Region 5 Superfund

DATE: September 29, 2004

SUBJECT: Sources of Screening Values for Sediment and Soil Based Entirely or Partially on Ecological Risk

BY: James Chapman (chapman.james@epa.gov), Ph.D., Ecologist, U.S. EPA

Ecological risk-based sediment and soil screening values, and their web addresses, are compiled in this memo, along with guidance on the use of screening values in Superfund. No judgements have been made, or should be inferred, regarding their relative merits, or appropriateness for any given site. Screening values are not legally enforceable, and are not default clean up goals. They may be used to refine the list of potential chemicals of concern at a site, and to guide decisions regarding the need for, and focus of, site-specific investigations of ecological risk.

You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more.

Superfund Guidance on Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment

• U.S. EPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Interim Final. Environmental Response Team, Edison, NJ, EPA 540-R-97-006. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/ecorisk/ecorisk.htm
• U.S. EPA. 2001. The Role of Screening-Level Risk Assessments and Refining Contaminants of Concern in Baseline Ecological Risk Assessments. ECO Update. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 540/F-01/014.
  http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/ecoup/slera0601.pdf
• U.S. EPA. 1996. Ecotox Thresholds. ECO Update. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 540/F-95/038. http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ecotox.htm
• Superfund Ecological Risk Assessment 8-step Overview, U.S. EPA Region 5
  http://www.epa.gov/region5/superfund/ecology/html/8stepera.html
  Follow links to 1. Screening-level problem formulation and toxicity evaluation, and 2. Screening-level exposure estimate and risk calculation

Region 5 State Guidance on Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment

Ohio:

• State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Guidance for Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. Division of Emergency and Remedial Response. Columbus, OH. DERR - 00 - RR - 031. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/derr/rules/RR-031.pdf

Sediment Screening Values

U.S. EPA:

• Ingersoll, C., D. MacDonald, N. Wang, J. Crane, L. Field, P. Haverland, N. Kemble, R. Lindskoog, C. Severn, and D. Smorong. 2000. Prediction of sediment toxicity using consensus-based freshwater sediment quality guidelines. Prepared by U.S. Geological Survey for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO). Chicago. EPA 905/R-00/007. http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/pubs/center/pdfDocs/91126.pdf
• U.S. EPA. 2003. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Dieldrin. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-02/010. http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/publications/files/dieldrin.pdf
• U.S. EPA. 2003. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Endrin. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-02/009. http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/publications/files/endrin.pdf
• U.S. EPA. 2003. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-02/013. http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/publications/files/PAHESB.pdf
• U.S. EPA. 2001. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins, Ecological Risk Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/ots/ecolbul.htm
  
• Contaminated Sediment, Sediment Quality Guidelines http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/guidelines.htm
• U.S. EPA. 1996. Ecotox Thresholds. ECO Update. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 540/F-95/038. http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ecotox.htm (also has program for performing screening calculations)
• U.S. EPA. 1993. Interim Report on Data and Methods for Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Risks to Aquatic Life and Associated Wildlife. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-93/055.
• Kadeg, R. and S. Pavlou. 1989. Sediment Toxicity Handbook. Envirosphere Co., Bellevue, WA, prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Superfund and Office of Water. (compilation of Sediment Toxicity Fact Sheets)

NOAA:

• Sediment Guidelines (links to NOAA sediment guideline web pages) http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/cpr/sediment/sediment.html
• Screening Quick Reference Tables (SQuiRTs) http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/cpr/sediment/squirt/squirt.html
• Sediment Quality Guidelines Developed for the National Status and Trends Program. 1999. http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/cpr/sediment/SPQ.pdf
• Long, E. and L. Morgan. 1990. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Nat. Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., Seattle.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory:

• Jones, D., G. Suter II, and R. Hull. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-95/R4. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/benchmark_reports.html
• Environmental Management and Enrichment Facilities. 1998. Radiological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC, Oak Ridge, TN. BJC/OR-80. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/benchmark_reports.html

Florida:

• 1994 Florida Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines (SQAGs), Florida Dept. Environ. Protect. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/pages/default.htm
• Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters, Technical Report. 2003. Prepared by MacDonald Environ. Sci. Ltd. and U.S. Geological Survey for Florida Dept. Environ. Protect. http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/pubs/sedtox/SQAGs_for_Florida_Inland_Waters_01_03.PDF

Minnesota:

• Contaminated Sediments, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
  http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/sediments/ "The MPCA does not have sediment quality standards. Sediment quality targets (SQTs), adopted for use in the St. Louis River Area of Concern, can be used throughout the state as benchmark values for making comparisons to surficial sediment chemistry measurements."
• Crane, J., D. MacDonald, C. Ingersoll, D. Smorong, R. Lindskoog, C. Severn, T. Berger, and L.J. Field. 2000. Development of a Framework for Evaluating Numerical Sediment Quality Targets and Sediment Contamination in the St. Louis River Area of Concern. U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago. EPA 905-R-00-008.
  http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/sediments/sqt-slraoc.pdf (text)
  http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/sediments/sqt-tables.pdf (tables and figures, see Tables 14 and 15 for sediment quality targets)
  http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/sediments/sqt-appendices.pdf (appendices, with introductory text only for Appendix G)
  http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/sediments/sqt-appendix-g.pdf (Appendix G tables)

New York:

• New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1999. Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments. Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/habitat/seddoc.pdf

Washington:

• Sediment Quality Chemical Criteria, Washington State Dept. of Ecology http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sed_chem.htm

Wisconsin:

• Consensus-Based Sediment Quality Guidelines, Recommendations for Use & Application. Interim Guidance. 2003. Wisconsin Dept. Nat. Res. WT-732 2003. http://dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/rr/technical/cbsqg_interim_final.pdf

Canada:

• Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Environment Canada
  http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceqg-rcqe/
  
• Persaud, D., J. Jaagumagi and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario. Ministry of Environment and Energy, Toronto. PIBS 1962. 24 p.

The Netherlands:

• Crommentuijn, T., M. Polder, and E. van de Plassche. 1997. Maximum Permissible Concentrations and Negligible Concentrations for Metals, Taking Background Concentrations into Account. Nat. Inst. Public Health and the Environ., Bilthoven, The Netherlands. RIVM Report 601501 001. http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/601501001.html

Multiple Sources:

• Contaminated Sediment, Sediment Quality Guidelines http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/guidelines.htm#usgs (links to multiple web sites)
• Macdonald, D., T. Berger, K. Wood, J. Brown, T. Johnsen, M.L. Haines, K. Brydges, M.J. Macdonald, S.L. Smith, and D.P. Shaw. 1999. A Compendium of Environmental Quality Benchmarks. Environment Canada, Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative, GBEI 99-01. http://www.pyr.ec.gc.ca/GeorgiaBasin/resources/publications/SciTechReports/SciTech23_e.htm

Consensus-based Freshwater Sediment Quality Guidelines:

• See U.S. EPA: Ingersol, et al. 2000. http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/pubs/center/pdfDocs/91126.pdf
• See Wisconsin: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/rr/technical/cbsqg_interim_final.pdf
• Crane, J. and D. MacDonald. 2003. Applications of numerical sediment quality targets for assessing sediment quality conditions in the St. Louis River Area of Concern. Environ Managem 32:128-140.
• Crane, J., D. MacDonald, C. Ingersoll, D. Smorong, R. Lindskoog, C. Severn, T. Berger, and L. Field. 2002. Evaluation of numerical sediment quality targets for the St. Louis River Area of Concern. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 43:1-10.
• MacDonald, D., L. Dipinto, J. Field, C. Ingersoll, E. Long, and R. Swartz. 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment effect concentrations for polychlorinated biphenyls. Environ Toxicol Chem 19: 1403-1413.
• MacDonald, D., C. Ingersoll, and T. Berger. 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39: 20-21.
• Smith, S., D. MacDonald, K. Keenleyside, C. Ingersoll, and L. Field. 1996. A preliminary evaluation of sediment quality assessment values for freshwater ecosystems. J Great Lakes Res 22: 624-638.
• Swartz, R. 1999. Consensus sediment quality guidelines for polycyclic aromatic hyrocarbon mixtures. Environ Toxicol Chem 18: 780-787.

Other Published Sediment Screening Values:

• Long, E., D. MacDonald, S. Smith and F. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environ Managem 19: 81-97.
• Long, E. and D. MacDonald. 1998. Recommended uses of empirically derived sediment quality guidelines for marine and estuarine ecosystems. Human Ecol Risk Assessm 4: 1019-1039. (recommendations for application and interpretation)
• Long, E., J. Field, and D. MacDonald. 1998. Predicting toxicity in marine sediments with numerical sediment quality guidelines. Environ Toxicol Chem 17: 714-727. (recommendations for application and interpretation)
• Swartz, F., D. Schults, R. Ozretich, J. Lamberson, F. Cole, T. DeWitt, M. Redmond, and S. Ferraro. 1995. PAH: A model to predict the toxicity of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures in field-collected sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 14: 1977-1987.
• Van Derveer, W. and S. Canton. 1997. Sediment selenium toxicity thresholds and derivation of water-quality criteria for freshwater biota of wetland streams. Environ Toxicol Chem 16: 1260-1268.

Soil Screening Values

U.S. EPA:

• Ecological Soil Screening Level (Eco-SSL) Guidance and Documents http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/programs/risk/ecorisk/ecossl.htm
• U.S. EPA, Region 5, RCRA. 2003. Ecological Screening Levels. http://www.epa.gov/RCRIS-Region-5/ca/edql.htm
• U.S. EPA. 2001. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins, Ecological Risk Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/ots/ecolbul.htm (see Table 4)
  Note: Full citations are not provided for the sources of the soil screening values. The locations for complete citations are given below in the same order as in Table 4:
  [1] Beyer (1990) – see Multiple Sources of Soil Screening Values below
  [2] Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Efroymson, et al. 1997a,b) – see Oak Ridge National Laboratory below
  [3] CCME (1997) – see Canada below
  [4] Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (1994) – see The Netherlands below
  [5] Crommentuijn, et al. (1997) – see The Netherlands below
• ICG Incorporated. 1989. Scoping Study of the Effects of Soil Contamination on Terrestrial Biota, Volumes I – IV. Prepared for Ossi Meyn, Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. (Does not present soil screening values, but Volume II, Survey of Literature, summarizes studies of the effects of soil contaminants on microorganisms, plants, and animals).

Oak Ridge National Laboratory:

• Efroymson, R., M..Will, and G. Suter II. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Processes: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/benchmark_reports.html
  
• Efroymson, R, M. Will, G. Suter II, and A. Wooten. 1997. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-85/R3. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/ecorisk/benchmark_reports.html

Canada:

• Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Environment Canada
  http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceqg-rcqe/
• CCME. 1997. Recommended Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg. ISBN 1-895-925-92-4

The Netherlands:

• Crommentuijn, T., M. Polder, and E. van de Plassche. 1997. Maximum Permissible Concentrations and Negligible Concentrations for Metals, Taking Background Concentrations into Account. Nat. Inst. Public Health and the Environ., Bilthoven, The Netherlands. RIVM Report 601501 001. http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/601501001.html
• Swartjes, F. 1999. Risk-based assessment of soil and groundwater quality in the Netherlands: standards and remedial urgency. Risk Analysis 19: 1235-1249.
• Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment. 1994. Intervention Values and Target Values – Soil Quality Standards. Directorate-General for Environmental Protection, The Hague, The Netherlands. http://www.contaminatedland.co.uk/std-guid/dutch-l.htm

Basque Country:

• Urzelai, A., M. Vega, and E. Angulo. 2000. Deriving ecological risk-based soil quality values in the Basque Country. Sci Total Environ 247: 279-284.

Multiple Sources of Soil Screening Values

• Beyer, W.N. 1990. Evaluating soil contamination. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol. Rep. 90(2). 25 p.

Other Published Soil Screening Values:

• Bengtsson, G. and L. Tranvik. 1989. Critical metal concentrations for forest soil invertebrates, a review of the limitations. Water, Air, Soil Pollut 47: 381-417.
• Lofts, S., D. Spurgeon, C. Svendsen, and E. Tipping. 2004. Deriving soil critical limits for Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb: a method based on free ion concentrations. Environ Sci Technol 38: 3623-3631.
• Sauvé, S., A. Dumestre, M. McBride, and W. Hendershot. 1998. Derivation of soil quality criteria using predicted chemical speciation of Pb2+ and Cu2+. Environ Toxicol Chem 17: 1481-1489.