ASTM E2020-99a(2010)
(Guide)Standard Guide for Data and Information Options for Conducting an Ecological Risk Assessment at Contaminated Sites
Standard Guide for Data and Information Options for Conducting an Ecological Risk Assessment at Contaminated Sites
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
This guide is significant in that it addresses the data and information options of each component of the ecological risk assessment process, for both a screening and complex ERA. It outlines the data and information options while recognizing that an ecological risk assessment may be focused to achieve a particular stated goal. This guide is not intended to represent the views of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), or any other regulatory agency, on data collection for ecological risk assessment.
This guide is to be used by managers, scientists, and technical staff of contractors, industry, government agencies, and universities responsible for conducting ecological risk assessments at contaminated sites. It is to be used to guide data collection phases of the ecological risk assessment. It will assist in the development of the conceptual site model (see Guide E1689) and the identification of potential assessment and measurement endpoints (see Guide E1848). While it was written to assist in planning an ERA, the list also may be used in the review of a completed ERA.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide is intended to assist remedial project teams, specifically ecological risk assessors, in identifying data and information options that may be used to perform a screening or complex ecological risk assessment (ERA) at a contaminated site.
1.2 The identification of data and information options for human health risk assessment is outside the scope of this guide.
1.3 This guide is intended to provide a list for identifying data and information options and does not recommend a specific course of action for ERA activities.
1.4 This guide addresses data and information options for the ecological risk assessment, not verification or long-term monitoring studies.
1.5 This guide lists many of the common data and information options for ERA, but there may be others relevant for any particular site.
1.6 This guide considers one component of an ERA, that is, identification of data and information options. Other ASTM guides have been developed, for example, Guides E1689 and E1848, and are being developed to cover other components of the risk assessment process.
1.7 This guide does not provide information on how to perform any of the analytical procedures used to perform a risk assessment once data collection options are defined.
General Information
Relations
Buy Standard
Standards Content (Sample)
NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation: E2020 − 99a (Reapproved 2010)
Standard Guide for
Data and Information Options for Conducting an Ecological
Risk Assessment at Contaminated Sites
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2020; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope and Groundwater (Withdrawn 2013)
E1391 Guide for Collection, Storage, Characterization, and
1.1 This guide is intended to assist remedial project teams,
Manipulation of Sediments for Toxicological Testing and
specifically ecological risk assessors, in identifying data and
for Selection of Samplers Used to Collect Benthic Inver-
information options that may be used to perform a screening or
tebrates
complex ecological risk assessment (ERA) at a contaminated
E1525 Guide for Designing Biological Tests with Sediments
site.
E1689 Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models for
1.2 The identification of data and information options for
Contaminated Sites
humanhealthriskassessmentisoutsidethescopeofthisguide.
E1848 Guide for Selecting and Using Ecological Endpoints
for Contaminated Sites
1.3 This guide is intended to provide a list for identifying
data and information options and does not recommend a
specific course of action for ERA activities. 3. Terminology
1.4 This guide addresses data and information options for 3.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
the ecological risk assessment, not verification or long-term
3.1.1 assessment endpoint, n—an explicit expression of the
monitoring studies.
environmental value to be protected.
1.5 This guide lists many of the common data and informa-
3.1.2 chemical stressor, n—achemical,chemicalmixture,or
tion options for ERA, but there may be others relevant for any
radionuclide present in an environmental medium that is
particular site.
known or suspected to induce an adverse biological,
toxicological, or ecological response in an exposed ecological
1.6 This guide considers one component of an ERA, that is,
receptor.
identification of data and information options. Other ASTM
guides have been developed, for example, Guides E1689 and
3.1.3 complex ecological risk assessment, n—an ecological
E1848, and are being developed to cover other components of
risk assessment completed using quantitative methods, which
the risk assessment process.
relies on site-specific data and may include toxicity testing,
field biological surveys, and probabilistic analysis.
1.7 This guide does not provide information on how to
perform any of the analytical procedures used to perform a risk
3.1.4 data quality objective, n—a specification of the
assessment once data collection options are defined.
amount and quality of data required to adequately complete the
risk assessment such that a risk management decision can be
2. Referenced Documents
made.
2.1 ASTM Standards:
3.1.5 ecological receptor, n—ecosystems, communities,
D5730 Guide for Site Characterization for Environmental
populations, and individual organisms (except humans), that
Purposes With Emphasis on Soil, Rock, the Vadose Zone
can be exposed directly or indirectly to site stressors.
3.1.6 measurement endpoint, n—a measurable response to a
stressor that is quantifiably related to the valued characteristic
ThisguideisunderthejurisdictionofASTMCommitteeE50onEnvironmental
chosen as the assessment endpoint.
Assessment, Risk Management and CorrectiveAction and is the direct responsibil-
ity of Subcommittee E50.05 on Environmental Risk Management.
3.1.7 non-chemical stressor, n—a biological agent, physical
Current edition approved March 1, 2010. Published May 2010. Originally
disturbance, condition, or nonchemical characteristic of a
approved in 1999. Last previous edition approved 2004 as E2020–99a (2004). DOI:
10.1520/E2020-99AR10.
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on The last approved version of this historical standard is referenced on
the ASTM website. www.astm.org.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E2020 − 99a (2010)
waste material, substrate, or source associated with a contami- outcome of the data quality objectives (DQO) process (5).A
nated site and corrective actions that is known or suspected to typical site may utilize only a small percentage of these data
interfere with the normal functioning of an ecological receptor. and information options. These lists are intended to serve as a
general index to data collection efforts.
3.1.8 screening ecological risk assessment, n—anecological
risk assessment completed using qualitative or simple quanti-
7. Lists
tative methods, which relies on literature information and is
unlikely to include toxicity testing, field biological surveys, or 7.1 Not all of the components within the following lists will
be relevant at every contaminated site. In addition, some
probabilistic analysis.
information may be site-specific and other information may be
3.1.9 site, n—theterms“site,”“on-site,”and“off-site,”have
obtained from the literature. Literature data are more prevalent
not been defined in this guide. They will need to be defined on
in screening ERAs and site-specific data are more prevalent in
a case-by-case basis. They could be defined by regulatory
complex ERAs. Whenever practicable, site-specific data are
needs, natural boundaries, or property boundaries.
preferred over literature data.
4. Summary of Guide
7.2 The options in the lists are not in any particular order.
4.1 This guide provides a series of lists of data and Risk assessment often is an iterative process, and it may be
more scientifically sound and cost-effective to complete certain
information options for conducting an ecological risk assess-
ment at a contaminated site and is organized in accordance options before others. The order for the completion of options
will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
with the major components of the risk assessment process:
problem formulation, exposure characterization, effects
8. Data Options for Problem Formulation
characterization, and risk characterization (1-4). Lists are
provided for screening and complex ERAs.
8.1 Most of the data and information options in problem
formulation are applicable to both screening and complex
5. Significance and Use
ERAsandareoutlinedbelow;however,theinformationwillbe
5.1 This guide is significant in that it addresses the data and more detailed in a complex ERA. Additional data and infor-
information options of each component of the ecological risk
mation options typically found only in complex ERAs are
assessment process, for both a screening and complex ERA. It listed in Section 9.
outlines the data and information options while recognizing
8.2 Clearly define the goals of the ERA (6).
that an ecological risk assessment may be focused to achieve a
8.3 Define data quality objectives (DQOs) for the assess-
particular stated goal. This guide is not intended to represent
ment (see Ref. 5).
the views of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
8.3.1 State the problem that the risk assessment should
(USEPA), or any other regulatory agency, on data collection
address.
for ecological risk assessment.
8.3.2 Identify the decision(s) that require new environmen-
5.2 This guide is to be used by managers, scientists, and
tal data to address the contamination problem.
technical staff of contractors, industry, government agencies,
8.3.3 Identify the inputs (data or information) needed to
and universities responsible for conducting ecological risk
support the decision.
assessments at contaminated sites. It is to be used to guide data
8.3.4 Define the scale (spatial and temporal) of the assess-
collection phases of the ecological risk assessment. It will
ment.
assist in the development of the conceptual site model (see
8.3.5 Develop a decision rule that defines choice among
Guide E1689) and the identification of potential assessment
alternative solutions.
and measurement endpoints (see Guide E1848). While it was
8.3.6 Specify acceptable limits on decision errors used to
written to assist in planning an ERA, the list also may be used
establish performance goals for limiting uncertainty.
in the review of a completed ERA.
8.3.7 Optimize the design for obtaining data, by identifying
the most resource-effective sampling and analysis plan.
6. General Guidance on Determining Data Collection
Options for Ecological Risk Assessment 8.4 Complete the conceptual site model (see Guide E1689)
8.4.1 Identify the current and historical sources of potential
6.1 It is imperative that the goals of the ERAare outlined at
chemical stressors, such as the following:
the beginning of the ERA process. Data collection efforts may
8.4.1.1 Process areas;
then be focused to ensure a sound scientific approach and
8.4.1.2 Landfill;
cost-effective use of resources, for example, time and money.
8.4.1.3 Burial ground;
6.2 Thelistsarenotmeanttobeexhaustive.Neitherarethey
8.4.1.4 Underground or aboveground storage tanks, or both;
intended to be lists of data required for all ERAs. The amount
8.4.1.5 Lagoons;
and type of data required for a screening or complex ERAwill
8.4.1.6 Holding ponds;
depend upon the size and location of the site, the future
8.4.1.7 Air stacks or other air emission sources;
intended use of the site, the complexity of the site, and the
8.4.1.8 Effluent pipes; or,
8.4.1.9 Historical spills or accidental releases.
8.4.2 Identify nonchemical, for example, physical and bio-
The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of
this standard. logical stressors, such as the following:
E2020 − 99a (2010)
8.4.2.1 Nonnative or exotic species; 8.4.8.5 Consider whether endpoint species are sensitive to
8.4.2.2 Pathogens; site constituents.
8.4.8.6 Consider whether endpoint species are likely to
8.4.2.3 Temperature;
8.4.2.4 Suspended solids; receive high exposures.
8.4.2.5 Change in water levels; 8.4.9 Identify any threatened, or endangered species (plant
or animal), or both, known to inhabit, or that could potentially
8.4.2.6 Oxygen depletion;
inhabit, the vicinity of the site. Also, identify the presence of
8.4.2.7 pH;
habitat that could be utilized by threatened and endangered
8.4.2.8 Predators;
species. Consider using state or federal listings of threatened,
8.4.2.9 Habitat alteration, degradation or destruction; or,
rare and endangered species, for example, Natural Heritage
8.4.2.10 Non-site-related stressors, for example, local re-
Program. Consider local laws and regulations to identify any
leases from municipal or industrial development.
protected species or species of local concern.
8.4.3 Identify potential constituent migration pathways.
8.4.10 Identify any commercially or recreationally impor-
8.4.4 Identify geological features that control movement of
tant species in the area of the site.
constituents and dictate exposure pathways. In particular, note
8.4.11 Describe the food web. Identify multiple food
any features which would cause unpredictable movement of
sources, where appropriate, in the foraging area of each
constituents, for example, karst formations in limestone often
receptor species. Consider consulting with local naturalists, for
cause difficulties in tracing ground water movement.
example, Department of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife
8.4.5 Identify all relevant constituent-bearing media, such
Service, Department of Environmental Protection, Natural
as the following:
Heritage Program, to obtain information on local species.
8.4.5.1 Soil;
8.4.12 Define measurement endpoints and include rationale
8.4.5.2 Ground water;
for their selection. Also, describe relation between assessment
8.4.5.3 Surface water;
endpoints and measurement endpoints.
8.4.5.4 Sediment;
8.4.13 Present both current and future exposure scenarios.
8.4.5.5 Air; or,
Future exposures should be based on reasonably anticipated
8.4.5.6 Biota.
future land use. Describe how future exposures may change, as
8.4.6 Identify direct and indirect complete exposure path-
a result of the following scenarios, for example:
ways. Ensure that exposure pathways are identified
8.4.13.1 Increased release from a ground water plume to a
appropriately, for example, PCBs may not be detected in
stream;
surface water, but may be detected in fish tissues, and
8.4.13.2 Increased habitat from forest succession causes
therefore, food web exposure pathways are appropriate to
additional ecological receptor species to be in contact with
consider. Exposure pathways may include the following:
constituents;
8.4.6.1 Inhalation;
8.4.13.3 Decreased exposure because of scouring of sedi-
8.4.6.2 Ingestion;
ments out of a stream, but increased exposure downstream
8.4.6.3 Dermal uptake;
where sediments settle;
8.4.6.4 Root uptake; or,
8.4.13.4 Weather-related seasonal or periodic changes; or,
8.4.6.5 Food web.
8.4.13.5 Continued physical degradation or biodegradation
8.4.7 Identify normal and atypical weather patterns for the
of constituents.
site location, such as the following:
8.5 Environmental Description of Site (7):
8.4.7.1 Excessive dry periods with high winds may lead to
8.5.1 Describeandmapcurrentandpotentialfuturelanduse
increased levels of constituents in air from fugitive dusts, and
scenariosofthesiteandsurroundingarea,toensureassessment
destruction of habitat;
endpoints and ecological receptor species are selected that are
8.4.7.2 Storm events, for example, hurricanes, that may
appropriate for current and future land uses. Land uses may
mobilize constituents, for example, suspension of sediments
include the following:
may increase the bioavailability of constituents;
8.5.1.1 Residential;
8.4.7.3 Periodic flooding may result in certain exposure
8.5.1.2 Park land/recreational;
pathways that may otherwise not exist, for example, contami-
8.5.1.3 Industrial;
nation of the floodplain community from a stream; or,
8.5.1.4 Commercial;
8.4.7.4 Fluctuations in salinity.
8.5.1.5 Agricultural;
8.4.8 Define the assessment endpoints and include rationale
for their selection (see Guide E1848). 8.5.1.6 Forested;
8.4.8.1 Ensure the assessment endpoints are relevant to 8.5.1.7 Wetlands;
decision-making. 8.5.1.8 Wildlife preservation area; or,
8.4.8.2 Consider whether endpoints are ecologically rel- 8.5.1.9 Aquatic habitat.
evant. 8.5.2 Describe and map the aquatic habitat.
8.4.8
...
This document is not anASTM standard and is intended only to provide the user of anASTM standard an indication of what changes have been made to the previous version. Because
it may not be technically possible to adequately depict all changes accurately, ASTM recommends that users consult prior editions as appropriate. In all cases only the current version
of the standard as published by ASTM is to be considered the official document.
Designation:E2020–99a (Reapproved 2004) Designation: E2020 – 99a (Reapproved
2010)
Standard Guide for
Data and Information Options for Conducting an Ecological
Risk Assessment at Contaminated Sites
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2020; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope
1.1 This guide is intended to assist remedial project teams, specifically ecological risk assessors, in identifying data and
information options that may be used to perform a screening or complex ecological risk assessment (ERA) at a contaminated site.
1.2 The identification of data and information options for human health risk assessment is outside the scope of this guide.
1.3 This guide is intended to provide a list for identifying data and information options and does not recommend a specific
course of action for ERA activities.
1.4 This guide addresses data and information options for the ecological risk assessment, not verification or long-term
monitoring studies.
1.5 This guide lists many of the common data and information options for ERA, but there may be others relevant for any
particular site.
1.6 This guide considers one component of an ERA, that is, identification of data and information options. OtherASTM guides
have been developed, for example, Guides E1689 and E1848, and are being developed to cover other components of the risk
assessment process.
1.7 This guide does not provide information on how to perform any of the analytical procedures used to perform a risk
assessment once data collection options are defined.
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:
D5730 GuideforSiteCharacterizationforEnvironmentalPurposesWithEmphasisonSoil,Rock,theVadoseZoneandGround
Water
E1391 Guide for Collection, Storage, Characterization, and Manipulation of Sediments for Toxicological Testing and for
Selection of Samplers Used to Collect Benthic Invertebrates
E1525 Guide for Designing Biological Tests with Sediments
E1689 Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models for Contaminated Sites
E1848 Guide for Selecting and Using Ecological Endpoints for Contaminated Sites
3. Terminology
3.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.1.1 assessment endpoint, n—an explicit expression of the environmental value to be protected.
3.1.2 chemical stressor, n—a chemical, chemical mixture, or radionuclide present in an environmental medium that is known
or suspected to induce an adverse biological, toxicological, or ecological response in an exposed ecological receptor.
3.1.3 complex ecological risk assessment, n—an ecological risk assessment completed using quantitative methods, which relies
on site-specific data and may include toxicity testing, field biological surveys, and probabilistic analysis.
3.1.4 data quality objective, n—a specification of the amount and quality of data required to adequately complete the risk
assessment such that a risk management decision can be made.
3.1.5 ecological receptor, n—ecosystems, communities, populations, and individual organisms (except humans), that can be
This guide is under the jurisdiction ofASTM Committee E47 on Biological Effects and Environmental Fate and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E47.05 on
Risk Assessment, Communication, and Management.
Current edition approved August 1, 2004. Published August 2004. Originally approved in 1999. Last previous edition approved 1999 as E2020–99a. DOI:
10.1520/E2020-99AR04.on Risk Assessment, Communication and Management.
Current edition approved March 1, 2010. Published May 2010. Originally approved in 1999. Last previous edition approved 2004 as E2020–99a (2004). DOI:
10.1520/E2020-99AR10.
For referencedASTM standards, visit theASTM website, www.astm.org, or contactASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM Standards
volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on the ASTM website.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
E2020 – 99a (2010)
exposed directly or indirectly to site stressors.
3.1.6 measurement endpoint, n—a measurable response to a stressor that is quantifiably related to the valued characteristic
chosen as the assessment endpoint.
3.1.7 non-chemical stressor, n—a biological agent, physical disturbance, condition, or nonchemical characteristic of a waste
material,substrate,orsourceassociatedwithacontaminatedsiteandcorrectiveactionsthatisknownorsuspectedtointerferewith
the normal functioning of an ecological receptor.
3.1.8 screening ecological risk assessment, n—an ecological risk assessment completed using qualitative or simple quantitative
methods, which relies on literature information and is unlikely to include toxicity testing, field biological surveys, or probabilistic
analysis.
3.1.9 site, n—the terms “site,” “on-site,” and “off-site,” have not been defined in this guide. They will need to be defined on
a case-by-case basis. They could be defined by regulatory needs, natural boundaries, or property boundaries.
4. Summary of Guide
4.1 This guide provides a series of lists of data and information options for conducting an ecological risk assessment at a
contaminated site and is organized in accordance with the major components of the risk assessment process: problem formulation,
exposure characterization, effects characterization, and risk characterization (1-4). Lists are provided for screening and complex
ERAs.
5. Significance and Use
5.1 This guide is significant in that it addresses the data and information options of each component of the ecological risk
assessment process, for both a screening and complex ERA. It outlines the data and information options while recognizing that
an ecological risk assessment may be focused to achieve a particular stated goal. This guide is not intended to represent the views
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), or any other regulatory agency, on data collection for ecological risk
assessment.
5.2 This guide is to be used by managers, scientists, and technical staff of contractors, industry, government agencies, and
universities responsible for conducting ecological risk assessments at contaminated sites. It is to be used to guide data collection
phases of the ecological risk assessment. It will assist in the development of the conceptual site model (see Guide E1689) and the
identification of potential assessment and measurement endpoints (see Guide E1848). While it was written to assist in planning
an ERA, the list also may be used in the review of a completed ERA.
6. General Guidance on Determining Data Collection Options for Ecological Risk Assessment
6.1 It is imperative that the goals of the ERAare outlined at the beginning of the ERAprocess. Data collection efforts may then
be focused to ensure a sound scientific approach and cost-effective use of resources, for example, time and money.
6.2 The lists are not meant to be exhaustive. Neither are they intended to be lists of data required for all ERAs. The amount
and type of data required for a screening or complex ERA will depend upon the size and location of the site, the future intended
use of the site, the complexity of the site, and the outcome of the data quality objectives (DQO) process (5). A typical site may
utilize only a small percentage of these data and information options. These lists are intended to serve as a general index to data
collection efforts.
7. Lists
7.1 Not all of the components within the following lists will be relevant at every contaminated site. In addition, some
information may be site-specific and other information may be obtained from the literature. Literature data are more prevalent in
screening ERAs and site-specific data are more prevalent in complex ERAs. Whenever practicable, site-specific data are preferred
over literature data.
7.2 The options in the lists are not in any particular order. Risk assessment often is an iterative process, and it may be more
scientifically sound and cost-effective to complete certain options before others. The order for the completion of options will need
to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
8. Data Options for Problem Formulation
8.1 Most of the data and information options in problem formulation are applicable to both screening and complex ERAs and
are outlined below; however, the information will be more detailed in a complex ERA. Additional data and information options
typically found only in complex ERAs are listed in Section 9.
8.2 Clearly define the goals of the ERA (6).
8.3 Define data quality objectives (DQOs) for the assessment (see Ref. 5).
8.3.1 State the problem that the risk assessment should address.
8.3.2 Identify the decision(s) that require new environmental data to address the contamination problem.
The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of this standard.
E2020 – 99a (2010)
8.3.3 Identify the inputs (data or information) needed to support the decision.
8.3.4 Define the scale (spatial and temporal) of the assessment.
8.3.5 Develop a decision rule that defines choice among alternative solutions.
8.3.6 Specify acceptable limits on decision errors used to establish performance goals for limiting uncertainty.
8.3.7 Optimize the design for obtaining data, by identifying the most resource-effective sampling and analysis plan.
8.4 Complete the conceptual site model (see Guide E1689)
8.4.1 Identify the current and historical sources of potential chemical stressors, such as the following:
8.4.1.1 Process areas;
8.4.1.2 Landfill;
8.4.1.3 Burial ground;
8.4.1.4 Underground or aboveground storage tanks, or both;
8.4.1.5 Lagoons;
8.4.1.6 Holding ponds;
8.4.1.7 Air stacks or other air emission sources;
8.4.1.8 Effluent pipes; or,
8.4.1.9 Historical spills or accidental releases.
8.4.2 Identify nonchemical, for example, physical and biological stressors, such as the following:
8.4.2.1 Nonnative or exotic species;
8.4.2.2 Pathogens;
8.4.2.3 Temperature;
8.4.2.4 Suspended solids;
8.4.2.5 Change in water levels;
8.4.2.6 Oxygen depletion;
8.4.2.7 pH;
8.4.2.8 Predators;
8.4.2.9 Habitat alteration, degradation or destruction; or,
8.4.2.10 Non-site-related stressors, for example, local releases from municipal or industrial development.
8.4.3 Identify potential constituent migration pathways.
8.4.4 Identify geological features that control movement of constituents and dictate exposure pathways. In particular, note any
features which would cause unpredictable movement of constituents, for example, karst formations in limestone often cause
difficulties in tracing ground water movement.
8.4.5 Identify all relevant constituent-bearing media, such as the following:
8.4.5.1 Soil;
8.4.5.2 Ground water;
8.4.5.3 Surface water;
8.4.5.4 Sediment;
8.4.5.5 Air; or,
8.4.5.6 Biota.
8.4.6 Identify direct and indirect complete exposure pathways. Ensure that exposure pathways are identified appropriately, for
example, PCBs may not be detected in surface water, but may be detected in fish tissues, and therefore, food web exposure
pathways are appropriate to consider. Exposure pathways may include the following:
8.4.6.1 Inhalation;
8.4.6.2 Ingestion;
8.4.6.3 Dermal uptake;
8.4.6.4 Root uptake; or,
8.4.6.5 Food web.
8.4.7 Identify normal and atypical weather patterns for the site location, such as the following:
8.4.7.1 Excessive dry periods with high winds may lead to increased levels of constituents in air from fugitive dusts, and
destruction of habitat;
8.4.7.2 Storm events, for example, hurricanes, that may mobilize constituents, for example, suspension of sediments may
increase the bioavailability of constituents;
8.4.7.3 Periodic flooding may result in certain exposure pathways that may otherwise not exist, for example, contamination of
the floodplain community from a stream; or,
8.4.7.4 Fluctuations in salinity.
8.4.8 Define the assessment endpoints and include rationale for their selection (see Guide E1848).
8.4.8.1 Ensure the assessment endpoints are relevant to decision-making.
8.4.8.2 Consider whether endpoints are ecologically relevant.
8.4.8.3 Consider whether endpoints have societal importance.
E2020 – 99a (2010)
8.4.8.4 Determine whether endpoint species are or could be at the site.
8.4.8.5 Consider whether endpoint species are sensitive to site constituents.
8.4.8.6 Consider whether endpoint species are likely to receive high exposures.
8.4.9 Identify any threatened, or endangered species (plant or animal), or both, known to inhabit, or that could potentially
inhabit, the vicinity of the site.Also, identify the presence of habitat that could be utilized by threatened and endangered species.
Consider using state or federal listings of threatened, rare and endangered species, for example, Natural Heritage Program.
Consider local laws and regulations to identify any protected species or species of local concern.
8.4.10 Identify any commercially or recreationally important species in the area of the site.
8.4.11 Describe the food web. Identify multiple food sources, where appropriate, in the foraging area of each receptor species.
Consider consulting with local naturalists, for example, Department of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of Environmental Protection, Natural Heritage Program, to obtain information on local species.
8.4.12 Define measurement endpoints and include rationale for their selection. Also, describe relation between assessment
endpoints and measurement endpoints.
8.4.13 Present both current and future exposure scenarios. Future exposures should be based on reasonably anticipated future
land use. Describe how future exposures may change, as a result of the following scenarios, for example:
8.4.13.1 Increased release from a ground water plume to a stream;
8.4.13.2 Increasedhabitatfromforestsuccessioncausesadditionalecologicalreceptorspeciestobeincontactwithconstituents;
8.4.13.3 Decreased exposure because of scouring of sediments out of a stream, but increased exposure downstream where
sediments settle;
8.4.13.4 Weather-related seasonal or periodic changes; or,
8.4.13.5 Continued physical degradati
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.