f/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
(5305W)
EPA530-D-99-001A
August 1999
www.epa.gov/osw
Screening Level
Ecological Risk
Assessment Protocol for
Hazardous Waste
Combustion
Volume One
Peer Review Draft
Printed on paper that contains at least 20 percent postconsumer fiber
-------
EPA530-D-99-001A
August 1999
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion
Facilities
Volume One
U.S. EPA, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document provides guidance to U.S. EPA Regions and States on how best to implement RCRA and
U.S. EPA's regulations to facilitate permitting decisions for hazardous waste combustion facilities. It also
provides guidance to the public and to the regulated community on how U.S. EPA intends to exercise its
discretion in implementing its regulations. The document does not substitute for U.S. EPA's regulations,
nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally-binding requirements on U.S. EPA, States, or
the regulated community. It may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. U.S.
EPA may change this guidance in the future, as appropriate.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Jeff Yurk (U.S. EPA Region 6), the primary author/editor of this document, would like to acknowledge that
the development of this document could not have been accomplished without the support, input, and work
of a multitude of U.S. EPA and support contractor personnel. The foundation for the combustion-related
guidance and methodologies outlined in this document were first developed by the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) and the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) in previous versions of combustion risk
assessment guidance. The State of North Carolinas' combustion risk assessment methodology was also
evaluated in preparation of this document. The foundation for the ecological risk-related procedures and
methodologies outlined in this document were based on previous guidance developed by the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) and EPA's Superfund program. This version of the protocol was
originally initiated in response to the desire of the Region 6 Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division to
implement an up-to-date and technically sound hazardous waste combustion permitting program. The
decision to incorporate guidance on a full range of national combustion risk assessment issues into the
document was encouraged and supported by the Director of the Office of Solid Waste.
The development of this document was significantly enhanced by a number of capable organizations and
personnel within U.S. EPA. Karen Pollard, Stephen Kroner and David Cozzie of the Economic Methods
and Risk Analysis Division in conjunction with Rosemary Workman of the Permits and State Programs
Division, Fred Chanania of the Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division, and Karen
Kraus of the Office of General Council provided overall policy, technical and legal comment on this
document. Anne Sergeant, Randy Bruins, David Reisman, Glenn Rice, Eletha Brady Roberts and
Matthew Lorber of the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and
Development, John Nichols of the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Vince
Nabholtz of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, and Dorothy Canter, Science
Advisor to the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, provided
key input on breaking scientific developments in the areas of ecological risk assessment, mercury
speciation, the dioxin reassessment, endocrine disrupters, toxicity factors, sulfur and brominated dioxin
analogs, as well as technical comment on the overall methodologies presented in the document.
Contributions by Larry Johnson of the National Exposure Research Laboratory of ORD and Jeff Ryan and
Paul Lemieux of the National Risk Management Research Laboratory of ORD were significant in
providing methodologies for conducting TO analysis and defining appropriate detection limits to be used in
the risk assessment. Donna Schwede of the National Exposure Research Laboratory of ORD and Jawad
Touma of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards provided technical review comments to
strengthen the air modeling section of the document. Review and comment on the soil and water fate and
transport models was provided by Robert Ambrose of EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory in
Athens, GA.
All U.S. EPA Regional Offices contributed valuable comments which have significantly improved the
usability of this document. In particular, staff from Region 4 aided in making sure guidance for conducting
trial burns was consistent with this document, and staff from Region 8 provided significant input on the
overall approach. The authors would be remiss if they did not acknowledge significant contributions from
the Texas Natural Resource and Conservation Commission through both comments and discussions of real-
world applications of risk assessment methodologies. Additionally, useful comments were received from
the State of Utah. The Region 6 Superfund Division is to be commended for its valuable review of the
-------
early document. Region 6 apologizes and bears full responsibility for any mistakes made in the
incorporation of comments and input from all reviewers into the document.
Finally, this work could not have been completed without the tireless efforts of support contractor
personnel. Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech), performed the bulk of the background research. The Air
Group, under subcontract to Tetra Tech, helped develop the chapter on air dispersion modeling. Also,
PGM, under subcontract to Tetra Tech, helped validate fate and transport models utilized in the document
as well as provide recommendations on the overall quality assurance/quality control of the document. The
work of these contractors was performed under the technical direction of staff from the Region 6 Center for
Combustion Science and Engineering, as well as key Agency project and contracting officers.
Region 6 looks forward to the insight and input yet to be provided by the public and other interested parties
during the full external peer review of the document.
in
-------
REVIEWERS
Preliminary drafts of this ecological risk assessment document, as well as its companion human health risk
assessment document, have received extensive internal Agency and State review. The following is a list of
reviewers who have commented on these documents prior to their release as a peer review draft.
Environmental Protection Agency Reviewers:
Office of Solid Waste
David Cozzie
Virginia Colten-Bradley
Becky Daiss
Steve Kroner
Dave Layland
Alec McBride
Karen Pollard
Rosemary Workman
Val De LaFuente
Bill Schoenborn
Fred Chanania
Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division
Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division
Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division
Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division
Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division
Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division
Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division
Permits and State Programs Division
Permits and State Programs Division
Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division
Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Dorothy Canter Office of the Assistant Administrator
Office of Research & Development
Eletha Brady-Roberts
Randy Bruins
David Reisman
Glenn Rice
Sue Schock
Jeff Swartout
David Cleverly
Jim Cogliano
Matthew Lorber
Anne Sergeant
Judy Strickland
Robert Ambrose
Larry Johnson
Donna Schwede
Paul Lemieux
Jeffrey Ryan
John Nichols
National Center for Environmental Assessment/Cincinnati
National Center for Environmental Assessment/Cincinnati
National Center for Environmental Assessment/Cincinnati
National Center for Environmental Assessment/Cincinnati
National Center for Environmental Assessment/Cincinnati
National Center for Environmental Assessment/Cincinnati
National Center for Environmental Assessment/DC
National Center for Environmental Assessment/ DC
National Center for Environmental Assessments/DC
National Center for Environmental Assessment/ DC
National Center for Environmental Assessments/RTP
National Exposure Research Laboratory
National Exposure Research Laboratory
National Exposure Research Laboratory
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory/RTP
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Joe Touma Air Quality Monitoring Group
IV
-------
Environmental Protection Agency Reviewers (cont):
Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxics
Vince Nabholtz Risk Assessment Division
Office of General Council
Karen Kraus
Region 1
Jui-Yu Hsieh
Region 2
John Brogard
Region 3
Gary Gross
Region 4
Beth Antley
Rick Gillam
Region 5
Mario Mangino
Gary Victorine
Region 6
Ghassan Khoury
Jon Rauscher
Susan Roddy
JeffYurk
Region 7
John Smith
Region 8
Carl Daly
Tala Henry
Region 9
Mary Blevins
Stacy Braye
Patrick Wilson
Solid Waste and Emergency Response Law Office
Office of Ecosystem Protection Division
Division of Environmental Planning and Protection
Waste and Chemicals Management Division
Waste Management Division
Waste Management Division
Waste, Pesticide and Toxic Division
Waste, Pesticide and Toxic Division
Superfund Group
Superfund Group
Superfund Group
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Air, RCRA and Toxics Division
Hazardous Waste Program
Hazardous Waste Program
Waste Management Division
Waste Management Division
Waste Management Division
-------
Region 10
Marcia Bailey Office of Environmental Assessment
Roseanne Lorenzana Office of Environmental Assessment
Catherine Massimino Office of Waste and Chemicals
State Reviewers
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Larry Champagne Toxicology and Risk Assessment Section
Lucy Frasier Toxicology and Risk Assessment Section
Loren Lund Toxicology and Risk Assessment Section
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
Tammi Hynum Hazardous Waste Division
Phillip Murphy Hazardous waste Division
Colorado Department of Health
Joe Schieffelin Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division
R. David Waltz Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Christopher Bittner Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Nathan Hartman Air Division
Brian Hughes Division of Epidemiology
John Rogers Air Division
VI
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE 1-7
1.2 RELATED TRIAL BURN ISSUES 1-12
1.3 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 1-13
2 FACILITY CHARACTERIZATION 2-1
2.1 COMPILING BASIC FACILITY DATA 2-1
2.2 IDENTIFYING EMISSION SOURCES 2-2
2.2.1 Estimating Stack Emission Rates for Existing
Facilities 2-3
2.2.1.1 Estimates from Trial Burns 2-4
2.2.1.2 Normal Operation Emission
Rate Data 2-6
2.2.1.3 Estimates of the Total Organic Emission (TOE) Rate 2-8
2.2.2 Estimating Stack Emission Rates for Facilities with
Multiple Stacks 2-12
2.2.3 Estimating Stack Emission Rates for Facilities Not
Yet Operational 2-13
2.2.4 Estimating Stack Emission Rates for Facilities
Previously Operated 2-13
2.2.5 Emission from Process Upsets 2-14
2.2.6 RCRA Fugitive Emissions 2-16
2.2.6.1 Quantitative Estimation of RCRA Fugitive Emissions from Process
Upsets 2-17
2.2.6.2 Fugitive Emissions from Combustion Unit Leaks 2-27
2.2.7 RCRA Fugitive Ash Emissions 2-28
2.2.7.1 Quantitative Estimation of RCRA Fugitive Ash
Emissions 2-28
2.2.8 Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) Fugitive Emissions 2-29
2.2.8.1 Composition and Characteristics of CKD 2-30
2.2.8.2 Estimation of CKD Fugitive Emissions 2-31
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering vii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
Chapter
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
2.3
IDENTIFYING COMPOUNDS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN 2-32
2.3.1 Polychlorinated Dibenzo(p)dioxins and
Dibenzofurans 2-38
2.3.1.1 Toxicity Equivalency Factors for PCDDs and PCDFs 2-40
2.3.1.2 Exposure Assessment for Community Measurement
Receptors 2-43
2.3.1.3 Exposure Assessment for Class-specific Guild Measurement
Receptors 2-45
2.3.1.4 Bioaccumulation Equivalency Factors 2-46
2.3.1.5 Flourine, Bromine, and Sulfur PCDD/PCDF Analogs 2-48
2.3.2 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons 2-49
2.3.2.1 Exposure Assessment for PAHs 2-50
2.3.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls 2-50
2.3.3.1 Exposure Assessment for PCBs 2-52
2.3.4 Nitroaromatics 2-54
2.3.5 Phthalates 2-55
2.3.6 Hexachlorobenzene and Pentachlorophenol 2-56
2.3.7 Metals 2-57
2.3.7.1 Chromium 2-58
2.3.7.2 Mercury 2-59
2.3.8 Particulate Matter 2-67
2.3.9 Hydrogen Chloride/Chlorine Gas 2-68
2.3.10 Endocrine Disrupters 2-68
2.3.11 Radionuclides 2-69
2.4 ESTIMATING COPC CONCENTRATIONS FOR NON-DETECTS 2-71
2.4.1 Definitions of Commonly Reported Detection Limits 2-71
2.4.2 Use in the Risk Assessment of Data Reported as
Non-Detect 2-74
2.4.3 Statistical Distribution Techniques 2-76
2.4.4 U.S. EPA OSW Recommendations on Quantifying
Non-Detects 2-76
2.4.5 Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration (EMPC) 2-77
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
Vlll
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
2.5 CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN BLANKS 2-78
3 AIR DISPERSION AND DEPOSITION MODELING 3-1
3.1 DEVELOPMENT OF AIR MODELS 3-3
3.1.1 History of Risk Assessment Air Dispersion Models 3-3
3.1.2 Preprocessing Programs 3-5
3.1.3 Expert Interface (Exlnter Version 1.0) 3-6
3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION REQUIRED TO SUPPORT AIR
MODELING 3-7
3.2.1 Surrounding Terrain Information 3-8
3.2.2 Surrounding Land Use Information 3-9
3.2.2.1 Land Use for Dispersion Coefficients 3-9
3.2.2.2 Land Use for Surface Roughness Height (Length) 3-11
3.2.3 Information on Facility Building Characteristics 3-12
3.3 USE OF UNIT EMISSION RATE 3-15
3.4 PARTITIONING OF EMISSIONS 3-15
3.4.1 Vapor Phase Modeling 3-16
3.4.2 Particle Phase Modeling (Mass Weighting) 3-16
3.4.3 Particle-Bound Modeling (Surface Area Weighting) 3-21
3.5 METEOROLOGICAL DATA 3-22
3.5.1 Surface Data 3-25
3.5.
3.5.
3.5.
3.5.
3.5.
3.5.
3.5.
. 1 Wind Speed and Wind Direction 3-27
.2 Dry Bulb Temperature 3-27
.3 Opaque Cloud Cover 3-28
.4 Cloud Ceiling Height 3-28
.5 Surface Pressure 3-29
.6 Precipitation Amount and Type 3-29
.7 Solar Radiation (Future Use for Dry Vapor Deposition) 3-29
3.5.2 Upper Air Data 3-30
3.6 METEOROLOGICAL PREPROCESSORS AND INTERFACE
PROGRAMS 3-30
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering ix
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
3.6.1 PCRAMMET 3-30
3.6.
3.6.
3.6.
3.6.
3.6.
3.6.
3.6.
3.6.
. 1 Monin-Obukhov Length 3-32
.2 Anemometer Height 3-32
.3 Surface Roughness Height at Measurement Site 3-33
.4 Surface Roughness Height at Application Site 3-33
.5 Noon-Time Albedo 3-33
.6 Bowen Ratio 3-36
.7 Anthropogenic Heat Flux 3-36
.8 Fraction of Net Radiation Absorbed at the Ground 3-36
3.6.2
MPRM 3-40
3.7 ISCST3 MODEL INPUT FILES 3-40
3.7.1 COntrol Pathway 3-42
3.7.2 SOurce Pathway 3-46
3.7.2.1 Source Location 3-47
3.7.2.2 Source Parameters 3-48
3.7.2.3 Building Parameters 3-48
3.7.2.4 Particle Size Distribution 3-49
3.7.2.5 Particle Density 3-50
3.7.2.6 Scavenging Coefficients 3-50
3.7.3 REceptor Pathway 3-52
3.7.4 MEteorological Pathway 3-54
3.7.5 Terrain Grid (TG) Pathway 3-55
3.7.6 OUtput Pathway 3-56
3.8 ISCST3 MODEL EXECUTION 3-57
3.9 USE OF MODELED OUTPUT 3-58
3.9.1 Unit Rate Output vs. COPC-Specific Output 3-58
3.9.1.1 Determination of the COPC-Specific Emission Rate (0 .... 3-60
3.9.1.2 Converting Unit Output to COPC-Specific Output 3-60
3.9.2 Output from the ISCST3 Model 3-61
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
3.9.3 Use of Model Output in Estimating Media Equations 3-62
3.9.3.1 Vapor Phase COPCs 3-62
3.9.3.2 Particle Phase COPCs 3-63
3.9.3.3 Particle-Bound COPCs 3-63
3.10 MODELING OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS 3-63
3.11 ESTIMATION OF COPC CONCENTRATIONS IN MEDIA 3-68
3.11.1 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Soil 3-69
3.11.1.1 Calculating Highest Average COPC Concentration in Soil ... 3-71
3.11.1.2 Calculating the COPC Soil Loss Constant (ks) 3-71
3.11.1.3 Deposition Term (Ds) 3-79
3.11.1.4 Site-Specific Parameters for Calculating Soil Concentration . . 3-80
3.11.2 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Surface Water and Sediment.... 3-83
3.11.2.1 Total COPC Loading to a Water Body (LT) 3-85
3.11.2.2 Total Water Body COPC Concentration (Cwtot) 3-93
3.11.2.3 Total COPC Concentration in Water Column (Cwctot) 3-104
3.11.3 Calculation of COPC Concentrations in Plants 3-107
3.11.3.1 Plant Concentration Due to Direct Deposition (Pd) 3-109
3.11.3.2 Plant Concentration Due to Air-to-Plant Transfer (Pv) 3-110
3.11.3.3 Plant Concentration Due to Root Uptake (Pr) 3-110
3.12 REPLACING DEFAULT PARAMETER VALUES 3-111
4 PROBLEM FORMULATION 4-1
4.1 EXPOSURE SETTING CHARACTERIZATION 4-1
4.1.1 Selection of Habitats 4-2
4.1.1.1 Selection of Exposure Scenario Locations Within
Terrestrial Habitats 4-4
4.1.1.2 Selection of Exposure Scenario Locations Within
Aquatic Habitats 4-7
4.1.1.3 Special Ecological Areas 4-9
4.1.2 Identification of Ecological Receptors 4-10
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xi
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
4.2 FOOD WEB DEVELOPMENT 4-11
4.2.1 Grouping Receptors into Feeding Guilds and
Communities 4-12
4.2.2 Organizing Food Web Structure by Trophic Level 4-12
4.2.3 Defining Dietary Relationships between Guilds and
Communities 4-13
4.2.4 Example Habitat-Specific Food Webs 4-14
4.3 SELECTING ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS 4-22
4.4 SELECTING MEASUREMENT ENDPOINTS 4-27
4.4.1 Procedures for Identifying Measurement Endpoint
Receptors 4-28
4.4.2 Measurement Receptors for Guilds 4-28
4.4.3 Measurement Receptors for Example Food Webs 4-29
5 ANALYSIS 5-1
5.1 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 5-1
5.2 ASSESSING EXPOSURE TO COMMUNITY MEASUREMENT
RECEPTORS 5-2
5.3 ASSESSING EXPOSURE TO CLASS-SPECIFIC GUILD MEASUREMENT
RECEPTORS 5-3
5.3.1 Ingestion Rates for Measurement Receptors 5-5
5.3.2 COPC Concentrations in Food Items of Measurement
Receptors 5-11
5.3.2.1 COPC Concentrations in Invertebrates, Phytoplankton, and Rooted
Aquatic Plants 5-11
5.3.2.2 COPC Concentrations in Terrestrial Plants 5-13
5.3.2.3 COPC Concentrations in Fish 5-14
5.3.2.4 COPC Concentrations in Mammals, Birds, Amphibians, and
Reptiles 5-19
5.4 ASSESSMENT OF TOXICITY 5-24
5.4.1 General Guidance on Selection of Toxicity Reference
Values 5-25
5.4.1.1 Evaluation of Toxicity Test Data 5-26
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
5.4.1.2 Best Professional Judgement for Evaluating Toxicity
Values 5-27
5.4.1.3 Uncertainly Factors for Extrapolation from Toxicity Test
Values 5-29
6 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 6-1
6.1 RISK ESTIMATION 6-1
6.2 RISK DESCRIPTION 6-3
6.2.1 Magnitude and Nature of Ecological Risk 6-3
6.2.1.1 Target Levels 6-4
6.2.2 Fate and Exposure Assumptions 6-5
6.3 UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RISK ASSESSMENT
PROCESS 6-6
6.3.1 Types of Uncertainty 6-7
6.3.1.1 Variable Uncertainty 6-7
6.3.1.2 Model Uncertainty 6-8
6.3.1.3 Decision-rule Uncertainty 6-9
6.3.2 Description of Qualitative Uncertainty 6-9
6.3.3 Description of Quantitative Uncertainty 6-10
6.3.4 Risk Assessment Uncertainty Discussion 6-11
6.3.5 Limitations and Uncertainties Specific to a Screening
Level Ecological Risk Assessment 6-13
6.3.5.1 Limitations Typical of a
Screening Level Ecological
Risk Assessment 6-13
6.3.5.2 Uncertainties Typical of a
Screening Level Ecological
Risk Assessment 6-14
REFERENCES R-l
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xiii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
APPENDICES
Appendix
A CHEMICAL SPECIFIC DATA
B ESTIMATING MEDIA CONCENTRATION EQUATIONS AND VARIABLE VALUES
C MEDIA-TO-RECEPTOR BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS (BCFs)
D BIOCONCENTRATION FACTORS (BCFs) FOR WILDLIFE MEASUREMENT
RECEPTORS
E TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES
F EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING COPC CONCENTRATIONS AND COPC DOSE
INGESTED TERMS
G STATE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAMS
H TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILES
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xiv
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS 1-10
2-1 EXAMPLE FACILITY PLOT MAP 2-22
2-2 EXAMPLE EMISSIONS INVENTORY 2-23
2-3 COPC IDENTIFICATION 2-35
2-4 PHASE ALLOCATION AND SPECIATION OF MERCURY IN THE AIR 2-62
3-1 SOURCES OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA 3-24
3-2 EXAMPLE INPUT FILE FOR 'PARTICLE PHASE' 3-44
3-3 EXAMPLE PLOT FILE 3-65
3-4 COPC CONCENTRATION IN SOIL 3-70
3-5 COPC LOADING TO THE WATER BODY 3-84
3-6 COPC CONCENTRATION IN PLANTS 3-108
4-1 EXAMPLE FOREST FOOD WEB 4-15
4-2 EXAMPLE TALLGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEB 4-16
4-3 EXAMPLE SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE FOOD WEB 4-17
4-4 EXAMPLE SHRUB/SCRUB FOOD WEB 4-18
4-5 EXAMPLE FRESHWATER FOOD WEB 4-19
4-6 EXAMPLE BRACKISH/INTERMEDIATE MARSH FOOD WEB 4-20
4-7 EXAMPLE SALT MARSH FOOD WEB 4-21
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xv
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
TABLES
Table Page
2-1 EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF TOTAL FUGITIVE EMISSION RATES FOR EQUIPMENT
IN WASTE FEED STORAGE AREA 2-18
2-2 EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF SPECIATED FUGITIVE EMISSION RATES FOR
EQUIPMENT IN WASTE FEED STORAGE AREAS 2-20
2-3 POLYCHLORINATED DIBENZO(P)DIOXIN AND DIBENZOFURAN CONGENER
TOXICITY EQUIVALENCY FACTORS (TEFs) FOR FISH, MAMMALS, AND BIRDS . 2-42
2-4 PCDD AND PCDF BIOACCUMULATION EQUIVALENCY FACTORS (BEFs) 2-48
2-5 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL CONGENER TOXICITY EQUIVALENCY FACTORS
(TEFs) FOR FISH, MAMMALS, AND BIRDS 2-53
3-1 GENERALIZED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION, AND PROPORTION OF AVAILABLE
SURFACE AREA, TO BE USED AS A DEFAULT IN DEPOSITION MODELING IF
SITE-SPECIFIC DATA ARE UNAVAILABLE 3-19
3-2 ALBEDO OF NATURAL GROUND COVERS FOR LAND USE TYPES
AND SEASONS 3-35
3-3 DAYTIME BOWEN RATION BY LAND USE, SEASON, AND PRECIPITATION
CONDITIONS 3-37
3-4 ANTHROPOGENIC HEAT FLUX AND NET RADIATION FOR SEVERAL
URBAN AREAS 3-39
3-5 AIR PARAMETERS FROM ISCST3 MODELED OUTPUT 3-59
4-1 ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS FOR GUILDS AND COMMUNITIES IN EXAMPLE
FOOD WEBS 4-24
5-1 INGESTION RATES FOR EXAMPLE MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS 5-7
5-2 FOOD CHAIN MULTIPLIERS 5-17
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xvi
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Mg/L
Mg/s
|im
|im/s
|im2
°C
op
°K
ADOM
AET
APCS
atm-m3/mol-K
ATSDR
AWFCO
AWQC
BAF
BaP
BCF
BD
BEF
BEHP
BIF
BPIP
BS
BSAF
BTAG
BW
CARB
CAS
CERM
CKD
COMPDEP
COMPLEX I
COPC
CPF
CRQL
CWA
Microgram
Micrograms per kilogram
Micrograms per liter
Micrograms per second
Micrometer
Micrometers per second
Square micrometers
Degrees Celsius
Degrees Fahrenheit
Degrees Kelvin
Acid Deposition and Oxidant Model
Apparent effects threshold
Air pollution control system
Atmosphere-cubic meters per mole-degrees Kelvin
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Automatic waste feed cutoff
Ambient water quality criteria
Bioaccumulation factor
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bioconcentration factor
Soil bulk density
Bioaccumulation equivalency factor
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Boiler and industrial furnace
Building profile input program
Benthic solids
Sediment bioaccumulation factor
Biological Technical Assistance Group
Body weight
California Air Resources Board
Chemical Abstracts Service
Conceptual ecological risk model
Cement kiln dust
COMPLEX terrain model with DEPosition
COMPLEX terrain model, Version 1
Compound of potential concern
Cumulative probability density function
Contract required quantitation limit
Clean Water Act
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
xvii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
DEHP
DEM
DNOP
DOE
DQL
ORE
EDQL
EEL
EPA
EPC
EQL
EQP
ERA
ERL
ERT
ESP
ESI
ESQ
FCM
FWS
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)
Diethylhexylphthalate (same as Bis(2-ethylhexl)phthalate)
Digital Elevation Model
Di(n)octylphthalate
U.S. Department of Energy
Data quality level
Destruction and removal efficiency
Ecological data quality levels
Estimated exposure level
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Exposure point concentration
Estimated quantitation limit
Equilibrium partitioning
Ecological risk assessment
Effects range low
Environmental Research and Technology
Electrostatic precipitator
Ecological screening index
Ecological screening quotient
Food chain multiplier
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
g/s
g/cm3
g/m3
GAQM
GC
GEP
HBC
HgCl2
HQ
HSDB
Grams per second
Grams per cubic centimeter
Grams per cubic meter
Guideline on Air Quality Models
Gas chromatography
Good engineering practice
Hexachlorobenzene
Mercuric chloride
Hazard quotient
Hazardous substances data base
IDL
IBM
IRIS
ISCST3
ISCSTDFT
kg
kg/L
Instrument detection limit
Indirect exposure model
Integrated risk information system
Industrial source complex short-term model
Industrial Source Complex Short Term Draft
Kilogram
Kilograms per liter
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
xviii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
L
LC50
LCD
LD50
LEL
LFI
LOAEL
LOD
LOEL
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)
Liter
Lethal concentration to 50 percent of the test population
Local Climatological Data Annual Summary with Comparative Data
Lethal dose to 50 percent of the test population
Lowest effect level
Log fill-in
Lowest observed adverse effect level
Level of detection
Lowest observed effect level
m
m/s
mg
mg/kg
mg/kg/day
mg/L
mg/m3
MACT
MDL
MLE
MPRM
MPTER
MPTER-DS
NC DEHNR
NCDC
NCEA
NEL
NFI
NOAA
NOAEL
NOEC
NOEL
NRC
NTIS
NWS
Meter
Meters per second
Milligram
Milligrams per kilogram
Milligrams per kilogram per day
Milligrams per liter
Milligrams per cubic meter
Maximum achievable control technology
Method detection limit
Maximum likelihood estimation
Meterological Processor for Regulatory Models
Air quality model for multiple point source gaussian dispersion algorithm with
terrain adjustments
Air quality model for multiple point source gaussian dispersion algorithm with
terrain adjustments including deposition and sedimentation
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
National Climatic Data Center
National Center for Environmental Assessment
No effect level
Normal fill-in
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
No observed adverse effect level
No observed effect concentration
No observed effect level
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
National technical information service
National weather service
OAQPS
OAQPS TTN
OC
OCDD
ORD
ORNL
OSW
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards and Technology Transfer
Network
Organic carbon
Octachlorodibenzodioxin
Office of Research and Development
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
xix
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
OV
PAH
PCB
PCDD
PCDF
PCRAMMET
PDF
PIC
PM
PM10
POHC
PQL
PRC
PU
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)
Deposition output values
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
Polychlorinated biphenyl
Polychlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxin
Polychlorinated dibenzofuran
Personal computer version of the meterological preprocessor for the old RAM
program
Probability density function
Product of incomplete combustion
Particulate matter
Particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter
Principal organic hazardous constituent
Practical quantitation limit
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
Polyurethane
QA/QC
QAPjP
QSAR
RCRA
REACH
RME
RTDM
RTDMDEP
RTECS
SAMSON
SCRAM BBS
SFB
SMDP
SO
SQL
SVOC
TAL
TCDD
TDA
TEF
TG
TIC
TL
TOC
TRY
TSS
Quality assurance/Quality control
Quality assurance project plan
Quantitative structure activity relationship
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Reasonable maximum exposure
Rough terrain diffusion model
Rough terrain diffusion model deposition
Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances
Solar and Meterological Surface Observational Network
Support Center for Regulatory Air Models Bulletin Board System
San Francisco Bay
Scientific management decision point
Source
Sample quantitation limit
Semivolatile organic compound
Target analyte list
Tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin
Toluene diisocyanate
Toxicity equivalent factor
Terrain grid
Tentatively identified compound
Trophic level
Total organic carbon
Toxicity reference value
Total suspended solids
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
xx
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Continued)
UF Uncertainty factor
UFI Uniform fill-in
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
USLE Universal soil loss equation
UTM Universal transverse mercator
VOC Volatile organic compound
watts/m2 Watts per square meter
WRPLOT Wind Rose PLOTing program
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xxi
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
LIST OF VARIABLES
Pa
A
P»
e
a
A
b
BAFt
BCFa/s
BCF,
BCFPi_H
BCF,
BCFPi_OM
BCFS/BS_C
BCFS/BS_H
BCFW_C
BCFW_HM
BCFm
BCFr
BD
BMFn
BS
BSAF
Bv
BW
C
CAl
Cc
CF
CF02
*-^gen
CH
G
Dimensionless viscous sublayer thickness (unitless)
Viscosity of air (g/cm-s)
Viscosity of water corresponding to water temperature (g/cm-s)
Air density (g/cm3 or g/m3)
Bed sediment density (kg/L)
Density of water corresponding to water temperature (g/cm3)
Temperature correction factor (unitless)
Bed sediment porosity (unitless)
Soil volumetric water content (mL/cm3 soil)
Empirical intercept coefficient (unitless)
Surface area of affected area (m2)
Empirical slope coefficient (unitless)
Bioaccumulation factor reported on a lipid-normalized basis using the freely
dissolved concentration of a chemical in the water (L/kg)
Aquatic-sediment bioconcentration factor (unitless)
Bioconcentration factor reported on a lipid-normalized basis using the freely
dissolved concentration of a chemical in the water (L/kg)
Bioconcentration factor for plant-to-herbivore for /'th plant food item (unitless)
Soil-to-soil invertebrate bioconcentration factor (unitless)
Bioconcentration factor for plant-to-omnivore for /th plant food item (unitless)
Bioconcentration factor for soil- or bed sediment-to-carnivore (unitless)
Bioconcentration factor for soil-to-plant or bed sediment-to-plant (unitless)
Bioconcentration factor for water-to-carnivore (L/kg)
Bioconcentration factor for water-to-herbivore (L/kg)
Bioconcentration factor for water-to-invertebrate (L/kg)
Plant-soil biotransfer factor (unitless)
Soil bulk density (g soil/cm3 soil)
Biomagnification factor for nth trophic level
Benthic solids concentration (kg/L or g/cm3)
Sediment bioaccumulation factor (unitless)
Air-to-plant biotransfer factor (|ig COPC/g DW plant)/((ig COPC/g air)
Body weight (kg)
USLE cover management factor (unitless)
COPC concentration in /'th animal food item (mg/kg)
COPC concentration in carnivore (mg/kg)
Drag coefficient (unitless)
Dissolved phase water concentration (mg/L)
COPC concentration in fish (mg/kg)
Correction factor for conversion to 4.5 percent O2 (unitless)
Generic chemical concentration (mg/kg or mg/L)
COPC concentration in herbivore (mg/kg)
Stack concentration of/th identified COPC (carbon basis) (mg/m3)
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
xxii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
Q
Q
^PREY
c
sed
^-s/sed
C-TOC
C
TP
Cyp
Cyv
Cywv
A
D2
DDTEQ
DD,
Ds"n
Dyd
Dydp
Dytwp
Dywp
Dywv
Dywwv
Ev
ER
LIST OF VARIABLES (Continued)
COPC concentration in rth plant or animal food item (mg COPC/kg)
COPC concentration in soil or benthic invertebrate (mg/kg)
COPC concentration in soil or sediment interstitial water (mg/L)
COPC concentration in media (mg COPC/kg [soil, sediment] or mg COPC/L
[water])
COPC concentration in omnivore (mg/kg)
COPC concentration in /th plant food item (mg/kg)
Concentration in prey
COPC concentration in bed sediment (g COPC/cm3 sediment or mg COPC/kg
sediment)
COPC concentration in soil or bed sediment (mg/kg)
Stack concentration of TOC, including speciated and unspeciated compounds
(mg/m3)
COPC concentration in terrestrial plants (mg COPC/kg WW)
Total COPC concentration in water column (mg/L)
Total water body COPC concentration (including water column and bed
sediment) (g/m3 or mg/L)
Unitized yearly air concentration from particle phase (//g-s/g-m3)
Unitized yearly air concentration from vapor phase (^g s/g m3)
Unitized yearly watershed air concentration from vapor phase (|lg-s/g-m3)
Lower bound of a particle size density for a particular filter cut size
Upper bound of a particle size density for a particular filter cut size
Diffusivity of COPC in air (cm2/s)
Depth of upper benthic sediment layer (m)
Daily dose of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (^g/kg BW/d)
Daily dose of rth congener (jWg/kg BW/d)
Mean particle size density for a particular filter cut size
Deposition term (mg/kg-yr)
Diffusivity of COPC in water (cm2/s)
Depth of water column (m)
Unitzed yearly dry deposition rate of COPC (g/m2-yr)
Unitized yearly dry deposition from particle phase (s/m2-yr)
Unitized yearly watershed total deposition (wet and dry) from particle phase
(s/m2-yr)
Unitized yearly wet deposition from particle phase (s/m2-yr)
Unitized yearly wet deposition from vapor phase (s/m2-yr)
Unitized yearly watershed wet deposition from vapor phase (s/m2-yr)
Total water body depth (m)
Average annual evapotranspiration (cm/yr)
Soil enrichment ratio (unitless)
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
xxiii
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents
August 1999
FAJ
FCM
FCMTLn
FCM,
TLn-Ai
FCMTL3
Jwc
F
oe
Fw
H
•"MEDIUM
I
IR
k
K
KG
KL
Kdbs
Kdl}
Kds
Kdsw
Kocj
kp
ks
kse
ksg
ksl
ksr
ksv
kv
Kv
L
LIST OF VARIABLES (Continued)
Fraction of diet consiting of rth animal food item (unitless)
Fraction of total water body COPC concentration in benthic sediment (unitless)
Trophic level-specific food-chain multiplier (unitless)
Food chain multiplier for nth trophic level
Food chain multiplier for trophic level of rth animal food item (unitless)
Food chain multiplier for trophic level 3 (unitless)
Fraction of total water body COPC concentration in the water column (unitless)
Fraction of COPC air concentration in vapor phase (unitless)
Fraction of organic carbon (unitless)
Fraction of diet consisting of rth plant food item (unitless)
Fraction of COPC wet deposition that adheres to plant surfaces (unitless)
Henry's law constant (atm-m3/mol)
Ingestion rate of soil, surface water, or sediment
Average annual irrigation (cm/yr)
Ingestion rate (kg/day)
von Karman's constant (unitless)
USLE erodibility factor (ton/acre)
Benthic burial rate (yr :)
Gas phase transfer coefficient (m/yr)
Liquid phase transfer coefficient (m/yr)
Bed sediment/sediment pore water partition coefficient (L/kg or cmVg)
Partition coefficient for COPC i associated with sorbing material j (unitless)
Soil-water partition coefficient (cmVg or mg/L)
Suspended sediments/surface water partition coefficient (L/kg)
Organic carbon partition coefficient (mg/L)
Sorbing material-independent organic carbon partition coefficient for COPC j
Octanol-water partition coefficient (unitless)
Plant surface loss coefficient (yr :)
COPC soil loss constant due to all processes (yr :)
COPC loss constant due to soil erosion (yr :)
COPC loss constant due to biotic and abiotic degradation (yr :)
COPC loss constant due to leaching (yr :)
COPC loss constant due to runoff (yr :)
COPC loss constant due to volatilization (yr :)
Water column volatilization rate constant (yr :)
Overall transfer rate coefficient (m/yr)
Overall total water body COPC dissipation rate constant (unitless)
Monin-Obukhov Length (m)
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
xxiv
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents _ August 1999
LIST OF VARIABLES (Continued)
LDEP = Total (wet and dry) particle phase and wet vapor phase direct deposition load to
water body (g/yr)
Ldif = Dry vapor phase diffusion load to water body (g/yr)
LE = Soil erosion load (g/yr)
LR = Runoff load from pervious surfaces (g/yr)
Lm = Runoff load from impervious surfaces (g/yr)
LT = Total COPC load to water body (g/yr)
LS = USLE length-slope factor (unitless)
MW = Molecular weight of COPC (g/mol)
= Organic carbon content of sorbing material / (unitless)
OV = Deposition output values
P = Average annual precipitation (cm/yr)
PAi = Proportion of /th animal food item in diet that is contaminated (unitless)
Pd = COPC concentration in plant due to to direct deposition (mg/kg WW)
PF = USLE supporting practice factor (unitless)
PPi = Proportion of /th plant food item in diet that is contaminated (unitless)
Pr = COPC concentration in plant due to root uptake (mg/kg WW)
PS/BS = Proportion of soil or bed sediment in diet that is contaminated (unitless)
Pv = COPC concentration in plant due to air-to-plant transfer (mg/kg WW)
Pw = Proportion of water in diet that is contaminated (unitless)
Q = COPC emission rate (g/s)
Qi = Emission rate of COPC (i) (g/s)
Qi(adj) = Adjusted emission rate of COPC (i) (g/s)
Qf = Anthropogenic heat flux (W/m2)
Q* = Net radiation absorbed (W/m2)
r = Interception fraction-the fraction of material in rain intercepted by vegetation
and initially retained (unitless)
R = Universal gas constant (atm-m3/mol-K)
RO = Average annual runoff (cm/yr)
RF = USLE rainfall (or erosivity) factor (yr :)
Sc = Average soil concentration over exposure duration (mg/kg)
ScTc = Soil concentration at time Tc (mg/kg)
SD = Sediment delivery ratio (unitless)
SGC = COPC stack gas concentration as measured in the trial burn (|ig/dscm)
SGF = Stack gas flow rate at 7 percent O2 (dscm/s)
Ta = Ambient air temperature (K) = 298. 1 K
Tp = Length of plant exposure to deposition per harvest of the edible portion of the rth
plant group (yr)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xxv
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
LIST OF VARIABLES (Continued)
tD = Total time period over which deposition occurs (time period of combustion) (yr)
Tm = Melting point temperature (K)
TSS = Total suspended solids concentration (mg/L)
Tw = Water body temperature (K)
M = Current velocity (m/s)
V = Volume
Vdv = Dry deposition velocity (cm/s)
Vfx = Average volumetric flow rate through water body (m3/yr)
VGag = Empirical correction factor for aboveground produce (unitless)
VP = Vapor pressure (atm)
W = Average annual wind velocity (m/s)
WAj = Area of impervious watershed receiving COPC deposition (m2)
WAL = Area of watershed receiving COPC deposition (m2)
WAW = Water body surface area (m2)
Xe = Unit soil loss (kg/m2"yr)
Yp = Standing crop biomass (productivity) (kg/m2 DW)
Zs = Soil mixing zone depth (cm)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xxvi
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Contents August 1999
CONVERSIONS
0.001 = Units conversion factor (g/mg)
106 = Units conversion factor (|ig/g)
907.18 = Units conversion factor (kg/ton)
3.1536x107 = Conversion constant (s/year)
4,047 = Units conversion factor (m2/acre)
100 = Units conversion factor (m2-mg/cm2-kg)
10"6 = Units conversion factor (g/|ig)
0.12 = Dry weight to wet weight (plants) conversion factor (unitless)
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering xxvii
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
What's Covered in Chapter 1:
4 Objective and Purpose
4 Related Trial Burn Issues
4 Reference Documents
4 Overview of the Risk Assessment Process
+ Relationship to U. S. EPA HHRAP
4 Definitions
Risk assessment is a science used to evaluate the potential hazards to the environment that are attributable
to emissions from hazardous waste combustion units. There is general guidance available regarding the
general ecological risk assessment process including problem formulation, analysis, and risk
characterization (U.S. EPA 1997c; 1998d). This document expands on that general guidance with respect
to the ecological screening level procedures and provides a prescriptive tool to support permitting of
hazardous waste burning combustion facilities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). It is not intended to be used to perform screening or baseline ecological risk assessments (ERA)
in other areas of the RCRA program, such as corrective action.
The following definitions were adopted from Super fund: Process for Designing and Conducting
Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim Final (U.S. EPA 1997c) and Guidelines For Ecological Risk
Assessment (U.S. EPA 1998d), and identify key terms used throughout this guidance. Some of the terms
are annotated with additional information to clarify the definition and explain its use in this protocol.
Area Use Factor: A ratio of an organism's home range, breeding range, or feeding and foraging range to
the area of contamination of the assessment area.
Assessment Endpoint: An explicit expression of the environmental value that is to be protected; it
includes both an ecological entity and specific attributes of that entity. The assessment endpoint in this
protocol is used to link the risk assessment to management concerns and ultimately development of a
protective RCRA operating permit. One or more assessment endpoints may be selected for performing a
risk assessment.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-1
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
Bioaccumulation: The net accumulation of a substance by an organism as a result of uptake directly from
all environmental sources, including food. Bioaccumulation occurs through all exposure routes.
Bioaccumulation Factor (BAF). BAF represents the ratio of the concentration of a chemical to its
concentration in a medium. The factor must be measured at steady-state when the rate of uptake is
balanced by the rate of excretion. In this protocol a bioaccumulation factor (BAF) is estimated by
multiplying a bioconcentration factor (BCF) by a food chain multiplier (FCM) derived based on the trophic
level of the prey ingested by a measurement receptor.
Bioconcentration: A process by which there is a net accumulation of a chemical directly from an exposure
medium into an organism.
Bioconcentration Factor (BCF). BCF represents the ratio of the concentration of a chemical in an
aquatic organism to the concentration of the chemical in surface water, sediment, or soil. The factor must
be measured at steady-state when the rate of uptake is balanced by the rate of excretion. BCFs are used in
this protocol to estimate the body burden of a COPC in producers, primary consumers, and fish consumed
by mid- or upper-trophic level measurement receptors.
Biomagnification: The process by which the concentration of some chemicals increase with increasing
trophic level; that is, the concentration in a predator exceeds the concentration in its prey. In this protocol,
a ratio of FCM's are used to account for biomagnification.
Biotransfer Factor: COPC accumulation factor between a food item and its consumer. In this protocol
biotransfer factors are used to evaluate transport of contaminants in plants to mammals and birds.
Depuration: The loss of a compound from an ecological receptor as a result of any active or passive
process.
Direct Uptake: Direct uptake is a term applied to producers, primary consumers, and detritivores. Direct
uptake includes all exposure routes for aquatic receptors, benthic receptors, soil invertebrates, and
terrestrial plants. Direct uptake is used in this manner because it is difficult, given feeding and habitat
niches of these receptors and limited availability of empirical information, to discern the relative importance
of exposure through ingestion, respiration, dermal uptake, or root uptake. In addition, toxicity tests (used
as the basis of risk assessment toxicity reference values) on these receptors (except some aquatic fauna)
usually do not make a distinction between exposure routes or tend to overemphasize or isolate a particular
route.
Ecological Effects Assessment: A portion of the analysis phase of the risk assessment that evaluates the
ability of a stressor to cause adverse effects under a particular set of circumstances. Toxicity reference
values identified in ecological effects assessment are used in risk characterization.
Ecological Risk Assessment: The process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may
occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-2
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
Ecological Screening Quotient (ESQ): A quotient used to assess risk during the risk assessment in which
protective assumptions are used. Generally, the numerator is the reasonable worst-case COPC
concentration at the point of exposure, and the denominator is the no-adverse-effects-based toxicity
reference value.
Environmental Attribute: Characteristic of a food web functional group (e.g., herbivorous mammal) that
is relevant to the ecosystem. Examples of environmental attributes include seed dispersal, decompositon,
pollination, and food source.
Exposure Assessment: A portion of the analysis phase of ERA that evaluates the interaction of the
stressor with one or more ecological components. Exposure can be expressed as co-occurrence or contact,
depending on the stressor and ecological component involved. Information from the exposure assessment is
used in risk characterization.
Exposure Pathway: A pathway by which a compound travels from a combustion facility to an ecological
receptor. A complete exposure pathway occurs when a chemical enters or makes contact with an
ecological receptor through one or more exposure routes.
Exposure Route: A point of contact or entry of a chemical from the environment into an organism. The
exposure routes for terrestrial wildlife are ingestion, dermal absorption, and inhalation. The exposure
routes for aquatic fauna are ingestion, dermal absorption, and respiration. The exposure routes for
terrestrial plants are root absorption or foliar uptake. Exposure routes for aquatic plants are direct contact
with water and sediments.
Food Chain: The transfer of food energy from the source in plants through a series of organisms with
repeated eating and being eaten (Odum 1971).
Food Web: The interlocking patterns of food chains (Odum 1971).
Food-Chain Multiplier (FCM): The FCM is used to account for dietary uptake of a compound by an
ecological receptor. It may be used to estimate a BAF from a BCF in the absence of reliable BAF data.
The FCM values in Table 5-1 have been adopted from Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes
System (U.S. EPA 1995J).
Guild: A group of species occupying a particular trophic level and exploiting a common resource base in a
similar fashion (Root 1967).
Habitat: The physical environment in which a species is distributed. Habitat location depends on several
factors, such as chemical conditions, physical conditions, vegetation, species eating strategy, and species
nesting strategy. By analogy, the habitat is an organism's "address."
Measure of Effect: A measurable ecological characteristic that is related to the valued characteristic
chosen as the assessment endpoint. It is the measure used to evaluate the response of the assessment
endpoint when exposed to a chemical (U.S. EPA 1998d). This protocol proposes, for each class/guild,
representative receptors (measurement receptors) for characterizing risk from exposure to compounds
emitted from a combustion facility.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-3
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
Measure of Effect: A measurable ecological characteristic that is related to the valued characteristic
chosen as the assessment endpoint.
Measure of Exposure: A measurable stressor characteristic that is used to help quantify exposure.
Measurement Receptor: A species, population, community, or assemblage of communities (such as
"aquatic life") used to characterize ecological risk to an assessment endpoint.
Problem Formulation: A systematic planning step that identifies the focus and scope of the risk
assessment. Problem formulation includes ecosystem characterization, pathway analysis, assessment
endpoint development, and measurement endpoint identification. Problem formulation results in the
development of a problem statement that is addressed in the analysis step.
Scientific and Management Decision Point: A point during the risk assessment at which the risk assessor
and risk manager discuss results. The risk manager determines whether the information is sufficient to
arrive at a decision regarding the significance of the results and whether additional information is needed
before proceeding forward in the risk assessment.
Special Ecological Area: Habitats and areas for which protection and special consideration has been
conferred legislatively (federal or state), such as critical habitat for federally or state-designated endangered
or threatened species. In characterizing media concentrations of COPCs, special emphasis is placed on
estimating concentrations and, therefore, exposure potential, in sensitive areas.
Stressor: Any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce an adverse response.
Trophic Level: One of the successive levels of nourishment in a food web or food chain. Plant producers
constitute the first (lowest) trophic level, and dominant carnivores constitute the last (highest) trophic level.
Uncertainty Factor: Quantitative values used to adjust toxicity values from laboratory toxicity tests to
toxicity values representative of chronic no-observed-adverse-effect-levels (NOAELs). In this guidance,
uncertainty factors (UF) are used to extrapolate from acute and subchronic test duration to chronic
duration, and to extrapolate from point estimated (e.g., LD50) and lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) endpoints to an NOAEL endpoint.
Uptake: Acquisition by an ecological receptor of a compound from the environment as a result of any
active or passive process.
This Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol (SLERAP) has been developed as national
guidance to consolidate information presented in other risk assessment guidance and methodology
documents previously prepared by U.S. EPA and state environmental agencies. In addition, this guidance
also addresses issues that have been identified while conducting risk assessments for existing hazardous
waste combustion units. The overall purpose of this document is to explain how ecological risk
assessments should be performed at hazardous waste combustion facilities. This document is intended as
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-4
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
(1) guidance for personnel conducting risk assessments, and (2) an information resource for permit writers,
risk managers, and community relations personnel.
The RCRA "omnibus" authority of §3005(c)(3) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6925(c)(3) and 40 CFR
§270.32(b)(2) gives the Agency both the authority and the responsibility to establish risk-based
permit conditions on a case-by-case basis as necessary to protect human health and the
environment. These risk-based site-specific permit conditions are in addition to the national
technical standards required in the hazardous waste incinerator and boiler/industrial furnace
regulations of 1981 and 1991, respectively. Often, the determination of whether or not a permit is
sufficiently protective can be based on its conformance to the technical standards specified in the
regulations. Since the time that the regulations for hazardous waste incinerators and boilers/industrial
furnaces were issued, however, additional information became available which suggested that technical
standards may not fully address potentially significant risks. For example, many studies (including the
Draft Health Reassessment of Dioxin-Like Compounds, Mercury Study Report to Congress, Risk
Assessment Support to the Development of Technical Standards for Emissions from Combustion Units
Burning Hazardous Wastes: Background Information Document, and the Waste Technologies Industries
(WTI) Risk Assessment} indicate that there can be significant risks from indirect exposure pathways (e.g.,
pathways other than direct inhalation). The food chain pathway appears to be particularly important for
bioaccumulative pollutants which may be emitted from hazardous waste combustion units. In many cases,
risks from indirect exposure may constitute the majority of the risk from a hazardous waste combustor.
This key portion of the risk from hazardous waste combustor emissions was not directly taken into account
when the hazardous waste combustion standards were developed. In addition, uncertainty remained
regarding the types and quantities of non-dioxin products of incomplete combustion emitted from
combustion units and the risks posed by these compounds.
As a result, until such time that the technical standards could be upgraded to more completely
address potential risk from hazardous waste combustion, U.S. EPA recommended, pursuant to
the "omnibus" authority, that site-specific risk assessments be performed for all combustion
facilities as a part of the RCRA permitting process. Performance of a site-specific risk assessment can
provide the information necessary to determine what, if any, additional permit conditions are necessary for
each situation to ensure that operation of the combustion unit is protective of human health and the
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-5
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
environment. Under 40 C.F.R. §270.10(k), U.S. EPA may require a permit applicant to submit additional
information (e.g., a site-specific risk assessment) that the Agency needs to establish permit conditions under
the omnibus authority. In certain cases, the Agency may also seek additional testing or data under the
authority of RCRA §3013 (where the presence or release of a hazardous waste "may present a substantial
hazard to human health or the environment") and may issue an order requiring the facility to conduct
monitoring, testing, analysis, and reporting. Any decision to add permit conditions based on a site-specific
risk assessment under this authority must be justified in the administrative record for each facility, and the
implementing agency should explain the basis for the conditions.
U.S. EPA promulgation of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for
hazardous waste incinerators, cement kilns and light-weight aggregate kilns effectively upgraded the
existing national technical standards for these combustion units. U.S. EPA intends to similarly upgrade the
technical standards for other types of hazardous waste combustors in a later rulemaking. Since the MACT
standards are more protective than the original standards for incinerators, cement kilns and light-weight
aggregate kilns, U.S. EPA revised its earlier recommendation regarding site-specific risk assessments. As
discussed in the preamble to the final MACT rule, U.S. EPA recommended that the permitting authority
determine if a site-specific risk assessment is needed in addition to the MACT standards in order to meet
the RCRA statutory obligation of protection of human health and the environment. For hazardous waste
combustors not subject to the Phase I MACT standards, U.S. EPA continues to recommend that site-
specific risk assessments be conducted as part of the RCRA permitting process. If the permitting authority
determines a risk assessment is warranted, it should be conducted as part of the RCRA permitting process.
The permitting agency should consider several factors in its evaluation of the need to perform a risk
assessment (human health and ecological). These factors include:
• whether any proposed or final regulatory standards exist that U.S. EPA has shown to be
protective for site-specific receptors
• whether the facility is exceeding any final technical standards
• the current level of hazardous constituents being emitted by a facility, particularly in
comparison to proposed or final technical standards, and to levels at other facilities where
risks have been estimated
• the scope of waste minimization efforts and the status of implementation of a facility waste
minimization plan
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-6
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
• particular site-specific considerations related to the exposure setting (such as physical,
land use, presence of threatened or endangered species and special subpopulation
characteristics) and the impact on potential risks
• the presence of significant ecological considerations (e.g., high background levels of a
particular contaminant, proximity to a particular sensitive ecosystem)
• the presence of nearby off-site sources of pollutants
• the presence of other on-site sources of pollutants
• the hazardous constituents most likely to be found and those most likely to pose significant
risk
• the identity, quantity, and toxicity of possible non-dioxin PICs
• the volume and types of wastes being burned
• the level of public interest and community involvement attributable to the facility
This list is by no means exhaustive, but is meant only to suggest significant factors that have thus far been
identified. Others may be equally or more important.
The companion document of the SLERAP is the Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol (HHRAP) (U.S.
EPA 1998c). U.S. EPA OSW has prepared these guidance documents as a resource to be used by
authorized agencies developing risk assessment reports to support permitting decisions for facilities with
hazardous waste combustion units.
1.1 OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE
This protocol is a multipathway screening tool based on reasonable, protective assumptions about the
potential for ecological receptors to be exposed to, and to be adversely affected by, compounds of potential
concern (COPC) emitted from hazardous waste combustion facilities. The U.S. EPA OSW risk assessment
process is a prescriptive analysis intended to be performed expeditiously using (1) measurement receptors
representing food web-specific class/guilds and communities, and (2) readily available exposure and
ecological effects information. To avoid the time-intensive and resource-consuming process of collecting
site-specific information on numerous constituents, this guidance provides a process to obtain and evaluate
various types of technical information that will enable a risk assessor to perform a risk assessment
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-7
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
relatively quickly. Additionally this guidance provides: (1) example food webs; (2) example measurement
receptor natural history information; (3) fate and transport data, bioconcentration factors, and toxicity
reference values for 38 COPCs. In lieu of this information, a facility may substitute site-specific
information where appropriate and approved by the applicable permitting authority.
U.S. EPA OSW's objective is to present a user-friendly set of procedures for performing risk assessments,
including (1) a complete explanation of the basis of those procedures, and (2) a comprehensive source of
data needed to complete those procedures. The first volume of this document provides the explanation
(Chapters 1 through 6); and the second and third volumes (Appendices A-H) provides the data sources.
Appendix A presents compound-specific information necessary to complete the risk assessment. Appendix
B presents equations for calculating media concentrations. Appendices C and D provide chemical and
media-specific bioconcentration factors (BCFs). Appendix E provides toxicity reference values (TRVs) for
38 compounds of potential concern (COPCs) and several possible measurement receptors. Appendix F
presents equations for calculating risk. Appendix G provides contact information for obtaining site-specific
species information, and Appendix H provides toxicological profiles for 38 COPCs. Figure 1-1
summarizes the steps needed to complete a screening level ecological risk assessment.
Implementation of this guidance will demonstrate that developing defensible estimates of compound
emission rates is one of the most important elements of the risk assessment. As described in Chapter 2,
traditional trial burns conducted to measure destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) do not sufficiently
characterize organic products of incomplete combustion (PIC) and metal emissions for use in performing
risk assessments. In some instances, a facility or regulatory agency may want to perform a pretrial burn
risk assessment, following the procedures outlined in this document, to ensure that sample collection times
during the trial burn or risk burn are sufficient to collect the sample volumes needed to meet the detection
limits required for the risk assessment. The decision to perform such an assessment should consider
regulatory permitting schedules and other site-specific factors.
U.S. EPA OSW anticipates that ecological risk assessments will be completed for new and existing
facilities as part of the permit application process. The SLERAP recommends a process for evaluating
reasonable—not theoretical worst-case maximum—potential risks to receptors posed by emissions from
RCRA regulated units. The use of existing and site-specific information early in, and throughout, the risk
assessment process is encouraged; protective assumptions should be made only when needed to ensure that
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-8
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
emissions from combustion units do not pose unacceptable risks. More protective assumptions may be
incorporated to make the process fit a classical "screening level" approach that is more protective and may
be easier to complete.
Regardless of whether theoretical worst case or more reasonable protective assumptions are used in
completing the risk assessment process, every risk assessment is limited by the quantity and quality of:
• site-specific environmental data
• emission rate information
• other assumptions made during the risk estimation process (for example, fate and transport
variables, exposure assumptions, and receptor characteristics)
These limitations and uncertainties are described throughout this document and the appendixes, and are
summarized in Chapter 6.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-9
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction
August 1999
FIGURE 1-1
SCREEN ING-LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS
U.S. EPA Region 6
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering
U.S. EPA
Office of Solid Waste
1-10
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
Potentially, unacceptable risks or other significant issues identified by collecting preliminary site
information and completing risk assessment calculations can be addressed by the permitting process or
during an iteration of the risk assessment. After the initial ecological risk assessment has been completed,
it may be used by risk managers and permit writers in several ways:
• If the initial risk assessment indicates that estimated ecological risks are below regulatory
levels of concern, risk managers and permit writers will likely proceed through the
permitting process without adding any risk-based unit operating conditions to the permit.
• If the initial ecological risk assessment indicates potentially unacceptable risks, additional
site-specific information demonstrated to be more representative of the exposure setting
may be collected and additional iterations of risk assessment calculations can then be
performed.
• If the initial risk assessment or subsequent iterations indicate potentially unacceptable
risks, risk managers and permit writers may use the results of the risk assessment to revise
tentative permit conditions (for example, waste feed limitations, process operating
conditions, and expanded environmental monitoring). To determine if the subject
hazardous waste combustion unit can be operated in a manner that is protective of the
environment, an additional iteration of the risk assessment should be completed using the
revised tentative operating conditions. If the revised conditions still indicate unacceptable
risks, this process can be continued in an iterative fashion until acceptable levels are
reached. In some situations, it may be possible to select target risk levels and
back-calculate the risk assessment to determine the appropriate emission and waste feed
rate levels. In any case, the acceptable waste feed rate and other appropriate conditions
can then be incorporated as additional permit conditions.
• If the initial ecological risk assessment, or subsequent iterations, indicate potentially
unacceptable risks, risk managers and permit writers may also choose to deny the permit.
This process is also outlined in Figure 1-1. As stated earlier, in some instances, a facility or regulatory
agency may want to perform a pretrial burn risk assessment—following the procedures outlined in this
document—to ensure that sample collection times during the trial burn or risk burn are sufficient to collect
the sample volumes necessary to meet the appropriate detection limits for the risk assessment. This is
expected to reduce the need for additional trial burn tests or iterations of the risk assessment due to
problems caused when detection limits are not low enough to estimate risk with certainty sufficient for
regulatory decision making.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-11
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
1.2 RELATED TRIAL BURN ISSUES
In the course of developing this guidance and completing risk assessments across the country, U.S. EPA
OSW has learned that developing defensible estimates of compound of potential concern (COPC) emission
rates is one of the most important parts of the risk assessment process. As described in Chapter 2,
traditional trial burns conducted to measure destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) do not sufficiently
characterize organic products of incomplete combustion (PIC) and metal emissions for use in performing
risk assessments.
U.S. EPA OSW considers the trial burn and risk assessment planning and implementation processes as
interdependent aspects of the hazardous waste combustion unit permitting process. In addition, U.S. EPA
OSW advocates that facility planning, regulatory agency review, and completion of tasks needed for both
processes be conducted simultaneously to eliminate redundancy or the need to repeat activities. U.S. EPA
OSW expects that the following guidance documents will typically be used as the main sources of
information for developing and conducting appropriate trial burns:
U.S. EPA. 1989f Handbook: Guidance on Setting Permit Conditions and Reporting
Trial Burn Results. Volume II of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Guidance Series.
Office of Research and Development (ORD). EPA/625/6-89/019. January.
U.S. EPA. 1989g. Handbook: Hazardous Waste Incineration Measurement Guidance
Manual. Volume III of the Hazardous Waste Incineration Guidance Series. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). EPA/625/6-89/021. June.
U. S. EPA. 1992e. Technical Implementation Document for EPA 's Boiler and Industrial
Furnace Regulations. OSWER. EPA-530-R-92-011. March.
U.S. EPA. 1994n. Draft Revision of Guidance on Trial Burns. Attachment B, Draft
Exposure Assessment Guidance for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. OSWER. April 15.
U.S. EPA. 1998b. Guidance on Collection of Emissions Data to Support Site-Specific
Risk Assessments at Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Prepared by EPA Region
4 and the Office of Solid Waste.
Generic Trial Burn Plan and QAPPs developed by EPA regional offices or states.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-12
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
1.3 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
This section describes, in chronological order, the primary guidance documents used to prepare this
guidance. Some of the guidance documents received a thorough review from EPA's Science Advisory
Board, which mostly supported the work. Additional references used to prepare this guidance are listed in
the References chapter of this document. These documents have been developed over a period of several
years; in most cases, revisions to the original guidance documents address only the specific issues being
revised rather than representing a complete revision of the original document. The following discussion
lists and briefly describes each document. Overall, each of the guidance documents reflects a continual
enhancing of the methodology.
This ecological assessment portion of this protocol is based on protecting the functions of ecological
receptors in ecosystems and protecting special ecological areas around a hazardous waste combustion
facility. It is generally consistent with current U.S. EPA guidance, including the Risk Assessment Forum's
Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA 1998d), as well as the interim final Ecological Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund (U.S. EPA 1997c) The most current methodology for assessing fate
and transport of COPC's frequently referenced in this guidance is the U.S. EPA document, Methodology
for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Multiple Exposure Pathways to Combustor Emissions (In
Press).
The following document was the first U.S. EPA NCEA guidance document for conducting risk assessments
at combustion units:
• U.S. EPA. 1990a. Interim Final Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated
with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office. ORD. EPA-600-90-003. January.
This document outlined and explained a set of general procedures recommended in this guidance for
determining media concentrations utilized in ecological risk assessments. This document was subsequently
revised by the following:
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-13
-------
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol
Chapter 1: Introduction August 1999
• U.S. EPA. 1993h. Review Draft Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health
Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions. Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment. ORD. EPA-600-AP-93-003. November 10.
U.S. EPA (1993h) outlined recommended revisions to previous U.S. EPA guidance (1990a), which have
been used by the risk assessment community since the release of the document; however, these
recommended revisions were never formally incorporated into the original document.
Finally, U.S. EPA Region 5 contracted for development of a Screening Ecological Risk Assessment of
Waste Technologies Industries (WTI) Hazardous Waste Incinerator, in Liverpool, Ohio (U.S. EPA
19951). This document was extensively peer reviewed and represents the most current application of
ecological risk assessment guidance at a combustion facility. The WTI screening ecological risk
assessment was reviewed and considered throughout the development of the approach presented in this
guidance document.
U.S. EPA. 1998d. Proposed Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum,
Washington, D.C. EPA/630/R-95/002B. August.
U.S. EPA. 1997c. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Interim Final. Environmental Response Team, Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response, Edison, New Jersey. June 5.
Root, R.B. 1967. "The Niche Exploitation Pattern of the Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher." Ecological
Monographs. Volume 37, Pages 317-350.
Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. Third Edition. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia.
574 pp.
U.S. EPA Region 6 U.S. EPA
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division Office of Solid Waste
Center for Combustion Science and Engineering 1-14
------- |