returning
     the contaminated aquifer to maximum beneficial use; which
     generally means achieving levels suitable for residential
     use.
     3.2   Incidental Inaestion of Soil and Dust

     In the occupational setting,  incidental ingestion of soil
     and  dust is highly dependent on the type of work being
     performed.   Office workers would be expected to contact much
     less soil and dust than someone engaged in outdoor work such
     as construction or landscaping.   Although no studies were
     found that specifically measured the amount of soil ingested
     by workers in the occupational setting,  the one study that
     measured adult soil ingestion included subjects that worked
     outside of the home (Calabrese,  et al.,  1990a).  Although
     the  study had a limited number of subjects (n=6)  and did not
     associate the findings with any particular activity pattern,
     it is the only study that did not rely on modeling to

-------
      estimate adult soil ingestion.  Thus, the Calabrese, et  al.
      (1990a) estimate of 50 ing/day  is selected as an interim
      default for adult ingestion of soil and dust in the
      "typical" workplace.  Please be aware that this value may
      change when the results of ongoing soil ingestion studies
      sponsored by EPA's Exposure Assessment Group are finalized
      in  1991.

      Attachment B presents modeled rates for adult soil ingestion
      that should be used to estimate exposures for certain
      workplace activities where much greater soil contact is
      anticipated, but with limited exposure frequency and/or
      duration.
     3.3  Inhalation of Contaminated Air

     As in the previous discussion regarding inhalation rates
     for the residential setting, specific time-use/activity
     level data were used to estimate inhalation rates for
     various occupational activities.  The results indicate that
     20 m  per 8-hour workday represents a reasonable upper-
     bound inhalation rate for the occupational setting (see
     Attachment A).   Although analytical data are much preferred,
     procedures described in Hwang and Falco (1986) and Cowherd,
     et al. (1985) can be used to estimate volatile and dust-
     bound contaminant concentrations, respectively.
4.0  AGRICULTURAL
These land use scenarios include potential exposures for farm
families living and working on the site, as well as, individuals
who may only be employed as farm workers.


     4.1  Farm Family Scenario

     This scenario should be evaluated only if it is known or
     suspected that there are farm families in the area.  The
     animal products pathway should not be used for areas zoned
     residential,  because such regulations generally prohibit the
     keeping of livestock.   Farm family members are assumed to
     have most of  the same characteristics as people in the
     residential setting; the only difference is that consumption
     of homegrown  produce will always be evaluated.  Thus,
     default values for the soil ingestion, drinking water, and
     inhalation pathways would be the same as those in the
     residential setting.
                                10

-------
           4.1.1   Consumption of Homegrown Produce

           The values used  in evaluating this pathway are the same
           as those  presented in Section 2.4.  While it is more
           likely  for farm  families to cultivate fruits and
           vegetables,  it is not necessarily true that they would
           be able to grow  a sufficient variety to meet all their
           dietary needs and tastes.  Thus, the consumption rate
           default values will be 42 g/day and 80 g/day for fruits
           and vegetables,  respectively.  Again, EFH presents
           consumption  rates for specific homegrown fruits and
           vegetables.  The assessor is reminded that the plant
           uptake  pathway is not relevant for all contaminants and
           sampling  of  fruits and vegetables is highly
           recommended.  However, in the absence of analytical
           data, plant  uptake of organic chemicals can be  '
           estimated using  the procedure described in Briggs, et
           al. (1982).  No  particular procedure is recommended for
           quantitatively assessing inorganic uptake at this time;
           however,  the table (presented in Section 2.4) developed
           by Sauerbeck (1988) provides a qualitative guide for
           assessing heavy  metal uptake into a number of plants.


           4.1.2   Consumption of Animal Products

           Animal  products  should only be addressed if it is known
           that local residents produce them for home consumption
           or are  expected  to do so in the future.  The best way
           to determine which items are produced is by interviews
           or consultation  with the local County Extension Service
           which usually has data on the type and quantity of
           local farm products.

           EFH provides average ingestion rates for beef and dairy
           products  and assumes that the farm family produces
           75 percent of what it consumes from these categories.
           This corresponds to a "reasonable worst case"
           consumption  rate of 75 g/day for beef and 300 g/day for
           dairy products.  Although sampling data are much
           preferred, in their absence the procedure described in
           Travis  and Arms  (1988) may be used to estimate organic
           contaminant  concentrations in beef and milk.  This
           procedure does not provide transfer coefficients for
           poultry and  eggs.  Thus,  the latter two pathways can be
           evaluated only if site-specific concentrations for
           poultry and  eggs are available, or if transfer
           coefficients can be obtained from the literature.

Additional references  addressing potential exposures from
contaminated foods  are listed in Section 2.0.
                                11

-------
     4.2  Farm Worker

     Many farm activities, such as plowing and harrowing, can
     generate a great deal of dust.  The risk assessor should
     consider the effects of observed  (or expected) agricultural
     practices when using the fugitive dust model suggested under
     the residential scenario.  Note that soil ingestion rate may
     be similar to the outdoor yardwork scenario discussed in
     Attachment B, although it will be necessary to modify the
     exposure frequency and duration to account for climate and
     length of employment.  The local County Extension Service
     should be able to provide information on agricultural
     practices around a site.  In addition, the Biological and
     Economic Analysis Division in the Office of Pesticide
     Programs maintains a database of the usual planting and
     harvesting dates for a number of crops in most U.S. states.
     This information may be very helpful for estimating times of
     peak exposure for farm workers, and, if heeded, can be
     obtained through the Superfund Health Risk Assessment
     Technical Support Center (FTS 684-7300).
5.0  RECREATIONAL
As stated previously, sites present different opportunities for
recreational activities.  The RPM or risk assessor is encouraged
to consult with the local community to determine whether there is
or could be recreational use of the property along with the
likely frequency and duration of any activities.

     5.1  Consumption of Locally Caught Fish

     This pathway should be evaluated when there is access to a
     contaminated water body large enough to produce a consistent
     supply of edible-sized fish over the anticipated exposure
     period.  Although the local authorities should know if the
     water body is used for fishing, illegal access (trespassing)
     and deliberate disregard of fishing bans should not
     necessarily be ruled out; the risk assessor should check for
     evidence of these activities.  If required, the scenario can
     be modified to account for fishing season, type of edible
     fish available, consumption habits, etc.

     For recreational fishing, the average consumption rate of
     54 g/day from Pao,  et al. (1982) is used.   This value is
     derived from a 3-day study of people who ate finfish, other
     than canned, dried or raw.  An example of this consumption
     rate is about two 8-ounce servings per week.  Other values
     presented in EFH, for consumption of recreationally caught
     fish,  are from limited studies of fishermen on the west
     coast and may not be applicable to catches in other areas.

                               12

-------
When evaluating this pathway please consider the possibility
of subsistence fishing.  Unlike the residential scenario,
exposure estimates from this pathway would not necessarily
be added to any other exposure estimates  (see Section 2,5).
Instead, it would be included as an estimate of exposure for
a sensitive sub-population.


5.2  Additional Recreational Scenarios

A number of comroentors requested standard default values for
the following recreational scenarios: hunting, dirtbiklng,
swimming and wading.  One approach to address exposure
during swimming and wading is presented in HHEM Part A,  The
Agency is currently involved in research projects designed
to estimate dermal uptake of contaminants from soil, wster
and sediment.  Results of these studies will be used to
update the swimming and wading scenarios as well as other
scenarios that rely on estimates of dermal absorption.
Unfortunately, lack of data and problems in estimating
exposure frequencies and durations based on regional
variations in climate have precluded the standardization of
other recreational scenarios at this time.  Additional
guidance will be developed as data become available.
                           13

-------
6.0  SUMMARY


This supplemental guidance has been developed to provide a
standard set of default values for use in exposure assessments
when site-specific data are lacking.  These standard factors are
intended to be used for calculating reasonable maximum exposure
(RME) levels for each applicable land use scenario at a site.

Supporting data for many of the assumptions can be found in the
Exposure Factors Handbook (EFH; U.S. EPA, 1990).  When supporting
information was not available in EFH, well-quantified or .widely-
accepted data from the open literature were adopted.  Finally,
for factors where there is a great deal of uncertainty, a
rationally conservative estimate was developed and explained.

As new data become available, either for the factors themselves
or for calculating RME, this guidance will ^>e modified
accordingly.

The following table summarizes the exposure pathways that will be
evaluated on a routine basis for each land use, and the current
default values for each exposure parameter in the standard intake
equation presented below (refer to HHEM: Part A, U.S. EPA, 1989a,
for a more detailed discussion of each exposure parameter) :

          IntaHe = C x IR x EF x ED
                       BW x AT

           C = Concentration of the chemical in each medium

          IR = Intake/Contact Rate

          EF = Exposure Frequency

          ED = Exposure Duration

          BW = Body Weight

          AT = Averaging Time
                               14

-------
                             SUMMARY OF STANDARD DEFAULT EXPOSURE  FACTORS  (1)
Land Use
Residential


Commercial/
Industrial


Agricultural



Recreational
Exposure Pathway (2)
Ingestion of
Potable Water
Ingestion of
- Soil and Dust
Inhalation of
Contaminants
Ingestion of
Potable Water
Ingestion of
Soxl and Dust
Inhalation of
Contaminants
Ingestion of
Potable Water
Ingestion of
Soxl and Dust
Inhalation of
Contaminants
Consumption of
Homegrown
Produce
Consumption of
Locally Caught
Fish
Daily
Intake Rate
2 liters
200 mg (child)
100 mg (adult)
20 cu.m (total)
15 cu.m (indoor)
1 liter
50 mg
20 cu.m/workday
2 liters
200 mg (child)
100 mg (adult)
20 cu.m (total)
15 cu.m (indoor)
42 g (fruit)
80 g (veg. )
54 g
Exposure
Frequency
350 days/year
350 days/year
350 days/year
250 days/year
250 days/year
250 days /year
350 days/year
350 days/year
350 days/year
350 days/year
350 days/year
Exposure
Duration
30 years
6 years
24 years
30 years
25 years
25 years
25 years
30 years
6 years
24 years
30 years
30 years
30 years
Body Weight
70 kg
15 kg (child)
70 kg (adult)
70 kg
70 kg
70 kg
70 kg
70 kg
15 kg (child)
70 kg (adult)
70 kg
70 kg
70 kg
(1)  -
(2)  -
Factors presented are those that should generally be used to assess
exposures associated with a designated land use.  Site-specific data may warrant deviation
from these values; however, use of alternate values should be justified and documented
in the risk assessment report.

Listed pathways may not be relevant for all sites and. other exposure pathways
may need to be evaluated due to site conditions.  Additional pathways and applicable default
values are provided in the text of this guidance.

-------
7.0  REFERENCES
Briggs, G., R. Bromilow, and A. Evans.  1982.  Relationship
     between lipophilicity and root uptake and translocation of
     non-ionized chemicals by barley.  Pesticide Science 13:495-
     504.

Bureau of Labor Statistics.  1990.  Statistical summary: tenure
     with current employer as of January 1987.   (Transmitted via
     facsimile, 7 September 1990)

Calabrese, E.J., Barnes, R., Stanek, E.J., Pastides, H.,
     Gilbert, C.E., Veneman, P., Wang, X., Lasztity, A., and P.T.
     Kosteck.  1989.  How Much Soil Do Young Children Ingest: An
     Epidemiologic Study.  Reg. Tox. and Pharmac. 10:123-137.

Calabrese, E.J., Stanek, E.J., Gilbert, C.E.,and R.M. Barnes.
     1990a.  Preliminary Adult Soil Ingestion Estimates: Results
     of a Pilot Study.  Reg. Tox. and Pharmac. 12:88-95.

Calabrese, E.J.  1990b. Personal communication with J. Dinan,
     Toxics Integration Branch. EPA/OSWER/OERR.  October 24,
     1990.

Cowherd, C., Muleski, G., Englehart, P., and D. Gillette.  1985.
     Rapid Assessment of Exposure to Particulate Emissions from
     Surface Contamination. Prepared by Midwest Research
     Institute, Washington, D.C. for EPA/OHEA. EPA-600/8-85-002.

Davis, S., Waller, P., Buschbom, R., Ballou, J. and P. White.
     1990.  Quantitative Estimates of Soil Ingestion in Normal
     Children between the Ages of 2 and 7 Years: Population-
     based Estimates Using Aluminum, Silicon and Titanium as Soil
     Tracer Elements.  Arc. Environ. Health. 45(2):112-122.

Goeldner, C.R. and K.P. Duea.  1984.  Travel Trends in the United
     States and Canada.  Business Research Division, University
     of Colorado at Boulder.
              i
Hawley, J.K.  1985.  Assessment of health risk from exposure to
     contaminated soil.  Risk Analysis 5(4):289-302.

Hwang, S.T., and J.w. Falco.  1986.  Estimation of Multimedia
     Exposures Related to Hazardous Waste Facilities. In: Cohen
     (ed.). Pollutants in a Multimedia Environment. New York, NY:
     Plenum Publishing Corp. pp. 229-264.

National Travel Survey.  1982-1989.  U.S. Travel Data Center,
     Washington, D.C.
                                16

-------
OECD.  1989.  National and International Tourism Statistics,
     1974-1985.  Organization for Economic Cooperation and
     Development.

Pao, E.M., K.H. Fleming, P.A. Guenther, and S.J. Mickle.  1982.
     Foods commonly eaten by individuals: Amounts per day and per
     eating occasion.  USDA, Human Nutrition Information Service.
     Home Economics Report No. 44.                     '

Sauerbach, D.  1988.  Transfer of Heavy Metals in Plants. As
     published in:  Technical Report No. 40, Hazard Assessment of
     Chemical Contaminants in Soil (August 1990).  European
     Chemical Industry Ecology & Toxicology Centre.  Brussels,
     Belgium. ISSN-0773-8072-40

Travis, C.C. and A.D. Arms.  1988.  Bioconcentration of organics
     in beef, milk, and vegetation.  Environmental Science and
     Technology 22(3):271-274.

U.S. Department of Agriculture.  1980.  Food and nutrient intakes
     of individuals in one day in the United States, Spring 1977.
     Nationwide Food  Consumption Survey 1977-1978.  Preliminary
     Report No. 2.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1990.  Exposure Factors
     Handbook.  Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
     EPA/600/8-89/043, March 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1989a.  Risk Assessment
     Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation
     Manual.  Office  of Emergency and Remedial Response.
     EPA/540/1-89/002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1989b.  Interim Final
     Guidance for Soil Ingestion.  Office of Solid Waste and
     Emergency Response.  OSWER Directive 9850.4.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1985.  Development of
     Statistical Distributions of Ranges of Standard Factors Used
     in Exposure Assessments.  OHEA-E-161, March 1985.

Van Wijnen,  J.H.,  Clausing, P. and B. Brunekreef.  1990.
     Estimated Soil Ingestion by Children.  Environmental
     Research  51: 147-162.
                                17

-------
                           ATTACHMENT A

                ACTIVITY SPECIFIC INHALATION RATES

Background

The  standard default value of 20 xn3/day has been used by EPA to
represent an average daily inhalation rate for adults.  According
to EFH,  this value was developed by the International Commission
on Radiologic Protection  (ICRP) to represent a daily inhalation
rate for "reference man"  engaged in 16 hours of "light activity"
and  8 hours of  "rest".  EPA  (1985) reported on a similar study
that indicated  the average inhalation rate for a man engaged in
the  same activities would be closer to 13 m /day.  EFH, in turn,
reiterated the  findings of ICRP and EPA (1985) then calculated a
"reasonable worst case" inhalation rate of 30 m /day.  This
reasonable worst case value was used in Part A of the Human
Health Evaluation Manual  as the RME inhalation rate for
residential exposures.


Commentors from both inside and outside the Agency expressed
concerns that this value  may be too conservative.  Many also
added their concern that  exposure values calculated using this
inhalation rate would not be comparable to reference doses  (RfD)
and  cancer potency factors (gl*) values based on an inhalation
rate  of  20 m3/day.   Thus,  the Toxics Integration Branch of
Superfund (TIB) conducted a review of the literature to determine
the validity of using 30  m /day as the RME inhalation rate for
adults.  Members of EPA's Environmental Criteria Assessment
Office-Research Triangle  Park (A. Jarabek, 9/20/90) and the
Science  Advisory Board (10/26/90) have suggested that inhalation
rates  could be  calculated using time-use/activity level data
reported in the "Development of Statistical Distributions or
Ranges of Standard Factors Used in Exposure Assessments" (OHEA;
U.S.   EPA, 1985).  Thus, TIB used this data to calculate an RME
inhalation rate for both  the residential and occupational
settings, as follows.
Methodology
          The time-use/activity level1 data reported by OHEA
          (1985) were analyzed for each occupation subgroup;

          The data were divided into hours spent at home vs.
          hours' spent at the workplace (lunch hours spent outside
          of work and hours spent in transit were excluded);

          The hourly data were subdivided into hours spent
          indoors vs. outdoors (to allow for estimating exposures
          to'volatile contaminants during indoor use of potable
          water);

-------
                           ATTACHMENT B

                  ESTIMATING ADULT SOIL INGESTION
               IN THE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SETTING


Most  of the available soil  ingestion studies focus on children in
the residential setting; however, two studies were found that
address adult soil ingestion that also have application to the
commercial/industrial setting  (Hawley, 1985; Calabrese, et al.,
1990).

Hawley  (1985) used a number of assumptions for contact rates and
body  surface area to estimate the amount of soil and dust adults
may ingest during a variety of residential activities.  For
indoor exposures, Hawley estimated levels based on contact with
soil/dust in two different household areas, as follows:
0.5 mg/day for daily exposure in the "living space"; and 110
mg/day for cleaning dusty areas such as attics or basements.  For
outdoor exposures, Hawley estimated a soil ingestion rate during
yardwork of 480 mg/day.  The assumptions used to model exposures
in the residential setting may also be applied to similar
situations in the workplace.  The amount of soil and dust adults
contact in their houses may be similar to the amount an office or
indoor maintenance worker would be expected to contact.
Likewise, the amount of soil contacted by someone engaged in
construction or landscaping may be more analogous to a resident
doing outdoor yardwork.

Calabrese, et al. (1990) conducted a pilot study that measured
adult soil ingestion at 50 mg/day.  Although the study has
several drawbacks (e.g., a limited number of participants and no
information on the participants daily work activities), it
included subjects that worked outside the home.  It is also
interesting to note that this measured value falls within the
range Hawley (1985)  estimated for adult soil ingestion during
indoor activities.

From these studies,  50 mg/day was chosen as the standard default
value for adult soil ingestion in the workplace.  It was chosen
primarily because it is a measured value but also because it
falls within the range of modeled values representing two widely
different indoor exposure scenarios.  The 50 mg/day value is to
be used in conjunction with an exposure frequency of 250
days/year and an exposure duration of 25 years.  For certain
outdoor activities in the commercial/industrial setting (e.g.,
construction or landscaping), a soil ingestion rate of 480 mg/day
may be used;  however,  this type of work is usually short-term and
is often dictated by the weather.  Thus, exposure frequency would
generally be less than one year and exposure duration would vary
according to site-specific construction/maintenance plans.

-------
          The corresponding activity level was assigned to fefcch
          hour and the total number of hours spent at each
          activity level was calculated;

          For time spent inside the home, 8 hours per day were
          assumed to be spent at rest; and

          The total number of hours spent at each activity level
          was multiplied by average inhalation rates reported in
          the EFH.  Note; average values were used since onj.y
          minimum, maximum and average values were reported.  The
          use of maximum values would have to be considered
          "worst case".  Values for average adults were applied
          to all but the housewife data  (where average rates for
          women were applied).
The results showed that the highest weekly inhalation rate was
18.3 m /day for the residential setting and 18 m /day for the
workplace.  These values represent the highest .among the weekly
averages and were derived from coupling "worst case" activity
patterns with "average" adult inhalation rates.  It was concluded
from these data that 30 m /day may in fact be too conservative
and that 20 mVday would be more representative of a reasonably
conservative inhalation rate for total (i.e., indoor plus
outdoor) exposures at home and in the workplace.

RAGS Part B will specifically model exposure to volatile organics
via indoor use of potable water.  Using the method described
previously, it was determined that 15 m3/day would represent a
reasonably conservative inhalation rate for indoor residential
exposures.

-------
                                                                          PB92-963373
&EPA
                        United States  ^
                        cnvironfnont&u Protection
                        Agency
                        Office of Sow Waste and
                        Emergency Response
                        Washington, D.C. 20460
Pubteanon 9285.7-081
May 1992
Supplemental Guidance to
RAGS:   Calculating the
Concentration Term
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division, OS-230
                                                 Intermittent Bulletin
                                                 Volume 1 Number 1
     The overarching mandate of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) is to protect human health and the environment from current and potential threats posed by
uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances. To help meet this mandate, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Office of Emergency and Remedial Response has developed a human health risk assessment
process as pan of its remedial response program. This process is described in Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund;  Volume I — Human Health Evaluation Manual (RAGS/HHEM).  Pan A of RAGS/HHEM
addresses the baseline risk assessment, and describes a general approach for estimating exposure to individuals
from hazardous substance releases at Superfund  sites.

     This bulletin explains the concentration term in the exposure/intake equation to remedial project
managers (RPMs), risk assessors, statisticians, and other personnel.  This bulletin presents the general intake
equation as presented in RAGS/HHEM Pan A, discusses basic concepts concerning the concentration term,
describes generally how to calculate the concentration term, presents examples  to illustrate several important
points, and,  lastly, identifies where to get additional help.
THE CONCENTRATION TERM

How is the concentration term used?

     RAGS/HHEM  Pan  A  presents  the
Superfund risk assessment process in four 'steps':
(1)  data collection and  evaluation;  (2) exposure
assessment;  (3) tenacity  assessment; and (4) risk
characterization.   The  concentration  term  is
calculated for use in the exposure assessment step.
Highlight  i  presents   the  general  equation
Superfund uses for  calculating  exposure, and
illustrates that the concentration term (C) is one
of  several   parameters  needed   to   estimate
contaminant intake for an individual.
                            For     Superfund  assessments,   the
                       concentration term (C)  in the intake equation is
                       an estimate of the arithmetic average concentration
                       for a contaminant  based on a set of site sampling
                       results. Because of the uncertainty associated with
                       estimating the true average concentration at a site.
                       the 95 percent upper confidence limit fUCL) of
                       the  arithmetic mean should  be used for this
                       variable. The 95 percent UCL provides reasonable
                       confidence that the true site average will not be
                       underestimated.

                       Why use an average value for the concentration
                       term?

                            An estimate of average concentration is used
                       because:
 Supplemental Guidance to SACS is a bulletin series on risk assessment of Superfund sites. These bulletins serve as supplements to
 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 — Human Health Evaluation Manual. The information presented is intended as
 guidance to EPA and other government employees.  It does not constitute rutanaking by the Agency, and may not be relied on to
 create a substantive or procedural right enforceable by any other person. The Government may taJce action that is at variance with
 these bulletins.

-------
                                          Highlight I
                      GENERAL EQUATION FOR ESTIMATING EXPOSURE
                                  TO A SITE CONTAMINANT
                                   ,  n  CRxEFD    1
                                   7=Cx	x-
                                              BW
                                       AT
        where:

        I
        C
        CR   =
        EFD  =
        BW  =
        AT   =
intake (i.e., the quantitative measure of exposure in RAGS/HHEM)
contaminant concentration
contact (intake) rate
exposure frequency and duration
body weight
averaging time
(1)     carcinogenic and chronic noncardnogenic
       tenacity  criteria1  are based on  lifetime
       average exposures; and

(2)     average  concentration  is   most
       representative of the concentration that
       would be contacted at a site over time.

For  example, if you  assume that an exposed
individual moves randomly  across an  exposure
area, then the spatially averaged soil concentration
can  be  used  to  estimate  the  true  average
concentration contacted  over time.    In this
example, the average concentration contacted over
time  would  equal   the  spatially   averaged
concentration over the exposure area.  While an
individual may not actually exhibit a truly random
pattern of movement across an exposure area, the
assumption of equal time spent in  different parts
of the area is a simple but reasonable approach.

When should an average concentration be used?

       The two types of exposure  estimates now
being required for Superfund risk assessments, a
reasonable  man'miim exposure (RME) and an
average, should both use an average  concentration.
To  be protective, the overall estimate of intake
(see Highlight i) used as a basis  for action at
1  When acute toxicity is of most concern, a long-
term average concentration generally should not be
used for risk assessment purposes, as the focus
should   be  to  estimate  short-term,  peak
concentrations.
                                   Superfund sites should be an estimate in the high
                                   end of the intake/dose distribution. One high-end
                                   option  is  the RME  used in  the Superfund
                                   program.   The RME, which is defined as the
                                   highest exposure that could reasonably be expected
                                   to occur for a given exposure pathway at a site, is
                                   intended to account  for both uncertainty in the
                                   contaminant concentration  and  variability  in
                                   exposure  parameters (e.g., exposure frequency,
                                   averaging  time).    For  comparative  purposes,
                                   Agency guidance  (U.S. EPA, Guidance on Risk
                                   Characterization  for Risk  Managers and  Risk
                                   Assessors, February 26,1992) states that an average
                                   estimate of exposure also should be  presented in
                                   risk assessments. For decision-making purposes in
                                   the Superfund program, however, RME is used to
                                   estimate risk.2

                                   Why  use an  estimate of the arithmetic mean
                                   rather than the geometric mean?

                                         The  choice  of  the  arithmetic  mean
                                   concentration  as  the appropriate  measure for
                                   estimating exposure derives from  the  need to
                                   estimate  an   individual's   long-term  average
                                   exposure. Most Agency health criteria are based
                                   on the long-term average  dairy dose,  which  is
                                   simply the sum of all daily doses divided by the
                                   total number of days in the averaging period. This
                                   is the definition  of an arithmetic  mean.  The
                                   2   For additional information on  RME, see
                                   RAGS/HHEM Pan A and the National Oil and
                                   Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
                                   (NCP), 55 Federal Register S710, March 8,1990.

-------
arithmetic mean is appropriate regardless of the
pattern of daily exposures over time or the type of
statistical distribution that might best describe the
sampling data.  The geometric mea.  of a set of
sampling  results,  however,  bean  no logical
connection to the cumulative intake  that would
result   from   long-term  contact   with   site
contaminants, and it may differ appreciably from —
and be much lower than — the arithmetic mean.
Although  the geometric mean  is a  convenient
parameter for describing central tendencies  of
lognormal distributions, it is not an appropriate
basis for estimating the concentration term used in
Superfund exposure assessments.  The following
simple example  may help clarify the  difference
between the arithmetic and geometric mean when
used for an exposure assessment:

       Assume the daily exposure for a trespasser
       subject to random exposure at a site is 1.0,
       0.01,  1.0, 0.01,  1.0, 0.01, 1.0, and  0.01
       units/day over an 8-day  period.   Given
       these  values, the cumulative exposure is
       simply their summation, or 4.04 units.
       Dividing this by 8 days of exposure results
       in an  arithmetic mean of 0.505 units/day.
       This is the value we would want to use in
       a risk assessment for this individual, not
       the geometric  mean  of 0.1  units/day.
       Viewed another way, multiplication of the
       geometric mean by the  number  of  days
       equals 0.8 units, considerably lower  than
       the known cumulative exposure  of 4.04
       units.

UCL AS AN ESTIMATE OF THE
AVERAGE CONCENTRATION

What is a 95 percent UCL?

       The 95 percent UCL of a  mean is defined
as a value  that, when  calculated repeatedly for
randomly drawn subsets  of site  data,  equals or
exceeds  the true mean  95 percent of the  time.
Although  the 95  percent UCL of the mean
provides a conservative estimate of the average (or
mean) concentration, it should not be confused
with a 95th percentile of site concentration data (as
shown in Highlight 2).

Why use the UCL as the average  concentration?

       Statistical confidence limits are the classical
tool for addressing uncertainties of a'distribution
average.  The 95 percent UCL of the arithmetic
mean  concentration is  used as  the average
concentration because it is not possible, to know
the true mean.  The 95 percent  UCL therefore
accounts for uncertainties due to limited sampling
data at Superfund sites.  As sampling data become
less limited at a site, uncertainties decrease, the
UCL moves closer to the true mean, and exposure
evaluations using  either the mean or the  UCL
produce similar results.  This concept is illustrated
in Highlight 2.

Should a value other than the 95 percent UCL be
used for the concentration?

       A value  other than the 95 percent  UCL
can  be used provided the  risk assessor  can
document   that  high  coverage   of   the  true
population mean occurs (Le,, the value equals or
exceeds the true  population  mean  with  high
probability).  For exposure areas with limited
amounts of data  or extreme variability in measured
or modeled data, the UCL can be greater than the
highest measured or modeled  concentration.  In
these cases, if additional  data cannot practicably be
obtained, the highest measured or modeled value
could be used as the concentration term.  Note,
however, that the  true  mean still may be higher
than this maximum value (Le., the 95 percent UCL
indicates a higher  mean is possible), especially if
the most contaminated portion of the site has not
been sampled.

CALCULATING THE UCL

How many samples are  necessary to calculate the
95 percent UCL?

       Sampling data from Superfund sites have
shown that data sets with fewer than  10 samples
per exposure area provide poor estimates of the
mean concentration (Le., there is a large difference
between the sample mean and the 95 percent
UCL), while data sets with 10 to 20 samples per
exposure area provide somewhat better estimates
of the mean, and data sets with 20 to 30 samples
provide fairly consistent estimates of the mean
(Le., the 95 percent UCL is close to the sample
mean).  Remember that,  in general,  the  UCL
approaches the  true mean as  more samples are
included in the calculation.

Should the data be transformed?

       EPA's experience shows that most large or
'complete* environmental contaminant data sets

-------
                                           Highlight 2
                         COMPARISON OF UCL AND 95* FERCENT1LE
                                                                         30
                                          Concmu Alion
   As sample size increases, the UCL of the mean moves closer to the true mean, while the 95th
   percentile of the distribution remains at the upper end of the distribution.
from  soil sampling are lognormalty distributed
rather than normally distributed (see Highlights 3
and 4 for illustrations of lognonnal and normal
distributions).  In most  cases, it is reasonable
to assume that Superfund soil sampling data are
lognormalty distributed. Because transformation is
a necessary step in opiating the  UCL of the
arithmetic mean for a lognonnal distribution, the
data should be  transformed by using the natural
logarithm function (Le^ calculate ln(x), where x is
the value from  the data  set).  However, in cases
where there is a question about the distribution of
the data set, a  statistical test should be used to
identify the best distributional assumption for the
data set   The W-test   (Gilbert  1987)  is one
statistical method that can be used to determine if
a data set is consistent with a normal or lognonnal
distribution. In all cases, it is valuable to plot the
data  to  better  understand the  contaminant
distribution at the site.

How do you calculate the UCL for a lognonnal
distribution?

       To calculate the  95 percent UCL of the
arithmetic mean for a lognormalry distributed data
set, first transform the data using  the  natural
logarithm function as discussed previously (Le^
calculate ln(x)).   After transforming  the  data,
determine the 95 percent UCL for the data set by
completing the following four steps:

(1)    Calculate  the arithmetic  mean  of the
       transformed data (which is also  the log of
       the geometric mean);

(2)    Calculate the standard deviation of the
       transformed data;

(3)    Determine the H-statistic (e.g, see Gilbert
       1987); and

(4)    Calculate the UCL  using the equation
       shown in Highlight 5.

How do  yon calculate the UCL  for  a  normal
distribution?

       If a statistical test supports the assumption
that the data set  is normally distributed, calculate
the 95  percent UCL by completing the following
four steps:

-------
   so -
I
i
                             Highlight 3
              EXAMPLE OF A LOGNURMAL DISTRIBUTION
                                                    35
                                                           40
                            Concentration
                             Highlight 4
                EXAMPLE OF A NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
                            Concentration

-------
        where:

        UCL
        e
        x
        s
        H
        n
                                          Highlights
                     CALCULATING THE UCL OF THE ARITHMETIC MEAN
                             FOR A LOGNORMAL DISTRIBUTION
                                    UCL = e  *
upper confidence limit
constant (base of the natural log, equal to 2.718)
mean of the transformed data
standard deviation of the transformed data
H-statistic (e.g,, from table published in Gilbert 1987)
number of samples
                                          Highlight 6
     CALCULATING THE UCL OF THE ARITHMETIC MEAN FOR A NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
        where:

        UCL
        x
        s
        t
        n
upper confidence limit
mean of the untransformed data
standard deviation of the untransformed data
Student-t statistic (e.g., from table published in Gilbert 1987)
number of samples
(1)     Calculate the  arithmetic mean  of  the
       untransformed data;

(2)     Calculate the Standard  deviation of the
       untransformed data;

(3)     Determine the one-tailed t-statistic (e.g.,
       see Gilbert 1987); and

(4)     Calculate the UCL using  the equation
       presented in Highlight 6.

Use caution when applying normal distribution
calculations if there is a possibility that heavily
contaminated portions of the site have not been
adequately sampled.  In such cases, a UCL from
normal distribution calculations could fall below
the true mean, even if a limited data set at a site
appears normally distributed.
                           EXAMPLES

                                  The examples shown in Highlight* 7 and 8
                           address the exposure scenario where an individual
                           at  a  Superfund site has  equal  opportunity to
                           contact soil in any sector of the contaminated area
                           over time. Even though the examples address only
                           soil exposures, the UCL approach is applicable to
                           all exposure pathways. Guidance and examples for
                           other  exposure pathways  win be  presented in
                           forthcoming bulletins.

                                  Highlight 7 presents a simple data set and
                           provides a stepwise demonstration of transforming
                           the data — assuming a lognormal distribution —
                           and calculating the  UCL.   Highlight  8  uses the
                           same data set to show the difference between the
                           UCLs that would result from assuming normal and
                           lognormal  distribution of the  data.   These

-------
                                       Highlight?
           EXAMPLE OF DATA TRANSFORMATION AND CALCULATION OF UCL

       This example shows the calculation of a 95 percent UCL of the arithmetic mean
concentration for chromium in soil at a Superfund site. This example is applicable only to a
scenario in which a spatially random exposure pattern is assumed. The concentrations of chromium
obtained from random sampling in soil at this site (in mg/kg) are 10,13, 20, 36, 41, 59,  67,110, 110,
136, 140,160, 200, 230, and 1300. Using these data, the following steps are taken to calculate a
concentration term for the intake equation:

(1)    Plot the data and inspect the graph. (You may need the help of a statistician for this part
       [as well as other parts] of the calculation of the UCL) The plot (not shown, but similar to
       Highlight 3) shows a skew to the right, consistent with a lognormal distribution.

(2)    Transform the data by taking the natural log of the values (Le., determine ln(x)). For this
       data set, the transformed values are: 230, L56, 3.00,3.58, 3.71, 4.08, 420, 4.70, 4.70, 4.91,
       4.94, 5.08, 530, 5.44, and 7.17.

(3)    Apply the UCL equation in Highlight 5, where:

           x =  438
           s =  125
           H = 3.163 (based on 95 percent)
           n = 15 ,

The resulting 95 percent UCL of the arithmetic mean is thus found to equal e^6-218), or 502 mg/kg.
                                       Highlight S
 COMPARING UCLS OF THE ARITHMETIC MEAN ASSUMING DIFFERENT DISTRD3UTIONS

       In this example, the data presented in F'gh|'ght 7 are used to demonstrate the difference in
the UCL that is seen if the normal distribution approach were inappropriately applied to this data
set (Le., if, in this example, a normal distribution is assumed).

ASSUMED DISTRIBUTION:          Normal               Lognormal

TEST STATISTIC                   Student-t             H-statistic

95 PERCENT UCL (mg/kg):           325                  502

-------
examples demonstrate the importance of using the
correct assumptions.

WHERE CAN I GET MORE HELP?

       Additional  information  on  Superfund's
policy   and   approach   to   calculating   the
concentration term and estimating exposures at
waste sites can be obtained in:

       •    U.S. EPA, Risk Assessment Guidance
            far Superfund:  Volume I — Human
            Health Evaluation Manual (Pan A),
            EPA/540/1-89/OQ2, December 1989.

       •  '  U.S. EPA,   Guidance for  Data
            Useability   in   Risk   Assessment,
            EPA/540/G-90/008  (OSWER
            Directive 9285,7-05), October 1990.
                     I
       •    U.S. EPA, Risk Assessment Guidance
            for Superfund (PartA —Baseline Risk
            Assessment) Supplemental Guidance/
            Standard Exposure Factors, OSWER
            Directive 9285.6-03, May 1991.
Useful statistical guidance can be found in many
standard textbooks, including:

       •    Gilbert, R.O., Statistical Methods for
            Environmental Pollution Monitoring,
            Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,
            New York, 1987.
Questions   or  comments   concerning
concentration term can be directed to:
the
       •    Toxics Integration Branch
            Office of Emergency and Remedial
             Response
            401 M Street SW
            Washington, DC 20460
            Phone: 202-260.9486

EPA staff can obtain additional copies  of  this
bulletin by calling EPA's Superfund Document
Center at 202-260-9760. Others can obtain copies
by contacting NTIS at 703-487-4650.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (OS-230)
Washington, DC 20460

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
                     First-Ciass Mall
                     Postage and Fees Paid
                     EPA
                     Permit No. G-35

-------
Section 4

-------
                           QUANTIFYING  EXPOSURE
The following equations can be used to replace the equations found in the Human Health Evaluation
Manual:  Pan A (HHEM).  These equations reflect the current guidance for quantifying particular
exposure pathways.
AGE-ADJUSTED SOIL INGESTION

The following equation illustrates how to address the different intake rates and body weights of an
adult and a child for soil ingestion.  This equation is an expansion of the equation found on page
6-40 of the HHEM:  Part A.

Intake (mg/kg/day) =


                           CS x IRc x CF x FIc x EFc x EDc
                                      BWc x AT
                           CS x IRa x CF x Fla x EFa x EDa
                                      BWa x AT
The c denotes factors that should be based on a child's activities and the a denotes adult values.
The averaging time  would be the same for both (e.g., 30 years) if calculating for intake of a
carcinogenic chemical or a time period that covers a child and an adult.  If the time period of activity
is only for a child or an adult, then only part of the above equation would be used.
INHALATION OF VOLATILES RESIDENTIAL WATER

The inhalation route of exposure due to residential use of water has become as important as the
ingestion route.  The Residential Exposure:  Inhalation of Airborne Chemicals (HHEM:  Part A,
page 6-44) shows how to calculate an intake if the airborne concentration is known. There are two
sources for this concentration:  1) air sampling or 2) modeling.  The following two equations show
how to model airborne concentrations for volatile compounds released during showering (Shower
Scenario) or during the complete daily usage of water (Whole House Scenario). Note:  Do not try
to add the two equations.  The Whole House  Scenario includes the release of volatiles during
showering.
8/93                                      1                        Quantifying Exposure

-------
SHOWER SCENARIO
                          „. _  CW x Liters shower x Volatility
                                        Room  Volume
where:

                CA   =   contaminant concentration in air in bathroom (mg/m3)

                CW   =   contaminant concentration in water (mg/L)
                    i
       Liters shower   =   volume of water used during shower

           Volatility   =   percent of contaminant that volatilizes (e.g., 50 percent = 0.5)

       Room volume   =   volume of bathroom (or shower) in m3.


WHOLE HOUSE SCENARIO

The following equation was taken from Human Health Evaluation Manual,  Part B:  Development
of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals (page 52, B.I. 2), with a slight modification to fit the
format of Part A.  It addresses volatilization of contaminants1 from all  of the residential water used
in a house, not just during showering.


                                           C  x K x IR x EF x  ED
                      Intake (mglkg-day) = —	
                              *W                BWxAT
where:
        Cw   =   contaminant concentration in water (mg/L)

        K   =   volatilization factor (0.0005 x 1000 L/m3.2  The number
                  shown here is the default value used in HHEM:  Part B.
                  It is based on certain water use factors,  house size, and
                  ventilation rate.  It also represents the upper-bound number
                  for a variety of chemicals.  A chemical-specific number
                  may be more realistic.

        IR   =   daily indoor inhalation  rate (m3/day)

       EF   =   exposure frequency (days/yr)
    1  Andelman 1990.

    2  Andelman 1990.
Quantifying Exposure                        2                                       8/93

-------
       ED   =    exposure duration (yr)
       BW   =    body weight (kg)
       AT   =    averaging time (days).
    At scoping, risk from indoor inhalation of volatiles is assumed to be relevant only for
    chemicals that  easily volatilize.   Thus, the risk equation incorporates  a water-air
    concentration relationship that is applicable  only to chemicals with a Henry's Law
    constant of greater than 1 x 10"5 atm-m3/mole and a molecular weight of less than 200
    g/mole.  (HHEM:  Part B, page 20 [emphasis added])
DERMAL CONTACT WITH CHEMICALS
The  following equations were taken from the Dermal  Exposure Assessment:  Principles and
Applications (Interim Report), Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/8-91/01 IB.  These
replace the equations found on pages 6-37 and 6-41 of the  Human Health Evaluation Manual:  Part
Aj.  Please refer to the dermal exposure assessment document for complete procedures.
DERMAL CONTACT WITH CHEMICALS IN WATER

                                     DA	EV ED EF A
                             DAD =
                                        event
                                           BWAT
where:
     DAD   =    dermally absorbed dose (mg/kg-day)
    DA^em   =    absorbed dose per event (mg/cm2-event)
       EV   =    event frequency (events/day)
       ED   =    exposure duration (years)
       EF   =    exposure frequency (days/year)
        A   =    skin surface area available for contact (cm2)
       BW   =    body weight (kg)
       AT   =    averaging time (days)  - for noncarcinogenic effects, AT  = ED; for
                  carcinogenic effects, AT = 70 years or 25,550 days.
Recommended default values for dermal exposure for EV, ED, EF, and A are provided in Table 1.
8/93                                      3                       Quantifying Exposure

-------
                TABLE 1.  RANGE OF RECOMMENDED DEFAULTS
                        FOR DERMAL EXPOSURE FACTORS
Water Contact
Bathing
Exposure
Factor
Event time
and
frequency
Exposure
duration
Adult skin
surface area*
Soil-to-skin
adherence
rate
Central
1 0 minutes per
event, 1 event
per day, 350
days per year
9 years
20.000 cm2
__o
Upper
15 minutes per
event, 1 event
per day, 350
days per year
30 years
23,000 cm2
~"
Swimming
Central
0.5 hours per
event, 1 event
per day, 5 days
per year
9 years
20,000 cm2
"
Upper
1 hour per
event, 1 event
per day, 1 50
days per year
30 years
23,000 cm2
""
Soil Contact
Central
40 events
per year
9 years
5,000 cm2"
0.2 mg/cm2-
event
Upper
350 events
per year
30 years
5,800 cm2
1 .0 mg/cm2-
event
 Source:   Table 8-6, Dermal Exposure Assessment:   Principles and Applications.   Interim Report.
 EPA/600/8-91/01 IB. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office and Research and Development.

 • See Table 8-4, Dermal Exposure Assessment:  Principles and Applications for values for children.

 b This value represents the area of body exposed while wearing summer-type clothing. It equals 25 percent
 of total body surface.

 0 -- indicates  not applicable.
Quantifying Exposure
8/93

-------
For inorganics, DA^, (mg/cm2-event) can be calculated as follows:
                                          -  *?
where:
    DAeven,    =   dose absorbed per unit area per event (mg/cm2-event)
        Kp    =   permeability coefficient from water (cm/hour)
        Cw    =   concentration of chemical in water (mg/cm3)
                  (Note: mg/cm3 =  10'6 x /*g/L)
       Ural    =   duration of event (hr/event).
Values for K* can be found in  Chapter 5  of Dermal  Exposure Assessment:  Principles and
Applications.
For organics, DA^^ (mg/cm2-event) can be calculated as  follows:
                                               = 2 K. C
                                                   *ซ**     2 T
                                                  1 + B
1 + 3 B\
 1 + B  )
Cv = contaminant concentration in water (mg/cm3).  Values for Kp, t*, r, and B can be found in
Chapter 5 of Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications.
8/93                                        5                        Quantifying Exposure

-------
DERMAL CONTACT WITH CHEMICALS IN SOIL

                                              EF ED A
                               DAD =
                                          event
                                            BWAT
where:
     DAD   =    dermally absorbed dose (mg/kg-day)
    DA^,,,,   =    absorbed dose per event (mg/cm2-event)
       EF   =    exposure frequency (events/year)
       ED   =    exposure duration (years)
        A   =    skin surface area available for contact (cm2)
      BW   =    body weight (kg)
       AT   =    averaging time (days)  - for  noncarcinogenic effects, AT = ED; for
                  carcinogenic effects, AT = 70 years or 25,550 days.
DAeve,,, (mg/cm2-event) for soil can be calculated as follows:

                                         c   AF ABS
where:
       C.ou   =    contaminant concentration in soil (mg/kg)(10"6 kg/mg)
       AF   =    adherence factor of soil to skin (mg/cm2-event) (also referred to as contact
                  rate in RAGS Part A)
      ABS   =    absorption fraction (e.g., 10 percent = 0.1).
Quantifying Exposure                       6                                       8/93

-------
      TOXICITY VALUES INFORMATION SOURCES  & HIERARCHY
                          (HHEM Pages 7-13 to 7-15)


INTEGRATED RISK INFORMATION SYSTEM (IRIS)


      •     To set up an on-line IRIS account (updated monthly):

                  (301) 496-6531 "Toxnet" through National Library of Medicine.

      •     To obtain IRIS on computer disk (updated quarterly):

                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) personnel and state and federal
                  agencies call for personal computer version.  Contact National Technical
                  Information Service (NTIS) at 703 487-4807 or  1-800-336-4700.

      •     To access or order the IRIS database:

                  IRIS User Support 513 569-7254.

      •     To obtain technical or scientific guidance for IRIS workgroup verification data:

                  EPA regional Superfund personnel consult EPA  agency contact identified at
                  the end of each IRIS file.


HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY TABLES  (HEAST)

      •     To order HEAST:

                  Contact NTIS at 1-800-553-6847 to obtain whole document (43.00)
                  Contact NTIS at 703 487-4630 to subscribe to HEAST for periodic updates.

      •     To order documents referenced in HEAST:

                  Center for Environmental Research Information  (CERI) - 513 569-7562
                  NTIS - 703 487-4650 or 1-800-553-NTIS.


EPA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA AND ASSESSMENT  OFFICE (ECAO)
SUPERFUND HEALTH RISK TECHNICAL SUPPORT CENTER  (TSC)

      •     For technical assistance for EPA personnel:

                  Contact ECAO at 513 569-7300.
8/93                                    i                       Toxicity Information

-------
             Contractors/others—Questions must be submitted to the TSC in writing and must
             contain the following information:

                    Superfund site name, site location, and 12-digit site number
                    Name and telephone number of the RPM or regional risk assessor/toxicologist
                    Detailed description of the risk assessment-related question.

             Sources for EPA documents

                    CERI—No charge for documents
                    Center  for Environmental Research Information
                    ORD Publications
                    26 West Martin Luther King Drive
                    Cincinnati, OH 45268
                    513 569-7562
                    NTIS—Cost varies
                    National Technical Information Service
                   , 5285 Port Royal Road
                    Springfield, VA 22161
                    703 487-4650
                    1-800-553-NTIS
                    Superfund Docket and Information Center (SDIC)—No charge for documents
                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    Superfund Docket and Information Center
                    OS-245
                    401 M  Street SW
                    Washington, DC 20460
                    202 260-6940
                    FTS 8-382-6940
                    RCRA/Superfund Hotline
                    1-800-424-9346
                    RCRA  Documents
                    202 475-9327.
FATE AND TRANSPORT INFORMATION SOURCES

The following sources can provide information related to chemical fate and transport.  This list is
not exhaustive. There are many models and publications concerning fate and transport that are not
mentioned here.

The first two sources are U.S.  EPA Technical Support  Centers.  They are prepared to provide
technical assistance to RPMs and OSCs. Other persons should go through their site RPM or OSC
or regional risk assessor if technical assistance is needed.  Anyone interested  in publications and
models can contact the centers directly.
Toxicity Information                         2                                       8/93

-------
1.     Ground-Water Fate and Transport Technical Support Center
       Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory (RSKERL)
       Kerr Lab Road
       P.O. Box 1198
       Ada, OK 74820
       405 332-8800

       RSKERL is EPA's center for fate and transport research, focusing on 1) transport and fate
       of contaminants  in the vadose and saturated zones of the subsurface, 2) methodologies
       relevant to protection and restoration of groundwater quality, and 3) evaluation of subsurface
       processes for the treatment of hazardous waste. The laboratory's Center for Subsurface Fate
       and Transport provides technical  support pertaining to:

       •      Pump-and-treat aquifer remediation

       •      Bioremediation of soils and groundwater

       •      Subsurface geochemistry

       •      Contaminant transport modeling

       •      In situ treatment processes.

2.     Exposure and Ecorisk Assessment Technical Support Center
       Environmental Research Laboratory (ERL-Athens)
       College Station Road
       Athens, GA 30613
       706 546-3130
       706 546-3402 (bulletin board)
       706 546-3549 (list of models)

       ERL-Athens  emphasizes multimedia exposure and risk assessment modeling of remedial
       action  alternatives.   An electronic  bulletin board disseminates  models  and modeling
       information.  Technical support services include:

       •      Models, databases, and analytical techniques

       •      Multimedia modeling of organic chemical and heavy metal pollutant fate

       •      Soil/water and surface water/sediment systems

       •      Ecological impact and ecorisk assessment.

       Models can be downloaded from  the bulletin board or a disk of the model can be obtained.
       A disk listing the models is available by calling 706 546-3549.
8/93                                        3                          Toxicity Information

-------
      AQUIRE Database
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Office of Research and Development
      Office of Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support
      202 260-7667

      National Ground Water Association
      Dublin, OH
      614 761-1711

      RISKPROฎ
      General Sciences Corporation
      6100 Chevy Chase Drive
      Laurel, MD 20707
      301 953-2700

      RISKPROฎ is a software package that combines chemical property estimation, environmental
      models, risk  estimation  procedures,  and graphic presentations.   The risk  estimation
      procedures are in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Risk As'sessment Guidance
      for Superfund documents.  The models evaluate releases to air, soil, surface water, and
      groundwater.
AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY (ATSDR)

                         ATSDR Regional Representatives
          Region
Contact
Region
Contact
1
2
3
4
5
Louise A. House
617 860-4314
Arthur Block
212264-7662
Charles J. Walters
215 597-7291
Chuck V. Pietrosewicz
404 639-0707
Louise A. Fabinski
312 886-0327
6
7
8
9
10
Carl R. Hickam
214 655-2245
Denise Jordan-lzaguirre
913 551-7692
Glenn J. Tucker
303 294-1063
William 0. Nelson
415 744-2194
Greg Thomas
206 553-2113
Toxicity Information
                                                     8/93

-------
                      INTEGRATED RISK INFORMATION SYSTEM
Substance Name:
CASRN:
Chlordane
57-74-S
Last Revised:
07/01/93
Health risk assessment information on a chemical is included  in IRIS  only  after
a comprehensive review of chronic toxicity data by work groups composed  of U.S.
EPA scientists from several Program Offices.  The summaries presented in the
Oral RfD, Inhalation Rfc and Carcinogenicity Assessment Sections represent a
consensus reached in the review process.  The other sections  contain  U.S.  EPA
information which is specific to a particular EPA program  and has been subject
to review procedures prescribed by that Program Office.  The  Regulatory  Actions
Section may not be based on the most current risk assessment, or may  be  based
on a current,  but unreviewed, risk assessment, and may take into account
factors other than health effects (e.g., treatment technology).  When
considering the use of regulatory action data for a particular situation,  note
the date of the regulatory action, the date of the most recent risk assessment
relating to that action, and whether technological factors were considered.
Background information and explanations of the methods used to derive the
values given in IRIS are provided in the five Background Documents, which  are
available in each section of the chemical files.
Category (section)
                        Status
Oral RfD Assessment

Inhalation RfC Assessment

Carcinogenicity Assessment

Drinking Water Health Advisories

U.S. EPA Regulatory Actions

Supplementary Data
                        Available

                        Under Rev

                        Available

                        Available

                        Available

                        Available
Last Revised

 07/01/89



 07/01/93

 08/01/90

 01/01/92

 03/31/87

-------
Chlordane
                                                       RfD-l
Substance Name:
CASRN:
   REFERENCE DOSE FOR CHRONIC ORAL EXPOSURE  (RfD)

    Chlordane
    57-74-9
The Reference Dose (RfD) IE based on the assumption that thresholds exist for
certain toxic effects such as cellular necrosis, but nay not exist for other
toxic effects such as carcinogenicity.  In general, the RfD is an estimate
(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure
to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is  likely to be
without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.  Please
refer to the Oral RfD Background Document for an elaboration of  these concepts.
 RfDs can also be derived for the noncarcinogenic health effects of compounds
which are also carcinogens.  Therefore, it is essential to refer to other
sources of information concerning the carcinogenicity of this substance. If the
U.S. EPA has evaluated this substance for potential human carcinogenicity, a
summary of that evaluation will be contained in the Carcinogenicity Assessment
Section of this file when a review of that evaluation is completed.
                         RfD ASSESSMENT SUMMARY TABLE
Crit. Dose:
UF:    1000 MF:
     0.055 mg/kg-day  [Study 1 NOAEL(adj)]
        1   RfD:    6E-5 mg/kg-day  Confidence: Low
Crit Effect: (1) Regional liver hypertrophy in females
              •NOAEL 	('Study 1)-.—LOAEL -
 Reported

 ADJ

 Study Type

 Reference
1 ppm

    0.055 rog/kg-day

30-Month Rat Feeding Study

Velsicol Chemical Co., 1983a
                                                        •(Study  1)-,
5 ppm

   0.273 mg/kg-day

30-Month Rat Feeding  Study

Velsicol Chemical Co.,  1983a
1) Velsicol Chemical Co., I983a
   30-Month Rat Feeding Study
   Critical Effect:
            Regional liver hypertrophy in females
   Defined Dose Levels:
      NOAEL=      1 ppm
      NOAEL(ADJ)= 0.055 mg/kg-day
      LOAEL=      5 ppm
      LOAEL(ADJ)= 0.273 mg/kg-day

   Conversion Factors:   Actual dose tested

   	 DISCUSSION OF PRINCIPAL AND SUPPORTING STUDIES
Velsicol Chemical Company.  1983a.  MRID No. 00138591,  00144313.  Available from
EPA.  Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC  20460.

Charles River Fischer 344 rats  (80/sex/dose) were fed technical  Chlordane at
dietary levels of 0, 1, 5, and 25 ppm for 130 weeks.  Body  weight,  food

-------
Chlordane                                                           RfD-2
——————= REFERENCE DOSE FOR CHRONIC ORAL EXPOSURE (RfD) ————
consumption, and water uptake were monitored at regular intervals.  Clinical
laboratory studies were performed and organ weights measured on eight
animals/ปex/group at weeks 26 and 52, and on all survivors at week 130.  Gross
and microscopic pathology were performed on all tissues.  Daily dose level of
0.045, 0.229, and 1.175 mg/kg/day for males and 0.055, 0.273, and 1.409
mg/kg/day for females for the 1, 5, and 25 ppm treatment groups, respectively,
were calculated from food consumption and body weight data.

Following the submission of a 30-month chronic feeding/oncogenicity study in
Fischer 344 rats, the Agency reviews by the Office of Pesticides Programs and
the Cancer Assessment Group of these data indicated that male rats at the
highest dosage exhibited an increase in liver tumors  (ICF Clement, 1987).  The
registrant, Velsicol Chemical Company, subseguently convened the Pathology
Working Group to reevaluate the slides of livers of the chlordane-treated rats
reported in MRID No. 00138591.  It was concluded that liver lesions had  not
occurred in male rats and that 25 ppm (0.1175 mg/kg/day) was the NOEL for
males.  Liver lesions (hypertrophy), however, had occurred in female rats at 5
ppm (0.273 mg/kg/day), which was considered an LEL.  Therefore an NOEL of 1 ppm
(0.055 mg/kg/day) (LDT) was established for female rats.
UNCERTAINTY FACTORS:
                       UNCERTAINTY AND MODIFYING FACTORS
An uncertainty factor of 100 was used to account for the inter-  and
intraspecies differences.  An additional UF of 10 was used to account  for  the
lack of an adeguate reproduction study and adequate chronic study  in a second
mammalian species, and the generally inadequate sensitive endpoints studied  in
existing studies, particularly since chlordane is known to bioaccumulate over a
chronic duration.
                         ADDITIONAL COMMENTS / STUDIES
Data Considered for Establishing the RfD

1) 30-Month Feeding (oncogenic) - rat:  Principal study - see previous
description; core grade minimum

2) 24-Month Chronic Toxicity - mouse:  NOEL=1 ppm (0.15 mg/kg/day);  LEL=5  ppm
(0.75 mg/kg/day)  (hepatocellular swelling and necrosis in males;  hepatocyte
swelling in males, and increased live weight in males and females);  At  12.5 ppm
(1.875 mg/kg/day) (HDT); core grade minimum  (Velsicol Chemical  Co.,  1983b)

Data Gap(s):  Chronic Dog Feeding Study, Rat Reproduction Study,  Rat Teratology
Study, Rabbit Teratology Study
                             CONFIDENCE IN THE RfD
Study:  Medium          Data Base:  Low             RfD:  Low

The critical study is of adeguate quality and is given a medium rating.   The
data base is given a low confidence rating because of 1) the lack of  an
adequate reproduction study and adequate chronic study in a second mammalian
species and 2) inadequate sensitive endpoints studied in existing studies,
particularly since chlordane is known to bioaccumulate over a  chronic duration.

-------
Chlordane
RfD-3
                REFERENCE DOSE FOR CHRONIC ORAL EXPOSURE  (RfD)
Low confidence in the RfD follows.

   	 EPA DOCUMENTATION AND REVIEW
Source Document:  This assessment is not presented in any existing U.S.  EPA
document.

Other EPA Documention:  Pesticide Registration Standard, November 1986;
Pesticide Registration Files

Agency Work Group Review:  12/18/85, 03/22/89

Verification Date:  03/22/89

   	 EPA CONTACTS 	
William Burnam / OPP —  (703)305-4791

George Ghali / OPP — (703)305-7490

   	 BIBLIOGRAPHY
ICF-Clement.  1987.  MRID No. 40433701.  Available from EPA.  Write  to FOI,
EPA, Washington DC  20460.

Velsicol Chemical Co.  1983a.  MRID No. 00138591, 00144313.  Available from
EPA.  Write to FOI, EPA, Washington DC  20460.

Velsicol Chemical Co.  I983b.  MRID No. 00144312.  Available from  EPA.   Write
to FOI, EPA, Washington DC  20460.
                               REVISION HISTORY
03/88 RfD Studies: Text clarified in paragraph  3
03/88 RfD Slim Tbl: Dose conversion clarified
04/89 RfD Data:    Withdrawn; new RfD verified  (in preparation)
06/89 RfD Data:    Revised oral RfD summary added
07/89 RfD Studies: Reference clarified  in paragraph  2

-------
Chlordane                                                           RfC-l
——ซ—= REFERENCE CONCENTRATION FOR CHRONIC INHALATION EXPOSURE  (RfC)

Substance Name:  Chlordane
CASRN:            57-74-9


Status:          Under Rev


Note: A risk assessment for this substance/agent is under review  by an EPA
work group.

Agency Work Group Review:  02/22/90

-------
Chlordane                                                           CARCIN-1
—————= CARCINOGENICITY ASSESSMENT FOR LIFETIME EXPOSURE ————.
Substance Name:  Chlordane
CASRN:           57-74-9


The Carcinogenicity Assessment Section provides information on three aspects of
the carcinogenic risk assessment for the agent in question; the U.S. EPA
classification, and quantitative estimates of risk from oral exposure and from
inhalation exposure.  The classification reflects a weight-of-evidence judgment
of the likelihood that the agent is a human carcinogen.  The quantitative risk
estimates are presented in three ways.  The slope factor is the result of
application of a low-dose extrapolation procedure and is presented as the risk
per mg/kg/day.  The unit risk is the quantitative estimate in terms of either
risk per ug/L drinking water or risk per ug/cu.n air breathed.  The third form
in which risk is presented is a drinking water or air concentration providing
cancer risks of 1 in 10,000, 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 1,000,000.  The Carcinogen
Assessment Background Document provides details on the rationale and methods
used to derive the carcinogenicity values found in IRIS.  Users are referred to
the Oral RfD and Inhalation RfC Sections for information on long-term toxic
effects other than carcinogenicity.
            EVIDENCE FOR CLASSIFICATION AS TO HUMAN CARCINOGENICITY
WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE CLASSIFICATION

Classification:  B2; probable human carcinogen


BASIS

Sufficient evidence in studies in which benign and malignant liver tumors were
induced in four strains of mice of both sexes and in F344 male rats;
structurally related to other liver carcinogens


HUMAN CARCINOGENICITY DATA

Inadequate.  There were 11 case reports involving central nervous system
effects, blood dyscrasias and neuroblastomas in children with pre-/postnatal
exposure to Chlordane and heptachlor  (Infante et al., 1978).  As no other
information was available, no conclusions can be drawn.

There were three epidemiologic studies of workers exposed to Chlordane  and/or
heptachlor.  One study of pesticide applicators was considered inadequate in
sample size and duration of follow-up.  This study showed marginal
statistically significant increased mortality from bladder cancer  (3 observed)
(Wang and McMahon, 1979a).  The other two studies were of pesticide
manufacturing workers.  Neither of them showed any statistically significantly
increased cancer mortality (Wang and McMahon, 1979b; Ditraglia et al.,  1981).
Both tBoth these populations also had confounding exposures from other  chemicals


ANIMAL CARCINOGENICITY DATA

Sufficient.  Chlordane has been studied in four mouse and four rat long-term
carcinogenesis bioassays.  Dose-related incidences of liver carcinoma

-------
Chlordane                                                            CARCIN-2
ซ———— CARCINOGENICITY ASSESSMENT FOR LIFETIME EXPOSURE ————•
constitute the major finding in nice.  Becker and Sell  (1979) tested  chlordane
(90:10 mixture of chlordane to heptachlor) in C57B1/6N mice, a  strain
historically known not to develop spontaneous liver tumors.  An unspecified
number of mice were fed chlordane at 0, 25 and 50 ppm  (0,  3.57, 7.14  mg/kg bw)
for 18 months.  None of the controls developed tumors or nodular  lesions  of the
liver.  Twenty-seven percent (16 mice) of the surviving treated mice  developed
primary hepatocellular carcinomas.  Velsicol  (1973) fed groups  of 100 male and
100 female CD-I mice diets with 0, 5, 25 or 50 ppm analytical grade chlordane
for 18 months.  A significant  (p<0.01) dose-related increase in nodular
hyperplasias in the liver of male and female mice was reported  at the the two
highest dose levels.  A histological review by Reuber  (U.S. EPA,  1985) reported
a high incidence (p<0.0l) of hepatic carcinomas instead of hyperplastic  nodules
at 25 and 50 ppm.

A dose-related increase  (p<0.00l after lifetable adjustment) of hepatocellular
carcinomas was also observed in both sexes of B6C3F1 mice  (NCI, 1977).   Male
and female mice were fed technical-grade chlordane  (purity\= 94.8%) at TWA
concentrations (TWAC) of 29.9 and 56.2 ppm and 30.. 1 and 63.8 ppm, respectively,
for 80 weeks.  In this study there were individual matched controls for  the low
and high dose groups.  ICR male mice developed hepatocellular adenomas and
hemangiomas when fed 12.5 ppm chlordane for 24 months.  No tumors were observed
in the female mice when tested at the same concentrations:  0,  1, 5,  and 12.5
ppm (Velsicol, 1983a).

Velsicol (1983b)  reported a long-term  (130 weeks) carcinogenesis  bioassay on  80
male and 80 female F344 rats fed concentrations of 0, 1, 5, and 25 ppm
chlordane.   A significant increase in adenomas of the liver was observed in
male rats receiving 25 ppm.  Although no tumors were observed in  female  rats,
hepatocellular swelling was significantly increased at  25  ppm.  The NCI  (1977)
reported a significant increase (p<0.05) of neoplastic  nodules  of the liver in
low-dose Osborne-Mendel female rats  (TWAC of 120.8 ppm) but not in the
high-dose group  (TWAC of 241.5 ppm).  No tumor incidence was reported for the
males fed TWAC of 203.5 and 407 ppm.  Loss of body weight  and a dose-related
increase in mortality was observed in all treated groups.  High mortality and
reduced growth rates in Osborne-Mendel rats was also observed by  Ingle (1952)
when the rats were exposed to 150 and 300 ppm chlordane but not at 5, 10, and
30 ppm.  No treatment-related incidence of tumors was reported.   Significantly
enlarged livers and liver lesions were found in male and female albino rats fed
chlordane at greater than or equal to 80 ppm  (Ambrose et al., 1953a,b).   No
treatment-related increase in tumors was found, but the study duration (400
days) was short.


SUPPORTING DATA FOR CARCINOGENICITY

Gene mutation assays indicate that chlordane is not mutagenic in  bacteria
(Wildeman and Nazar, 1982; Probst et al., 1981; Gentile et al., 1982).
Positive results have been reported in Chinese hamster  lung V79 cells and mouse
lymphoma L5178Y cells with and without exogenous metabolism, as well  as  in
plant assays.  Chlordane did not induce DNA repair in bacteria, rodent
hepatocytes  (Maslansky and Williams, 1981) , or human lymphoid cells  (Sobti et
al. , 1983).  It is a genotoxicant in yeast  (Gentile et  al.,  1982; Chambers and
Dutta, 1976), human fibroblasts (Ahmed et al., 1977),  and  fish  (Vigfusson et
al., 1983).

-------
Chlordane
               CARCINOGENICITY ASSESSMENT FOR LIFETIME EXPOSURE
                                             CARCIN-3
Five compounds structurally related to chlordane  (aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor,
heptachlor epoxide, and chlorendic acid) have produced liver tumors in mice.
Chlorendic acid has also produced liver tumors in rats.

   	 QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATE OF CARCINOGENIC RISK FROM ORAL EXPOSURE 	
Slope Factor:
Unit Risk:
Extrapolation Method:
1.3E+0 per mg/(kg/day)
3.7E-5 per ug/liter
Linearized multistage procedure, extra risk
Drinking Hater Concentrations at Specified Risk Levels:
   Risk Level
   E-4 (1 in 10,000)
   E-5 (1 in 100,000)
   E-6 (1 in 1,000,000)
   Concentret ion
   3E+0 ug/liter
   3E-1 ug/liter
   3E-2 ug/liter
Tumor Type:
Test Animals:
Route:
              DOSE-RESPONSE DATA (CARCINOGENICITY, ORAL EXPOSURE)
  hepatocellular carcinoma
  mouse/CD-I  (Velsicol); mouse/B6C3Fl
  diet
(NCI)
Administered
Dose (ppm)
female
0
5
25
50
male
0
5
25
50
male
0
29.9
56.2
female
0
30.1
63.8
Human Equivalent
Dose (mg/kg-day)

0.000
0.052
0.260
0.520

0.000
0.052
0.260
0.520

0.00
0.31
0.58

0.00
0.31
0.66
Tumor
Incidence

0/45
0/61
32/50
26/37

3/33
5/55
41/52
32/39
male
2/18
16/48
43/49

0/19
3/47
34/49
Reference

Velsicol,
1973



Velsicol,
1973



NCI, 1977



NCI, 1977


             ADDITIONAL COMMENTS  (CARCINOGENICITY, ORAL EXPOSURE)
Four data sets for mice and one data set for rats showed a significant  increase
in liver tumors; namely hepatocellular carcinomas in mice  (NCI,  1977; Velsicol,
1973) and hepatocellular adenomas in rats  (Velsicol, I983a).   The  quantitative
estimate is based on the geometric mean from the four mouse data sets as  mice
were the more sensitive species tested and as risk  estimates  for a similar
compound (heptachlor) were similarly derived from mouse tumor data.  The  slope
factors for the data sets are these:  2.98 per  (mg/kg)/day for CD-I female

-------
Chlordane                                                           CARCIN-4
—_——: CARCINOGENICITY ASSESSMENT FOR LIFETIME EXPOSURE ——^——
mice, 4.74 per (mg/kg)/day for CD-I male mice, 0.76 per  (mg/kg)/day for B6C3F1
male mice, and 0.25 per (mg/kg)/day for B6C3F1 female mice.  Low and high dose
groups in the NCI (1977) study had individual matched controls.

The unit risk should not be used if the water concentration exceeds 300 ug/L,
since above this concentration the unit risk may not be  appropriate.
           DISCUSSION OF CONFIDENCE  (CARCINOGENICITY, ORAL EXPOSURE)
Liver carcinomas were induced in mice of both sexes in two studies.  An
adequate number of animals was observed, and dose-response effects*were
reported in all studies.  The geometric mean of slope factors  (0.25 to 4.74 per
(mg/kg)/day for the most sensitive species is consistent with  that derived from
rat data (1.ll/mg/kg/day).

   — QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATE OF CARCINOGENIC RISK FROM INHALATION  EXPOSURE —

Unit Risk:              3.7E-4 per  (ug/cu.m)
Extrapolation Method:  Linearized multistage procedure, extra  risk

Air Concentrations at Specified Risk Levels:

   Risk Level               Concentration
   E-4 (1 in 10,000)        3E-1 per (ug/cu.m)
   E-5 (1 in 100,000)       3E-2 per (ug/cu.m)
   E-6 (1 in 1,000,000)     3E-3 per (ug/cu.m)
           DOSE-RESPONSE DATA  (CARCINOGENICITY, INHALATION  EXPOSURE)
The inhalation risk estimates were calculated from the  data  given  in  the oral
exposure data table.
          ADDITIONAL COMMENTS  (CARCINOGENICITY, INHALATION  EXPOSURE)
The unit risk should not be used if the air concentration  exceeds  30  ug/cu.m,
above this concentration the unit risk may not be appropriate.

   	 DISCUSSION OF CONFIDENCE (CARCINOGENICITY,  INHALATION  EXPOSURE)  	

See oral quantitative estimate

   	 EPA DOCUMENTATION AND REVIEW 	
Source Document:  U.S. EPA.  1986.  Carcinogenicity Assessment of Chlordane and
Heptachlor/ Heptachlor Epoxide.  Prepared by the  Office  of  Health and
Environmental Assessment, Carcinogen Assessment Group, Washington,  DC.

U.S. EPA.  1985.  Hearing Files on Chlordane, Heptachlor Suspension
(unpublished draft).  Available for inspection at U.S. EPA,  Washington,  DC.

The values in the 1986 Carcinogenicity Assessment for  Chlordane and
Heptachlor/Heptachlor Epoxide have been reviewed  by the  Carcinogen Assessment
Group.

-------
Chlordane                                                            CARCIN-5
——_——: CARCINOGENICITY ASSESSMENT FOR LIFETIME EXPOSURE —————-
Agency Work Group Review:  04/01/87

Verification Date:  04/01/87

   	 EPA CONTACTS  (CARCINOGENICITY ASSESSMENT)

Dhara Singh / OHEA — (202)260-5958

Jim Cogliano / OHEA — (202)260-3814

   —	 BIBLIOGRAPHY 	
Ahmed, F.E., R.W. Hart and N.J. Lewis.  1977.  Pesticide  induced  DNA  damage  and
its repair in cultured human cells.  Mutat. Res.  42: 161-174.

Ambrose, A.M., H.E. Christensen, D.J. Robbins and L.J. Rather.  1953a.
Toxi-cological and pharmacological studies on chlordane.  Arch. Ind.  Hyg.
Occup. Med.  7: 197-210.

Ambrose, A.M., H.E. Christensen and D.J. Robbins.  1953b.  Pharmacological
observations on chlordane.  Fed. Proceed.  12: 298.   (Abstract #982)

Becker, F.F. and S. Sell.  1979.  Fetoprotein levels and  hepatic  alterations
during chemical carcinogenesis in C57BL/6N mice.  Cancer  Res.  39:  3491-3494.

Chambers, D. and S.K. Dutta.  1976.  Mutagenic tests of chlordane on  different
microbial tester strains.  Genetics.  83: s!3.   (Abstract)

Ditraglia, D., D.P. Brown, T. Namekata and N. Iverson.  1981.  Mortality  study
of workers employed at organochlorine pesticide manufacturing plants.   Scand.
J. Work Environ. Health.  7(4): 140-146.

Gentile, J.M., G.J. Gentile, J. Bultman, R. Sechriest, E.D. Wagner and  M.J.
Plewa.  1982.  An evaluation of the genotoxic properties  of insecticides
following plant and animal activation.  Mutat. Res.  101: 19-29.

Infante, P.F., S.S. Epstein and W.A. Newton.  1978.  Blooddyscrasis and
childhood tumors and exposure to chlordane and heptachlor.  Scand.  J. Work
Environ. Health.  4: 137-150.

Ingle, L.  1952.  Chronic oral toxicity of chlordan to rats.  Arch. Ind.  Hyg.
OCCUp. Med.  6: 357-367.

Maslansky, C.J. and G.M. Williams.  1981.  Evidence for an epigenetic mode of
action in organochlorine pesticide hepatocarcinogenicity: A lack  of
genotoxicity in rat, mouse, and hamster hepatocytes.  J.  Toxicol.  Environ.
Health.  8: 121-130.

NCI (National Cancer Institute).  1977.  Bioassay of Chlordane for possible
Carcinogenicity.  NCI Carcinogenesis Tech. Rep. Ser. No.  8.  U.S.  DHEW  Publ.
No. (NIH) 77-808.  Bethesda, MD. :

Probst, G.S., R.E. McMahon, L.E. Hill, C.Z. Thompson, J.K. Epp and S.B. Neal.
1981.   Chemically-jLnduced unscheduled DNA synthesis in primary rat hepatocyte
cultures: A comparison with bacterial mutagenicity using  218 compounds.

-------
Chlordane                                                           CARCIN-6
__—i CARCINOGENICITY ASSESSMENT FOR LIFETIME EXPOSURE —
Environ. Mutagen.  3: 11-31.

Sobti, R.C., A. Krishan and J. Davies.  1983.  Cytokinetic and cytogenetic
effect of agricultural chemicals on human lymphoid cells in vitro.  Arch.
Toxicol.  52: 221-231.

U.S. EPA.  1985.  Hearing Files on Chlordane, Heptachlor Suspension  (unpub-
lished draft).  Available for inspection at U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1986.  Carcinogenicity Assessment of Chlordane and Heptachlor/
Heptachlor Epoxide.  Prepared by the Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, Carcinogen Assessment Group, Washington, DC.

Velsicol Chemical Corporation.  1973.  MRID No. 00067568.  Available  from EPA.
Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC.  20460.

Velsicol Chemical Corporation.  1983a.  MRID No. 00144312, 00132566.   Available
from EPA.  Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC.  20460.

Velsicol Chemical Corporation.  1983b.  MRID No. 00138591.  Available from EPA.
 Write to FOI, EPA, Washington, DC.  20460.

Vigfusson, N.V., E.R. Vyse, C.A. Pernsteiner and R.J. Dawson.  1983.   In vivo
induction of sister-chromatid exchange in Umbra limi by the insecticides
endrin, Chlordane, diazinon and guthion.  Mutat. Res.  118: 61-68.

Wang, H.H. and B. MacMahon.  1979a.  Mortality of workers employed  in the
manufacture of Chlordane and heptachlor.  J. Occup. Med.  21(11): 745-748.

Wang, H.H. and B. MacMahon.  1979b.  Mortality of pesticide applicators. J.
Occup. Med.  21(11): 741-744.

Wildeman, A.G. and R.N. Nazar.  1982.  Significance of plant metabolism in the
mutagenicity and toxicity of pesticides.  Can. J. Genet. Cytol.   24:  437-449.
                               REVISION HISTORY.
 09/87 Ca Data:     Carcinogenicity section added
 03/88 Ca Classif:  Basis for classification clarified
 07/89 Ca Data:     Velsicol  (1983) references  clarified
 07/89 Ca Refs:     Carcinogen references added
 01/91 Ca Data:     Text edited
 01/91 Ca In Sumn:  Inhalation slope  factor removed  (global change)
 07/93 Ca Contact:  Secondary contact's phone number changed

-------
Chlordane                                                           DWHA-1
——^——————= DRINKING WATER HEALTH ADVISORIES ————i^————
Substance Name:  Chlordane
CASRN:           57-74-9


The Office of Water provides Drinking Water Health Advisories  (HAs) as
technical guidance for the protection of public health.  HAs are not
enforceable Federal standards.  HAs are concentrations of a substance in
drinking water estimated to have negligible deleterious effects in humans, when
ingested, for a specified period of time.  Exposure to the substance from other
media is considered only in the derivation of the lifetime HA.  Given the
absence of chemical-specific data, the assumed fraction of total intake from
drinking water is 20%.  The lifetime HA is calculated from the Drinking Water
Equivalent Level (DWEL) which, in turn, is based on the Oral Chronic Reference
Dose.  Lifetime HAs are not derived for compounds which are potentially
carcinogenic for humans because of the difference in assumptions concerning
toxic threshold for carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects.  A more detailed
description of the assumptions and methods used in the derivation of HAs is
provided in the Health Advisory Background Document.
                      ONE-DAY HEALTH ADVISORY FOR A CHILD
Note: Appropriate data for calculating a One-day HA are not available.   It  is
recommended that the Ten-day HA of 0.06 mg/L be used as the One-day  HA.
                      TEN-DAY HEALTH ADVISORY FOR A CHILD
HA:               6E-2 mg/liter
LOAEL:            6.25 mg/kg-day
UF:               1000 allows for interspecies and intrahuman variability with
                  the use of a LOAEL from an animal study

Assumptions:      1 L/day water consumption for a 10-kg child

Principal Study:  Ambrose et al., 1953

Discussion:  The toxic effects in rats resulting from daily gastric  intubation
of Chlordane at doses of 6.25, 12.5, 25.0, 50.0, 100.0, or 200 mg/kg for 15
days were histologic changes in the liver of the treated animals  at  all dose
levels and central nervous system effects at higher dose levels.   Only minimal
histopathologic changes characterized by the presence of abnormal intra-
cytoplasmic bodies of various diameters were evident at the lowest dose level
(6.25 mg/kg).  That dose level was identified as the LOAEL in this study.
                    LONGER-TERM HEALTH ADVISORY FOR A CHILD
Note: Appropriate data for calculating a Longer-term HA are not  available.  It
is recommended that the modified DWEL  (adjusted for a 10-kg child)  of  0.5 ug/L
be used as the Longer-term HA.
                   LONGER-TERM HEALTH ADVISORY FOR AN ADULT
Note: Appropriate data for calculating a Longer-term HA are not  available.   It
is recommended that the DWEL of 2 ug/L be used as the Longer-term  HA  for  the
70-kg adult.

-------
Chlordane                                                           DWHA-2
—————— DRINKING WATER HEALTH ADVISORIES ——————^—
          DRINKING WATER EQUIVALENT LEVEL / LIFETIME HEALTH ADVISORY 	

DWEL:             2E-3 ng/liter
Basis:            Oral RfD verified on: 03/22/89
Lifetime HA:      None mg/liter
Assumptions:      2 L/day water consumption for a 70-kg adult

Principal Study:  Velsicol Chemical Corporation, 1983

Discussion:  See oral RfD.  Chlordane is considered to be a probable human
carcinogen.  Refer to the carcinogenicity assessment for information on the
carcinogenicity of this substance.
                            ORGANOLEPTIC PROPERTIES
No data available

   	 ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR DETECTION IN DRINKING WATER

Determination of Chlordane is by a liquid-liquid extraction gas
chromato-graphic procedure.
                                WATER TREATMENT
Treatment technologies which are capable of removing Chlordane  from  drinking
water include adsorption by granular or powdered activated  carbon  and  air
stripping.
                      EPA DOCUMENTATION AND REVIEW OF HAS
Source Document:  U.S. EPA.  1985.  Final Draft of the Drinking Water  Criteria
Document on Chlordane.  Office of Drinking Water, Washington, DC.

EPA review of HAs in 1985.

Public review of HAs following notification of availability  in October,  1985.

Scientific Advisory Panel review of HAs in January,  1986.

   	 EPA CONTACTS 	

Jennifer Orme Zavaleta / OST —  (202)260-7586

Edward V. Ohanian / OST ~  (202)260-7571

   	 BIBLIOGRAPHY 	
Ambrose, A.M., H.E. Christensen, D.J. Robbins and L.J. Rather.   1953.
Toxi-cological and pharmacological studies on Chlordane.  Arch.  Ind. Hyg.
Occup. Med.  7: 197-210.

U.S. EPA.  1985.  Final Draft(of the Drinking Water  Criteria  Document  on
Chlordane.  Office of Drinking Water, Washington, DC.

Velsicol Chemical Corp.  1983.  MRID No.  00138591.   Available from EPA.   Write

-------
Chlordane                                                            DWHA-3
      i                 DRINKING WATER HEALTH ADVISORIES ————————
to FOI,  EPA, Washington, DC  20460.

                         -     REVISION HISTORY
03/88 HA Data:    ' Health Advisory added
08/90 HA Contact:  Primary contact changed
08/90 HA DWEL:     DWEL changed reflecting change in RfD

-------
Chlordane
                          U.S. EPA REGULATORY ACTIONS
                                                      Regs-1
Substance Name:
CASRN:
   Chlordane
   57-74-9
EPA risk assessments nay be updated as new data are published and as assessment
methodologies evolve.  Regulatory actions are frequently not updated at the
sane tine.  Compare the. dates for the regulatory actions in this section with
the verification dates for the risk assessments in the Oral RfD, Inhalation RfC
and Carcinogen Assessment Sections, as this nay explain inconsistencies.  Also
note that sone regulatory actions consider factors not related to health risk,
such as technical or econonic feasibility.  Such considerations are indicated
for each action.  In addition, not all of the regulatory actions listed in this
section involve enforceable federal standards.  Please direct any questions you
nay have concerning these regulatory actions to the U.S. EPA contact listed for
that particular action.  Users are strongly urged to read the background
information on each regulatory action in the Regulatory Action Background
Document.
                        SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT  (SDWA)
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
Value:
Status/Year:
Econ/Tech?:
Reference:

Contact:
0 mg/L
Final 1991
No, does not consider econonic or technical feasibility
56 FR 3526 (01/30/91)

Health and Ecological Criteria Division /  (202)260-7571
Safe Drinking Water Hotline / (800)426-4791
Discussion:  An MCLG of 0 ng/L for Chlordane is promulgated based  upon
carcinogenic effects (B2).
Maximum Contaminant Level  (MCL)
Value:
Status/Year:
Econ/Tech?:
Reference:

Contact:
0.002 mg/L
Final 1991
Yes, does consider econonic or technical feasibility
56 FR 3526 (01/30/91)

Drinking Water Standards Division / OGWDW /  (202)260-7575
Safe Drinking Water Hotline / (800)426-4791
Discussion:  EPA has set a MCL equal to the PQL of 0.002, which  is  associated
with a lifetime individual risk of 1.5E-4.

Monitoring Requirements

All systems monitored for four consecutive quarters every 3 years;  repeat
monitoring dependent upon detection, vulnerability status and  system size.

-------
Chlordane                                                           Regs-2
——^————— U.S. EPA REGULATORY ACTIONS —^——————
Analytical Methods

Microextraction/gas chromatography  (EPA 505): electron-capture/gas
chromatography (EPA 508); gas chromatography/mass spectrometry  (EPA  525):  PQL=
0.002 fflg/L.

Best Available Technology

Granular activated carbon.

   	 CLEAN WATER ACT  (CWA) 	
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Human Health

Water & Fish: 4.6E-4 ug/liter
Fish Only:    4.8E-4 ug/liter
Econ/Tech?:   No, does not consider economic or technical  feasibility
Reference:    45 FR 79318 (11/28/80)

Contact:      Criteria and Standards Division / OWRS /  (202)260-1315


Discussion:  For the maximum protection from the potential carcinogenic
properties of this chemical, the ambient water concentration should be  zero.
However, zero may not be obtainable at this time, so the recommended criteria
represents an E-6 estimated incremental increase of cancer risk  over a
lifetime.


Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Aquatic organisims

              Acute                                Chronic
Freshwater:   2.4E+0 ug/L                          4.3E-3  ug/L
              at any time                          24-hour avg.
Marine:       9.0E-2 ug/L                          4.OE-3  ug/L
              at any time                          24-hour avg.
Econ/Tech?:   No, does not consider economic or technical  feasibility
Reference:    45 FR 79318 (11/28/80)

Contact:      Criteria and Standards Division / OWRS /  (202)260-1315


Discussion:  Criteria were derived from a minimum data  base consisting  of acute
and chronic tests on a variety of species.  Requirements and methods are
covered in the reference to the Federal Register.
          FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTCIDE ACT  (FIFRA)
Pesticide Active Ingredient Registration Standard

Status:       Issued 1986
Reference:    Chlordane Pesticide Registration Standard.   December,  1986 (NTIS
              No. PB87-175816).

-------
Chlordane                                                           Regs-3
•                         U.S. EPA REGULATORY ACTIONS —^—^————
Contact:      Registration Branch / OPP /  (703)305-5447
Pesticide Active Ingredient Special Review

Action:       Cancellation of specified uses
Year:         1988
Econ/Tech?:   Yes, does consider economic or technical feasibility
Reference:    43 FR 12372  (03/24/78); 52 FR 42145  (11/03/87); 53 FR 11798
              (04/08/88)

Contact:      Special Review Branch / OPP / (703)308-8010
Summary of Regulatory Actions:  Cancellation of many termiticide products.  43
FR 12372  (03/24/78) - Cancellation of all but termiticide use; under the
provisions of the Administrator's acceptance of the settlement plan to phase
out certain uses of chlordane, most registered products containing chlordane
were effectively canceled or the applications for registration were denied by
12/31/80. A summary of those uses not affected by this settlement, or a
previous suspension, follows:  1) subsurface ground insertion for termite
control (clarified by 40 FR 30522, July 21, 1975, to apply to the use of
emulsifiable or oil concentrate formulations for controlling subterranean
termites on structural sites such as buildings, houses, barns, and sheds, using
current control practices), 2) dipping of nonfood roots and tops./52 FR 42145
(11/03/87) - Negotiated agreement on termiticide use.  The agreement  (order)
accepted voluntary cancellations of the registration of certain pesticide
products and imposed limitations on the continued sale, distribution, and use
of existing stocks of such products/ criterion of concern: oncogenicity,
                 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT  (RCRA)
Appendix IX Listing for Land Disposal

Status:       Listed  1987

Reference:    52 FR 25942  (07/09/87)

Contact:      RCRA/Superfund Hotline /  (800)424-9346 /  (202)260-3000
                              SUPERFUND  (CERCLA)
Reportable Quantity for Accidental Release

Value:        1 pounds
Status/Year:  Final 1989
Econ/Tech?:   No, does not consider economic or technical feasibility
Reference:    54 FR 33418  (08/14/89)

-------
Chlordane                                                           Regs-4
—^^———————< U.S. EPA REGULATORY ACTIONS                I
Contact:      RCRA/Superfund Hotline  /  (800)424-9346 /  (202)260-3000


Discussion:  The RQ for chlordane  is  1 pound, based on  aquatic  toxicity,  as
established under CWA Section 311  (40 CFR 117.3). Available data  indicate the
aquatic 96-hour Median Threshold Limit for chlordane is less  than 0.1  ppa. This
corresponds to an RQ of 1 pound.   Chlordane has also been  found to
bioaccumulate in the tissues of aquatic and marine organisms, and has  the
potential to concentrate in the food  chain.
                               REVISION HISTORY
08/90 Reg RCRA:    EPA contact changed
01/92 Reg Data:    Regulatory actions updated

-------
Chlordane                                                           Suppl-1
•       ii                      SUPPLEMENTARY DATA ———••-————•
Substance Name:  Chlordane
CASRN:           57-74-9


The information contained in this section has been extracted  from the EPA
Chemical Profiles Database, which has been compiled from a number of secondary
sources and has not undergone formal. Agency review. The complete reference
listings for the citations in this section are provided in the  Supplementary
Data Section Background Document.  The user is urged to read  this background
document for further information on the sources and limitations of the  data
presented here.
                        ACUTE HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
TOXICITY:
  A fatal oral dose to adult humans  is between 6 and  60 g, with  onset  of
  symptoms within 45 minutes to several hours after ingestion, although
  symptoms have occurred following very small doses either orally  or by skin
  exposure.  There were some reports of delayed development  of liver disease,
  blood disorders and upset stomach.  Chlordane is considered to be borderline
  between a moderately and highly toxic substance  (Gosselin  et al., 1984,  p.
  III-108-109).                                :


MEDICAL CONDITIONS GENERALLY AGGRAVATED BY EXPOSURE:
  not found


SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE:
  Increased sensitivity to stimuli,  tremors, muscular incoordination,  and
  convulsions with or without  coma  (Gosselin et al.,  1984, p. III-108-109).
                       CHEMICAL AND  PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Chemical Formula:       C10H6C18
Molecular Weight:       409.80
Boiling Point:          347F, 175C  at  2 mmHg  (Sunshine,  1969)
Spec. Gravity  (H2O=l):  1.56-1.57 at 25C/OC  (Merck,  1983)
Vapor Pressure  (mmHg):  1 x  10-5 at 25C  (Sunshine,  1969)
Melting Point:          not  found
Vapor Density  (air=l):  not  found
Evap Rate (butylAc=l) :  not  found
Solubility in Water:    Insoluble  (Merck,  1983)
Plash Point  (method):   not  found
Flammable Limits:       Flammable/combustible  (DOT,  1984)
   LEL:                 Not  Found
   UEL:                 not  found
Appearance:             Amber viscous  liquid with  an aromatic,  slightly pungent
                        odor (Merck, 1983; CHRIS,  1978).


CONDITIONS AND MATERIALS TO  AVOID:
  Chlordane  loses chlorine in the presence of  alkaline reagents and should not
  be formulated with  any solvent, carrier, diluent,  or emulsifier which has

-------
Chlordane                                                           Suppl-2
—^—^——— SUPPLEMENTARY DATA •————.
  alkaline reaction (Merck, 1983).


HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION OR BYPRODUCTS:
  Chlordane degrades under natural environmental conditions to photoisomers,
  such as photo-cis-chlordane, which are more toxic to certain animals than
  Chlordane and also showed higher bioaccumulation  (Khan et al., 1970).
                                  MAJOR USES
As of 1983, the only use for Chlordane in the U.S. is for termite control
(IARC, 1972-1985).   Chlordane was previously used as an agricultural home and
garden pesticide or insecticide (SRI, 1983).

-------
Tetrachloroethvlene fperchloroethvlene. PERC1 (CASRN 127-18-4)
     The carcinogenicity characterization has  a  long history.   A
July  1985  Health  Assessment  Document  for  Tetrachloroethylene
(Perchloroethylene), EPA # 600/8-82/005F, classified the agent in
Weight-of-Evidence Group "C - Possible Human Carcinogen" mentioning
that this would be reevaluated because of new information.   The
1985 document also  provided upper  bound  inhalation and oral risk
estimates.   An April  1987   Addendum to the  Health  Assessment
Document, EPA# 600/8-82/005FA, proposed that the Weight-of-Evidence
be upgraded  to  "B2  - Probable Human  Carcinogen"   and provided a
revised inhalation risk estimate.   A February 1991 document titled
Response to Issues and Data Submissions on the Carcinogenicity of
Tetrachloroethylene,  EPA#  600/6-91/002A  discussed  newer  data
relative  to weight-of-evidence classification.    The  Agency's
Science Advisory Board has reviewed these documents finding them to
be technically adequate while  offering an opinion that the weight-
of -evidence  is  on  C-B2  continuum  (C=Possible Human Carcinogen,
B2=Probable Human Carcinogen). At present time, the Agency has not
adopted a final  position on the weight-of-evidence classification.

     The upper bound risk estimates from the 1985 Health Assessment
Document as  amended by updated  inhalation  values from  the 1987
Addendum have not as yet been verified by the IRIS-CRAVE Workgroup.
The estimates are viewed as useful information in the context of
the information available in the 1985-1987 period.

ORAL:  1985 HAD;    Unit risk = 1.5E-6 per ug/L

                    Slope Factor = 5.2E-2 per mg/kg/day

INHALATION:  1987 Addendum;     Unit  risk  = range  form 2.9E-7  to
                              9.5E-7  with a   geometric , mean  of
                              5.8E-7 per ug/cu.m

                    Slope factor = 2.0E-3 per mg/kg/day

     Those needing  to make a choice  about carcinogenicity have
found the 1985,  1987 and 1991 EPA documents and the 1988 and 1991
Science  Advisory  Board  letters  of  advice  useful  background
information.  When  the Agency makes  a decision  about weight-of-
evidence, the CRAVE-IRIS verification will be completed  and the
information put on IRIS.

-------
Section 5

-------
   &EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ice of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9345.0-051
September 1991
                                ECO   Update
  Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
  Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (OS-230)
                                            Intermittent Bulletin
                                            Volume 1,  Number 1
The Role of BTAGs in  Ecological Assessment
  Most EPA Regions have established groups of scientists to
  advise and assist site managers with ecological studies pro-
  duced in conjunction with Remedial Investigations and
  Feasibility Studies (RI/FSs) andRemoval Actions atSuperfund
  sites. In general, these groups are known as Biological Tech-
  nical Assistance Groups or BTAGs, although some Regions
  use different names. This Bulletin summarizes the BTAG
  structure and function in the Superfund process. Its purpose
  is to help site managers understand how BTAGs can assist
  with the collection and evaluation of site information and
  ensure that ecological effects are properly considered.
Why BTAGs?
    The Comprehensive Environmental Restoration, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the National Oil and
Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan (NCP) mandate that re-
medial actions at hazardous waste sites protect both human health
and the environment. In December 1988, the Directors of EPA's
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) and Office
of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) issued a memorandum
directing Regional Offices to perform "thorough and consistent"
ecological assessments at all Superfund sites. The memorandum
also encouraged the Regions to establish BTAGs, and  EPA
Headquarters policy continues to support the BTAG process as a
means of ensuring quality ecological assessments.
    Every site presents a unique combination of biological,
hydrological, geological, and chemical characteristics. Site man-
                  agers are responsible for overseeing a wide range of activities and
                  cannot be expected to have expertise in all the necessary scientific
                  areas. BTAGs serve a valuable function in providing the necessary
                  advice and review of ecological information.
                      The Superfund Environmental Evaluation Manual,1 issued in
                  1989, was intended specifically to be. used in conjunction with a
                  consultative framework such as that provided by BTAGs. It was
                  designed to provide an overview of the scientific and regulatory
                  basis for conducting ecological assessments, and to direct site
                  managers to Regional specialists (i.e., BTAGs) for assistance in
                  planning, designing, and conducting specific studies.
                      'U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment
                  Guidance for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation
                  Manual (EPA/540-1-89/001), 1989.
                              IN  THIS BULLETIN

                  Why.BTAGs?	1
                  The BTAG Coordinator	2
                  Who Is on the BTAG?	2
                  What Does the BTAG Do?	2
                  What the BTAG Will Not Do	4
                  How to Work with the BTAG	4
  ECO Update is a Bulletin series on ecological assessment of Superfund sites. These Bulletins serve as supplements to Risk Assessment Guidance
  for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual (EPA/540-1 -89AX) 1). The information presented is intended as guidance to EPA and
  other government employees. It does not constitute rulemaking by the Agency, and may not be relied on to create a substantive or procedural right
  enforceable by any other person. The Government may take action that is at variance with these Bulletins.

-------
The BTAG  Coordinator
    The BTAG Coordinator is a person within EPA Regional
staff that maintains the logistics of the BTAG. In some Regions,
this responsibility is shared by more than one individual
    Coordinators maintain regular contact with BTAG members,
provide necessary documentation to members prior to upcoming
reviews, and work directly with site managers. BTAG Coordinators
also maintain frequent communication with their Regional coun-
terparts to share techniques and ideas.
    In some instances, Coordinators screen sites to determine the
need and/or extent of BTAG involvement. Sites requiring no
ecological assessment will not be brought before the group, thereby
saving review time by focusing the membership on those sites
requiring their attention.
Who Is on the BTAG?

    BTAGs represent a variety of disciplines, including wildlife
biology, fisheries, soil science, aquatic toxicology, ecology, geol-
ogy, hydrology, risk assessment, and wetlands science. The spe-
cific composition of each BTAG varies from Region to Region.
The core of the BTAG membership usually includes the BTAG
Coordinator, plus staff from the Regional Environmental Services
Division who specialize in environmental monitoring, surveillance,
and assessment.
    Several BTAGs typically include the National Environmen-
tal Policy Act (NEPA) coordinator, a member of the OERR's
Environmental Response Team or Toxics Integration Branch, and
biologists from other EPA Program Offices such as Wetlands,
Water, and Air. Other Federal agencies frequently represented on
BTAGs include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the USDA
Forest Service. Some BTAGs may include representatives from
State agencies.
    Because of their scientific expertise, representatives of Natu-
ral Resource Trustee agencies typically are included on the BTAG.
These individuals are serving in a technical advisory capacity and
BTAG consultation does not constitute Trustee notification as
required by CERCLA. Site  managers must still notify all au-
thorities who may be Trustees, in accordance with the law.
        Who Is on the BTAG and
            What Do  They Do?
Possible Members:
   •  EPA-HWD/ESD, Wetlands, Water, NEPA
     Coordinator
   •  U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
   •  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
   •  State Agencies
   •  Others
Responsibilities:

   Advise RPM on all aspects of ecological assessment
   •  Define scope
   •  Review Work Plan
   •  Review Draft Rl and FS
   •  Help select alternatives
   •  Review RD/RA Plans
   •  Provide Expert Testimony
What Does the BTAG  Do?

    Figure 1 summarizes the role of the BTAG in relation to the
site manager and contractor. The BTAG functions primarily in an
advisory and review capacity, although individual BTAG mem-
bers, or the agency they represent, may provide additional services
to support the ecological activities.
    Most BTAGs meet monthly, usually for a period of one to two
days. Meeting agendas vary from month to month, depending upon
the number of sites to review, individual site status, and time of
year (e.g., field season). Generally, 10 to 20 people participate in
BTAG meetings.
    In  some Regions, the BTAG operates within the formal
framework of a charter statement of purpose. Some of the advan-
tages noted  by members of formal BTAGs include increased
efficiency of communication, an easily accessible record of meet-
ing events, and the assignment of specific roles and responsibili-
ties. In most cases, however, BTAG meetings remain informal or
semi-formal, depending on Regional operating policy.
    The BTAG serves an advisory role; it functions to assist site
managers with the collection and evaluation of information needed
to assess ecological effects at Superfund sites. By performing this
advisory function, BTAGs help to ensure that CERCLA mandates
are met with regard to protection of the environment
    The BTAG permits a peer review  of ecological studies,
reaching consensus on recommendations made to site managers.
Without consultation of these experts as a group, solicitation of
input would be prohibitively time-consuming, and the quality of
ecological assessments might not meet CERCLA mandates.
                                      Continued on page 3
September 1991'Vol. 1. No. 1
                                          ECO Update

-------
 Who Does What?
 Figure 1
                 DIRECTS
                              ADVISES
                                          ECOLOGICAL STUDY*
         EPA  CONTRACTOR
                                           t
                                      CONDUCTS
                                          and
                                      PREPARES
                                     	I
      T
    REVIEWS
* Ecological Study — Includes ecological assessments as pan of the baseline risk assessment, ecological studies such as
  toxicity tests and field studies, evaluation of remedial alternatives, ecological portions of RODs, and ecological plans.
    BTAGs serve several essential functions to ensure adequate
consideration of ecological issuesatSuperfundsites.These include:

  •  Initial site review,
  •  Assistance in developing a work scope,
  •  Review of contractor qualifications and performance,
  •  Review of interim and final products,
  •  Evaluation of remedial alternatives, and
  •  Advice on remedial decisions, remedial design,
    and remedial actions.
Initial Site Review

    BTAGs can facilitate the early stages of the remedial process
by screening initial site data from such sources as the Preliminary
Assessment and Site Investigation to determine the nature and
extent of an ecological assessment. BTAG screening of initial site
data can help streamline the remedial process by ensuring that
ecological investigations are pertinent to remedial objectives. For
example, based on a review of environmental concentrations of
site contaminants in various media, the BTAG will only recom-
mend relevant exposure pathways for further study.
Assistance in Developing a Work Scope

    An important role for the BTAG membership involves assist-
ing the site manager with scoping the ecological assessment effort.
BTAG involvement in the preparation, review, and approval of
work plans ensures that ecological work is focused, performed in
a timely manner, and technically correct. Specifically, BTAGs can
recommend study objectives, field and laboratory protocols, QA/
QC requirements, and other elements of a work plan. Because of
their direct experience, the BTAG members may also help identify
qualified investigators to perform ecological assessment
    The BTAG also can assist in the initial identification of
ecological Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs).
Review of Contractor Qualifications and
Performance

    BTAGs can assist the site manager by reviewing and com-
menting on  contractor qualifications and performance. Product
quality depends not only on the company performing or overseeing
the activity  but on the experience of the personnel within that
company responsible for the product. BTAG involvement can help
ensure adequate contractor performance beginning early in the
process. For example, an inadequately prepared work plan may
indicate that the contractor does not have the necessary expertise
available to carry out the requisite ecological investigations. If
contractor expertise is lacking, the;BTAG may be able to identify
resources to carry out the needed work. BTAG consultation also
can facilitate communication between the site manager and the
contractor.
Review of Interim and Final Products

    Site managers can use the BTAG to review and evaluate
interim products that include ecological studies. Based on the data
in such a product, the BTAG may recommend modifications to the
original work scope. This kind of "mid-course correction" can
save a project time and money.

                                      Continued on page 4
ECO Update
                           September 1991 • Vol. l.No.l

-------
    The BTAG can make recommendations for additional data
following the initial review. If the initial data are incomplete, the
BTAG can recommend the types of biological data (e.g., field
studies, toxicity tests) needed to characterize the ecological risks
posed by the site. For example, the BTAG may recommend
collection of more data on site chemistry, habitat identification, or
other information that will allow them to determine the need for,
and extent of, biological data.
    The  BTAG should review the draft and final ecological
assessment to ensure that this portion of the Remedial Investiga-
tion has been completed in an acceptable manner. Because eco-
logical assessment has no standardized methods for evaluating
risk, informed professional judgment is necessary to determine if
the weight of evidence supports a particular set of conclusions.
BTAG endorsement of the final ecological assessment will indi-
cate to approving authorities that ecological concerns have been
adequately addressed
Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives

    BTAG involvement in theevaluation of remedial alternatives
ensures the protection of environmental receptors. The collective
expertise of the BTAG can be used to assess the adequacy of the
ecological-effects evaluation for each alternative. BTAG review
of alternatives also can ensure that ecologically related ARARs are
addressed.
Advice on Remedial Decisions, Remedial
Design, and  Remedial Actions

    BTAG involvement continues to be important during the
remedial design (RD) and remedial action (RA) phases. The
BTAG can evaluate the quality and completeness of work plans,
and advise on remediation and monitoring activities. BTAG par-
ticipation in this phase ensures that ROD and CERCL A mandates
are met.
    For example, the ROD for a site recently undergoing RD
required creation of a new wetland. Within the body of the ROD
and associated documents were specific  guidelines as to the
wetland design, plant species required, methods required to plant
vegetation to ensure desired growth, etc. However, BTAG review
of thecontractor'sworkplan showed that very few of the necessary
ecological requirements were addressed: plant species were not
specified, proper planting methods were missing, etc. Further-
more, the plan did not include the participation of a wetland
scientist. The BTAG recommended that the specific requirements
of the ROD be achieved by inclusion of a qualified wetland
scientist to ensure that the remedial objectives would be achieved.
    In at least two Regions, the Superfund Division Director will
not sign a Record of Decision (ROD) unless the BTAG has
reviewed the site. In other Regions, RPMs are expected, but not
necessarily required, to obtain BTAG review before submitting
RODs for approval.
    Finally, the BTAG can assist with the development of plans
to monitor ecological effects as sites move into the post-remedial
monitoring stage. Regular review of monitoring data by the BTAG
will help the RPM continue to see that ROD requirements are met
What the BTAG Will Not Do

    The BTAG functions in an advisory capacity; as such it does
not, as a group, provide direct field or laboratory  services. In
specific cases, it may be possible to make arrangements (such as
inter-agency agreements in the case of non-EP A staff) for individual
BTAG members to become directly involved in conducting por-
tions of the investigation.
    The BTAG does not normally communicate directly with
responsible parties or their contractors. Advice is provided directly
to the site managers.
    The BTAG does not write work plans and protocols, nor does
it conduct risk assessments. As an advisory group, the BTAG
functions to assist the site management process by reviewing and
commenting  on  sampling and analysis  plans,  ecological risk
assessments,  and ecological implications of remedial decisions.
The BTAG focuses resources on site-specific requirements by
performing a quality assurance/quality control function on a
continuing basis.
How to Work with the BTAG

    Consultation with the BTAG should follow the phased ap-
proach of site management At appropriate stages throughout the
RI/FS process, the site manager should use BTAG assistance and
advice to coordinate and monitor ecological studies. This consul-
tation allows for periodic re-assessment of goals and objectives,
and ensures a focused and high-quality investigation.
    The first line of communication is the BTAG Coordinator,
who can convene meetings and  help the site manager select
appropriate data for  BTAG review. When the BTAG initially
considers a site,  the site  manager should provide a brief oral
presentation of the site history. Before the  meeting, members
should be  provided copies of relevant documents and reports.
Without exception, the quality of BTAG help is directly related to
their timely receipt of site data.  D
                 This Bulletin has described in general terms how the BTAG can ensure that ecological concerns are
             properly addressed in the Superfund process. To be certain that CERCLA mandates regarding protection
             of the environment are met, site managers should consult their Regional BTAG Coordinator at the earliest
             possible stage of the site assessment
September 1991 • Vol. l.No.l
                                            ECO Update

-------
                                 United States
                                 Environmental Protection
                                 Agency
      Off ice of
      Solid Waste and
      Emergency Response
Publication 9345.0-051
December 1991
                                 ECO   Update
   Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
   Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (OS-230)
                           Intermittent Bulletin
                           Volume 1, Number 2
   Ecological Assessment of Superfund Sites:
                                  An Overview
      This document is the second issue of the ECO Update
  series of Intermittent Bulletins, published by the Toxics
  Integration Branch, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division,
  Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Practical
  experience with the process of ecological assessment at
  Superfund sites has pointed to the need for information and
  guidance concerning both the scientific and management
  aspects of ecological assessment. The ECO Update series is
  intended to fill this need.
      EcologicalAssessmcnt ofSuperfundSites:An Overview
  is an updated framework for ecological assessment in the
  Superfund program. As such, it  offers a description  of
  ecological assessment components and a discussion of how
  they fit into  the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
  Study (RI/FS) process. Ecological assessment in the re-
  moval process will be addressed in a future ECO Update.
The ECO Update Series

    ECO Updates are a series of Intermittent Bulletins intended
to facilitate ecological assessment of Superfund sites. Each Bulle-
tin focuses on one aspect of ecological studies or ecological
assessment in the remedial process. Individual Bulletins may
discuss either technical methods or the management of ecological
assessments.
    Limiting each Bulletin to a specific topic allows flexibility for
the user to select only those Bulletins that are applicable to the site
in question or the user's needs. For example, some sites do not
require toxiciry tests, so investigators would not need to consult
Bulletins specific to testing. A user who needs only general
information on Natural Resource Trustees can refer  to a specific
Bulletin on that topic  and not have  to look through a larger
document containing other, less relevant information.
    The Bulletin series is written for both general and technical
audiences, which includes EPA site managers and staff, contrac-
tors. State personnel, andanyone else involved in the performance,
supervision, or evaluation of ecological assessments in Superfund.
    Ecological assessment involves considerable professional
judgment The ECO Updates assume that readers will confer
with qualified scientists for site-specific advice. These Bulletins
are not step-by-step guides on how to accomplish an assessment.
The series supplements the advisory process involving Regional
Biological Technical Assistance Groups  (BTAGs). EPA staff
should consult their BTAG coordinator for more detailed infor-
mation on ecological assessment in their Region.
             IN THIS BULLETIN

Background	2
What is an Ecological Assessment?	2
Ecological Assessment in the Rl/FS Process	6
  ECO Update is a Bulletin series on ecological assessment of Superfund sites. These Bulletins serve as supplements to Risk Assessment Guidance
  for Superfund. Volume!]: Environmental Evaluation Manual (EPA/540-1-89/001). The information presented is intended as guidance to EPA and
  other government employees. It does not constitute rulemaking by the Agency, and may not be relied on to create a substantive or procedural right
  enforceable by any other person. The Government may take action that is at variance with these Bulletins.

-------
 Background
     The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-
 tion, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, requires EPA to
 remediate uncontrolled hazardous waste sites in ways that will
 protect both human health and the environment. To fulfill this
 mandate, the National Oil and Hazardous Materials Contingency
 Plan (NCP) requires that the baseline risk assessment, which is
 conducted during the Remedial Investigation andFeasibiJity Study
 (RI/FS), "characterize the current and potential threats to human
 health and the environment"1 The NCP  also specifies that
 "[environmental evaluations shall be performed to assess threats
 to the environment, especially sensitive habitats and critical habi-
 tats of species protected under the Endangered Species Act" *
     In December 1988, the Office of Emergency and Remedial
 Response (OERR) and the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
 issued a joint memorandum to Regional Divisions responsible for
 Superfund, directing that "thorough  and consistent" ecological
 assessments be performed at all Superfund sites in both the
 removal and remedial programs. In particular, the directive called
 on the Regions to incorporate ecological assessment into the RI/FS
 stage during development of the work plan, and to discuss the
 ecological assessment in the Proposed Plan for site remediation.
     To assist the Regions in implementing this policy, OERR
 issued the SuperfundEnvironmental EvaluationManual'in March
 1989 to provide site managers with a general framework for
 understanding the ecological assessment process. The manual is
 predicated on the understanding that ecological assessment com-
 bines careful observation, data collection, testing, and professional
 judgment. Hence, the manual's principal goal is to introduce the
 subject to site managers and encourage them to seek the advice and
 assistance of the Regional BTAGf
What  is  an  Ecological
Assessment?

    The Environmental Evaluation Manual defines ecological
assessment as:

    ... a qualitative andlor quantitative appraisal of the
    actual or potential effects of a hazardous waste site on
    plants and animals other than people or domesticated
    species.
     In  practical terms, ecological assessment comprises four
 interrelated activities:

  •  Problem Formulation—qualitative evaluation of contami-
     nant release, migration, and fate; identification of contami-
     nants of concern, receptors, exposure pathways, and known
     ecological  effects of the contaminants; and selection of
     Midpoints' for further study.
  •  Exposure Assessment—quantification of contaminant re-
     lease, migration,  and fate; characterization of exposure
     pathways and receptors; and measurement or estimation of
     exposure point concentrations.
  •  Ecological Effects Assessment—literature  reviews, field
     studies, and toxicity tests, linking contaminant concentra-
     tions to effects on ecological receptors.
  •  Risk Characterization—measurement or estimation of both
     current and future adverse effects.

     These components of ecological assessment are illustrated in
Figure 1. As the diagram indicates, each element in the process can
affect others. In reality, investigators frequently find  that  the
components  do  not  always  follow one another  in a stepwise
manner, and may actually find themselves working on aspects of
all four components at the same time.


Problem Formulation

     Problem Formulation defines the objectives and scope of the
ecological assessment. This component of an ecological assessment
primarily involves a review of existing'data (including previous
studies of the site, such as  the Preliminary Assessment, Site
Inspection, RI Field Investigation, and other sources). Its end
product is a conceptual model that identifies  the environmental
values to be protected, the data needed, and the analyses to be used.
     The problem  formulation component may be difficult to
distinguish from exposure assessment or ecological  effects assess-
ment. This situation arises from elements (e.g., effects andreceptors)
shared among these three components. Problem formulation dif-
fers from the other two components in  the level of detail and
quantification. The difference lies  in the distinction between
identification (Le., naming and listing) of these common elements
and characterization (Le., description and quantification). In
problem formulation, investigators:

  •  Focus on collecting preliminary  information necessary to
    design the exposure and ecological effects assessment, and
  •  Identify data needed to complete those assessments.
                                       Continued on page A
    140 CFR Part 300.430 (d)(4).
    2 40 CFR Pan 300.430(e)(2)(i)(G).
    3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual
(EPA/540-1-89/001), 1989.
    4 These groups are sometimes known by different names, depending on the Region, and not all Regions have established BTAGs.
Readers should check with the appropriate Superfund manager for the name of the BTAG coordinator or other sources of technical
assistance in their Region.
    5 An endpoia t is an expected or anticipated effect of a contaminant on an ecological receptor. Endpoints are discussed at greater length
in the section on Problem Identification.
December 1991 • Vol. l.No.2
                                            ECO Update

-------
                 Ecological Assessment ofSuperfund Sites: Overview
                                             Figure 1
                                 PROBLEM FORMULATION

                    Qualitatively evaluate contaminant release, migration, and fate
                    Identity:
                    - Contaminants of ecological concern    - Exposure pathways
                    - Receptors                       • Known effects
                    Select endpoints of concern
                    Specify objectives and scope
              EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

            Quantify release, migration, and fate
            Characterize receptors
            Measure or estimate
            exposure point concentrations
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
    ASSESSMENT

    • Literature
    • Toxitity testing
    • Reid studies
                                   RISK CHARACTERIZATION

                                   • Current adverse effects
                                   • Future adverse effects
                                   • Uncertainty analysis
                                   • Ecological significance
                                    REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES
                                        ANALYSIS OF
                                   REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
                                     REMEDY SELECTION
                                     RECORD OF DECISION
                                     REMEDIAL DESIGN
                                     REMEDIAL ACTION
ECO Update
                 December 1991 • Vol. 1. Ng, 2

-------
 Qualitative Evaluation of Contaminant Release,
 Migration, and Fate
     This portion of problem formulation describes whai is known
 about mni?mtnat*ri media, contaminant movement, and the geo-
 graphical extent of onrent and future contamination.
     •   Ground water discharge to surface water and wetlands,
     •   Transport of ffmtamrnotftt sediment,
     •   Runoff from and erosion of contaminated soils, and
     •   BioaccumuJarion and bioconcentration.

 Identification of Contaminants of Concern
     Not all contaminants warrant equal attention with regard to
 risk. Further, not all contaminants that pose human health risks are
 important with respect to ecological risk — and vice versa. Factors
 to consider in identifying a contaminant of ecological concern
 include its:

  •  Environmental concentration in media (soils, surface wa- .
     ter, ground water, sediments, air, and biota)  representing
     ecological exposure pathways;
  •  Frequency of occurrence, defining the prevalence of the
     contaminant in site media;
  •  Background levels, indicating the concentrations that can-
     not be attributed to the site;
  •  Unavailability,  or presence  in a form that can affect
     organisms;
  •  Physical-chemical properties,  such as volatility and
     solubility,
  '•  Potential for bioaccumulation or bioconcentration, based
     on its physical-chemical properties and its tendency to occur
     in  biota at higher concentrations than the  surrounding
     environment;
  •  Potency, or the amount of toxicant capable of producing
     adverse effects; and
  •  Effects, such as acute lethality or sublethal responses (e.g.,
     reproductive impairment).

Identification  of Exposure Pathways
     Based on the analysis of contaminant release, migration, and
fate, investigators identify potential exposure pathways for eco-
logical receptors. An exposure partway is the link between a
contaminant source and a receptor. In evaluating exposure path-
ways, the analyst should consider all media (ground water, surface
water, sediments, soils, air, and biota) that are or could be contami-
nated. For example, exposure may be the result of direct contact
with contaminated media (e.g., dfmnfli  uptake  through gills,
ingesdon) or exposure through thefood chain. Investigators should
consider all potential receptors when identifying exposurepathways.

Identification  of Receptors
     Receptors are individual organisms, populations, or commu-
nities that can be exposed to a contaminant. Identification of
receptors arises from a review of the rate, migration, and potential
release of contaminants. Ecotogists begin by identifying poten-
tially exposed habitats on or near the site using a wide variety of
        . including field reconnaissance, aerial photography, sat-
ellite imagery, and a review of previous studies to accomplish this
task. As they identify potentially exposed habitats, ecologisis
develop lists of species known or likely to occur in each habitat
     Identification of receptors should include:

  •  Species considered essential to, or indicative of, the healthy
     functioning of the habitat (e.g., stream invertebrates);
  •  Rare, endangered or threatened species on or near the site; and
  •  Species protected under Federal or State law (e.g.. Migratory
     Bird Treaty Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act).

Identification of Known Effects
     Many sources, including data bases and publications, contain
information on ecological effects of contaminants. For example,
EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQQ Documents and
AQUatic Toxicity Information REtrieval (AQUIRE) data base
contain peer-reviewed  data describing effects of contaminants on
aquatic (freshwater and marine) organisms. Data on terrestrial
effects and aquatic information not included in the AWQC docu-
ments or AQUIRE are available in the published literature. Where
appropriate, data on chemicals similar but not identical to site
contaminants can help characterize likely effects. Modeling tech-
niques, such  as  Quantitative  Structure Activity Relationships
(QSAR), sometimes help  in identifying surrogate chemicals for
data collection. These methods require specialized expertise to
ensure proper selection of surrogates and interpretation of results.
     Site managers should obtain information from other investi-
gations conducted on or near the site, to help target the ecological
assessment toward the most relevant questions. Examples of such
information include:

  • Field or laboratory studies from previous investigations of the
    site;
  • Corroborated reports of unusual events such  as fish kills,
    other animal mortality, highly stressed vegetation, or absence
    of species that experts would expect in the habitat; and
  • Fish or wildlife consumption advisories issued by State or
    local government agencies.

Selection of Endpoints
    Investigators next identify effects requiring further study.
These are known as endpoints.Risk assessors distinguish between
two types of endpoints. An  assessment endpoint describes the
effects that drive decision  making, such as reduction of  key
populations or disruption of community structure. Measurement
endpoints approximate, represent, or lead to the assessment end-
point, using field or laboratory methods.' An assessment endpoint
often has more than one measurement endpoint associated with it.
Most studies have more than one swofassessmemand measurement
endnoims.
    The critical step  in  selecting endpoints is deciding what
effects are important to remedial decision making. The assessment
     6 Glenn W. Suter n, "Ecological Endpoints," Chapter 2 in USEPA, Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites: A Field and
Laboratory Reference (EPA/600/3-89/013).
December 1991- Vol.1, No. 2
                                              ECO Update

-------
 endpoint should reflect a potentially significant ecological impact
 Primary criteria for selecting measurement endpoints are based on
 their iipปfiiliires in linjpng field nr laboratory data to the assftssmant
 endpoinL
     For example, the assessment endpoint for a particular site
 might be  the probability of a significant reduction of  a fish
 population. The measurement endpoint used to arrive at such a
 probability might be the chemical concentration shown to cause a
 reduction in survival, growth, or reproduction in a standard labo-
 ratory toxicity test.
     Ecologists often select more definitive site-specific measure-
 ment and assessment endpoints during the exposure assessment
 component. Information on contaminant migration, fatฃt and other
 factors, discussed below under "Exposure Assessment," influ-
 ences the choice of appropriate endpoints.

 Specifying Objectives and Scope
     The purpose of the activities described above is to identify the
 preliminary objectives and scope of the ecological assessment and
 additional data needed to complete the assessment. This is critical
 to the assessment process. It ensures that data collection, field
 studies, laboratory tests, and the overall assessment can answer the
 questions relevant to making remedial decisions.
     Ecological assessment is an iterative process. As such, in-
 vestigators often must revise the objectives and scope of the
 ecological assessment as they collect and analyze site data. Using
 such information, they can identify a need for more study, different
 studies, or fewer studies.
 Exposure Assessment

     Exposure assessment quantifies the magnitude and type of
 actual and/or potential exposures of ecological receptors to site
 contaminants. The key elements in exposure assessment are

  •  Quantification of contaminant release, migration, and fate;
  •  Characterization of receptors; and
  •  Measuremmtoresnmanon of exposure point concentrations.

     Exposure assessment often involves considerable effort and
 technical expertise to complete. Site managers should consult with
 their Regional BTAG to identify specific approaches for evaluat-
 ing ecological exposure.

 Quantification of Release, Migration, and Fate
     In the Exposure Assessment phase, investigators develop
 estimates of current and future contaminant  levels in affected
 media, including all relevant spatial and temporal characteristics
 of the contamination. These estimates can then be used to deter-
 mine exposure point concentrations (discussed below).
     Direct sampling of media yields information on the current
 location and concentration of contaminants. Fate-and-txansport
 models predict the movement of contaminants from the source and
 between media. Site managers should consult their BTAGs and
 other Regional specialists about sampling design, sample place-
 ment and timing, and the availability and selection  of models
 applicable to their sites.
 Characterization of Receptors
     Most sites requiring ecological assessments ซ*"*?'" a large
 number of species, populations, and communities—from microbes
 to mammaic  from algae to trees. Evaluating risks for each and
 every species present is impossible. To develop a reasonable and
 practicable evaluation, the investigator focuses on a |j""^d number
 of receptors for the assessment. Ecologists sglfct these receptors
 based on the endpoints of concern and specific characteristics of the
 site under study.
     In character!ring receptors, investigators collect information
 (primarily from published literature) on the species' feeding habits,
 life histories, habitat preferences, and other attributes that could
 affect their exposure or sensitivity to contaminants.

 Exposure Point Concentrations
     After identifying receptors, and selecting a subset of those
 receptors, investigators estimate  the concentration of contami-
 nant(s) in the media to which the receptors are exposed. This is
 known as the exposure point concentration, which investigators
 measure in the environmental medium or estimate using assump-
 tions and/or fate-and-transport modeling.
     The amount of contaminant  a receptor takes in depends on
 such factors as:

  •  The properties of the contaminant,
  •  The way the organism assimilates  it (e.g., direct absorption,
     ingestion),
  •  The nature of the receptor (e.g., behavior, life history), and
  •  The physical/chemical properties  of  the  media (e.g.,  pH,
     hardness, organic carbon content).

     If a  contaminant is known or expected to bioconcentrate or
 bioaccumulate, investigators collect and analyze  samples from
 biota at two or more trophic levels (e.g., plant, herbivore, carnivore)
 along with surrounding media. Risk assessors use this information
 in two ways:

  •   Directly, as exposure point concentrations for dietary expo-
     sure pathways for ecological  receptors; or
  •   Indirectly, for calculating site-specific bioconcentration fac-
     tors (BCFs) or bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) to predict the
     food-chain transfer of contaminants to organisms  at higher
     trophic levels.
Ecological Effects Assessment

    This component concerns quantitatively linking concentra-
tions of contaminants to adverse effects in receptors. Literature
reviews, field studies, and/or toxicity testing provide this "dose-
response" information: that is, tow much toxicamis associated with
how much of an adverse effect

Literature Reviews
    Organisms differ widely in their ability to tolerate toxicants,
depending on several factors, including environmental conditions.
the nature of the chemical, the age and reproductive status of the
organism, and inherent differences among species. Literature re-
ECO Update
                              December 1991 - Vol. l,No. 2

-------
 views can provide specific dose-response information for the
 species understudy.
     Dose-response information is useful in risk characterization
 (discussed below) or as the basis for further ecological effects
 studies. By comparing measured concentrations of contaminants
 in site media with literature values for adverse effects, investiga-
 tors can decide whether they need to proceed with site-specific
 investigations such as field studies or toxiciry tests.

 Field Studies
     Ecological field studies offer direct or corroborative evidence
 of a link between contamination and ecological effects. Such
 evidence could include:

  . •  Reduction in population sizes of species,
   •  Absence of species normally occurring in the habitat,
                           ;itiปr) rปgei%ri hahjfafs
  •  Changes in community diversity or trophic structure, and
  •  Incidence of lesions, tumors, or other pathologies.

     Ecologists usually compare data on observed adverse effects
 to information  obtained from a reference area not affected by
 contamination from the site. For instance, for a stream contami-
 nated by a waste site, the reference site might be an area upstream
 from the source of contamination, or a nearby uncontaminated
 stream with similar physical characteristics.
     Investigators must collect chemical and biological data si-
 multaneously. This allows them to determine if acorrelation exists
 between contaminant concentrations and ecological effects.

 Toxlcity Testing
     Toxicity tests evaluate the effects of contaminated media on
 the survival, growth, reproduction, and metabolism of test organ-
 isms. When ecologists review test results  along  with data on
 chemical concentrations and biological observations from field
 studies, they often find convincing evidence  that observed or
 predicted effects are attributable to the presence  of hazardous
 substances. Investigators also use toxicity tests to demonstrate the
 spatial extent of contamination and identify areas of high
 nant concentrations.
Risk Characterization

     The science of risk assessment in ecology has not evolved to
the point where scientists can make standard risk calculations for
common risk scenarios, as they often do in human health evalua-
tions at Superfund sites. Risk characterization in ecological assess-
ment is a process of applyingprofessional judgment to determine
whether adverse effects are occurring or will occur as a result of
contamination associated with a site.
     Risk characterization is primarily a process of comparing the
resultsoftheexposurc assessment with theresults of the ecological
effects assessment Available methods (either  quantitative or
qualitative) seek to answer the following questions:
  •  Are ecological receptors currently exposed to site contami-
     nants at levels capable of causing harm, or is future exposure
     likely?
  •  If ad verse ecological effects are observed or predicted, whai
     are the types, extent, and severity of the effects?
  •  What are the uncertainties  associated  with die risk
     characterization?

     The risk characterization concludes with a risk description,
which (1) includes a summary of the risks and uncertainties, and
(2) interprets the ecological significance of the observed orpredicted
effects. The risk description is a key step  in communicating
ecological risks to site managers and decision makers. When
ecologists interpret and communicate ecological significance for
the risk description, they should consider such factors as the nature
and magnitude of the effects, the spatial and temporal distribution
of the effects, and the potential for recovery.
 Ecological Assessment in the

 RI/FS  Process

     Because the RI/FS supports risk-management decision mak-
 ing, assessment of ecological risk plays an essential role. Figure 2
 shows where ecological information is necessary in the RI/FS and
 post-RI/FS activities.


 Scoping of the RI/FS

     Scoping of the ecological assessment should begin with, and
 be included as pan of, the overall RI/FS scoping process to:

  •  Help identify the kinds of remedial decisions that site man-
     agers need to make,
  •  Determine the types of ecological data investigators need to
     support decision making, and
  •  Design field and/or laboratory studies for collecting those
     Hat a

     Ecologists should participate in developing a conceptual
 model of the site. The ecological portion of this model is developed
 during theProblemForm illation phaseof theecological assessment
     Ecological awftssmmn can fen cptnplf-T unitertalring. For this
reason, site manage need  to consult with their BTACs while
prqjaringwork scopes. Formostsites.Remedial Project Managers
should develop a phased approach to the ecological assessment
with expert review at each phase. In this way, investigators can use
data or observations from one phase to determine the most appro-
priate studies for the next phase.
                                        Continued on page 8
December 1991 • Vol. l.No.2
                                              ECO Update

-------
                          Ecological Assessment In the RI/FS Process
                                                 Figure 2
PROBLEM
FORMULATION

Review ecological
data collected from
site Inspection and
other studies
Review sampling/
data collection
plans
Formulate
preliminary
remediation
goals
Determine level
of effort for base-
line ecological
risk assessment
                                             Refine
                                          remedial goals
                                            based on
                                          risk assessment
                                            and ARARs
CONDUCT BASELINE ECOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENT
 • Exposure Assessment
 • Ecological Effects Assessment
 • Risk Characterization
                                                 Conduct risk
                                                 evaluation of
                                                   remedial
                                                  alternatives
Ecological
Monitoring

-------
 RI/FS Site Characterization

      The Site Characterization phase of the RI^S requites a
                      i^ which fnchidfs an
 ment. The tHirpostB? of f^'g ecological a*u>>VTi"fii>t are VK
•  Describe the observed or potential
                                                of
     ecological effects at the site and the primary cause of the
   • Characterize the ecological consequences of the "no tether
     action" remedial alternative.

     Site managers should ensure that ecological studies for the
 baseline risk assessment are completed doting the field investiga-
 tion phase of site characterization.
 Feasibility Study

     Ecological information contributes to the Feasibility Study
 (FS) pn?cf?y by assisting decision makers in the atf^m'fi't ซnd
 selection of remedial  alternatives. In developing preliminary
remediation goals (PRGs), investigators must address the results

in criteria, guidance, and applicable or relevant and appropriate
           ;(ARARs).
                                   Hal alternatives. In such
      site *nan^g"T must SUBCII the alternatives to narrow the
                                                                MostFSs
list that will be evaluated in detail. The ecological assessment
helps this detailed analysis of alternatives by identifying risks or
benefits of each with respect to ecological receptors.  The
analyses and conclusions of the ecological assessment can pro-
vide information on:

  •  The effectiveness of the alternative in reducing ecological
     risks aipyocfowf with contamination, and
  •  The ecological effects that may result from the remedial
     action (e.g., habitat destruction).

     The ecological as$fssmei>t fปn provide information for eco-
logical monitoring during remedial and post-remedial activities.
For detailed advice on applying ecological information to the FS
PITT*^ site managers should consult their Regional BTAGs. D
December 1991 • Vol. l.No.2
                                                                                                         ECO Update

-------
   v-/EPA
                             United States
                             Environmental Protection
                             Agency
                     Oft ice of
                     Solid Waste and
                     Emergency Response
Publication 9345.0-051
March 1992
ECO   Update
  Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
  Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (OS-230)
                                        Intermittent Bulletin
                                        Volume 1, Number 3
              The  Role  Of Natural  Resource
        Trustees  In The  Superfund  Process
        This Bulletin is intended to help Reme-
   dial Project Managers (KPMs) and On-Scene
   Coordinators (OSCs) work with natural resource
   trustees during site assessment and remediation.
   It explains the authority and responsibilities of
   trustees, and the responsibilities of RPMs and
   OSCs with respect to trustee issues. The goal of
   this document is to help  reduce delays and
   ensure compliance with relevant statutes by
   increasing understanding  of trustee issues as
   they pertain to the Superfund program.1
Authorities
CERCLA

      The Comprehensive En vironmentalResponse,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reau-
thorization Act (SARA) (Part 101, section 16), defines
natural resources as "land, fish, wildlife, biota, air,
water, ground water, drinking water supplies, and
othersuchresources." CERCLA designates the Presi-
dent of the United States as the trustee for Federally
protected or managed natural resources on behalf of
the public and requires the President to:
                   • Assess damages from releases of hazardous sub-
                     stances,
                   • Pursue recoveries of damages and costs, and
                   • Use the sums recovered to restore, replace, or
                     acquire the equivalent of the injured resource
                     (Section 107 (f)(l) of CERCLA).

                              In This Bulletin

                 Authorities	1

                 Who Are The Natural Resource Trustees?	2

                 What Is a Trust Resource?	5

                 Trustee Functions	6

                 How to Work With Trustees	9

                 Conclusion	11
                 1  All sections of this Bulletin have benefitted greatly from
                 material obtained from the Region 10 Natural Resource Trustee
                 Notification and Coordination Package (September 1989). The
                 Package was prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmo-
                 spheric Administration Coastal Resource Coordinator in coop-
                 eration with the Department of Interior Regional Environmental
                 Officer and the Region 10 Natural Resource Coordinator: Noti-
                 fication and coordination packages are also available in many
                 other EPA Regions.
 ECO Update is a Bulletin series on ecological assessment of Supeifund sites. These Bulletins serve as supplements to Risk Assessment
 Guidance for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual (EPA/540-1-89/001). The information presented is intended as
 guidance to EPA and other government employees. It does not constitute rulemaking by the Agency, and may not be relied on to
 create a substantive or procedural right enforceable by any other person. The Government may take action that is at variance with
 these Bulletins.

-------
        These functions are carried out by various
 trsustees, as discussed later in this Bulletin.
        The law also directs EPA to coordinate with
 natural resource trustees. This coordination includes:

   • Prompt notification of potential injuries to natu-
     ral resources at Superfund sites and incidents
     [ง104(b)(2)];
   • Coordination of assessments, investigations, and
     planning [ง104(b)(2)];
   • Notification of negotiations with potentially re-
     sponsible parties (PRPs), if the release of hazard-
     ous substances may have resulted in injuries to
     trust resources [ง122(j)(l)]; and
   • Encouraging trustees to participate in the nego-
     tiations [ง122(j)(D].
 National Contingency Plan
       As calledforinCERCLA section 107(f),subpart
 G of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
 Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)2 designates the
 heads of authorized Departments and agencies as
 trustees for natural resources and defines their juris-
 diction. The NCP also spells out the responsibilities
 of the trustees following notification or discovery of
 a natural resource injury, loss,  or threat. Depending
 on the stage in the remedial process and the nature of
 the injury, loss, or threat, the trustees may do one or
 more of the following, or "other actions as appropri-
ate"
(1)
(2)

(3)
(4)
Conduct a preliminary survey of the area af-
fected by the discharge or release to determine if
trust resources under their jurisdiction are, or
potentially may be, affected;
Cooperate with the OSC/RPM in coordinating
assessments, investigations, and planning;
Carry out damage assessments; or
Devise and carry out a plan for restoration,
rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of
equivalent natural resources.3
       The NCP describes the trustees' authority as
including, but not limited to, the following actions:
                                                 (1)  Requesting that the Attorney General seek com-
                                                     pensation from the responsible parties for the
                                                     damages assessed and for the costs of an assess-
                                                     ment and of restoration planning; and
                                                 (2)  Participating in negotiations between the United
                                                     States and potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
                                                     to obtain PRP-financed or PRP-conducted as-
                                                     sessments and restorations for injured resources
                                                     or protection for threatened resources and to
                                                     agree to covenants not to sue, where appropri-
                                                     ate."

                                                       The NCP also defines EPA responsibilities
                                                 with respect to natural resource coordination. EPA is
                                                 required to carry out the following notification and
                                                 coordination activities:

                                                   •  Make available any information that can assist
                                                     trustees  in determining injuries to  natural re
                                                     sources (ง300.160(a)(3)]; and
                                                   • Coordinate with trustees in requiring PRPs to
                                                     comply  with CERCLA information requests
                                                     [ง300.615(d)(3)].

                                                 In addition, EPA may:

                                                   •  Issue administrative orders to pursue injunctive
                                                    relief against PRPs at the request of the trustee
                                                     [ง300.615(e)(l)]; and
                                                   • Conduct removal or remedial actions at the re-
                                                    quest of the trustee [ง300.615(e)(2)].
Who Are The Natural Resource
Trustees?

       By Executive Order 12580 and in the NCP, the
President has designated certain executive officers as
Federal trustees for natural resources.  They include
the Secretaries of the Departments of Interior, Com-
merce, Defense, Energy and Agriculture. In addition,
SARA Section 107(d) requires the Governor of each
State  to designate  State trustees; most Governors
have done so. Indian tribes also are trustees for their
resources, functioning much as State trustees for re-
                                                    J 40 CFR Part 300.
                                                    3 40 CFR 300.615.
                                                    4 40 CFR 300.615.
March 1992 • Vol. I, No. 3
                                                                                    ECO Update

-------
sources on or related to tribal lands or for resources to
which they otherwise may have treaty rights. Figure
1 summarizes the organization of trustee authority,
as discussed below.
Federal Trustees
       Federal trustees are designated because of (a)
statutory responsibilities with regard to protection or
management of natural resources,  or (b) manage-
ment of Federally owned land, or (c) both.
       The Secretary of Commerce has delegated the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration (NOAA) to act as the Depart-
ment of Commerce natural resource trustee. To facili-
tate coordination between NOAA and EPA, NOAA
has placed Coastal Resource Coordinators in all of the
coastal EPA Regional Offices.
                                                      5 40 CFR 300.600.
Secretary of Commerce
       The  NCP desig-
nates the Secretary of Com-
merce as trustee for

  ... natural resources man-
  aged orprotected by the De-
  partment of Commerce or
  by other federal agencies
  and that are found in or
  under waters navigable by
  deep draft vessels,  in or
  under tidally influenced
  waters, waters of the con-
  tiguous zone, the exclusive
  economic zone, and the
  outer continental shelf, and
  in  upland areas serving as
  habitat for marine mam-
  mals and other  protected
  species— Examples of the
  Secretary's trusteeship in-
  clude  marine fishery re-
  sources and their support-
  ing ecosystems; anadro-
  mous fish [saltwater fish
  that return  to freshwater
  streams  to  breed]; certain
  endangered  species  and
  marine mammals; and Na-
  tional Marine Sanctuaries
  and Estuarine Research Re-
  serves.5
Natural Resource Trustees
Figure 1
Federal State Indian Tribes
President State
Governor Tribal
designated: de
State Official In


Secretary of Secretary of
Interior Commerce
delegated: delegated:
Regional NOAA
Environmental Administrator


Fish and Wildlife








	 ,.. Minerals Manaoemcr




Secretary of
Agriculture

Secretary of
Energy

it Service

. . . Rnrp

au of Reclamation |

R



jreau of Land Management




Chairman
signaled:
dividual
or request
DOI Bureau of
ndian Affairs
as trustee




Secretary of
Defense

n Affairs

ECO Update
                            March 1992 • Vol.1, No. 3

-------
 Secretary of the Interior
       The Secretary of the Interior acts as trustee for
 natural resources managed or protected by the De-
 partment of the Interior (DOD.

   Examples of the Secretary's trusteeship include mi-
   gratory birds; certain anadromous fish, endangered
   species, and marine mammals; federally owned min-
   erals; and certain federally managed water resources.
   The Secretary [is also] trustee for those natural re-
   sources for which an Indian tribe would otherwise act
   as trustee in those cases where the United States acts
   on behalf of the Indian tribe.6

       DOI has  delegated Regional Environmental
 Officers from the Office of the Secretary as the princi-
 pal trustee contacts for their agency.  The. Regional
 Environmental Officer coordinates with the follow-
 ing DOI bureaus on 'trustee concerns: the U.S. Geo-
 logical Survey, Bureau of Mines, National Park Ser-
 vice, Minerals Management Service, Bureau of Recla-
 mation, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wild-
 life Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office  of Sur-
 face Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, and the
 Office of the Solicitor.
       In addition to fulfilling the Secretary's duties
 as natural  resource trustee, DOI is charged under
 CERCLA with promulgating regulations for the as-
 sessment of natural resource damages from releases
 of hazardous substances. These regulations, foundat
 43 GFR Part 11, are currently undergoing amend-
 ment.
Secretaries for Land-Managing Agencies
       The NCP designates as trustees the Secretar-
ies of Departments that manage Federally owned or
administered lands.  The trusteeship applies to all
"natural resources located on, over, or under" these
lands. These land-managing agencies are co-trustees
with the Department of the Interior, Department of
Commerce, and/or possibly the State or Indian tribe
for most of the living natural resources. In addition to
the Secretary of the Interior, discussed above, these
trustees include  the Secretaries of Agriculture,  De-
fense, and Energy.
       DOI is the largest Federal land-management
agency. Its land-management functions are carried
out by the Bureau of Land Management (public lands),
National Park Service (parks and monuments), Fish
and Wildlife Service (wildlife refuges), and the Bu-
reau of Reclamation (waterprojects). The Secretary of
Agriculture, through the USDA Forest Service, has
jurisdiction over large tracts of land (the National
Forests) in all areas of the country. The Secretary of
Defense has  trusteeship over  all lands  owned or
managed by the Department of Defense, including
facilities operated by the Navy, Army, Air Force, and
Defense Logistics Agency. The Secretary of Energy is
trustee for all lands owned or managed by the De-
partment of Energy.
       Where Federal facilities contain uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites, the agency managing the prop-
erty may be held accountable as both the responsible
party and the natural resource trustee. Usually, how-
ever, the agency will be co-trustee with another Fed-
eral agency, and  some  of the  potentially  affected
resources may also be under the trusteeship of a State
or an Indian tribe. When the hazardous wastes are
not on Federal property, the land-managing agency's
trustee role may be  exercised if contaminants from
the site threaten resources  on  Federal land.   This
could happen if, for example,'a hazardous waste site
were located upstream of a Federal facility and the
stream transported  contaminants onto the Federal
property.
State Trustees

       According to CERCLA and the NCP, a State
may act as trustee for natural resources within the
boundaries of the State or for those resources belong-
ing to, controlled by,  or appertaining to the State.
Each State governor is required under CERCLA to
designate State officials who will  act as trustees.
Usually, that official heads the agency responsible for
environmental protection or resource conservation.
A complete list of State-designated trustees is avail-
able from EPA headquarters, DOI, and NOAA. If
there is any doubt as to who the State trustees are for
                                                       40 CFR 300.600.
March 1992 • Vol. 1, No. 3
                                     ECO Update

-------
a specific site, the site manager should contact one of
these offices or their counterpart State agency.
Indian Tribes
       The tribal chairman, the head of the govern-
ing body of an Indian tribe, or a person selected by the
chairman or the head of the governing body, may act
as trustee on behalf of the tribe.  This individual is
trustee for the natural resources belonging to, man-
aged by, controlled by, or appertaining to the tribe.
At the tribe's request, the DOI Bureau of Indian
Affairs may act as trustee on the tribe's behalf. If there
is any doubt as to whether there is an Indian tribal
trustee for a specific site, or who that trustee is, the site
manager should contact the DOI Regional Environ-
mental Officer.
     Natural resources include "land,
     fish,  wildlife, biota, air, water,
     ground  water,  drinking water
     supplies,  and  other  such  re-
     sources."
What Is  A Trust  Resource?
       CERCLA Section 101  (16) defines trust re-
sources to include:

  ... land,ftsh,wildlife, biota, air,water, groundwater,
  drinking water supplies, and other such resources
  belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertain-
  ing to, or otherwise controlled by the United States
  (including the resources of the exclusive economic
  zone defined by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation
  and Management Act of 1976), any state or local
  government, any foreign government, any Indian
  tribe, or if such resources are subject to a  trust
  restriction on alienation, any member of an Indian
  tribe.
       Trust resources include both species and
places.  Fish, wildlife, migratory birds, and marine
mammals are all mentioned in CERCLA and the NCP
as trust resources, as are National Marine Sanctuaries
and Estuarine Research Reserves. DOI protects not
only endangered species but also National Parks and
Monuments. The  Departments of Agriculture, De-
fense, and Energy  are trustees for natural resources
that occur on their lands.  In some cases, federal
agencies can be co-trustees for a particular natural
resource. Federal  and State agencies also are fre-
quently co-trustees for natural resources.
Living Resources
       In designating the Secretaries of Commerce
and Interior as natural resource trustees, the NCP
gives  examples  of the types of resources that fall
under the Secretaries' trusteeship. Included among
these are marine fishery resources, anadromous fish,
endangered species, migratory birds, and marine
mammals. In specifying marine fishery resources as
trust resources, the NCP adds the phrase "and their
supporting ecosystems." This acknowledges the fact
that protecting a living  resource entails not only
preventing or mitigating contamination of the pro-
tected species itself but also ensuring the continued
availability and quality of that species' habitat and
food sources.
       CERCLA and the NCP use the comprehen-
sive term "biota" and the specific term "fish [and]
wildlife" to define the living resources covered under
Federal trusteeship.  The NCP cites more specific
types of resources such as anadromous fish, endan-
gered species, and marine  mammals only as ex-
amples of trust resources, not as a definitive list
The clear implication of these references is that the
definition  of what is a trust resource is left to the
trustee. To an extent, trustees' responsibilities may be
defined by the various statutes that they are charged
with enforcing or implementing, including the man-
agement of land under their control  Within the
bounds of those statutes  and land-management re-
sponsibilities, trustees may interpret their CERCLA
mandate to include whatever biota "and their sup-
porting ecosystems" that the trustees consider appro-
priate. With regard to specific sites, the EPA site
manager should let the trustee agencies determine
ECO Update
                           March 1992 • Vol. 1, No. 3

-------
 whether trust resources are present and potentially
 affected by a site.
 Land, Air, Water, and Mineral Resources
       In addition to living resources, CERCLA and
 the NCP list "land, . . . air, water, ground water,
 drinking water supplies, and other such resources"
 as responsibilities of natural resource trustees. These
 could include, for example, minerals controlled by
 the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land
 Management, rivers protected under the Wild and
 Scenic Rivers Act, coastal zone areas regulated or
 administered by NOAA under the Coastal Zone
 Management Act, and air Quality over a National
 Park. It is also important to remember that the phrase
 "supporting ecosystem," as used in the NCP, implies
 that protection of biotic resources often entails ac-
 tions aimed at nonliving components of the environ-
 ment.  In fact, it is often difficult to separate living
 from nonliving components, especially when souV
 sediments, and surface water are involved. As with
 living resources, the determination is best left to the
 appropriate Federal, State, or Indian tribal represen-
 tative as to whether a given nonliving resource is a
 trustee responsibility.
     Natural resource trustees have
     a broad mandate to protect and
     restore resources  under their
     jurisdiction.   Therefore, the
     responsibilities of the trustees
     are not restricted to any single
     point in the Superfund process.
Trustee Functions
       Natural resource trustees have a broad man-.
date to protect and restore resources under their
jurisdiction.   Therefore, the responsibilities of the
trustees are not restricted to any single point in the
Superfund process. CERCLA Section 104(b)(2) calls
for coordination between EPA and trustees on "as-
sessments, investigations, and planning"; in other
words, at virtually all stages of the process.  This
requirement applies to both the removal and reme-
dial actions, and to enforcement and Fund-lead sites.
Trustees' primary responsibilities include:

   • Preliminary Natural Resource Survey (PNRS)
   • Technical Assistance
   • Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA)
   • Covenant Not to Sue
Preliminary  Natural Resource Survey
(PNRS)
      In accordance with the NCP ง300.615 (c)(l),
and through Memoranda of Understanding between
EPA and both DOI and NOAA, EPA can request a
representative of one of these agencies to conduct a
PNRS or another form of preliminary site survey. The
request usually originates with the RPM, but it also
may come through a designated EPA Natural Re-
source Coordinator, or a Section or Branch Chief.
      A PNRS consists of a site survey and a brief
report identifying the natural resources, habitat types,
endangered or threatened species, and any potential
adverse  effects or injury to trust resources.   The
PNRS, which may be funded by EPA, is an effective,
low-cost screening tool to  determine  if  trust re-
sources are involved at a site. It may be conducted at
any stage of the remedial process, from pre-listing to
pre-Record of Decision (ROD).
      The earlier the PNRS information is available,
the more likely it can be used to ensure that remedial
alternatives are selected which effectively protect
natural resources of concern to trustees. If the PNRS
is conducted before RI scoping, it may provide infor-
mation useful for sampling design and other aspects
of the RI/FS ecological assessment. If conducted after
completion of the RI and during the evaluation of
remedial alternatives for the FS, the PNRS may help
the trustees develop their position on a covenant not
to sue.  Site managers should consult with trustee
representatives in their Region to determine the most
appropriate time(s) for performing the PNRS.
March 1992 • Vol.1, No. 3
                                   ECO Update

-------
 Technical Assistance
       While not a trustee responsibility under CER-
CLA, several trustee agencies offer technical assis-
tance at Superfund sites. As well as furthering EPA's
ecological assessments, such activities support the
trustees' larger role in safeguarding natural resources.
Advice and technical assistance from trustee repre-
sentatives can take many forms.  In most EPA Re-
gional Offices, one or more trustee representatives
serve on Biological Technical" Assistance Groups
(BTAGs),7 which provide review and advice on eco-
logical issues in the assessment and remediation of
sites. Usually, trustee representatives are also avail-
able for Individual consultation on technical issues.
Through Interagency Agreements, trustee agencies
often perform  specific tasks relating to ecological
assessment of a site, such as field surveys, toxicity
testing, and detailed examination of field-collected
organisms. FWS staff or NOAA Coastal Resource
Coordinators in coastal EPA Regional Offices may
also act as a source of technical assistance for ecologi-
cal assessments in wetland and aquatic habitats.
       It is important to understand that technical
assistance does not in any way commit a trustee to a
covenant not to sue.  Furthermore, review of site
activities by trustees serving on the BTAG is not a
substitute for notification of the trustees.
     Natural resource damages are
     monetary payments "for injury
     to,  destruction  of, or loss  of
     natural resources, including the
     reasonable costs of assessing
     such  injury,  destruction,  or
     loss..."
 Natural Resource Damage Assessment
       If remedial actions are judged insufficient to
protect and restore natural resources injured by re-
leases from a Superfund site, or if the use of a natural
resource is lost or curtailed, natural resource trustees
may seek to collect damages from responsible parties.
Natural resource damages are monetary payments
"for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural re-
sources, including the reasonable costs of assessing
such injury, destruction, or loss resulting from such a
release."8 These payments are considered compensa-
tion, not punitive damages, and are intended to cover
the past injury and residual costs or losses beyond
whatever restoration can be  achieved through
remediation.  Only responsible  party funds can be
used to pay natural resource damages; Superfund
monies cannot be used for this purpose.
       EPA site managers must recognize that the
natural resource damage assessment process is the
responsibility of the trustee agencies, not of EPA. In
addition, EPA is not required to collect or fund the
collection of all the information needed to carry out a
natural resource damage assessment.  In  fact EPA
cannot collect information solely for the purpose of a
natural resource damage assessment. However, it is
equally important to remember that CERCLA and
the NCP require prompt notification of, and close
coordination with, the trustees. Coordination entails
timely exchange of information between EPA and the
trustees to ensure  the technical adequacy of EPA's
selected remedy with respect to natural resources.
Selection of remedial alternatives that adequately
protect and restore natural resources will in most
cases reduce the likelihood of expensive and time-
consuming natural resource  damage proceedings
which could delay negotiated settlements.
      The Natural Resource Damage Assessment
(NRDA) process:

  • Determines whether injury to, or loss of, trust
    resources has occurred;
' These groups are sometimes known by different names, depending on the Region, and not all Regions have established BTAGs.
Readers should check with the appropriate Superfund manager for the name of the BTAG coordinator or other sources of technical
assistance in their Region. A more complete description of BTAG structure and function is available in The Role of BTAGs in Ecological
Assessment (ECO Update Vol. 1, No. 1).
• CERCLA Section 107(a)(4)(D).
ECO Update
                           March 1992 • Vol. 1, No. 3

-------
   • Ascertains the magnitude of the injury or loss;
   • Calculates the dollar value of the injury,  loss,
     and/or cost of restoration; and
   • Develops a restoration plan.

       EPA can facilitate the resolution of natural
resource damage issues during the RI/FS by coordi-
nating with trustees to ensure that data useful to both
EPA and the trustees are collected. When properly
designed, the  ecological assessment  portion of the
RI/FS may help to determine whether:

   • A discharge or release has occurred,
   • Trust resources have been affected,
   • Injury has occurred or is likely, and
   • Planned remedial responses will or will not be
     sufficient  to protect or restore the resources.

       Collection of this information serves the CER-
CLA requirement that EPA undertake investigations
to identify the extent of danger to the environment
from the release of contaminants.  It also serves the
additional requirement in CERCLA Section 104(b)(2)
that EPA coordinate assessments, investigations, and
planning with Federal and State trustees.  A well-
designed ecological assessment, then, is part of the
process of determining the extent and degree of con-
tamination.  It is an essential part of the decision
making process as to the need for and scope of any
remedial action. In addition, it can provide the natu-
ral resource trustees with information to use during
their evaluation of possible injuries to trust resources.
Covenant Not to Sue
       A trustee may choose to sue a responsible
party for the monetary damages calculated in the
NRDA plus the cost of conducting the assessment.
Although this decision is wholly that of the trustee,
EPA's interest in the issue can be significant if nego-
tiations with responsible parties are contemplated or
in progress.
       CERCLA Section 122(j) requires EPA to notify
Federal trustees of any negotiations regarding the
release of hazardous substances that may have re-
sulted innaturalresource injury, while Section 122(p(l)
caJls on EPA to encourage Federal trustees to partici-
pate in negotiations with responsible parties. In those
cases where trustees believe that they will need more
information than EPA proposes to collect as part of
the ecological assessment, they can negotiate with the
responsible parties at the same time as EPA negoti-
ates for the RI/FS. Note that EPA does not have the
authority to negotiate on behalf of the trustees. In
addition, if in the settlement process the responsible
party requests a covenant  not to sue for natural
resource injuries, only the natural resource trustee or
trustees, through the Department of Justice, can grant
such a covenant.
       CERCLA Section 122(j)(2)  provides  the link
between remedial action decisions and the covenant
not to sue:

  The Federal natural resource trustee may agree  to
  such a covenant if the potentially responsible party
  agrees to undertake appropriate actions necessary to
  protect and restore the natural resources damaged by
  such release or threatened release of hazardous sub-
  stances.

       In other words, trustee concurrence with a
settlement—and, if appropriate, granting a covenant
not to sue—is most likely  to be facilitated if the
selected remedial action will protect and restore trust
resources.  However, it should be noted that a  cov-
enant is not necessary for every Operable Unit at a
site, so long as the Consent Decree for the Remedial
Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) retains the stan-
dard Reservation of Rights. The covenant is needed
if the PRP refuses to  accept the Reservation  and
requires a covenant not to sue as  a condition of
settlement. In these circumstances, only the trustees
can agree to the covenant.
    The trustee's first priority is to
    see that remedies are selected
    which protect and restore trust
    resources.
March 1992 • Vol. 1, No. 3
                                     ECO Update

-------
 How To Work With Trustees
       As mentioned above, natural resource dam-
ages are considered residual damages. The trustee's
first priority is to see that remedies are selected which
protect and restore trust resources. To be reasonably
confident of obtaining a covenant not to sue, a site
manager should remain mindful of four important
responsibilities during the remedial process:

   •  Adherence to the notification and coordination
     provisions of CERCLA, the NCP, and any Memo-
     randa of Understanding between EPA and the
     respective trustee;
   •  Consultation with the BTAG or its equivalent in
     the design and implementation of the ecological
     assessment portion of the RI/FS;
   •  Consultation with trustees on recommendations
     for remedial alternatives; and
   •  Compliance with environmental applicable or
     relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs).
Notification
When to Notify
      CERCLA Section 104(b)(2) requires EPA to
promptly notify natural resource trustees of the po-
tential for injuries resulting from releases under in-
vestigation.  Section 122(j) requires notification re-
garding pending negotiations with potentially re-
sponsible parties. In practice, site managers should
treat notification as a process rather than a one-time
event. As the Superfund process unfolds at a site, the
RPM will become aware of which trustees may have
an interest in the site (see the following section, Whom
to Notify). Site managers should plan on notifying
trustees of such key events as:

  •  Site discovery,
  •  Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection,
  •  Proposal of a site for inclusion on the National
     Priorities List,
  •  Initiation of RI/ES negotiations,
  •  Receipt of the draft and final RI/FS workplans,
   • Receipt of the draft RI/FS or any relevant in-
     terim product such as the ecological assessment
     portion of the RI/FS,
   • Final RI/FS,
   • Completion of the draft ROD,
   • Final ROD,
   • Initiation of RD/RA negotiations, and
   • Receipt of the draft and final RD/RA workplans.
       Notification should be in the form of a letter
indicating what activity is taking place or what prod-
uct is available. It could include copies of relevant
documents for review, an invitation to attend a meet-
ing, or a request for specific action (such as review of
a document).
       Whenever trustees are expected to take some
action, it is important that notification take place early
enough to allow  the trustee to respond in a timely
manner, and that a date is stated by which comments
or actions are required.  Notification should be
viewed not only as compliance with statutory re-
quirements, but as  insurance toward keeping
projects on time and within budget
 Whom to Notify
As discussed earlier, trusteeship has been delegated
to five Federal  Departments: Interior, Commerce,
Agriculture, Defense, and Energy. The site manager
will need to decide which trustees to notify regarding
a specific site, based on where the site is located, what
habitats or Federally managed lands are potentially
exposed, and what species are potentially exposed.
      The descriptions of each Department's trust-
eeship, also discussed earlier in the Bulletin, can be
used as a sort of checklist as to whom to notify.
However, since  no checklist can be exhaustive, the
general rule should be: When iri doubt, notify. If the
site is not relevant to a particular agency's trustee-
ship, the trustee representative will inform the site
manager and no further notification will be needed.
The site manager should request that  the trustee
provide a written response as to their interest, or lack
of interest, in a site.
      A second general rule is, Always notify the
Department of Interior trustee representative and,
if there is one in your Region, the NOAA Coastal
Resource Coordinator.  These two agencies have
responsibility in a wide variety of Superfund sites.
For example, since migratory birds can utilize almost
ECO Update
                           March 1992 • Vol.1, No. 3

-------
any terrestrial or aquatic habitat, DOI may be a trustee
at almost any site. In addition, an aquatic habitat that
is no longer fished may still come under the jurisdic-
tion of a natural resource trustee.  Also, as described
earlier in this bulletin, the trusteeships of the two
Departments overlap considerably (e.g.,anadromous
fish,marmemamrnals,andendangeredspecies). DOI,
NOAA, and State/tribal representatives will be the
best judges as to whose trust resources are at issue
with regard to a particular site.
       If there is any reason to suspect that the site
may affect National Forests, the site manager should
notify the USDA trustee representative. If property
controlled by the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, or
Defense Logistics Agency is  potentially exposed to
contaminants,  the Department of Defense trustee
representative should be notified.  If the site contami-
nants might affect lands or resources controlled by
the Department of Energy, that agency's trustee rep-
resentative should be notified. EPA Headquarters,
DOI, or NOAA can assist in identifying the appropri-
ate individuals in each of these agencies for notifica-
tion purposes.
       CERCLA also requires notification of State
trustees, and in addition the site manager should
notify Indian trustees where a site potentially affects
natural resources on Indian  lands.  Often, Federal
trust resources are a co-trusteeship with States and
Indian tribes.  Most States have designated threat-
ened or endangered species that do not appear on the
Federal list. Trusteeship for other resources may be
limited to the State if their geographic distribution or
special value places them entirely within the State's
boundaries or jurisdiction. The site manager should
contact appropriate State liaisons to determine what
State trustee agencies to notify regarding a site. As
discussed earlier, EPA Headquarters, DOI, and NOAA
all maintain a  list of State trustees, which may be
helpful in identifying appropriate offices for notifica-
tion. The DOI representative also should be able to
help site, managers contact Indian tribal trustees or
the Bureau of Indian Affairs if tribal trust resources
are potentially affected.


Coordination

      Coordination involves a two-way communi-
cation between EPA and the trustee.  The specific
reasons for information exchange and coordination
with natural resource trustees are to:
        • Assist the site manager in determining the tech-
         nical adequacy of ecological investigations,
        • Assist the  trustee in evaluating the actual oi
         potential injury to trust resources, and
        • Identify remedial alternatives that include ap-
         propriate actions to protect and restore natural
         resources (and thus minimize the need to re-
         cover residual damages).

            Although coordination with trustees is a re-
     quirement, site managers should also view it as an
     opportunity.  Operating through the BTAG or di-
     rectly with the trustees, the site manager can obtain
     expert advice and review of work plans, data, and
     reports. This can be invaluable for selecting environ-
     mentally protective remedies that allow projects to
     proceed on schedule.  It is important to emphasize
     that ecological studies conducted as part of the RI/FS
     are not intended as preliminary work toward a Natu-
     ral Resource Damage Assessment. Nonetheless, a
     properly designed  ecological assessment may go a
     long way toward resolving questions that might oth-
     erwise require lengthy NRDA-related proceedings
     and delay or prevent a comprehensive settlement
     with responsible parties.
            At a minimum, the site manager should meet
     the coordination requirements of CERCLA by solicit
     ing review comments from trustees on:
         The draft and final RI/FS work plans,
         The draft RI and FS,
         The final RI and FS,
         The Proposed Plan for remediation,
         The draft ROD,
         The final ROD, and
         TheRD/RA.
            Trustee involvement is especially valuable at
     certain points in the Superfund process, such as the
     scoping phase of the RI/FS and the review of the
     ROD.  The portions of the ROD dealing with site
     characterizationandriskassessmentparticularly ben-
     efit from trustee input. While EPA considers trustee
     input in deciding on remedial action, selection of the
     remedy is the sole responsibility of EPA.
            It is important that site managers emphasize
     to trustees  that any comments must be  provided
     within EPA timeframes to prevent the possibility of
     the RPM missing management commitments an^
     delaying remediation. Trustees should also be awarw
     that they risk the chance of forfeiting this right to
     comment if reviews are not made in a. timely manner.
March 1992 • Vol. I, No. 3
10
ECO Update

-------
      Site managers may also wish to consult with
trusteesatotherstagesoftheremedial process. Trustee
representatives may be able to provide technical ad-
vice or services on specific issues before the review
step requires a more formal response.
      At any stage of the Superfund process where
notifying trustees is advisable, the site manager should
plan on contacting all trustees who have been notified
at an earlier stage of the remedial process and who
have expressed an interest  in reviewing the above
documents. If the trustees are members of the BTAG,
coordination can take place through that organiza-
tion. However, not all trustees are represented on
BTAGs.  If other Federal, State, or Indian trustees
have been notified and have indicated that resources
under their trusteeship may be affected, the site man-
ager should provide copies of all relevant documents
to those trustees as well as to those on the BTAG.
Ensuring that coordination requirements have been
met is the responsibility of the site manager, not of
the trustee. The site manager should  document all
coordination efforts with the trustees.
      Coordination with natural resource trustees
does not mean that EPA must comply with all trustee
representatives' suggestions or recommendations
regarding a site. EPA and the trustees have different,
although complementary, responsibilities  with re-
spect to site assessment.  The ecological assessment
portion of the RI/FS is intended to  determine if
remedial action is necessary and, if so, which reme-
dial action is likely to be most protective of environ-
mental receptors. The ecological assessment need not
be designed to gather data appropriate for a natural
resource damage assessment, even though it may end
up being useful for that purpose. Trustee representa-
tives are  generally aware of the differences in the
objectives and data needs between the RI/FS ecologi-
cal assessment and the NRDA.
      If there is a question as to the purpose of
studies recommended by natural resource trustees,
the site manager should consult with  the BTAG or
other technical support personnel within EPA to de-
termine what information is needed to meet the ob-
jectives of the RI/FS. Wherever possible, the site
manager should seek to obtain a consensus of experts,
including trustee jepresentatives, before proceeding
with any plan to assess ecological effects at a site.
     Compliance with ARARs
           Many trustees derive their authority from
     their agencies' statutory mandates to protect or man-
     age the nation's natural resources. As such, trustee
     representatives are often well versed in the require-
     ments of Federal laws pertaining to  their trust re
     sources, which may be ARARs for a particular site. By
     consulting with trustee representatives, a site man-
     ager can obtain valuable advice on which laws and
     regulations apply to a site.  Compliance with such
     requirements in the RD/RA may meet some or all of
     the trustees' concerns and thus reduce the likelihood
     of natural resource damage proceedings.
         CERCLA and NCR provide for
         prompt notification  of,  and
         coordination  with, trustees to
         ensure that remedial actions are
         selected that protect and restore
         natural resources.
     Conclusion
           The role of the natural resource trustee is
     integral to the CERCLA process of assessing and
     remediating uncontrolled hazardous waste sites to
     protect human health and the environment.  CER-
     CLA and the NCP provide for prompt notification of,
     and coordination with, trustees to ensure that reme-
     dial actions are selected that protect and restore natu-
     ral resources. Trustee representatives can provide
     valuable advice, comments, and technical support
     during the remedial  process, to help ensure that
     projects remain on schedule and within budget  Al-
     though trustee and EPA responsibilities differ, coop-
     eration and coordination are essential to the eventual
     success of the remediation effort.
ECO Update
11
March 1992 • Vol.1, No. 3

-------
  v-xEPA
                             United States
                             Environmental Protection
                             Agency
                     Off ice of
                     Solid Waste and
                     Emergency Response
Publication 9345.0-051
May 1992
ECO   Update
  Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
  Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (OS-230)
                                        Intermittent Bulletin
                                        Volume 1, Number 4
           Developing A Work Scope For
                 Ecological  Assessments
        This Bulletin is intended for Remedial Project
  Managers (RPMs), to help them plan and manage
  ecological assessments of sites as part of the Remedial
  Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process.'
  As used here, the generic term work scope describes
  the process of specifying the work to be done for the
  ecological assessment, as part of the overall RI Work
  Plan. The term encompasses project scoping, devel-
  opment and approval of the Work Plan, and prepara-
  tion of the Statement of Work (SOW) for contractors
  (at Fund-lead sites).
        The outcome of a successfully executed work
  scope should be an ecological assessment that in-
  cludes four essential components: problem formula-
  tion, exposure assessment, ecological effects assess-
  ment, and risk characterization.2 A work scope should
  also provide for close oversight of individual tasks.
  This will ensure that the assessment accomplishes its
  objectives within reasonable budget and schedule
  limitations.
Need for  Clarity,  Specificity,  and
Completeness

      SOWs and Work Plans should dearly state the
studies needed at each phase of the assessment. In addi-
tion, they should include other parameters concerning an
assessment, such as sample collection, data analysis, and
reports. Specifically, SOWs and Work Plans should de-
scribe:
                   • Which studies should be conducted;

                   • Why they should be conducted;

                   • When and where they should be conducted;

                   • What data should be collected;

                   • How samples should be collected, handled, and ana-
                     lyzed;

                   • How data should be evaluated; and

                   • What reports should be produced.


                            IN THIS BULLETIN
                 The Role Of The Biological Technical Assistance
                  Group	2
                 Points To Consider In Developing A Work Scope	2
                 Elements Of An Ecological Assessment Work Scope ....4
                 Ensuring Contractor Capability To Do Work	7
                 Review Of Interim And Final Products	8
                 Sample Work Scope	9
                 Conclusion	9
                 Appendix	11
                 1 Although the primary focus of this document is on the RI/FS
                 process, On-Scene Coordinators may find much of the informa-
                 tion useful in evaluating sites during the removal process.
                 ^Ecological Assessment of Superfund Sites: An Overview (ECO Update
                 Vol. 1, No. 2).
 ECO Update is a Bulletin series on ecological assessment of Superfund sites. These Bulletins serve as supplements to Risk Assess-
 ment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 11: Environmental Evaluation Manual (EPA/540-1-89/001). The information presented is
 intended as guidance to EPA and other government employees. It does not constitute rulemaking by the Agency, and may not be
 relied on to create a substantive or procedural right enforceable by any other person.  The Government may take action that is at
 variance with these Bulletins.

-------
  Preparing  a clear, specific,  and
  thorough  SOW will avoid such
  problems as the following:
  •  Too  much work,
  •  Too  little  work,
  •  Incorrect work, and
  •  Inadequate  QA/QC.
       The work scope should also detail how decisions
will be made about the need for additional studies.
       Preparing a clear, specific, and thorough SOW will
avoid such problems as the following:

   •  Too much work.  In the absence of clear direction, a
     contractor may do considerably more work than is
     required  to characterize the ecological risks at the
     site, wasting both time and money. The studies could
     be valid, well-designed, and complete, but unneces-
     sary given the nature of the site and its contaminants.

   •  Too little work. Art improperly designed study can
     result in inadequate attention to potentially impor-
     tant habitats or species associated with the site, too
     few sampling stations to characterize a habitat, or too
     few data points for meaningful statistical analysis.
     Such shortcomings could result in the need to con-
     duct additional studies and cause delays in produc-
     ing an acceptable RI/FS.

   •  Incorrect work. If the SOW is not specific enough as
     to what work is needed or what the objectives of the
     studies are, the contractor may conduct studies that
     fail to meet the needs of the RI/FS decision-making
     process. In this case, valuable time may be lost as the
     correct studies are rescheduled.

   •  Inadequate QA/QC.  If the SOW does not specify
     data quality objectives (DQOs), the data may not
     meet the level of quality required to make decisions
     on risk or remedial actions. As above, a delay in the
     RI/FS process may result.
   The Role Of The Biological Techni-
     cal Assistance Group

       Most EPA Regional Offices have established groups
of biologists to advise site managers on ecological assess-
ment in the RI/FS process from the Work Plan stage
onward. These Biological Technical Assistance Groups
(BTAGs)3 provide valuable help in the development of a
work scope.
       RFMs should contact the Regional 8TAG Coor-
dinator as early in the process as possible,  certainly
before the Work Plan has been developed.  The RPM
should provide appropriate documentation on the site and
its contaminants to BTAG members before the group meets
to discuss the site. In addition, the BTAG may find a brief
oral presentation on the site and its history helpful at this
time. (A future ECO Update will provide guidance on how
to provide the BTAG with useful information in this initial
briefing.) Following this initial review of site data, the
BTAG can make recommendations on the need for studies
to characterize the ecological risks posed by the site. When
the draft Work Plan has been developed, BTAG review
may elicit further helpful comments.
       The BTAG should also be consulted when interim
products (reports, data summaries, etc.)  are delivered.
Based on the  data in such a product, the BTAG
recommend modifications to the original work scop
Because this kind of "mid-course correction" can save a
project time and money, the RPM is well advised to sched-
ule time for such reviews in the Work Plan.
 mag
copS
Points To  Consider In  Developing A
Work Scope

Definition of Objectives

       The work scope for the ecological assessment of a
Superfund site requires an overall objective to provide the
assessment with direction. When an assessment has a dear
objective, the RPM can readily determine which studies
will further the assessment. For example, at a site where
chemicals from mine tailings contaminated the cold moun-
tain streams that flow through the area, the work scope had
for one of its objectives to determine whether resident fish
had suffered adverse  impact. Consequently, the work
scope specified studies that concerned fish and their envi-
ronment.  These studies included aquatic toxicity tests, a
'These groups are sometimes known by different names, depending on the Region, and not all Regions have established BTAGs. Reade™
should check with the appropriate Superfund manager for the name of the BTAG coordinator or other sources of technical specialized
facilities, and specialized equipment necessary to carry out the work. If not, qualified subcontractors should be sought for those tasks where
their qualifications are needed.	
May 1992 • Vol. 1, No. 4
                                       ECO Update

-------
  fish survey, and bioaccumulation4 studies using resident
  fish.
         The overall assessment objective may be clear
 Prom the outset, based on data from previous studies or on
  an evaluation of the concentrations and known effects of
  site contaminants. More likely, some preliminary studies,
  including a site visit and collection of screening-level data,
  will be needed to identify and specify the objective of the
  ecological assessment. Where possible, these preliminary
  studies should incorporate the need for future work.
         Just as an ecological assessment gains direction
  from having an overall objective, each study that the work
  scope specifies also should have a dear objective, such as
  filling a data gap or testing a hypothesis about the effects of
  the site's contaminants on resident organisms. By stating
  a study's objective, an RPM provides guidance for design-
  ing the study. For example, the work scope for the mining
  site described above called for aquatic toxicity testing to
  determine whether the water was toxic to freshwater fish
  that thrive at  low temperatures.  This study objective
  provided specific direction in planning the toxicity tests.
  Assessment Design

        The work scope lays out the design for an ecologi-
pcal assessment. Assessment designs vary tremendously
  from site to site depending on:

    •  The objective of the assessment;

    •  The size, location, and accessibility of the site;

    •  The site's ecology—what is already known and what
      needs to be known; and

    •  The site's contaminant history.

        In an ecological assessment, the individual studies
  are the pivotal elements.  If the overall objective gives an
  ecological assessment a purpose, the studies are the ve-
  hicles by which it attains its purpose. Studies can include
  chemical analyses of media or biota, toxicity testing of
  laboratory or resident organisms, biological field studies,
  and analyses of organisms' physiological or pathological
  condition. However, because a work scope indicates only
  those studies necessary for assessing a specific site, any one
  assessment need not include all of these types of studies.
The assessment design specifies not only which studies to
perform but also the level of effort for each. For example,
the work scope developed for the mining site described
above included toxicity testing, but only of one medium
(surface water) and with only one type of test organism
(fathead minnow). At another site, toxicity testing might
include evaluation of soil, sediment, and surface water
using several different organisms.
       The complexity of an ecological assessment makes
it essential that trained ecologists have responsibility for its
design. The RPM can consult the BTAG for advice as to
which media to analyze, which studies to perform, and at
what level of effort. The RPM can include this information
in the SOW. As discussed below, since the contractor has
responsibility for developing the Work Plan from the
SOW, the RPM needs to consider whether the contractor's
staff has the required expertise.  After a contractor has
prepared the  Work Plan, the BTAG can review it and
advise the RPM whether or not to approve it.
  The  phased  approach  ensures
  that:
  •  Only  the necessary work will
     be done, and
  •  All the necessary work will  be
     done.
Phased Approach to Task Implementation

       For most sites, a phased approach with expert
review at each phase results in the most efficient use of
resources. With the phased approach, data or observations
from one phase determine whether further studies are
needed to meet the assessment's objectives and, if so, what
these studies are.  At some sites, the phased approach
might result in a low level of effort adequately characteriz-
ing ecological risks. At others, the phased approach might
indicate that the assessment should be  expanded to in-
clude studies of specific habitats or contaminants in order
to evaluate the risks. At still other sites, the phased ap-
proach could identify areas originally not considered at
 4 Bioaccumulation is the accumulation of a substance in an organism's tissues as a result of respiration, absorption, or feeding.
  ECO Update
                               May 1992 • Vol. 1, No. 4

-------
risk. In this case, the RPM would want to expand the work
scope to include an assessment of the newly identified
area. Review of interim products, such as a report on the
levels of contaminants of concern or a field survey of
resident species, can contribute to the phased approach.
Careful review of interim products can help to ensure that
the assessment remains focused on those studies most
important for evaluating the site's ecological effects.
      To summarize, the phased approach ensures that:

   • Only the necessary work will be done, and

   • All the necessary work will be done.

      The value of the phased approach can sometimes
be outweighed by other factors. For example, seasonably
affects when certain types of studies, such as floristics
surveys, can occur.  In some cases, budgetary restrictions
and time constraints may be incompatible with the phased
approach. RPMs may need to consider such factors when
planning studies.
      In practical terms, the phased approach requires
an RPM to decide when a contractor should proceed from
one task to the next and whether the contractor should
proceed with one alternative task or another. In making
these determinations, the RPM interprets information from
completed studies. The BTAG can assist the RPM in
identifying criteria appropriate for evaluating data. (See
Figure 1.)
  An   ecological   assessment
  should be designed to contribute
  to remedial decisions at the site.
       As an example of the phased approach, consider
the following hypothetical case. (See Figure 1.) An RPM
has a field reconnaissance done in order to identify and
map potentially exposed habitats at a site. The RPM then
uses the results of this study to decide on the numbers and
placement of sampling stations for initial chemistry data.
After the first round of sampling for contaminant levels at
these stations, the chemistry data indicate that contaminant
levels are high enough in some areas of the site to warrant
collection  of biological data from the field, along with
additional data on site chemistry. The field data collected
indicate the advisability of toxiciry testing at certain stations,
but not at others. In other parts of the site, the low level of
contaminants indicate that  no further biological
investigation is required.  Thus, in this hypothetical
example, use of the phased approach results in the areaig
most in need of study receiving the most attention.
  An   ecological   assessment
  involves  problem  formulation,
  exposure   assessment,  eco-
  logical effects assessment, and
  risk characterization.
Relating Ecological  Information  to
Remedial Decision-Making

       While an ecological assessment of a Superfund site
might extend our knowledge of the environment and the
effects of contaminants on it,  the assessment is not in-
tended as a research project. Rather, it should be designed
to contribute to remedial decisions at the site. Ecological
assessments serve this function when they determine
whether remediation is needed, indicate the conditions (i|
any exist) requiring remediation, suggest technologies for
achieving remediation, and/or estimate the environment
tal effects of proposed remedial alternatives. At the earliest
stages of Work Plan development, the RPM and BTAG
should consider what types of ecological information will
contribute to remedial decisions.  For  example, the site
manager may need to know:

  •  If remediation goals are protective of environmental
     receptors,5

  •  If ecological risk considerations will affect the defini-
     tion of the area to be remediated,

  •  If  special measures  need to be taken during
     remediation to protect natural habitats, and

  •  What monitoring will be needed to ensure protection
     of environmental receptors  during and after
     remediation and to evaluate the effectiveness of re-
     medial actions.
'Receptors are individuals, populations, or communities/
habitats that may be exposed to a contaminant.
May 1992 • Vol. 1, No. 4
                                     ECO Update

-------
         Field survey identifies locations A-L as potentially exposed habitats requiring additional chemical analysis

                 A
                                           Level of contaminants high enough only at locations E-L to
                                           warrant collection of additional field and chemical data.
                                                                      Results of additional field
                                                                      and chemical studies
                                                                      indicate advisibility of
                                                                      toxicity testing at locations
                                                                      I, J, K, and L
      Figure 1.  The Phased Approach
      As this hypothetical ecological assessment
      illustrates, the phased approach results in the
      areas most in need of study receiving the
      most attention.
       Questions such as these should form part of the
initial scoping session, where the RPM and the BTAG
select appropriate studies and study designs.

Elements Of An Ecological Assessment
Work Scope

       As described in Ecological Assessment of Superfund
Sites: An Overview (ECO Update Vol. 1, No. 2) an ecological
assessment involves problem formulation, exposure as-
sessment, ecological effects assessment, and risk character-
ization. To ensure that an assessment fulfills its objectives,
the work scope should use its elements to accomplish these
tasks. In addition, the work scope should identify data
quality indicators to ensure that established DQOs are met.

Problem Formulation

       Problem formulation defines the assessment's ob-
jectives and also  involves a thorough description of the
site. This qualitative description must occur before decid-
ing on any substantial quantitative work.
       An initial site description should include citations
from existing site literature (such as the Preliminary As-
sessment, Site Inspection, or any studies conducted in
support of removal actions) relating to site history, physi-
cal features of the site, known or suspected contaminants,
habitats on or near the site, species expected at or near the
site, and known or anticipated effects of site contaminants
on receptors. Investigators should determine whether
threatened or endangered species are known or suspected
to occur at or near the site. Descriptions of potentially
affected habitats should include as much detail as possible.
For instance, stream habitats vary considerably depending
on stream depth and width, type of stream bottom, and
types of vegetation in and adjacent to the stream. Informa-
tion pertaining to these types of characteristics could affect
both the kinds of studies required to evaluate possible
effects and the level of effort needed to conduct the studies.
       This qualitative description of the  site helps to
indicate whether further studies are needed and, if they
are, what these studies should be. For example, if scientific
 ECO Update
                               May 1992 • Vol. I, No. 4

-------
literature or databases indicate that a site's contaminant
concentrations consistently fall below levels likely to cause
adverse ecological effects, additional analyses may be un-
necessary. On the other hand, if contaminant concentra-
tions suggest a need for further investigation, the initial site
description may identify potential exposure routes useful
in targeting  the additional studies to media and areas of
greatest concern. Targeting studies makes the most effi-
cient use of the time and money available for the ecological
assessment.
        A site visit  should  form part of  the initial site
description phase.  In addition, the RPM  may decide to
characterize the site's ecology further by conducting lim-
ited field studies. These studies could include aerial pho-
tography,  evaluation of habitats' suitability for wildlife,
functional evaluation of wetlands,6 qualitative  or semi-
quantitative examination of the environment for evidence
of stress (e.g., stressed or dead vegetation, bare soil and
erosion, dominance by pollution-tolerant species),  and
field verification of the presence or absence of key species.
At some sites, the existence of site descriptions made prior
to contamination may enable the RPM to assemble a  "be-
fore and after" picture of the site.
        Based on the information developed in this initial
site description, the investigator (under the direction of the
RPM and with BTAG consultation) should specify:

   •  The receptors (habitats and species) most likely to be
     exposed to site contaminants,

   •  The contaminants most likely to be of ecological
     concern,

   •  The ecological effects  most likely to be important
     with regard to the site, and

   •  The studies needed to characterize actual or potential
     adverse effects  associated  with site contaminants
     and, where applicable,  the hypothesis that the study
     will test.
Exposure Assessment

       Since exposure assessment quantifies the actual or
potential exposure of receptors to contaminants, the work
scope must plan for studies that gather appropriate data on
both receptors and contaminants. Evaluation of chemical
and  biological data will indicate which receptors and
contaminants are appropriate subjects of study and how
best to evaluate exposure at a particular site. And, as in all
other decisions of this type, the RPM can consult the BTAG
before committing resources.
       The work scope can either specify receptors for
exposure studies or set criteria for selecting receptors.
Receptors studied in the exposure assessment could be
chosen from among the site's biota, or surrogate species
(e.g., standard test species) might be used. Resident spe-
cies used as receptors can be selected from among those
most likely to suffer adverse effects from site contaminants
or those considered representative of or critical to  the
ecosystem. Alternatively, the work scope could specify
receptors for further study because they are of concern for
statutory or other reasons (e.g., those species protected
under Federal law). When the RPM has satisfied these
criteria for choosing receptors, he or she can then consider
which of the species are most amenable to rapid and
inexpensive field evaluation. Field, laboratory, and litera-
ture studies conducted in the Problem Formulation phase
can also aid in selecting and characterizing receptors. The
exposure assessment should include information on feed-
ing habits, life history, and habitat preferences of receptors.
       To study exposure to contaminants, the workscope
might include additional chemical analyses and the mea-
surement or estimation of exposure point concentrations.
Chemical analysis of plant and animal tissues is one useful
technique for determining whether exposure to contami-
nants has  taken place.  For  contaminants known to
bioaccumulate, analysis of tissues from organisms repre-
senting different trophic levels (e.g., plant, herbivore, car-
nivore) also permits measurement of dietary exposure for
species that feed on contaminated qrganisms. Biochemi-
cal, physiological, and histological studies can also pro-
vide information about exposure of receptors to site con-
taminants.
       The work scope could also specify studying expo-
sure by means of fate-and-transport models.  Fate con-
cerns the ultimate chemical disposition of a contaminant,
such as remaining stable, undergoing photodegradation,
or combining with another substance. Transport, or mi-
gration, refers to the movement of a contaminant from one
medium to another, from one location to another within
the same medium, or into biota. Site characteristics, con-
taminants'  physical  and chemical properties, and
6 A functional evaluation of a wetland determines the importance of the wetland for such values as wildlife habitat, pollution abatement,
                                                                      1 as it relates to the need for remediation. Another
                                                                          , vegetation, and hydrology. The delineation
                                                 Site managers should consult with their BTAGs to determine which of these
studies are appropriate, if at all, and when they should be conducted.
May 1992 • Vol.1, No. 4
                                         ECO Update

-------
bioaccumulation studies provide information useful in
predicting the fate and transport of site contaminants.
Ecological Effects Assessment

       Ecological effects assessment links concentrations
of contaminants to adverse effects in receptors. Literature
reviews, field studies, and laboratory studies provide the
information for making this link. However, the ecological
assessment of a site may not require all three of these types
of studies.
       Field studies of populations and communities7
support ecological effects assessment by providing infor-
mation on the condition of populations of resident species
and on any contaminant-related  changes in ecological
communities. In their focus on resident populations, field
studies play a central role in identifying receptors. Such
studies also can allow investigators to collect samples for
laboratory analysis.
       Field studies focus on natural environments, in-
cluding freshwater,  marine, or terrestrial environments.
Aquatic field studies can include surveys of benthic (bot-
tom-dwelling) organisms and surveys of organisms in the
water column. Marine studies can also include surveys of
coastal and tidal areas. In terrestrial environments, field
studies may focus on vertebrates, invertebrates, or vegeta-
tion. An RPM also may need to conduct field studies in
such human-managed environments as residential neigh-
borhoods and other landscaped areas, since some wildlife
species make use of these areas for all or part of their life
cycle.
       Generally, habitats that are potentially or actually
exposed to contaminants require some field study. Con-
sulting with the BTAG will enable the RPM to select the
methods  and level of effort appropriate to the site and its
remedial objective.  Whenever possible, the work scope
should specify standard or commonly accepted field meth-
ods. A future ECO Update will provide information about
field studies useful at Superfund sites.
       Level of effort depends on the choice of qualita-
tive, semi-quantitative, or quantitative studies.  In some
cases, qualitative studies will adequately describe the habi-
tats and species at risk. However, most sites with sus-
pected adverse effects will require some semi-quantitative
or quantitative studies.  For example, at one site a semi-
quantitative approach for evaluating effects of stream pol-
lution might sufficiently characterize differences in species
composition between contaminated and uncontaminated
areas of a stream. But another site might require a more
detailed quantitative analysis to discern such differences.
       An important task in preparing  a  work scope
involves coordinating different types of studies. In an
ecological effects assessment,  simultaneous collection of
site chemistry data  and biological field data allows the
analysis to show clearly whether a correlation exists be-
tween contaminant presence and ecological effects.
       Toxicity tests (bioassays) constitute a major type of
study used in assessing ecological effects at Superfund
sites.  Toxicity tests expose selected organisms to water,
soil, or sediment from the site to determine  whether the
medium ad versely affects the organisms. Most commonly,
technicians perform these tests in laboratories using stan-
dard test organisms. However, toxicity tests also can occur
on-site and can use resident organisms.
       Especially for a site with only one or a few con-
taminants, toxicity tests can contribute to the weight of
evidence linking the contaminants to biological effects.
Specifically, while chemical analyses indicate the presence
of contaminants, they do not  indicate whether contami-
nants are bioavailable.8 In order to have a toxic effect, a
contaminant must be both bioavailable and toxic.  The
relationship between toxicity and site contaminants is less
easily interpreted for sites with a more complicated con-
taminant picture.
       The work scope should coordinate the collection
of site chemistry data and toxicity data. When the work
scope specifies that toxicity tests will occur in the labora-
tory, field scientists should collect samples for chemical
analyses and toxicity tests at the same time and in the same
place. When the work scope calls for in situ toxiciry tests,
chemical sampling should happen concurrently and at the
same locations. In this way, analysis of the data can most
clearly evaluate correlations between toxiciry results and
contaminant levels.
       Consulting closely with the BTAG can help the
RPM decide which tests are appropriate and the specific
conditions under which to conduct the tests. A future ECO
Update will focus on using toxicity tests in ecological as-
sessments.

Risk Characterization

       In ecological assessments, risk characterization
evaluates the evidence linking site contaminants with ad-
verse ecological effects. To characterize risk, the investiga-
7 A population is a group of organisms belonging to the same species and inhabiting a contiguous area. A community consists of populations
of different species living together.
8 Bioavariability is the presence of a substance in a form that organisms can take up.
 ECO Update
                                May 1992 • Vol. 1, No. 4

-------
tor evaluates all of the chemical and biological data relating
to the site, comparing the results of the exposure assess-
ment with the results of the ecological effects assessment.
In particular, fate and transport studies can provide evi-
dence of links between site contaminants and observed or
predicted effects.
       Also relevant to risk characterization are the re-
sults of the chemical analyses of media, toxicity testing,
and field studies. At some sites RPMs will have had these
studies conducted along contaminant gradients. Where
risk characterization establishes a link between contami-
nants and adverse effects, it should also describe the quali-
tative or quantitative ecological significance of these ef-
fects.
       A successful work scope is one that correctly an-
ticipates the types of studies that will provide  the data
needed for risk characterization.
  The  results  of  an  ecological
  assessment  support  the  re-
  medial decision-making process
  only if the data are scientifically
  defensible.
Quality Assurance

       The results of an ecological assessment support
the remedial decision-making process only if the data are
scientifically defensible. Usually, this means that the data
should be (1) accurate and (2) amenable to statistical analy-
ses (for quantitative studies). Data quality objectives are
qualitative and quantitative statements of the overall level
of uncertainty that a decision maker is willing to accept.
Consequently, data quality objectives reflect the statistical
design of the study and the level of significance needed to
support any conclusion that might be drawn from the
study. For example, the SOW should specify a sample size
large enough to account for natural variability to ensure
that DQOs are met. In reviewing the Work Plan, the RPM
should ensure that minimum sample sizes are specified for
statistically valid analyses, that significance criteria meet
the needs for remedial decision making, and that quality
control procedures are in place to ensure accuracy and
precision.
  Before approving  a Work Plan,
  the RPM should make certain that
  the  contractor  has  the  trained
  personnel, specialized facilities,
  and specialized  equipment  ne-
  cessary to carry out the work. If
  not,  qualified  subcontractors
  should be soughtfor those tasks
  where  their  qualifications  are
  needed.
      Quality assurance is the set of procedures that
ensure that the quality of data meets the needs of the user.
The Work Plan establishes quality assurance for field work
and laboratory analyses by specifying criteria for such
items as sample collection, sample handling, and numbers
of replicate analyses. Selecting standard methods speci-
fied in EPA or other Federal agency manuals (subject to
EPA approval), when these methods are appropriate, can
provide confidence of a stated level of quality assurance
because they have built-in quality control activities.
      Laboratories that conduct standard toxicity tests,
such as those required under the National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES), have in place quality
control procedures that are readily subject to review and
audit. Contractors experienced ii> conducting field studies
should also have standard procedures for ensuring accu-
racy and reproducibility in their work. As an example of
quality control in a field study, a survey of benthic inver-
tebrates could require an independent taxonomist to clas-
sify a randomly selected sub-set of the organisms identi-
fied by the study's field or laboratory staff.
      When the work scope specifies clear and appropri-
ate quality assurance procedures, the data collected should
satisfy the specified data quality indicators of precision,
accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and compa-
rability.

Ensuring Contractor Capability To Do
Work

      Ecological studies require trained personnel, and
some studies also require specialized facilities and equip-
ment.  Before approving a Work Plan, the RPM should be
May 1992 • Vol. 1, No. 4
                                     ECO Update

-------
satisfied that the contractor proposing to cany out the
work can do so. If not, qualified subcontractors should .be
sought for those tasks where their qualifications are needed.

Personnel

       In selecting a contractor, an RPM must look for a
direct match between contractor  qualifications and the
scope of work.  To this end, the RPM should request
information on the specific training and experience of
proposed individuals with respect to the specific tasks to
be undertaken.  For  example, if  a Work Plan calls for
sampling benthic invertebrates in a stream, those conduct-
ing the study should:

   •  Be familiar with the types of equipment (e.g., Surber
     sampler, artificial substrates) appropriate to the study
     site;

   •  Know how and where to collect samples (e.g., what
     kinds of stream bottoms support which species);

   •  Know what kinds of environmental data to collect
     along with the biological and chemical samples (e.g.,
     water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, hardness);
     and
   •  Have the requisite taxonomic expertise to identify
     the organisms (principally the larval stages of in-
     sects) collected.

       On the other hand, these  same individuals may
lack qualifications for conducting other types of studies,
such as wetland assessments or  the collection of small
mammals for tissue analysis. Although some experienced
biologists have developed considerable expertise working
in a wide  variety of habitats and  with a broad range of
species, many others are specialists in their fields and do
not know  the details of conducting studies outside their
specialty. Consequently, the RPM must ask for evidence of
specific individuals' capabilities  to carry out proposed
tasks. This evidence can consist of results of similar studies
conducted in the past  These results should demonstrate
that the contractor performed studies correctly and that the
resulting data served its intended  purpose.

Facilities and Equipment

       The RPM also should require a contractor to dem-
onstrate capability in terms of any specialized facilities and
equipment needed to conduct the studies selected for a
particular si te.  For example, most of the toxici ty tests used
to evaluate aquatic systems are standard procedures de-
veloped for NPDES. Many States have certification pro-
grams for laboratories that conduct NPDES toxicity tests.
If the work scope calls for such tests at a site, the RPM can
ask that the contractor use a laboratory certified in at least
one State (if possible, the State where the site is located),
and that the laboratory show proof that it has conducted
the same or similar tests in the recent past. Alternatively,
where a State and its neighboring States have no certifica-
tion program, the RPM can obtain the name of an appropri-
ate laboratory from the State agency charged with regulat-
ing NPDES permittees.  In the case of field sampling, the
STAG or Regional field biologists can evalua tea contractor's
capabilities.
       In all cases, contractors must possess both the
appropriate equipment and staff trained 'on  that equip-
ment. For instance, a commonly used method for collect-
ing fish involveselectroshock equipment that stun the fish,
causing them to float to the surface. Electroshock equip-
ment ranges in size from small backpack units to large
boat-mounted  units.  For both safety and efficacy, it is
essential to use the right size of equipment manned by a
crew familiar with its operation and safety requirements.

Review Of Interim And Final Products

       In keeping with the suggested phased approach,
the RPM should plan for BT AG review of interim products
such as initial site descriptions, initial field surveys, and
reports on specific studies such as toxicity test results or
field data. Such reviews  form the basis for revising the
work scope to account for the new findings.
       In addition to the interim  products mentioned
above, the RPM should have the BTAG review the  draft
Work Plan and the draft ecological assessment before the
contractor proceeds with the final version. With regard to
the draft ecological assessment, the RPM should particu-
larly request the BTAG to  comment on the quality of
studies and the validity of their findings.  The RPM will
also  want to know whether the data support any conclu-
sions about proposed remedial actions at the site.
Sample Work Scope

       The Appendix presents an example of the kinds of
components likely to occur in a typical work scope. Of
course, work scopes designed for particular sites will differ
significantly from the general one in the Appendix. An
RPM will find it necessary to tailor the work scope to the
specific conditions and objectives at an individual site.
 ECO Update
                                May 1992 • Vol. 1, No. 4

-------
        The example in the Appendix also demonstrates
how BTAG review of interim products can alter the scope
and level of effort for succeeding tasks.  The example
always states that  products are subject to review and
approval by the site manager, because the BTAG has no
official authority to approve or disapprove contractor work.
Nevertheless, wherever appropriate, the RPM should ask
the BTAG for review and advice on each product. In
scheduling a project, RPMs need to allow time for the
review process.  In fact, some Regional BTAGs require a
minimum review period.
        In addition to the general work scope in the Ap-
pendix, RPMs in several  Regions have available to them
generic work statements  or other guidance material pre-
pared by their BTAGs. RPMs should check with the BTAG
coordinator in their Region to obtain any such guidance.
      Conclusion

             This Bulletin has summarized the issues an RPM
      needs to address in developing work scopes for the eco-
      logical assessment of Superfund sites. Because every site
      presents a unique combination of study problems, RPMs
      should consider the expert advice of BTAG members as an
      essential part of the planning process  for these  assess-
      ments. These specialists should be consulted as early as
      possible in the planning stages  for a  site, and  should
      remain involved in the planning and oversight throughout
      the life of the project. By involving the BTAG in this way,
      the RPM can be assured that ecological as well as  human
      health effects will receive the full attention called for in the
      law and in Agency policy directives.
                             Figure 2 Ordering Tasks in an Ecological Assessment
                     An investigator can conduct simultaneously some of the tasks that a Work Plan details for an
                     ecological assessment. As indicated below, which tasks can occur simultaneously will vary somewhat
                     with the site. Note that Site 2 does not require Task 6 (Final Data Collection), indicating that Task 5
                     gathered all the data necessary for an ecological assessment
                            S/T01
                                                                                 Slte2
                                      Task 2
                                Site Reconnaissance Visit
              Tasks
            Data Collection
                        Task6
                    Final Data Collection
                                   Task 7
                              Risk Characterization
                                            TaskS
                                        Report Preparation

Task
Site Des

Task
Site Sett

Task 7
Risk Charade


ป
cription Site Reo
I
3 Tas
tening Draft of \
I
TaskS
Data Collection
1
Ta
rization Report F
1
Task 9
Report Revision


Task 2
onnaissance Visit

X4
rVorkPlan

sk8
'reparation

May 1992 • Vol.1, No. 4
10
ECO Update

-------
                                            APPENDIX
                  SUGGESTED TASKS IN PLANNING AND EXECUTING

                              AN ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT


       The following tasks can help a contractor in assembling an acceptably detailed and focused ecological assessment.
Wherever possible, these tasks should be coordinated with the human health assessment and any hydrogeologic investiga-
tions.
       A site's ecological assessment may not require all of the tasks.  For example, with site description (Task 1) and the
reconnaissance visit (Task 2) complete, the RPM may decide that the Work Plan can be drafted (Task 4) without any further
site characterization (Task 31
       Note also that an investigator can conduct certain tasks simultaneously rather than sequentially, greatly enhancing
the efficiency of the process (Figure 2). Precisely which tasks can occur simultaneously and which the investigator must
conduct sequentially depend upon the site.


Task 1.  Site Description

  Purpose:      Preliminary screening of the extent of contamination and the potential for adverse effects

  Description:    Qualitatively describe site based on existing data from the Preliminary Assessment, Site Inspection, and
                other sources, including:

                1. Physical description of the site and its surroundings, including photos and detailed maps

                2. Nature and extent of contamination by medium and contaminant type

                3. Site-associated habitats potentially exposed to contaminants

                4. Initial toxitity assessment of site contaminants with respect to environmental receptors, including
                    comparison to criteria and other benchmarks

  Submit interim report to site manager for review.


Task 2.  Site Reconnaissance  Visit

  Purpose:      Gather first-hand expert opinion of site's condition and suggestions about what, if any, studies are needed

  Description:    If authorized by site manager, prepare plan for site reconnaissance, including:

                1. Chemical and biological data needed for more complete initial site description '

                2. Methods to be used to collect necessary data

                3. Criteria for deciding whether and what future studies might be necessary

  Submit reconnaissance plan to site manager for review.


Tasks.  Site Screening

  Purpose:      With limited studies, identify and characterize habitats and characterize exposure and ecological effects.
                IFor some sites, information will suffice for risk characterization]


ECO Update                                        11                                 May 1992 • Vol. I, No. 4

-------
   Description:    If authorized by site manager, further characterize site based on field observations, including, as
                 appropriate:

                 1.  More detailed habitat identification and evaluation

                   a. Suitability for wildlife, including an endangered species consultation with State and Federal agencies

                  b. Ecosystem value and function (e.g., wetland functional analysis)

                 2.  Qualitative and semi-quantitative surveys of flora and fauna

                 3.  Toxicity tests

                 4.  Additional chemical sampling

                 5.  Identification of appropriate reference sites for comparison to each potentially exposed habitat

                 6.  Simple modeling of transport and exposure

   Submit interim report to site manager for review.

 Task A.   Draft of Work Plan

   Purpose:       Develop a plan that will provide any additional information about exposure and ecological effects that is
                 needed to characterize risk

   Description:    Draft detailed Work Plan for any further site investigations needed, including overall assessment objective
                 and, as appropriate:

                 1.  Qualitative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative surveys of flora and fauna in potentially
                    exposed, habitats and reference sites

                 2.  Chemical sampling of media and biota in potentially exposed habitats and reference sites

                 3.  Laboratory and in situ toxicity testing
                                                         * • \
                 4.  Tissue analyses, enzyme studies, and bioaccumulation studies

                 5.  Simple modeling of fate and transport

                 For each proposed study above, provide:

                   a. Objectives of the study, effects to be measured, and relevance to overall risk assessment objectives at
                      the site

                   b. Proposed field or laboratory methods and their risk-based detection limits (where appropriate), with
                      appropriate references to Agency guidelines or other source

                   c. Criteria for determining sampling locations, expected sampling locations (including detailed maps),
                      sampling dates, and sample sizes

                   d. Benchmark, or background values, where appropriate

                   e. Statistical methods to be used and data quality indicators to meet statistical significance criteria

                   f. Quality assurance procedures and quality control techniques.

   Submit Work Plan to site manager for review and approval.  Revise per site manager's direction.
May 1992 • Vol. 1, No. 4                                   12                                             ECO Update

-------
Task 5.  Data Collection

  Purpose:      Gather necessary data regarding exposure and ecological effects

  Description:   Conduct those studies approved by site manager for immediate execution. Submit interim reports to site
                manager for review.


Task 6.  Final Data Collection

  Purpose:       Based on findings of studies conducted, identify and collect any final data needed to assess exposure and
                ecological effects

  Description:   Revise Work Plan per site manager's direction.  Conduct next phase of studies as approved by site
                manager.  Submit interim reports to site manager for review.  Repeat this step as needed. Task 6 is an
                iterative process that will lengthen or shorten, depending on the results of studies.


Task 7.  Risk Characterization

  Purpose:    Validate the data and their interpretation, and characterize risk.

  Description: Prepare the following for review by site manager

              1. Summary of biological and chemical data

              2. Detailed outline of ecological assessment


Task 8.  Report Preparation

  Purpose:      Prepare data for presentation.

  Description:   Prepare draft ecological assessment.

  NOTE:        Depending on the scope and level of effort decided on by the site manager, not all of the elements listed
                below may appear in a given assessment.  For instance, not all sites will require toxicity testing or the full
                array of quantitative field studies.  The following outline should be modified to account for the studies
                actually undertaken at the site with the approval of the site manager.

                1. Initial site description and potential receptors (include detailed maps wherever appropriate)

                  a. Physical description of the site

                  b. Nature and extent of contamination by medium and contaminant type

                  c. Potentially exposed habitats

                            (i) Surface water habitats

                            (ii) Wetlands

                            (iii) Terrestrial habitats

                            (iv) Sensitive or critical habitats

                  d. Potentially exposed species

                            (i) Vegetation
ECO Update
13
May 1992 • Vol. 1, No. 4

-------
                              (ii) Invertebrates

                              (iii) Vertebrates

                              (iv) Special concern species

                 2. Selection of contaminants, species, and ecological effects of concern

                   a. Contaminants of concern and rationale for selection

                   b. Species of concern and rationale for selection

                   c. Ecological effects of concern, acceptable and unacceptable levels of effects, temporal and spatial scales
                      of concern, and rationale for selection

                 3. Exposure assessment

                   a. Sources and exposure pathways of contaminants of concern

                   b. Fate and transport analysis

                   c. Exposure scenarios

                   d. Estimated exposure point concentrations by habitat, species, and exposure scenario

                   e. Uncertainty analysis

                 4. Ecological effects assessment

                   a. Known effects of contaminants of concern (from literature)

                   b. Site-specific toxicity tests—laboratory and in situ

                   c. Existing toxicity-based criteria and standards

                   d. Uncertainty analysis

                 5. Risk Characterization

                   a. Observed adverse effects in potentially exposed habitats compared to reference sites

                              (i) Mortality and morbidity

                              (ii) Vegetation stress

                              (iii) Habitat degradation

                              (iv) Presence or absence of key species

                              (v) Population assessment of key species

                              (vi) Community indices

                              (vii) Ecosystem function, such as decomposition or nutrient recycling

                   b. Analysis of contaminant concentrations in relation to observed adverse effects

                   c. Analysis of bioaccumulation studies

                   d. Analysis of toxicity test results in relation to observed adverse effects


May 1992 • Vol. 1, No. 4            '                      14                                              ECO Update

-------
                  e. Comparison of estimated exposure point concentrations with criteria and standards

                   f. Comparison of estima ted exposure point concentrations with toxicity data and / or toxici ty values from
                      literature, as appropriate

                   g.  Likely ecological risks associated with present and future land use scenarios

                   h.  Ecologically relevant ARARs

                   i. Ecological considerations in selecting remedial alternatives (including no action)

                   j. Uncertainty analysis

  Submit draft ecological assessment to site manager for review.

Task 9. Report Revision

  Purpose:       Prepare final presentation of ecological assessment

  Description:    Revise draft ecological assessment  per site manager's review comments and submit final ecological
                 assessment for inclusion in Rl/FS.
ECO Update                                            15                                    May 1992 • Vol. I. No. 4

-------
  X-/EPA
                               United States
                               Environmental Protection
                               Agency
                       Office of
                       Solid Waste and
                       Emergency Response
Publication 9345.0-051
.August 1992
ECO   Update
  Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
  Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (OS-230)
                                           Intermittent Bulletin
                                           Volume 1, Number 5
Briefing  the BTAG:  Initial Description  of
Setting,  History, and Ecology of a  Site
      For many Superfund sites, contaminants can cause
  ecological harm as well as posing risks to human health. Pan
  of the responsibility that a Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
  must carry out during the site remediation process is to
  assess whether ecological barm has occurred or may occur.
  Many Regions have Biological Technical Assistance Groups
  (BTAGs) to assist RPMs in managing such assessments.1
      This Bulletin focuses on the first opportunity that an
  RPM has for conferring with the BTAG  about possible
  ecological effects at a site. This meeting usually occurs early
  in the planning stages of the Remedial Investigation (RI). At
  this stage in the Superfund process, the RPM will have the
  contractor review whatever information is readily available
  about the site's setting, history, contaminants, and ecologi-
  cal characteristics. The RPM then makes this information
  available to the BTAG as a site description. This group's
  input assists the RPM in providing the contractor with clear
  direction for planning a well-focused investigation: that is,
  one that has clear-cut objectives and that makes the most
  efficient use of limited resources.2 The RPM should find
  that expert input at this early stage results in long-term
  savings in both the time and effort needed to evaluate a site's
  ecological condition.
      Although the initial meeting with the  BTAG has the
  same purpose and scope throughout EPA Regions, the
  details of such ameeting can vary considerably from Region
  to Region. When preparing  the site description for this
  meeting, the RPM  should contact the Region's BTAG
  coordinator to learn how the Region handles these briefings.
                             IN THIS BULLETIN

                 Objective of Initial Site Description	2
                 Sources of Information about the Site	2
                 Information in the Site Briefing	2
                 STAG'S Preview	5
                 The Meeting	5
                 BTAG's Recommendations	5
                 Meeting Follow-Up	5
                 Appendix A: Check Sheet	7
                     ' These groups are sometimes known by different names,
                 depending on the Region, and not all Regions have established
                 BTAGs. Readers should check with the appropriate Superfund
                 manager for the name of the BTAG coordinator or other sources of
                 technical assistance in their Region. A more complete description
                 of BTAG structure and function is available in The Role of
                 BTAGs in Ecological Assessment" (ECO Update Vol. 1, No. 1).
                     ' "Developing a Work Scope for Ecological Assessments"
                 (ECO Update Vol. 1, No. 4) discusses the process of planning and
                 designing ecological assessments.
  ECO Update is a Bulletin series on ecological assessment of Superfund sites. These Bulletins serve as supplements to Risk Assessment Guidance
  for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual (EPA/540-1 -89/001). The information presented is btended as guidance to EPA and
  other government employees. It does not constitute rulemaking by tlie Agency, and may not be relied on to create a substantive or procedural right
  enforceable by any other person. The Government may take action that is at variance with these Bulletins.
                                                                  "I. - Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
 The Objective of the Initial  Site
 Description: Assessing Whether
 More Ecological Information is
 Needed

     The initial site description begins the process of evaluating
 whether a site's contaminants have caused or could later cause
 adverse ecological effects. By reviewing readily available infor-
 mation about the site's setting, history, contaminants, and ecologi-
 cal characteristics, the BTAG can assess whether the site requires
 further investigation. Although little site-specific data may exist at
 this stage of the Rl, providing the BTAG with this information will
 assist in evaluating the site.
     What types of recommendations can an RPM expect to hear
 after presenting the site to the BTAG? For some sites, the BTAG
 may decide that no significant ecological impact has occurred en-
 is likely to occur and that consequently the site requires no further
 ecological investigation. In other cases, the BTAG may advise the
 RPM to pursue further ecological studies. In these instances, the
 BTAG will be able to suggest:

  •  What information is lacking,
  •  Which studies will elicit this information, and
  •  What level of effort is appropriate to obtaining the
     information.
 Sources of Information
 about the Site

     The investigator3 bases the site description for the initial
 briefing on information about the site and its surroundings. Studies
 and reports already in the site's record contain useful information.
 For example, both the Preliminary Assessment (PA) and the Site
 Inspection (SI) can provide a description of the site's geographical
 setting, known or suspected contaminants, and general informa-
 tion about the surrounding area.
     The investigator may also find that State agencies or local
 groups have useful information about the site. For example, if the
 site contains a fishing stream, the State fish and game agency may
 routinely monitor fish species. University researchers may have
 conducted biological surveys at or near the  site. Environmental
 impact statements concerning nearby facilities or projects may
 have additional data on natural resources in the area. Historical
 societies, fish and game clubs, local or State chapters of such
 organizations as the Audubon Society or Nature Conservancy, and
    3 The term "investigator" refers to the individual charged with
responsibility for designing and/or carrying out any pan of an
ecological assessment Investigators can include government sci-
entists, contractors, or university scientists. However, the RPM
retains ultimate responsibility for the quality of the ecological
assessment.
 local experts, such as foresters, soil conservation specialists, and
 naturalists, also may have information relevant to a site descrip-
 tion. In particular,  such groups may have lists of habitats andj
 species found in the area.
     In some Regions, field reconnaissance trips occur even at this
 early stage, with the RPM, the contractor, and a BTAG member
 visiting the site. Observing and studying the site enables the BTAG
 member to carry back to the group an expert's first-hand observa-
 tions. Such observations are especially helpful at this point in the
 Superfund process  when  few, if any,  ecological studies  have
 occurred.  For  example, a BTAG  member may identify  dense
 growth of a species associated with polluted sites or, alternatively.
 may note the absence of expected species.
     RPMs need to be aware that Regions vary in their policies
 concerning field reconnaissance visits. Consequently, an RPM
 who wishes to have a BTAG member present on such a visit needs
 to consult the BTAG coordinator to find out whether and when this
 can take place.
The Information
in the Site Briefing

    The information contained in a site briefing varies with the
nature of the site and its contaminants, the sources of information
available about the site, and the evaluations already performed
there. However, an RPM should keep in mind that the more the
BTAG learns about a site, the more specific direction it can offerj
The Appendix at the end of this Bulletin provides a check sheet thai
RPMs may wish to use to make certain that the site description is
as detailed as  possible, given the  information that is readily
available to the contractor at this early stage. In most cases, the site
description will lack some of the information listed in the Appen-
dix. Such gaps can prove helpful in pointing to issues that may
require further investigation.


The Setting
    A site's setting includes its geographical location (including
coordinates) and its surroundings. The setting should include the
site's town, county, and State and should describe the land use of
the area around it. Land use upstream and downstream of the site
also constitutes important information about the setting. Land uses
may include industrial, business, residential, military, agricultural,
recreational, and undeveloped. The setting should note especially
such natural areas as parks, refuges, wetlands, and coastal zones.
    The BTAG will also find helpful a description of the general
topography of the area associated with the site. Consequently, the
site description should include such information as whether the site
is wooded or open, flat or hilly, marshy or dry. The setting should
describe surface water associated with the site, along with such
related information as the water body's location, size, depth. an
flow rate,  where applicable. A description of the aquifer,
overlying strata, and the ground water discharge  area is  also
important to the site' s description. The site' s elevation, its size, and
its accessibility may prove useful to know. Investigators can find
August 1992 • Vol. l.No.5
                                            ECO

-------
 some of this information in the topographical maps published by
 the U.S. Geological Survey and in the National Wetlands Inven-
 tory maps. Geographical Information Systems available in the
 Regions may also provide additional information on natural re-
 sources in the vicinity of the  site. While the setting generally
 contains several pieces of information, this description need not be
 lengthy.
      To appreciate the relevance of this information, consider the
 following hypothetical examples:

      An abandoned mine.  One Superfund site consisted of land
 containing a former nickel mine and the area that it had contami-
 nated. The RPM' s description of the site' s setting indicated that the
 site occupied a steep mountain slope, which received heavy snow
 cover in winter. Contaminants from the  mine had leached into
 streams that drained the area. These streams in turn emptied into
 a larger stream, which local anglers fished for brook trout before
 it flowed  into a National Park. This  description of the setting
 alerted the BTAG to several important facts about the site:

   •   Because of the slope's steepness, at least pan of the site was
      not easily accessible, making it difficult and possibly costly
      to assess the ecological condition of these parts of the site.
   •   Both heavy rains and the annual spring melt resulted in
      continuing migration of contaminants into streams draining
      the site.
   •   The presence of a National Park downstream from the site
      indicated that site contamination had the potential  to ad-
      versely affect a sensitive environment.

     An industrial site.   This consisted of a small wooded area
 bordered by several  factories. The soil  in  the  woodland  had
 become contaminated with refuse from the factories. No ponds or
 streams occurred on this flat site. In addition, the site's geology
 indicated that ground water lay below an impervious layer. Be-
 cause industrial plants surrounded the site, the site lacked surface
 water, and its contaminants had no access to ground water, the
 BTAG concluded that off-site migration of contaminants would
 occur only through movement of biota.

     A former landfill.  This site consisted of a  former landfill
 operation located in a wetland that overlay a shallow aquifer.
 Streams from the wetland fed a river protected by  the  State.
 Residences and industrial facilities occupied the properties adja-
 cent to the landfill. From this description, the BTAG concluded
 that:

  •  As a wetland, this site merited special concern;
  •  The streams provided a means of off-site contaminant migra-
     tion to the surrounding area;
  •  Migration of contaminants into the aquifer could occur, with
     any discharge of ground  water into surface water further
     spreading the contaminants; and
  •  The river constituted a sensitive environment because it was
     a body of water designated by the State for the protection of
     aquatic life.
 The Site's History

     The site's history includes information about the events that
 have resulted in its being designated a Superfund site. In general.
 the PA and the SI recount the site* s contaminant history, indicating
 both the activities that caused the contamination and the length of
 time over which these activities occurred. As with the setting, this
 information helps the BTAG to develop a picture of the site. In
 addition, such information can indicate contaminants potentially
 associated with the site. Consider again the  three hypothetical
 Superfund sites described above.

     The abandoned mine. The old mining site had been worked
 for 30 years before its  closing. For more than 30 years, then.
 tailings had been exposed on the mountainside. From this informa-
 tion, the BTAG discerned that contaminants from the mine had had
 many years to leach into the soil, the streams that drain the
 mountainside, and the sediments in these  streams and that con-
 tamination was on-going.

     The industrial site.  The contaminated woodland surrounded
 by factories had had a shorter but more diverse history of contami-
 nation than the nickel mine. Industrial activities, including electro-
 plating and plastics manufacture, had been occurring in me build-
 ings surrounding the site for 15 years. In general, the plants had
 accurate records of the chemicals and the amounts they had used.
 From this information, the BTAG concluded that it had a clear and
 complete account of the site's history and required no further
 information on the site's history.

     The former landfill. The landfill site presented a different
 picture. Few records existed to show which chemicals the facility
 received and in what amounts. The RPM learned that the operation
 did not dispose  of contaminants  properly, frequently  pouring
 liquid wastes directly onto the ground. This sketchy history alerted
 the BTAG that they could only guess at the precise nature and
 extent of contamination.
The Contaminants of Concern

     The BTAG will want to know what contaminants are associ-
ated with the site and in which media and in what concentrations
they occur. The RPM should also provide the BTAG with the
results of chemical analyses that have already been performed at
the site. The BTAG will want to  know  where samples were
collected and, where applicable, at what depth(s). The contractor
should research whether the contaminant levels exceed Federal
Ambient Water Quality Criteria, State Water Quality Standards, or
other widely accepted screening values. The BTAG. in turn, may
compare a site's contaminant concentrations with concentrations
known to cause adverse ecological effects to biota.
     If a site has a large number of contaminants, tracking all of
them may prove unwieldy. The BTAG may be able to advise the
RPM as to which contaminants to choose as contaminants of
concern. Alternatively, the  BTAG  may advise that additional
analyses be performed to document the presence of certain con-
taminants at specific areas of the site or in various media.
ECO Uodate
                                 August 1992 • Vol. 1, No. 5

-------
      The abandoned mine.  At the old mining site, the BTAG
 recognized that soil, surface water, and sediment were all poten-
 tially contaminated with  metals. Since the chemical analyses
 performed during the SI concentrated mainly on surface water, the
 BTAG advised chemical testing of soil and sediment In addition,
 the analyses of surface water lacked a reference site, so the BTAG
 suggested that future analyses include an upstream water sample.

      The industrial site.   Because of  the variety of industrial
 facilities adjacent to the site, the initial site chemistry included both
 inorganics and organics. Since some of the organics were volatile,
 the SI had analyzed air as well as soil. The variety of contaminants
 present at  this site made it advisable for any future ecological
 assessment to focus on a subset of the contaminants. To this end,
 the BTAG advised the RPM as to which chemicals to consider the
 contaminants of concern.

     The former landfill.   Because of the sparse history of the
 landfill,  the BTAG regarded both organics and inorganics as
 potential contaminants and soils, sediments, surface water, and air
 as potentially contaminated media. Consequently, the BTAG
 advised chemical analyses more extensive than those conducted as
 part of the SI. The BTAG also suggested that the RI examine
 contamination of the river.  As at the woodland site, this site had a
 large number of contaminants, and the BTAG offered the RPM
 advice on selecting contaminants of concern.
Ecological  Description

     This part of the site  description helps the BTAG decide
whether the contaminants and their history at the site represent a
potential for ecological harm to the area associated with the site. In
preparing this description,  the RPM should make full use of all
readily available information.
     Central to an ecological description is a list of the habitats,
which are types of environments, associated with a site. These
include wetlands, woodlands, grasslands,  open fields, ponds,
streams, estuaries, coastal zones, and other natural areas.
     The ecological description also includes geological informa-
tion, such as  hydrology, sediment types, and soil  types. Conse-
quently, the RPM needs to describe all surface waters-lakes,
ponds, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), and flood-
plains--^ greater detail than was required for the site's setting. The
topographical maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey can .
provide much of this information. Maps providing information
about floodplains include the Flood Insurance Rate Maps and the
Flood Hazard Boundary Maps published by the Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency. For areas largely owned by the State
or Federal government, the controlling agency generally  has
information about floodplains. The SI may contain measurements
of soil and sediment parameters. Such information  enables the
BTAG to decide whether the contaminants of concern are likely to
adsorb to the  site's soil and sediment.
     Whatever information  the RPM has about plants and animals
in the site-associated area also belongs in the ecological descrip-
tion. In addition to species spending all or most of their time in the
site-associated area, this information should include migratory
 species and species using the area during only pan of their life
 cycle. Some sites may have species of special interest, such as
 game species. Federal- or State-listed endangered or threatened
 species, or species protected under other statutes.

     The abandoned mine.  An ecological description of the old
 mining site showed that it bad no ponds or lakes but did contain a
 number of fastfiowing streams with hard, gravelly sediments. The
 fishing stream into which these emptied had finer sediments. This
 information led the BTAG to conclude that the streams with the
 gravelly beds probably had little or no adsorbed contaminants but
 the fishing stream's finer sediments may have adsorbed contami-
 nants from the water column. As to the area's biota, State surveys
 indicated that brook trout, minnows, dace, shiners, and suckers all
 inhabited the streams. The local Audubon chapter provided a list
 of bird species sighted in the area. Hunters routinely took deer and
 occasionally bear. The  team  that made  the site visit reported
 spotting several squirrels and chipmunks and noted that vegetation
 consisted largely of pine and birch trees with limited undergrowth.
 The flora and fauna described for the site held no surprises for the
 BTAG.

     The industrial site. While researching the site, me investiga-
 tor learned that a State-listed endangered species inhabited wood-
 lands in this general area, raising the possibility that the site could
 be home to members of this species.  With respect to vegetation,
pine trees dominated the site, which  also contained grasses and
 shrubs. In places the dry sandy soil was bare of vegetation. The
 BTAG suggested that the RPM have additional chemical analyses
performed on soil samples from this  part of the site. No readily
available information existed as to the site's resident animals.

     The former landfill   Because this area was a wetland, the
BTAG had concerns about potential  cross-media contamination
between soil and surface water. With respect to vegetation, the SI
noted that shrubs and grasses dominated the area's vegetation and
that the pollution-tolerant marsh  plant Phragmites grew abun-
dantly at the site.
Known Ecological Effects

    In addition to the ecological description, the investigator may
have information about known or suspected ecological harm at a
site. For example, the site may have an abundance of a "nuisance"
or pollution-tolerant species. Alternatively, an expected species
may be absent, or present only in small numbers. Local sport and
nature groups or State agencies may  have information about
changes in the condition or abundance of certain species.

    The abandoned mine.  In the course of routine surveys of the
fishing stream, the State noted that a decline in the population  of
several species, including brook trout, had occurred over the past
ten years.

    The industrial siie. The bare areas of the woodland site gave
evidence of ecological impact.
August 1992 • Vol. I. No. 5
                                              ECO Update

-------
      The former landfill.  The abundant growth of Phragmites,
 known for its association with polluted wetlands, suggested a
 disturbed ecological condition.

      At this stage of the investigation, the available information
 can only suggest possibilities for future study. Demonstrating a
 causal  link between site contaminants  and ecological effects
 requires considerably more evidence.


 The STAG'S Preview

      In many cases, this briefing represents the first time that the
 BTAG has encountered the site. Having materials ahead of time
 enables the group's members to familiarize themselves with the
 site. By providing these materials, the RPM enables the BTAG to
 give more thoughtful and informed advice about handling the site.
 BTAG coordinators have indicated that members sometimes take
 this opportunity to consult additional outside experts.
     Precisely which materials the BTAG members ask to preview
 varies considerably among the Regions. These documents could
 include the documents relating to the site, such as the PA and the
 SI; all materials that will be used at the meeting; or a * distilled"
 version of  these materials. The RPM will need to check with the
 BTAG coordinator to find out which materials to supply.
     At the very least,  however, the RPM should provide the
 BTAG with a brief description and history of the site. Many BTAG
 coordinators indicate that members find a copy of the SI helpful at
 this time. In addition, a map of the site helps in following the details
 of a site description. The RPM should include among the pre-
 meeting materials the reasons for the site's listing and any addi-
 tional information that has expanded the reasons for the listing.
The Meeting
     EPA Regions have developed two ways of dealing with the
BTAG's first meeting concerning a site. In some Regions the RPM
introduces the site in a presentation that generally lasts no longer
than 30 minutes. The presentation covers the information that the
RPM has assembled: the site's setting, history, contaminants,
ecological description, and any evidence of ecological impact
BTAG coordinators indicate that members find maps and photo-
graphs particularly useful visual aids at these  briefings. Maps
should show the source of contamination, the direction in which it
is moving, and the nearest potentially exposed habitats (Figure 1).
     In other EPA Regions, the BTAG gathers specifically to
discuss the SI or the document on which the RPM is currently
working. Here the RPM  does  not make a formal presentation.
Instead, be or she attends  the meeting to answer questions and to
 bear the BTAG's input first hand. Even in these Regions, however.
• the BTAG may expect the RPM to present a brief description of the
 site's setting and a short account of its contaminant history.


 The BTAG's Recommendations

     An important part of this initial meeting is the open discus-
 sion, during which BTAG members ask questions and  develop
 suggestions for the site. At this time, the BTAG will  offer its
 advice.

   •  The group may decide that a site does not pose a significant
     present or future ecological risk. In such a case, the BTAG
     will advise the RPM that the site does not require any further
     ecological assessment.
   •  Before deciding what to recommend with regard to future
     ecological studies, the BTAG may decide  that the group
     needs more information. In this case the BTAG's recommen-
     dation will include suggestions as to the studies that could
     provide the additional information.
   •  The BTAG's evaluation of the available data may lead it to
     conclude that the site has a significant potential for ecological
     impact and should undergo an ecological assessment The
     BTAG will then offer advice on the types of studies that will
     elicit pertinent information and the level of effort commensu -
     rate with the adverse effect suspected.


 Follow-Up  of the Meeting

     After the meeting has ended, the RPM will most likely want
 a written record of the meeting's results. How such a record comes
 into existence varies with the Region. In some Regions, the RPM
 receives a copy of the minutes or a memorandum prepared by one
 or more members of the BTAG. This document provides the RPM
 with a copy of the BTAG's recommendations in the BTAG's own
 words. Other Regions have the RPM prepare minutes, summariz-
 ing both the presentation (if one occurred) and the BTAG'sadvice.
 BTAG coordinators in these Regions say that this approach en-
 ables them to confirm that the RPM has understood the  group's
 suggestions. Regardless of who prepares the record, it is generally
 available no later than two weeks following the meeting.
     The record of this first meeting constitutes a succinct descrip-
 tion of the site, its contaminant history, and the BTAG's initial
 recommendations. RPMs may wish to copy this record, along with
 a map, to BTAG members to refresh their memories about a site the
 next time it comes up for review. Alternatively, RPMs can accom-
 plish the same end by copying the check sheet (see Appendix) to
 BTAG members.
ECO Update
                               August 1992 • Vol. 1. No. 5

-------
   A Map Style Useful for the Initial Site Briefing
                           Figure 1
^
                                                              fled'
                                                                  oc*ปnฐ
   Many BTAG members have found this style of map helpful in
   visualizing a Superfund site with which they are unfamiliar.
   Arrows indicate the direction in which runoff flows.

-------
          Appendix A; Check Sheet for  Ecological Description of Site
     Setting
     1.  What are the land uses/facilities'in the vicinity of the site?
               North	
               South	
               East	
               West	;	
        What directions do contaminant gradients follow?
               Surface water, sediment	
               Soil     	
               Ground wate.
     2.  What is the site's highest elevation?.
        What is its lowest elevation?	
    3.  Is the site readily accessible?   ___Yes    	No
        If No, explain:	
    4. For each pair of descriptors, circle the one that best describes the site.
               wooded/open           hilly/flat       marshy/dry
               Other	
    5. Does the site contain or drain into surface water?   	Yes   	No
       IfYes,whattype(s)?
           Pond or lake
              Location	
              Area 	
              Average Depth (or .depth range).
ECO Update                                          7                               Augusi 1992 • Vol. 1, No. 5

-------
          Stream or river (including intermittent streams):
                 Location	
                 Length	
                 Average Width (or width range
                 Average Depth (or depth range
                 Type(s) of bottom	
                 Row rate	
         Estuary/embayment:
                 Location	
                 Area  	
                 Average Depth (or depth range).
                 Type(s) of bottom	
         List any known parameters of site-associated surface water.
                 pH	   Temperature	    Dissolved Oxygen.
                 Total Suspended Solids	
                 Total Organic Carbon	
                 Hardness	
                 Salinity	____
                 Other (specify.
         List any known sediment parameters of site-associated bodies of surface water.
                Sediment type(s)	.
                Grain Size	   pH	     Eh	    pE	
                Total Organic Carbon	
                Acid-Volatile Sulfides
                Other (specify	
                (If more than one surface water body of each type, repeat information as needed.)

     6.  Does the site contain or drain into wetlands?  	Yes     	No
        If Yes, what type(s) and size(s)?
        List any known surface water and sediment parameters of site wetlands, as in #5, above.
August 1992 • Vol. 1, No. 5                                    8                                               ECO Update

-------
      7.  Describe sub-surface hydrology.
         Overlying strata	
         Aquifer	
         Depth to aquifer
         Location of groundwater discharge
     Ecological Description
     8.  List and describe habitats that occur at the site.
                 Woodlands	
                 Grasslands/open fields
                 Wetlands	
                 Ponds 	
                 Streams
                 Estuaries
                 Coastal zones
                 Flood plains _
                 Other natural areas
         List any known soil and sediment parameters for each terrestrial habitat.
                 Soil type(s	
                 Grain Size	     pH	      Eh	     pE.
                 Total Organic Carbon	;	
                 Total Phosphorus	
                 Nitrogen forms	;	
                 Other	:	
     9.  Are any Federally or State listed endangered or threatened species  known or suspected to occur on or near the site?
         	Yes     	No
        If yes, list:  \
ECO Update                                                 9                                   August 1992 • Vol. 1. No. 5

-------
      1C. Does tbe site bave any game species or species of interest for another reason?   	Yes     	No
         If yes, list:
     Known Ecological Effects
     11. Does the site show any evidence of adverse ecological effects?   	Yes     	No
         If yes, describe:
     12. Documentation attached:
        	Site map(s)
        	PA
        	SI
        ___ Contaminant concentration 
-------
 USEPA Regional  BTAG  Coordinators/Contacts
EPA HEADQUARTERS

Ruth Bleyler
Toxics Integration Branch (OS-230)
OERR/HSED
USEPA
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 603-8816
(703) 603-9104 FAX

David Charters
ERT
USEPA (MS-101)
2890 Woodbridge Ave., Bldg. 18
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
(908) 906-6826
(908) 906-6724 FAX

Steve Ells
Elaine Suriano
OWPE
USEPA (OS-510)
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-9803
(202) 260-3106 FAX

Joseph Tieger
USEPA (OS-510W)
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 308-2668
REGION 1

Susan Svirsky
Waste Management Division
USEPA Region 1 (HSS-CAN7)
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 573-9649
(617) 573-9662 FAX
REGION 2

Sharri Stevens
Surveillance Monitoring Branch
USEPA Region 2 (MS-220)
Woodbridge Avenue
Raritan Depot Building 209
Edison, NJ 08837
(908) 906-6994
(908) 321-6616 FAX
REGION 3

Robert Davis
Technical Support Section
USEPA Region 3 (3HW13)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 59"-3155
(215) 597-9890 FAX
REGION 4

Lynn Wellman
WSMD/HERAS
USEPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-1586
(404) 347-0076 FAX
REGION 5

Eileen Helmer
USEPA Region 5 (5HSM-TUB7)
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, JL 60604-1602
(312)886-4828
(312) 886-7160 FAX
REGION 6

Jon Rauscher
Susan Swenson Roddy
USEPA Region 6 (6H-SR)
First Interstate Tower
1445  Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 655-8513
(214) 655-6762 FAX

REGION 7
Bob Koke
SPFD-REML
USEPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7468
(913) 551-7063 FAX

REGION 8

Gerry Henningsen
USEPA Region 8
Denver Place, Suite 500
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303) 294-7656
(303) 293-1230 FAX

REGION 9

Doug Steele
USEPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-2309
(415) 744-1916 FAX

REGION 10

Bruce Duncan
USEPA Region 10 (ES-098)
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, W A 98101
(206)553-8086
(206) 553-0119 FAX
BTAG Forum
            11
                September 1992

-------
Section 6

-------
APPENDIX A
 Bibliography

-------
                                  BIBLIOGRAPHY
COURSE MATERIALS

U.S. EPA.  1989. Ecological assessment of hazardous waste sites: A field and laboratory reference.
EPA/600/3-89/013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

U.S. EPA.  1989. Risk assessment guidance for Superfund:  Volume I - human health evaluation
manual (part A baseline risk assessment). Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/0020.  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.

U.S. EPA.  1989.  Risk assessment guidance for Superfund: Volume II - environmental evaluation
manual. Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/001. U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1991. Risk assessment guidance for Superfund:  Volume I - human health evaluation
manual part B:  Development of preliminary remediation goals.   EPA/540/R-92/003.   U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1991. Risk assessment guidance for Superfund:  Volume I - human health evaluation
manual part C: Risk evaluation of remedial alternatives.  EPA/540/R-92/004.  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1991. Risk assessment guidance for  Superfund.  Volume I:  Human health evaluation
manual supplemental guidance:  Standard  default exposure factors.  Interim Final Report.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Toxics Integration
Branch, Washington, PC.

U.S. EPA.   1992.  Supplemental guidance to  RAGS: Calculating the exposure term.   OSWER
Publication 9285.7 7-081.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Intermittent Bulletin Volume 1
Number 1.
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Barber, M.C., L.A. Suarez, and R.R. Lassiter.  1987.  FGETS (food and gill exchange of toxic
substances): a simulation model for predicting bioaccumulation of nonpolar organic pollutants by
fish.  EPA/600/3-87/038.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Athens, GA.

Barker, J.R., and D.T. Tingey (eds).  1992.  Air pollution effects on biodiversity.  Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.

Baudo, R., J.  Giesey, and H. Muntau  (eds).  1990. Sediments: Chemistry and toxicity of in-place
pollutants. Lewis Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.

8/93                                      1                               Bibliography

-------
Bird, S.L., J.M. Cheplick, and D.S. Brown.  1991. Preliminary testing, evaluation, and sensitivity
analysis for the terrestrial ecosystem exposure assessment model  (TEEAM).   EPA/600/3-91/019.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.

Burton, G.A., Jr. (ed).  1992.  Sediment toxicity assessment.  Lewis Publishers Inc., Boca Raton,
FL.

Calabrese, E.J.,  and;L.A. Baldwin.   1993.  Performing ecological risk assessments.  Lewis
Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.                                               '

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.  1979.  Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States.  FWS/OBS-79/31.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office
of Biological Services, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

Eisler^ R. 1985.  Cadmium hazards to fish,  wildlife, and invertebrates:  A  synoptic review.  U.S.
Fish Wildl.  Serv. Biol. Rep. 85  (1.23).  46 pp.
                                                                                   I
Eisler, R. 1986.  Diazinon hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates:  A  synoptic review.  U.S.
Fish Wildl.  Serv. Biol. Rep. 85  (1.9).  37 pp.

Eisler, R. 1986. Dioxjn hazards to  fish, wildlife, and invertebrates:  A synoptic review.  U.S. Fish
Wildl.  Serv. Biol.  Rep\ 85 (1.8). 37 pp.

Eisler, R. 1987.  Mercury hazards  to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates:  A  synoptic review.  U.S.
Fish Wildl.  Serv. Biol. Rep. 85  (1.10).  90 pp.

Eisler, R. 1987.  Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates:  A
synoptic review.  U.S. Fish Wildl.  Serv. Biol. Rep. 85  (1.11). 81 pp.

Eisler, R. 1988. Arsenic hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic review.  U.S. Fish
Wildl.  Serv. Biol.  Rep. 85 (1.12).  92 pp.

Eisler, R. 1988. Lead hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic review.  U.S. Fish
Wildl.  Serv. Biol.  Rep. 85 (1.14).  134 pp.

Eisler, R. 1989. Molybdenum hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates:  A synoptic review.  U.S.
Fish Wildl.  Serv. Biol. Rep. 85  (1.19).  61 pp.

Eisler, R. 1989.  Atrazine hazards  to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates:  A  synoptic review.  U.S.
Fish Wildl.  Serv. Biol. Rep. 85  (1.18).  53 pp.

Eisler, R. 1989. Pentachlorophenol hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic review.
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Bi'ol. Rep. 85 (1.17). 72 pp.

Eisler, R. 1989.  Tin hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates:  A  synoptic review.  U.S. Fish
Wildl.  Serv. Biol.  Rep. 85 (1.15).  83 pp.
Bibliography                                 2                                          8/93

-------
Eisler, R. 1990. Boron hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates:  A synoptic review.  U.S. Fish
Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85 (1.20). 32 pp.

Eisler, R. 1990. Chlordane hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates:  A synoptic review.  U.S.
Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85 (1.21).  49 pp.

Eisler, R. 1990.  Paraquat hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates:  A synoptic review.   U.S.
Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85 (1.2).  28 pp.

Eisler, R. 1991. Cyanide hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates:  A synoptic review.  U.S. Fish
Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85 (1.23). 55 pp.

Eisler, R. 1992.  Dif/ubenzuron hazards to fish, wildlife,  and invertebrates:  A synoptic review.
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 4. 36 pp.

Eisler, R. 1992. Fenvalerate hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates:  A synoptic review.  U.S.
Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 2.  43  pp.

Eisler, R., and J. Jacknow.   1985.  Toxaphene hazards to fish, wildlife,  arid  invertebrates:  A
synoptic review.  U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.  Biol. Rep. 85 (1.4). 26 pp.

Eisler, R., and J.H. Corley.   1989.  Index to common and scientific names of species listed in
contaminant hazard reviews 1 through 15. U.S. Fish Wildl.  Serv. Biol. Rep. 85 (1.16).  44 pp.

Gezo,  T.A., D.J. Brusick, and  R.G.  Merrill.   1986.  Air and  Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory (AEERL) procedures manual:  Level 1  environmental assessment terrestrial ecological
tests.  EPA/600/8-86/029.   U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,  Office  of Research  and
Development, Research Triangle Park,  NC.

Griffith,  G.E., and J.M.  Omernik.  1991.  Alabama/Mississippi  project.   Geographic research
component:   Ecoregion/subregion  delineation  reference  site  selection.   Draft  Report.    U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

Hudson,  R.H., R.K. Tucker,  and M.A.  Haegele.   1984.   Handbook of toxicity  of pesticides to
wildlife.  Second Edition. Resource Publication 153. United States Department of the Interior, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Johnson, W.W., and M.T. Finley.   1980.  Handbook of  acute  toxicity of chemicals to fish and
aquatic invertebrates.   Resource Publication 137.  United States  Department of the Interior,  U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Maughan, J.T.   1993.  Ecological assessment of hazardous waste sites.  Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.

Nemerow, N.L. (ed).  1991.  Stream,  lake, estuary, and ocean pollution.   Second Edition.  Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
8/93                                         3                                 Bibliography

-------
NOAA.  1989.  Preliminary natural resource survey:  Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment, Seattle,
WA.

NOAA.  1991.  The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed contaminants tested in the
National Status  and  Trends Program.  NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. ' National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA.

Odenkirchen,  E.W., and R. Eisler. 1988. Chlorpyrifos hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates:
A synoptic review.  U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.  Biol. Rep. 85 (1.13).  34 pp.

Paasivirta, J.  1991. Chemical ecotoxicology.  Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI.

Peterle, T.J.  1992.  Wildlife toxicology. Van Nostrand Reinhold,  New York.

SETAC. 1992.  Abstracts.  13th Annual meeting. November 8-12,1992, Cincinnati, OH. Society
of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola,  FL.

Suter, G.W.,  II  (ed). 1993. Ecological risk assessment.  Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.

U.S. EPA.  1987.  The Ohio stream regionalization project: A compendium of results. EPA/600/3-
87/025.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Corvallis  Environmental  Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, OR.

U.S. EPA.   1989.  Sediment classification methods compendium.  Draft Final Report.   U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Watershed Protection Division.

U.S. EPA.  1989.  Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams  and rivers. EPA/440/4-89/001
(previously published as EPA/444/4-89-001).  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington,  DC.

U.S. EPA.  1989. Superfund natural resource trustee notification and coordination manual.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle, WA.

U.S. EPA.  1990.  Biological criteria:  National program guidance for surface waters. EPA/440/5-
90/004.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.   1990.  Environmental monitoring and assessment program:  Ecological  indicators.
EPA/600/3-90/060.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. 1991.   Biological criteria:  Guide to  technical literature. EPA/440/5-91/004.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.

U.S. EPA. 1991.   Biological criteria:  Research and regulation.  Proceedings of a symposium.
EPA/440/5-91/005.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Bibliography                                4                                        8/93

-------
U.S. EPA. 1991. Biological criteria:  State development and implementation efforts.  EPA-440/5-
91-003.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1991.  Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to
freshwater and  marine organisms.  Fourth Edition.   EPA/600/4-90/027.   U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. 1991. ECO update. Publication Number 9345.0-051. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency,  Office  of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Intermittent Bulletin Volume 1, Numbers
1-5.

U.S. EPA. 1992. Evaluation of terrestrial indicators for use in ecological assessments at hazardous
waste sites.  EPA/600/R-92/183.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.

U.S.  EPA.   1992.   Framework  for  ecological  risk  assessment.   EPA/630/R-92/001.   U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1992.  Peer review workshop report on a framework for ecological risk assessment.
EPA/625/3-91/022.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington,
DC.

U.S. EPA. 1992. Report on the ecological risk assessment guidelines strategic planning workshop.
EPA/630/R-92/002.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington,
DC.

U.S. EPA. 1993. Interim report on data and methods for assessment of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p- dioxin risks to aquatic life and associated wildlife.  EPA/600/R-93/055.  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
OTHER REFERENCES

Aldrich, T.E, and J. Griffith.  1993.  Environmental epidemiology and risk assessment.  C. Cooke
(ed).  Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Andelman, J.B.  1990.  Total exposure to volatile organic chemicals in potable water.  N.M. Ram,
R.F. Christman, and K.P. Cantor (eds).  Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.
                                             n
ATSDR.  1988.  Hazardous substances priority list.  Agency for Toxic Substances  and  Disease
Registry Toxicological Profiles:  Notice 53.  Federal Register, Volume 53, No. 203 (October 20,
1988).

ATSDR. 1989.  Health assessment for Bay Drums, Tampa,  Hillsborough County, Florida.  U.S.
Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
8/93                                       5                                Bibliography

-------
ATSDR.  1989.  Health assessment for Hyde Park Landfill National Priorities List (NPL) site,
Niagara Falls, New York.  U.S. Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry.

ATSDR. 1989. Health assessment for Vineland Chemical Company, Vineland, New Jersey.  U.S.
Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

ATSDR.  1992.  Public health assessment guidance manual.  PB92-147164.  U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA.

Brown, K.G.  1989.  Applications of an exact NOAEL (no-observed-adverse-effect-level) procedure
for dichotomous data from animal experiments. EPA/600/8-89/068. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.

Calabrese,  E.J.,  and  P.T. Kostecki (eds).   1992.   Risk  assessment and  environmental  fate
methodologies.  Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Ecology.  1991.  The Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation:  Chapter 173-340 WAC.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

50 Fed.  Reg.  30784-30796 (July 29, 1985).

50 Fed.  Reg.  46882-46932 (November 13, 1985.  Part III:  Environmental Protection Agency, 40
CFR Parts 141 and 142),

50 Fed.  Reg.  46936-47022 (November 13, 1985.  Part IV:  Environmental Protection Agency, 40
CFR Part  141).

53 Fed.  Reg.  48830-48853 (December 2, 1988.  Part  IV:  Environmental Protection Agency).

Gilbert,  R.O.  1987.  Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring.  Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.

Hulsman, S.  1989.  An evaluation of drinking water contamination at Wallace River Park, Startup,
Washington.  Summary Report.   State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services,
Office of Environmental Health Programs, Seattle, WA.

ICF-Clement.  1988.  Comparative potency approach for estimating the cancer risk associated with
exposure to mixtures of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Interim Final Report.  Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of Health  and Environmental Assessments.  ICF-
Clement Associates,  Fairfax, VA.

Keith, L.H.   1991.  Environmental  sampling and analysis:  A practical guide.  Lewis Publishers,
Inc., Chelsea, MI.

Klaassen, C.D., M.O. Amdur, and  J. Doull (eds). 1986.  Casarett and Doull's toxicology:  The
basic  science of poisons. Third Edition.  Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.
Bibliography                                6                                        8/93

-------
Merck & Co.  1983.  The Merck Index:  An encyclopedia of chemicals, drugs, and biologicals.
Tenth Edition.  M. Windholz (ed). Merck & Co., Rahway, NJ.

Ney, R.E. Jr.  1990. Where did that chemical go.  Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

NOAA. 1989.  Preliminary natural resource survey: Marathon Battery, Cold Spring, New York.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

NRC.  1993.  Issues in risk assessment.  National Research Council.  National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.

Paustenbach, D.J. (ed). 1989.  The risk assessment of environmental hazards:  A textbook of case
studies. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Tice,  R.R.   1990.  Evaluation of exposure markers. EPA/600/4-90/034.  Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV.
Integrated Laboratory Systems,  Research Triangle Park, NC.

U.S. EPA.  No date. Health effects assessment for arsenic. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of  Emergency and Remedial  Response,  Washington,  DC and Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S.  EPA.   1980.  Ambient  water  quality  criteria  for benzene.  EPA/440/5-80-018.   U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards,  Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1983.  Health and environmental effects  profile  for chloropropenes.  EPA/600/X-
84/119. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. EPA.  1984.  Health effects assessment for benzene. EPA/540/1-86/037. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. EPA.  1984.  Health effects assessment for copper. EPA/540/1-86-025. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial  Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1985.  Drinking water criteria document on benzene.  Final Draft. PB86-118122. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of Drinking Water, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, DC.

U.S.  EPA.   1986.  Guidelines  for  carcinogen risk  assessment.  51  Federal Register 33992
(September 24, 1986).

U.S. EPA.  1986.  Guidelines for exposure assessment.  51 Federal Register 34042 (September
24, 1986).

U.S.  EPA.  1986.  Guidelines for mutagenicity risk assessment.  51  Federal Register 34006
(September 24, 1986).
8/93                                       1                                Bibliography

-------
U.S.  EPA.   1986.  Superfund public health evaluation manual.   EPA/540/1-86/060.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1986.  Superfund risk assessment information directory. EPA/540/1-86/061.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1987.  A compendium of Superfund field operations methods.  EPA/540/P 87/001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington,
DC.

U.S. EPA. 1987.  Data quality objectives for remedial response activities:  Development process.
EPA/540/G-87/003.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response and Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. 1987. Data quality objectives for remedial response activities.  Example scenario: RI/FS
activities  at a  site with contaminated soils and groundwater.   EPA/540/G-87/004.   U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. 1987.  Health and environmental effects document for cyclohexylamine.  Final Draft.
ECAO-CIN-G017.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of Health and Environmental
Assessment, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. EPA. 1987. Selection criteria for mathematical models used in exposure assessments:  Surface
water models.  EPA/600/8-87/042. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health  and
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. 1988.  CERCLA compliance with other laws manual: Draft guidance.  EPA/540/G-
89/006. U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, Office of Emergency  and Remedial  Response,
Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. 1988.  Community relations in Superfund:  A handbook. EPA/540/G-88/002.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1988.  Guidance for conducting remedial investigations and feasibility studies under
CERCLA.  Interim Final.  EPA/540/G-89/004.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1988.   Laboratory data validation functional guidelines for evaluating  inorganics
analysis.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Emergency  and Remedial  Response,
Washington, DC.     '

U.S. EPA. 1988.  Proposed guidelines for exposure-related measurements.  53 Federal Register
48830 (December 2, 1988).

U.S. EPA. 1988.  Statistical methods  for evaluating the attainment of Superfund cleanup standards.
Volume I:  Soils and  solid media. Draft Report. PB 89-234959. U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.


Bibliography                               8                                      8/93

-------
U.S. EPA.  1988.  Superfund exposure assessment manual.  EPA/540/1-88/001.  U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1988.  User's guide to the contract laboratory program. EPA/540/8-89/012.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1989.  CERCLA compliance with other laws  manual:  Part II.  EPA/540/G-89/009.
Clean Air Act and Other Environmental Statutes  and State Requirements,  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1989.  Exposure factors handbook. EPA/600/8-89/043. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1989.  Interim methods for development of inhalation reference doses.  EPA/600/8-
88/066F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1989.  Methods for evaluating the attainment of cleanup  standards.  Volume 1:  Soils
and solid media.  EPA 230/02-89-042.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, DC.

U.S.  EPA.   1990.   Catalog of Superfund program publications.   EPA/540/8-90/015.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1990.  National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.  49 CFR
Part 300.  55 Federal Register (46) 8666-8865 (March 1990).

U.S. EPA.  1990.  Quality assurance/quality control guidance for removal activities:  Sampling
QA/QC plan and  data  validation  procedures.   Interim Final.   EPA/540/G-90/004.   U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1990.  Reducing risk:  Setting priorities and strategies for environmental protection.
SAB-EC-90-021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board;

U.S. EPA.  1990. Samplers guide to the contract laboratory program. EPA/540/P-90/006.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1990.  Statistical methods for  estimating risk for exposure above the reference dose.
EPA/600/8-89/065. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. EPA.  1990.  Summary of state and federal drinking water standards and guidelines. Chemical
Communication Subcommittee Federal-State Toxicology  and Regulatory  Alliance Committee
(FSTRAC).  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1990. Technical support services for Superfund site remediation. EPA/540/8-90/001.
U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Office  of Solid Waste  and  Emergency  Response,
Washington, DC.


8/93                                       9                               Bibliography

-------
U.S. EPA.  1990.  Workshop report on EPA guidelines for carcinogenic risk assessment:  Use of
human evidence.  EPA/625/3-90/017.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment
Forum.

U.S. EPA.   1991.  Compendium of Superfund program publications.  EPA/540/8-91/014.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.   1991.  Description and sampling of contaminated soils:   A field  pocket guide.
EPA/625/12-91/002.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research
Information, Technology Transfer, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. EPA.   1991.  National functional guidelines for organic data review.  Draft  Report.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Contract Laboratory Program.

U.S. EPA.  1991.  Removal program representative sampling guidance.  Volume 1:  Soil.  Interim
Final. OSWER Directive 9360.4-10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1991.  Role of the baseline risk assessment in Superfund remedy selection decisions.
OSWER Directive 9355.0-30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency  Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.   1992.  A cross-species  scaling  factor for  carcinogenic risk assessment based on
equivalency of mg/kg3/4/day.  Draft Report.  57 Federal Register 24152 (June 5, 1992).

U.S. EPA.   1992. Dermal exposure  assessment:   Principles and applications.  Interim Report.
EPA/600/8-91.01 IB.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.

U.S. EPA.    1992.   Guidance  for  data useability in risk assessment (part A).   Final Report.
Publication  9285.7-09A.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.   1992.   Guidance for  data useability  in  risk assessment  (part B).   Final Report.
Publication 9285.7-09B. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1992.  Guidelines for exposure assessment. Federal Register 22888-22938.

U.S. EPA.  1992.  Guidance on risk characterization for risk managers and risk assessors.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1992.  Human health evaluation manual, supplemental guidance:  Interim dermal risk
assessment guidance.  Draft Report.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
Bibliography                                10                                       8/93

-------
U.S. EPA.  1993. Health effects assessment summary tables:  Annual update. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,  Office  of Emergency and  Remedial Response, Office of Research  and
Development, Office of  Health and Environmental Assessment, and Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.

Verschueren, K.  1983.  Handbook of environmental data on organic chemicals.  Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
8/93                                       11                               Bibliography

-------
    APPENDIX B
Supplementary Materials

-------
                 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS AT SPRENGER'S LANDFILL
         Potentially
     Exposed Population
Exposure Route. Medium,
   and Exposure Point
  Pathway
Selected for
Evaluation?
Reason for Selection
    or Exclusion
 Current Land Use
        Site visitors
        (8- to 18-year-old
        child)

        Site visitors
        (8- to 18-year-old
        child)

        Residents (adult)
        Residents (adult)
        Residents (adult)
        Residents/visitors
        (8- to 18-year-old
        child)
        Residents/visitors
        (8- to 18-year-old
        child)


        Residents/visitors
        (8- to 18-year-old
        child)


        Golfers (adult)
Ingestion of chemicals of        Yes
potential concern in soils
onsite

Direct contact with             Yes
chemicals of potential
concern in soils onsite

Ingestion of groundwater        Yes
from local wells
downgradient of site


Inhalation of chemicals          Yes
volatilized from
groundwater during home
use
Direct contact with             Yes
chemicals of potential
concern in groundwater

Direct contact with             Yes
chemicals of potential
concern in offsite soils
and in sediments in
streams offsite

Ingestion of chemicals of        Yes
potential concern in
offsite soils and in
sediments offsite

Direct contact with             Yes
chemicals of concern in
water in streams offsite


Direct contact with             Yes
chemicals of potential
concern in water in
streams offsite
              Contaminated soil is
              in an area potentially
              used by site visitors

              Contaminated soil is
              in an area potentially
              used by site visitors

              Residents use
              groundwater from
              local wells as drinking
              water

              Some of the
              chemicals of potential
              concern in
              groundwater are
              volatile, and ground
              water is used by local
              residents

              Residents use
              groundwater from
              local wells for bathing

              Some of the
              chemicals of potential
              concern are  found in
              sediments offsite


              Some of the
              chemicals of potential
              concern are  found in
              sediments offsite

              Contaminated streams
              are in an area
              potentially used by
              children

              Contaminated streams
              are in an area
              potentially used by
              golfers
8/93
                                           Exposure Assessment

-------
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (cont.)
         Potentially
     Exposed Population
Exposure Route. Medium.
   and Exposure Point
  Pathway
Selected for
Evaluation?
Reason for Selection
    or Exclusion
        Golfers (adult)
        Residents (adult)
 Future Land Use

        Residents (adult)
        Residents (adult)
        Residents (adult)
        Residents (adult)
        Residents (child and
        adult)
        Residents (child)
        Residents (adult)
Direct contact with
chemicals of potential
concern in sediments in
streams offsite

Inhalation of chemicals
volatilized from site and
transported downwind
Inhalation of chemicals in
soil blown downwind of
site
Ingestion of groundwater
from local wells
downgradient of site

Inhalation of chemicals
volatilized from
groundwater during home
use
Direct contact with
chemicals of potential
concern in groundwater

Ingestion of chemicals of
potential concern in soils
onsite


Direct contact with
chemicals of potential
concern in soils onsite
Inhalation of chemicals
volatilized from site and
transported downwind
    Yes       Some of the
              chemicals of potential
              concern are found in
              sediments offsite

    No       Because of the age of
              the site, volatile
              chemicals would be
              dissipated by this
              time
    Yes       Some chemicals of
              concern are not
              volatile and could be
              transported with soil
              particles

    Yes       Area could be
              developed as a
              residential area

    Yes       Some of the
              chemicals of potential
              concern in
              groundwater are
              volatile, and the area
              could be developed in
              the future as a
              residential area

    Yes       Area could be
              developed as a
              residential area

    Yes       Contaminated soil is
              in an area that could
              be developed as a
              residential area

    Yes       Contaminated soil is
              in an area that could
              be developed as a
              residential area

    No       Because of the age of
              the site, volatile
              chemicals would be
              dissipated by this
              time
Exposure Assessment
                                                           8/93

-------
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS (cont.)
                                                       Pathway
         Potentially          Exposure Route, Medium,    Selected for    Reason for Selection
     Exposed Population         and Exposure Point      Evaluation?       or Exclusion

        Residents (adult)      Inhalation of chemicals in       Yes       Contaminated soil is
                            site soil blown downwind                 in an area that could
                            of site                                  be developed as a
                                                                   residential area
8/93                                       3                         Exposure Assessment

-------
             QUANTIFYING EXPOSURE:  INTAKE NUMBERS
Groundwater: Ingestion

The following equation and assumptions were used to calculate intakes for ingestion of chemicals in
groundwater from wells used by residents.  The equation is found in the Human Health Evaluation
Manual: Part A.
                                       CWxIRx EFx ED
where:
cw
IR
EF
ED
BW
AT
"'ป*"+ ^ BWxAT
= contaminant concentration in water (mg/L)
= 2 liters/day (U.S. EPA 1989)
= 350 days/year (U.S. EPA 1991)
= 30 years (U.S. EPA 1991)
= 70 kg (U.S. EPA 1991)
= 30 years = 10,950 days (noncarcinogenic)
70 years = 25,550 days (carcinogenic).
Land Use: Current Ptrtttfe (circle one)
Receptor: Nearest resident (Caretaker)
Pathway: Ingestion of chemicals in groundwater from
downgradient of site
Concentration CDI Noncancer
Chemical U/g/L) (mg/kg-day)
Benzene 30 8.2E-4
Chlorobenzene 58 1 .6E-3
1,2-Dichloroethene 700 1.9E-2
Trichloroethylene 180 4.9E-3
Vinyl chloride 130 3.6E-3
Barium 29 7.9E-4
Manganese 5,150 1.4E-1
Zinc 79 2.2E-3

local wells
CDI Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
3.5E-4
6.8E-4
8.2E-3
2.1E-3
1.5E-3
3.4E-4
6.1E-2
9.3E-4
8/93
Quantifying Exposure:  Intake Numbers

-------
             Land Use:   Current   Future    (circle one)

             Receptor: Resident

             Pathway: Ingestion  of chemicals in groundwater from onsite wells
Chemical
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Napthalene
Phenol
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Aroclor 1 254
Barium
Chromium
Manganese
Zinc
Concentration
(//g/U
1,200
300
39.000
202
22
12,000
180,000
6,900
933
1,910
13
20,500
174
CDI Noncancer
(mg/kg-day)
3.3E-2
8.2E-3
1.1
5.5E-3
6.0E-4
3.3E-1
4.9
1.9E-1
2.6E-2
5.2E-2
3.6E-4
5.6E-1
4.8E-3
CDI Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
1 .4E-2
3.5E-3
4.6E-1
2.4E-3
2.6E-4
1 .4E-1
2.1
8.1E-2
1.1 E-2
2.2E-2
1.5E-4
2.4E-1
2.0E-3
Groundwater:  Inhalation

The following equation was used to calculate intakes for inhalation of chemicals volatilized from
groundwater during home use. The equation was taken from the Human Health Evaluation Manual,
Part B: Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals (page 52, B.I. 2), with a slight
modification to fit the format of Part A.  It addresses volatilization of contaminants from all the
residential water used in a house, not just during showering.
                       CDI (mglkg-day)  =      X K X IR X EF x ED
                             *                    BW x AT
where:

       CW   =   contaminant concentration in water (mg/L)
         K   =   volatilization factor (0.0005  x  1,000  L/m3; Andelman
                  1990)
        IR   =   15 mVday (U.S. EPA  1991)
       EF   =   350 days/year (U.S. EPA 1991)

Quantifying Exposure: Intake Numbers         2                                        8/93

-------
       ED    =    30 years (U.S. EPA 1991)
       BW    =    70 kg (U.S. EPA 1991)
       AT    =    30 years = 10,950 days (noncarcinogenic)
                   70 years = 25550 days (carcinogenic).
             Land Use:   Current   Future   (circle one)

             Receptor:  Nearest resident (Caretaker)

             Pathway,:  Inhalation of chemicals volatilized from groundwater during
                       home use
Concentration
Chemical U/g/L)
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
30
58
700
180
130
CDI Noncancer
(mg/kg-day)
3.1E-3
6.0E-3
7.2E-2
1.9E-2
1 .3E-2
CDI Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
1 .3E-3
2.6E-3
3.1E-2
7.9E-3
5.7E-3

             Land Use:    Current    Future

             Receptor: Resident (onsite)
(circle one)
              Pathway: Inhalation of chemicals volatilized from groundwater during
              home use
Chemical
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Napthalene
Phenol
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Concentration
(//g/L)
1,200
300
39,000
202
22
1 2,000
1 80,000
6,900
CDI Noncancer
(mg/kg-day)
1.2E-1
3.1E-2
4.0
2.1E-2
2.3E-3
1.2
18.5
7.1E-1
CDI Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
5.3E-2
1.3E-2
1.7
8.9E-3
9.7E-4
5.3E-1
7.9
3.0E-1
8/93
         Quantifying Exposure: Intake Numbers

-------
Groundwater:  Dermal

The following equations were used to calculate absorbed doses for dermal contact with chemicals in
groundwater used in |the home.  The equations  are taken from Dermal Exposure Assessment:
Principles and Applications (U.S. EPA 1992).
                          DAD =
                                         x EV x ED x EF x A
                                                            .
                                           BWxAT
where:
     DAD   =   dermally absorbed dose (mg/kg-day)
                  absorbed dose per event (mg/cm2-event)
                  1 event/day (U.S.  EPA 1992)
                  350 days/year (U.S. EPA 1991)
                  30 years (U.S. EPA 1991)
                  20,000 cm2 (average adult surface area; U.S. EPA 1992)
                  70 kg (U.S. EPA 1991)
                  30 years = 10,950 days (noncarcinogenic)
                  70 years = 25,550 days (carcinogenic).

                     (mg/cm2-event) was calculated as follows:
       EV
       EF
       ED
        A
       BW
       AT
For inorganics,
        K*   =
      CW   =
where:

             =    dose absorbed per unit area per event (mg/cm2-event)
             =    permeability coefficient from water (cm/hour)
                  contaminant concentration in water (mg/cm3)
                  15 minutes = 0.25 hours/event (U.S. EPA 1992)

Values for Kp* were  taken  from Table 5-8 of Dermal Exposure Assessment:   Principles  and
Applications (U.S. EPA 1992).

For organics, DAevent (mg/cm2-event) was calculated as follows:
                                              -  2
Quantifying Exposure: Intake Numbers
                                                                                   8/93

-------
                 -1™*- + 2 T
                 1 + 5
                                                                    +B
Values for t*, T, and B were taken from Table 5-8 of Dermal Exposure Assessment:  Principles and
Applications (U.S. EPA 1992).
            Land Use:   Current   Ftrtwe   (circle one)
            Receptor: Nearest resident (Caretaker)
            Pathway: Dermal contact with chemicals in groundwater used for
                     > bathing
                 Chemical
Concentration
    U/g/U
            Benzene                   30
            Chlorobenzene             58
            1,2-Dichloroethene        700
            Trichloroethene           180
            Vinyl chloride             130
            Barium                    29
            Manganese              5,150
            Zinc        •              79
DAD Noncancer
  (mg/kg-day)
                    1.2E-4
                    6.0E-4
                    1.6E-3
                    8.3E-4
                    1.6E-4
                    2.0E-6
                    3.6E-4
                    3.2E-6
DAD Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
                    5.1E-5
                    2.6E-4
                    6.6E-4
                    3.6E-4
                    7.0E-5
                    8.5E-7
                    1.5E-4
                    1.4E-6
8/93
                    Quantifying Exposure:  Intake Numbers

-------
            Land Use:   Current   Future    (circle one)

            Receptor: Resident (onsite)

            Pathway: Dermal contact with chemicals in groundwater used for
                     , bathing
Chemical
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Napthalene
Phenol
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Aroclor 1 254
Barium
Chromium
Manganese
Zinc
Concentration
0/g/U
1,200
300
39,000
202
22
12,000
180,000
6,900
933
1,910
13
20,500
174
DAD Noncancer
(mg/kg-day)
4.9E-3
3.0E-3
8.6E-2
3.8E-3
2.6E-5
1.1 E-2
8.1E-1
8.7E-2
1.0
1 .3E-4
8.3E-6
1 .4E-3
7.2E-6
DAD Cancer
, (mg/kg-day)
2.1E-3
3.1E-3
3.7E-2
1 .6E-3
1.1 E-5
5.0E-2
3.6E-1
3.7E-2
4.5E-1
5.7E-5
3.6E-7
6.0E-4
3.0E-6
Soil/Sediment:  Ingestion

The following equation was used to calculate intake rates for ingestion of chemicals of onsite and
offsite soils by site visitors. The same equation was used to calculate intake rates for ingestion of
chemicals in offsite sediments by site visitors.  The equation was taken from the Human Health
Evaluation Manual: Pan A.


                    /-nr /  11,  i  -v    CS x IR x CF x FI x EF x ED
                    GDI (mg/kg-day) = 	
                           6*   *               BWxAT
where:

        CS   =   contaminant concentration in soil (mg/kg)
        IR   =   100 mg/day - 8-18 year olds (U.S. EPA 1989)
        CF   =   10"6 kg/mg
        FI   =   1 (100%)
        EF   =   12 days/year - site visitors (8-18 year olds)

Quantifying Exposure:  Intake Numbers         5                                        8/93

-------
       ED   =   10 years
       BW   =   49 kg (U.S. EPA 1989)
       AT   =   10 years = 3,650 days (noncarcinogenic)
                  70 years = 25550 days (carcinogenic).
Land Use: Current Ftrtwe
Receptor: Site visitor
Pathway: Ingestion of chemicals
Concentration
Chemical (mg/kg)
Benzene 0.650
Benzo(a)pyrene 12.0
Dibenzofuran 1.50
Napthalene 78.0
Toluene 38.0
Trichloroethene 28.0
Aroclor 1 254 27,000
Barium 2.23
Chromium 0.127
Manganese 1 .02
Zinc 25.3
(circle one)

in onsite soils
CDI Noncancer
(mg/kg-day)
4.4E-8
8.1E-7
1 .OE-7
5.2E-6
2.6E-6
1.9E-6
1.8E-3
1.5E-7
8.5E-8
6.9E-8
1 .7E-6



CDI Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
6.2E-9
1.1 E-7
1.5E-8
7.4E-7
3.7E-7
2.7E-7
2.6E-4 '
2.1E-8
1.2E-8
1 .OE-8
2.4E-7

Land Use: Current Ftrtwe
Receptor: Site visitor
Pathway: Ingestion of chemicals
Chemical Concentration
(mg/kg)
Dibenzofuran 0.230
Toluene 2.60
Aroclor 1 254 1 .40
Barium 0.945
Chromium 0.489
Manganese 0.739
Zinc 0.088
(circle one)

in offsite soils
CDI Noncancer
(mg/kg-day)
1.6E-8
1 .7E-7
9.2E-8
6.3E-8
3.3E-8
5.0E-8
5.9E-9



CDI Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
2.2E-9
2.5E-8
1 .4E-8
9.1E-9
4.7E-9
7.1E-9
8.4E-10
8/93
Quantifying Exposure: Intake Numbers

-------
             Land Use:    Current   Future   (circle one)

             Receptor:  Site visitor

             Pathway:  Ingestion of chemicals in offsite sediments
Chemical
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Fluoranthene
Napthalene
Pyrene
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Aroclor 1 254
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.340
0.960
0.170
2.00
0.270
1.90
0.140
0.094
90.0
1.580
0.423
0.418
1.870
0.927
GDI Noncancer
(mg/kg-day)
2.3E-8
6.4E-8
1.1 E-8
1 .4E-7
1.8E-8
1.3E-7
9.2E-9
6.3E-9
6.1E-6
1.1 E-7
2.8E-8
2.8E-8
1.3E-7
6.2E-8
CDI Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
3.2E-9
9.1E-9
1 .6E-9
1 .9E-8
2.6E-9
1 .8E-8
1 .4E-9
9.0E-10
8.6E-7
1.5E-8
4.0E-9
3.9E-9
1 .7E-8
8.8E-9
The following equation was used to calculate intakes for incidental soil ingestion by residents living
on the site. The equation has two parts to address the different intake rates and body weights of an
adult and a child.  This equation is an expansion of the equation found on page 6-40 of the HHEM:
Part A.

Intake (mg/kg/day) =


                            CS x IRc x CF x FIc x EFc x EDc
                                        BWc x AT
                            CS x IRa x CF x Fla x EFa x EDa
                                        BWa x AT
Quantifying Exposure:  Intake Numbers        g                                         8/93

-------
where:
       CS   =   contaminant concentration in soil (mg/kg)
       IRc   =   200 mg/day - child (1-6 years old) (U.S. EPA 1991)
       IRa   =   100 mg/day - adult (7-30 years old) (U.S. EPA 1991)
       CF   =   10-6kg/mg
     FIc,a   =   1 (100%)
     EFc.a   =   350 days/year (U.S. EPA 1991)
      EDc   =   6 years - child (U.S. EPA 1991)
      EDa   =   24 years - adult (U.S. EPA 1991)
     BWc   =   15 kg - child (U.S. EPA 1991)
     BWa   =   70 kg - adult (U.S. EPA 1991)
       AT   =   30 years =  10,950 days (noncarcinogenic)
                  70 years =  25,550 days (carcinogenic).
              Land Use:    Current   Future    (circle one)
              Receptor:  Resident (onsite)

              Pathway:  Ingestion of chemicals in onsite soils
Chemical
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Napthalene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Aroclor 1 254
Barium
Chromium
Manganese
Zinc
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.650
12.0
1.50
78.0
38.0
28.0
27,000
2.23
0.127
1.02
25.3
CDI Noncancer
(mg/kg-day)
2.4E-6
4.4E-5
5.6E-6
2.9E-4
1.4E-4
1 .OE-4
9.9E-2
8.3E-6
4.7E-7
3.8E-6
9.3E-5
CDI Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
1 .OE-6
1.9E-5
2.4E-6
1 .2E-4
6.0E-5
4.4E-5
4.3E-2
3.6E-6
2.0E-7
1 .6E-6
4.0E-5
Soil/Sediment:  Dermal

The following equation was used to calculate absorbed doses for dermal contact with chemicals in
onsite and offsite soils and  offsite sediments.  The equation was taken from Dermal Exposure
Assessment:  Principles and Applications (U.S. EPA  1992).
8/93                                       9        Quantifying Exposure:  Intake Numbers

-------
                   DAD (mglkg-day) - CS x AF x ABS x EF x ED x A
where:
     DAD   =   dermally absorbed dose (mg/kg-day)
        CS   =   contaminant concentration in soil (mg/kg)(10"6 kg/mg)
        AF   =   1.0 mg/cm2-event (U.S. EPA 1992)
      ABS   =   6% for Aroclor (PCB) (U.S. EPA 1992)
        EF   =   12 events/year for site visitors
                  40 events/year for site residents (based on 2 days/week, 5 months/year; Hawley
                  1985)
       ED   =   10 years - site visitors (noncarcinogenic)
                  30 years - resident (noncarcinogenic)
         A   =   3,600 cm2 - site visitors (25% of 14,400 cm2)
                  5,000 cm2 - site residents (25% of 20,000 cm2)
                  25% of total body surface area was used to represent summer attire (U.S. EPA
                  1992)
       BW   =   49 kg - site visitors
                  70 kg - site residents
       AT   =   10 years = 3,650 days - site visitor (noncarcinogenic)
                  30 years = 10,950 days - site resident (noncarcinogenic)
                  70 years = 25,550 days (carcinogenic).


           Land Use:   Current   Ftrtwe   (circle one)
           Receptor:  Site visitor
           Pathway:'  Dermal contact with chemicals in onsite soils
Chemical
Aroclor 1 254
Concentration
(mg/kg)
27,000
DAD Noncancer
(mg/kg-day)
3.9E-3
DAD Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
5.6E-4
           Land Use:   Current    Ftrtofe    (circle one)

           Receptor:  Site visitor

           Pathway:  Dermal contact with chemicals in offsite soils

                          Concentration   DAD Noncancer       DAD Cancer
             Chemical        (mg/kg)        (mg/kg-day)         (mg/kg-day)

           Aroclor 1254       1.40           2.0E-7              2.9E-8
Quantifying Exposure: Intake Numbers        10                                       8/93

-------
           Land Use:    Current   Future   (circle one)

           Receptor:  Site visitor

           Pathway:  Dermal contact with chemicals in offsite sediments

                          Concentration    DAD Noncancer       DAD Cancer
             Chemical        (mg/kg)        (mg/kg-day)         (mg/kg-day)

           Aroclor 1254        90.0           1.3E-5              1.9E-6
               Land Use:    Current   Future   (circle one)

               Receptor:  Resident (onsite)

               Pathway:  Dermal contact with chemicals in onsite soils

                 Chemical      Concentration    DAD Noncancer   DAD Cancer
              	(mg/kg)	(mg/kg-day)     (mg/kg-day)

               Aroclor 1254       27.000          1.2E-2         5.0E-3
Surface Water:  Dermal
                    i
                                                                           i
The following equations were used to calculate absorbed doses for dermal contact with chemicals in
offsite surface water.  The equations are taken from Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and
Applications (U.S. EPA  1992).
                                      MM x EVx ED xEFxA
                           DAD =  —m	
                                            BWxAT
where:

     DAD   =   dermally absorbed dose (mg/kg-day)
    DAe^,,.  =   absorbed dose per event (mg/cm2-event)
       EV   =   1 event/day (U.S. EPA 1992)
       EF   =   12 days/year - site visitors (U.S. EPA 1991)
                  130 days/year - golfers (worst case assumption)
       ED   =   10 years - site visitors (U.S.  EPA  1991)
                  20 years - golfers
         A   =   2,880 cm2 - hands, feet and legs = 20% of total body surface - site visitors
                  840 cm2 - hands - golfers (U.S. EPA 1989)
       BW   =   49 kg - site visitor (average weight for 9-18 year olds)(U.S. EPA 1989)
                  70 kg - golfer
       AT   =   10 years = 3,650 days - site  visitor (noncarcinogenic)
                  20 years = 7,300 days - golfer (noncarcinogenic)
                  70 years = 25,550 days (carcinogenic).

8/93                                       11        Quantifying Exposure:  Intake Numbers

-------
For inorganics, DA^^ (mg/cm2-event) was calculated as follows:
where:
             =    dose absorbed per unit area per event (mg/cm2-event)
        K*   =    permeability coefficient from water (cm/hr)
      CW   =    contaminant concentration in water (mg/cm3)
      1^,3,1   =    2 hours/event - site visitor
                  8.3 x 10"3 hour (O.5 minutes) - golfer.

Values for K* were taken from Table 5-8 of the Dermal Exposure Assessment:  Principles and
Applications (U.S. EPA 1992).
For organics, DA^t (mg/cm2-event) was calculated as follows:
= 2
                                                        \
              If *„„ > f, then:  DA^ = K  C
                                          P  v
                                                 1  + B
          + 2 T
VTF)]
Values for t*, T, and B were taken from Table 5-8 of the Dermal Exposure Assessment:  Principles
and Applications (U.S. EPA 1992).
Quantifying Exposure:  Intake Numbers       12                                       8/93

-------
Land Use: Current
Receptor: Site visitor
Future (circle

one)

Pathway: Dermal contact with chemicals in offsite surface
Chemical
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Napthalene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Aroclor 1 254
Barium
Chromium
Manganese
Zinc
Concentration
U/g/L)
160
14
99
5
10
15
1.7
810
17
5,360
179
DAD Noncancer
(mg/kg-day)
1 .7E-5
7.2E-7
3.7E-5
1.1 E-6
9.7E-7
5.3E-6
3.9E-5
3.1 E-6
6.6E-.8
2.0E-5
4.1E-7


water
DAD Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
2.4E-6
1.0E-7
5.4E-6
1 .6E-7
1 .4E-7
7.4E-7
5.4E-6
4.4E-7
9.3E-9
8.9E-6
6.0E-8

Land Use: Current
Receptor: Golfer
Future (circle

one)

Pathway: Dermal contact with chemicals in offsite surface
Chemical
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Napthalene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Aroclor 1 254
Barium
Chromium
Manganese
Zinc
Concentration
(//9/U
160
14
99
5
10
15
1.7
810
17
5,360
179
DAD Noncancer
(mg/kg-day)
1.8E-6
8.8E-8
5.4E-6
1 .4E-7
1.3E-7
5.4E-8
5.5E-6
2.9E-6
6.0E-10
1.9E-7
6.3E-8


water
DAD Cancer
(mg/kg-day)
5.2E-7
2.5E-8
1.5E-6
3.9E-8
3.6E-8
1.5E-8
1 .6E-6
8.2E-9
1.7E-10
5.4E-8
1.8E-9
8/93
13
Quantifying Exposure:  Intake Numbers

-------
REFERENCES

Andelman, J.B. 1990. Total exposure to volatile organic chemicals in potable water.  N.M. Ram,
R.F. Christman, and K.P. Cantor (eds).  Lewis Publishers, Inc., Boca Raton,  Florida.

Hawley, J.K.  1985.  Assessment of health risk from exposure to contaminated soil.  Risk Anal.
5:289-302.

U.S. EPA 1989.  Exposure factors handbook. EPA/600/8-89/043.  U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Exposure Assessment Group, Washington,
DC.

U.S. EPA 1991.  Risk assessment guidance for Superfund.  Volume 1: human health evaluation
manual supplemental guidance:  standard default exposure factors. Interim Final Report. OSWER
Directive 9285.6-03.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Toxics Integration Branch, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA 1992.  Dermal exposure assessment:  principles and applications.  EPA/600/8-91/01 IB.
Interim Report.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.
Quantifying Exposure:  Intake Numbers       14                                       8/93

-------