Advances in Risk Assessment in Support of Sediment Risk Management
Over the past few decades, risk assessments have become an important component of remedial investigations (RI) and feasibility studies (FS) for contaminated sediment sites. In the United States, the National Contingency Plan (NCP) requires that risk assessments be conducted to address the threat posed by the release of contamination to the environment. Risk assessment is typically viewed as an important early step in the process of determining whether remediation of contaminated sediment is necessary. Risk assessments have, however, become increasingly process oriented, with more emphasis on how to do the risk assessment and less on how to ensure that the assessment is useful for decision-making. Although following a defined process that is supported by guidance is advantageous, a process-dominated approach that lacks consideration of other important factors for managing contaminated sediments has shortcomings. The risk assessment needs to include early and explicit consideration of potential risk management options.
KeywordsToxicity Hydrocarbon Radar PAHs Chlorinate
- Achterman GL, Mauger R. 2010. The state and regional role in developing ecosystem service markets. Duke Environ Law Policy Forum 20:291–337.Google Scholar
- Cal-EPA DTSC. 1994 (Second Printing 1999). Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Guidance Manual. California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control.Google Scholar
- Collison P. 1998. Of bombers, radiologists, and cardiologists: Time to ROC. Heart 80:215–217.Google Scholar
- Exponent. 2009. Baseline Risk Assessment, River Operable Unit: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation’s Sheboygan-Campmarina Former Manufactured Gas Plant, Sheboygan, Wisconsin, U.S. EPA Site ID: B5DA. Prepared for Integrys Business Support, LLC700 North, Green Bay, WI. Exponent, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
- Huibregtse KR, Nilsson RK, Hutchens JL. 2007. Final Welch Creek Feasibility Study. Domtar Paper Company, LLC.Google Scholar
- MDEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection). 1995. Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization. Interim Final Policy #WSC/ORS-95-141. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup and Office of Research and Standards. July.Google Scholar
- Menzie CA, Booth P, Law SA, von Stackelberg K. 2009. Use of decision support systems to address contaminated coastal sediments: experience in the United States. In Marcomini A, Suter II GW, Critto A, eds, Decision Support Systems for Risk-based Management of Contaminated Sites. Springer. Chapter 14.Google Scholar
- NRT (Natural Resource Technology, Inc.). 2011. Feasibility Study Report, Revision 2, River Operable Unit, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation’s Sheboygan-Campmarina Former Manufactured Gas Plant, Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Prepared for Integrys Business Support, Inc., Natural Resource Technology, Inc.Google Scholar
- Ohio EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Guidance for Conducting Ecological Risk Assessment. DERR-00-RR–031. October 2006, Revised April 2008. State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Emergency and Remedial Response.Google Scholar
- Robberson B. 2006. Net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) decision-making tool: Developing consensus for environmental decision-making in emergency response. Freshwater Spills Information Clearinghouse. http://www.freshwaterspills.net/neba.htm. Accessed March 7, 2012.
- USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) (Part A). EPA/540/1-89/002. USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- USEPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. EPA 540-R-97-006. Interim Final. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Edison, NJ.Google Scholar
- USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. April 1998. Final. USEPA, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- USEPA. 2005a. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA-540-R-05-012. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.Google Scholar
- USEPA. 2005b. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels. OSWER 9285.7-55. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. February.Google Scholar
- USEPA and USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal. Testing Manual. EPA 503/8-91/001.Google Scholar
- von Stackelberg KE, Wickwire WT, Burmistrov D. 2005. Spatially-explicit wildlife exposure modeling tools for use in human health and ecological risk assessment: SEEM and FISHRAND-migration. WIT Trans Ecol Environ Volume 85. http://www.witpress.com/, ISSN 1743–3541 (on-line).
- Wentsel RS, LaPoint TW, Simini M, Checkai RT, Ludwig D, Brewer LW. 1994. Tri-Service Procedural Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessments. ADA297968. U.S. Army Edgewood Research, Development and Engineering Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.Google Scholar