Advances in Risk Assessment in Support of Sediment Risk Management

  • Charles Menzie
  • Susan Kane Driscoll
  • Michael Kierski
  • Ann Michelle Morrison
Part of the SERDP ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology book series (SERDP/ESTCP, volume 6)


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.


Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Benthic Invertebrate Hazard Quotient Ecological Risk Assessment Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 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
  2. Apitz SE, Power B. 2002. From risk assessment to sediment management: An international perspective. J Soils Sediment 2:61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cal-EPA DTSC. 1994 (Second Printing 1999). Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Guidance Manual. California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control.Google Scholar
  4. Chapman P. 2000. The sediment quality triad: Then, now and tomorrow. Int J Environ Pollut 13:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collison P. 1998. Of bombers, radiologists, and cardiologists: Time to ROC. Heart 80:215–217.Google Scholar
  6. Efroymson RA, Nicolette JP, Suter GW. 2004. A framework for net environmental benefit analysis for remediation or restoration of contaminated sites. Environ Manag 34:315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Huibregtse KR, Nilsson RK, Hutchens JL. 2007. Final Welch Creek Feasibility Study. Domtar Paper Company, LLC.Google Scholar
  9. Hunt R, Sellers J, Franklin W. 1992. Resource and environmental profile analysis: A life cycle environmental assessment for products and procedures. Environ Impact Assess Rev 12:245–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kohavi R, Provost F. 1998. Glossary of terms. Mach Learn 30:271–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kroeger T, Casey F. 2007. An assessment of market-based approaches to providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands. Ecol Econ 6:321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Linkov I, Burmistrov D, Cura JJ, Bridges TS. 2002. Risk-based management of contaminated sediments: Consideration of spatial and temporal patterns in exposure modeling. Environ Sci Technol 36:238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Metz C. 1978. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 8:283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morrison AM, Coughlin K, Shine JP, Coull BA, Rex AC. 2003. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of beach water quality indicator variables. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:6405–6411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Munns WR, Helm RC, Adams WJ, Clements WH, Cramer MA, Curry M, DiPinto LM, Michael D. 2009. Translating ecological risk to ecosystem service loss. Integr Environ Assess Manag 5:500–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Robberson B. 2006. Net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) decision-making tool: Developing consensus for environmental decision-making in emergency response. Freshwater Spills Information Clearinghouse. Accessed March 7, 2012.
  21. Shine JP, Trapp CJ, Coull BA. 2003. Use of receiver operating characteristic curves to evaluate sediment quality guidelines for metals. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:1642–1648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. April 1998. Final. USEPA, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. USEPA. 2005b. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels. OSWER 9285.7-55. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. February.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. von Stackelberg K, Burmistrov D, Likkov I, Cura J, Bridgers TS. 2002. The use of spatial modeling in an aquatic food web to estimate exposure and risk. Sci Total Environ 288:97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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., ISSN 1743–3541 (on-line).
  30. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles Menzie
    • 1
  • Susan Kane Driscoll
    • 2
  • Michael Kierski
    • 3
  • Ann Michelle Morrison
    • 2
  1. 1.ExponentAlexandriaUSA
  2. 2.ExponentMaynardUSA
  3. 3.ExponentSauk CityUSA

Personalised recommendations