RAIS Ecological Benchmark User's Guide
Open All Sections | Close All Sections
1. Introduction
Screening ecological benchmarks are used to identify chemical and radionuclide concentrations in environmental media that are at or below thresholds for effects to ecological receptors. This tool presents a comprehensive set of ecological screening benchmarks for air, biota, surface water, sediment, and soil applicable to a range of aquatic organisms, soil invertebrates, mammals, and terrestrial plants. The benchmarks are from national, state, and international agencies. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance documents are provided for further clarification of the ecological risk assessment process.
The three tiers of an ecological risk assessment are as follows:
A Tier 1 screening ecological risk assessment (SERA) is conducted to identify chemicals of potential ecological concern (COPECs) that may pose unacceptable risks to the environment, thus focusing efforts on those constituents most likely to drive ecological risks. The Tier 1 SERA is usually conducted during the site investigation (SI) phase using existing data and conservative assumptions. The evaluation consists of two steps, as follows:
Step 1 includes conducting a site visit, identifying site-specific data needs (e.g., site chemical data, ecotoxicity), identifying assessment endpoints and representative receptors (e.g., surrogate species), determining complete exposure pathways, and refining the conceptual site model (CSM).
Step 2 includes calculating an exposure point concentration based on the CSM and characterizing risk through the use of hazard quotients. For each receptor/COPC combination having a complete exposure pathway, the maximum concentration detected is compared to the appropriate ecotoxicity benchmark using the hazard quotient approach.
Chemical constituents having maximum concentrations that are below their benchmark are eliminated. If there are no unacceptable ecological risks or no complete exposure pathways to all ecological receptors, the site may be closed out for ecological concerns and the ERA process may be exited. If the SERA demonstrates that potential exposure pathways and unacceptable risk may exist, an interim action can be taken and/or a Tier 2 evaluation initiated.
The Tier 2 baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA) is intended to be a more rigorous evaluation. Rather than relying on conservative assumptions and comparison to ecotoxicity benchmarks, Tier 2 incorporates site-specific information to calculate risk estimates for those COPCs posing potential risk in the Tier 1 SERA. The Tier 2 evaluation also screens out constituents that are consistent with background concentrations.
The Tier 3 risk evaluation of remedial alternatives (RERA) for ecological receptors is an evaluation of the remedial alternatives with regards to: (1) the effectiveness of reducing risks to acceptable levels; (2) ecological impacts related to remedy implementation; and (3) residual risks that will remain at a site. The purpose of the RERA is to provide remedial project managers (RPMs) with an assessment of the potential short and long-term health risks associated with the remedial alternatives.
The ecological benchmarks found in this tool are identified as part of a Tier 1 SERA. These benchmarks provide COPECs that may pose risk to the environment.
2. Interpreting Results and Special Considerations
This tool can present many possible benchmarks; it is up to the user to discern the appropriate benchmark or set of benchmarks for the applicable media at a contaminated site. Special consideration should be made for the potential presence of protected or threatened and endangered species.
2.1 Media
Benchmarks may be provided for the following media: air, biota, sediment, soil, and surface water. Benchmarks may also be specific depending on the species (e.g., fish, plants, birds, mammals, and invertebrates). If available, the user should select a representative species for the contaminated site. For more information on benchmark selection, please refer to the referenced sources in section 4.
2.2 Sensitive and Threatened and Endangered Species
The U.S. Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service when their actions might affect threatened or endangered species. The Environmental Protection Agency thus consults with these services. At the planning phase, valued ecological receptors, including plant and animal populations and communities, habitats, and sensitive environments, should be identified. Surveys investigating topography, wetlands, surface waters, soils, flora, vegetative communities, threatened and endangered species, and fauna should be conducted.
3. Using the Ecological Benchmark Tool
3.1 Select Benchmark Source(s)
1. Benchmark Source Choose one or more of the benchmark sources. Press the Select All button to select all sources. 3.2 Select Media
2. Media Choose one or more of the 5 media types: Air, Biota, Sediment, Soil, and Surface Water. Press the Select All button to select all media. 3.3 Select Individual Chemicals
3. Select Individual Chemicals Select one or more contaminants for the Ecological Benchmark Search. Select a contaminant by highlighting it in the left box (available contaminants) and click the ">>" button to move it to the box on the right (selected contaminants to be run in the tool). Highlight multiple contaminants at once by using the "Shift" key. Remove a contaminant from the right box by highlighting it and clicking the "<<" button. 3.4 Click Retrieve
4. Click Retrieve Click the "Retrieve" button at the bottom of the page. 3.5 View Results
5. View Results Each media is presented in a separate table. After the tables, the references and footnotes for all benchmarks are presented. Once the results load, two options will be presented:
- New Search
- Export Data
Choosing New Search will take the user back to the beginning of the tool to start a new search, while the Export Data option will download the results in a spreadsheet (.xls) format.
4. Ecological Benchmark Source References
4.1 Biota
4.1.1 British Columbia Biota Quality Guidelines
The spreadsheet at the source link provides all the approved, interim, and biota quality guidelines for British Columbia. These guidelines are generic provincial recommendations that are based on the most current scientific information available at the time of their derivation.
Media Title Biota British Columbia Aquatic Life - Freshwater Dietary Tissue Long-Term Chronic Biota British Columbia Wildlife - Dietary Tissue Long-Term Chronic Biota British Columbia Wildlife - Dietary Tissue Short-Term Acute These values are all available from Water Quality Guidelines of B.C. Website values were accessed in July 2021.
4.1.2 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Tissue Residue Quality Guidelines
Media Title Biota Protection of Wildlife - Consumer of Aquatic Biota These values are all available from Canadian Council of the Environment. Website values were accessed in July 2021.
4.1.3 Environmental Climate Change Canada
This source includes all the approved, interim, and working biota quality guidelines for British Columbia (B.C.). These guidelines are generic provincial recommendations that are based on the most current scientific information available at the time of their derivation. ECC Canada values are included in the B.C. data with a reference of Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Media Title Biota Freshwater Long-Term Chronic Tissue Biota Marine Long-Term Chronic Tissue Biota Wildlife Dietary Long-Term Chronic Tissue These values are available here. Website values were accessed in July 2021 (current as of March 2021).
4.1.4 New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Provides noncarcinogenic and 1 in 100 cancer risk fish flesh criteria for the protection of piscivorous wildlife. Criteria were developed as part of the Niagara River Biota Contamination Project for New York State.
Media Title Biota Non-Carcinogenic Final Fish Flesh Criteria Biota Carcinogenic Final Fish Flesh Criteria These values are found in Table 26 of Niagara River Biota Contamination Project: Fish Flesh Criteria for Piscivorous Wildlife, Authors: Arthur J. Newell, David W. Johnson, and Laurie K. Alien; NY DEC, Division of Fish and Wildlife; Technical Report 87-3; July 1987.
4.1.5 SETAC Environmental Contaminants in Wildlife (ECW)
Tissue residue benchmarks were derived from the SETAC special publication "Environmental Contaminants in Wildlife Interpreting Tissue Concentrations", which is a series of chapters by individual authors discussing tissue residue-effects data for a variety of contaminants and taxonomic groups. Because chemicals may have a greater effect on or accumulate to a greater degree in specific tissues within an animal, recommended values are generally tissue-specific. Site tissue concentrations lower than these threshold values are not expected to cause significant adverse effects
Media Title Biota Avian Blood, Bone (dry weight), Brain, Carcass, Diet, Egg, Kidney, and Liver Biota Fish Brain, Egg, Muscle, and Whole Body Biota Mammal Blood, Fat, Kidney, and Liver Beyer, W.N. , G.H. Heinz and A.W. Redmon-Norwood (eds. ). 1996. Environmental Contaminants in Wildlife - Interpreting Tissue Concentrations, Special Publication of SETAC, CRC Press, Inc. 494 p.
4.2 Sediment
4.2.1 British Columbia Sediment Quality Guidelines
This source provides all the approved, interim, and working sediment quality guidelines for British Columbia. These sediment guidelines are generic provincial recommendations that are based on the most current scientific information available at the time of their derivation.
Media Title Sediment Aquatic Life Marine Sediment Sediment Freshwater Sediment Long-term Chronic These values are all available here. Website values were accessed in July 2021.
4.2.2 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Sediment Quality Guidelines
Media Title Sediment Freshwater ISQG Sediment Freshwater PEL Sediment Marine ISQG Sediment Marine PEL These values are all available from Canadian Council of the Environment. Website values were accessed in July 2021.
4.2.3 Consensus-Based Sediment Quality Guidelines
Consensus-based Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQG) represent the geometric mean of published SQGs from a variety of sources. Sources for Probable Effect Concentrations (PEC) include probable effect levels, effect range median values, severe effect levels, and toxic effect thresholds (see MacDonald et al. 2000 for references). PECs are intended to identify contaminant concentrations above which harmful effects on sediment-dwelling organisms are expected to occur more often than not. Sources for Threshold Effect Concentrations (TEC) include threshold effect levels, effect range low values, lowest effect levels, minimal effect thresholds, and sediment quality advisory levels (see MacDonald et al. 2000 for references). TECs are intended to identify contaminant concentrations below which harmful effects on sediment-dwelling organisms are not expected.
Media Title Sediment Consensus-Based PEC Sediment Consensus-Based TEC These values are available from MacDonald, D.D. , C.G. Ingersoll, and T.A. Berger. 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39: 20-31.
4.2.4 Environment and Climate Change (ECC) Canada
This source includes all the approved, interim, and working sediment quality guidelines for British Columbia (B.C.). These quality guidelines are generic provincial recommendations that are based on the most current scientific information available at the time of their derivation. ECC Canada values are included in the B.C. data with a reference of Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Media Title Sediment Freshwater Long-Term Chronic Sediment Sediment Marine Long-Term Chronic Sediment These values are available here. Website values were accessed in July 2021 (current as of March 2021).
4.2.5 EPA ARCS
In support of the United States commitment to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Section 118 (c)(3) of the Clean Water Act authorized the USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office to carry out a 5-year study and demonstration project relating to the control and removal of toxic pollutants in sediments of the Great Lakes, called the Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediment (ARCS) project. The representative effect concentration selected from among the high no-effect-concentrations (NEC) for Hyalella azteca and Chironomus riparius is a concentration above which statistically significant adverse biological effects always occur; effects may occur below these levels. The probable effect concentration (PEC) is the geometric mean of the 50th percentile in the effects data set and the 85th percentile in the no effects data set. It represents the lower limit of the range of concentrations usually associated with adverse effects. A concentration greater than the PEC is likely to result in adverse effects to these organisms. The Threshold Effect Concentration (TEC) is the geometric mean of the 15th percentile in the effects data set and the 50th percentile in the no effects data set. It is a concentration that represents the upper limit of the range dominated by no effects data. Concentrations above the TEC may result in adverse effects to these organisms; concentrations below the TEC are unlikely to result in adverse effects. The majority of the data are for freshwater sediments.
Media Title Sediment EPA ARCS - No Effect Concentration (NEC) (1996) Sediment EPA ARCS - Probable Effect Concentration (PEC) (1996) Sediment EPA ARCS - Threshold Effect Concentration (TEC) (1996) These values are from Calculation and Evaluation of Sediment Effect Concentrations for the Amphipod Hyalella Azteca and the Midge Chironomus Riparius, EPA 905-R96-008, September 1996. They were located in Table 4 of Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Sediment-Associated Biota: 1997 Revision, ES/ER/TM-95/R4.
4.2.6 EPA Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs)
As a result of the need for a procedure to assist regulatory agencies in making decisions concerning contaminated sediment problems, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division (OST/HECD) and Office of Research and Development National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (ORD/NHEERL) established a research team to review alternative approaches. The equilibrium partitioning (EqP) approach was selected for nonionic organic chemicals because it presented the greatest promise for generating defensible, national, numeric chemical-specific benchmarks applicable across a broad range of sediment types.
Media Title Sediment ESBs-Effect Concentration of PAH in Sediment Sediment Maximum Solubility Limited PAH Concentration in Sediment These values are available in Table 3-4 of Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures, EPA-600-R-02-013, November 2003.
4.2.7 EPA OSWER
This Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OSWER) Bulletin provides an overview of the development and use of Ecotox Threshold (ET) benchmark values in Superfund ecological risk assessments (ERAs). ETs are defined as media-specific contaminant concentrations above which there is sufficient concern regarding adverse ecological effects to warrant further site investigation. The bulletin describes how ETs are to be used for screening purposes in the Superfund ERA process and summarizes the methodologies used to calculate ETs for each medium.
Media Title Sediment OSWER Ecotox - Freshwater Sediment Quality Criteria (SQC) Sediment OSWER Ecotox - Marine Sediment Quality Criteria (SQC) Sediment OSWER Ecotox - Sediment quality benchmarks (SQBs) Sediment OSWER Ecotox - Effects Range - Low (ERL) These values are from the Table 2 in the Eco Update of the Ecotox Thresholds, Intermittent Bulletin Volume 3, Number 2; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OSWER), Publication 9345.0-12FSI, EPA 540/F-95/038, PB95-963324, January 1996.
4.2.8 EPA Region 3 Sediment Screening Values
For Region 3, BTAG Screening Benchmarks are values used for the evaluating sampling data at Superfund sites. These values facilitate consistency in screening level ecological risk assessments throughout Region 3. Additional toxicological information should be considered in Step 3 as provided by the Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (EPA, 1997).
Media Title Sediment Freshwater Sediment BTAG Sediment Marine Sediment BTAG The freshwater sediment values can be found here and marine sediment values here, 7/2006.
4.2.9 EPA Region 4 Sediment Screening Values
Media Title Sediment Non-Narcotic Modes of Action - Freshwater Ecological Screening Value for Step 2 (ESV) Sediment Non-Narcotic Modes of Action - Freshwater Refinement Screening Value for Step 3a (RSV) Sediment Non-Narcotic Modes of Action - Marine/Estuarine Ecological Screening Value for Step 2 (ESV) Sediment Non-Narcotic Modes of Action - Marine/Estuarine Refinement Screening Value for Step 3a (RSV) Sediment Narcotic Modes of Action - Freshwater Ecological Screening Value for Step 2 (ESV) Sediment Narcotic Modes of Action - Freshwater Refinement Screening Value for Step 3a (RSV) Sediment Narcotic Modes of Action - Marine/Estuarine Ecological Screening Value for Step 2 (ESV) Sediment Narcotic Modes of Action - Marine/Estuarine Refinement Screening Value for Step 3a (RSV) Sediment Step 3a Sediment Refinement Screening Values (RSV) for PAHs - Freshwater and Saltwater RSVs for Sum Toxic Unit Approach These values are all available from Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance, March 2018 Update, Tables 2a-c.
4.2.10 EPA Region 5 Sediment Screening Values
These values are from August 2003 and were obtained from an archived EPA website.
Media Title Sediment RCRA Ecological Screening Value - Sediment These values are all available here, August 2003.
4.2.11 EPA Region 6 Sediment Screening Values
U.S. EPA Region 6 recommends use of ecological benchmarks developed for The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The TCEQ ecological risk assessment program provides guidance and resources for regulated entities that must evaluate ecological risk at a site in one of the Remediation Division programs. According to the Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) rule, some form of an ecological risk assessment is required to be conducted at all remediation sites under this rule.
Media Title Sediment Freshwater Benchmarks Sediment Freshwater Second Effects Level Benchmarks Sediment Freshwater Benthic PCL Sediment Saltwater Benchmarks Sediment Saltwater Second Effects Level Benchmarks Sediment Saltwater Benthic PCL These values are all available from Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2020 TCEQ Ecological Screening Benchmarks, August 2020.
4.2.12 Florida Department of Environmental Protections (FDEP)
Using the recommended approach, numerical sediment quality assessment guidelines (SQAGs) were developed for assessing sediment quality in Florida coastal waters. These guidelines were derived using information from numerous investigations of coastal sediment quality conducted in North America and are based on a weight of evidence that links contaminant concentrations with adverse biological effects. In this respect, the guidelines are a cost-effective response to a practical need for assessment tools. However, these guidelines are should be revised or refined depending on the results of field validation and other related studies conducted in Florida and elsewhere in North America. These guidelines should be used in conjunction with other interpretive tools to conduct comprehensive and reliable assessments.
Media Title Sediment Freshwater - Effects Range - Low (ERL) Sediment Freshwater - Effects Range - Median (ERM) Sediment Freshwater - Lowest Effects Level (LEL) Sediment Freshwater - Moderate Effects Threshold (MET) Sediment Freshwater - Probable Effects Level (PEL) Sediment Freshwater - Severe Effects Level (SEL) Sediment Freshwater - Threshold Effects Level (TEL) Sediment Freshwater - Toxic Effects Threshold (TET) Sediment Marine - Probable Effects Level (PEL) Sediment Marine - Threshold Effects Level (TEL) Freshwater values are available from Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for Florida Inland Waters, January 2003.
Marine values are available from Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality in Florida Coastal Waters, Volume 1 - Development and Evaluation of Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines, November 1994.
4.2.13 Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) ECORISK Database - Release 4.3
Media Title Sediment Sediment Water Low Effect ESL Sediment Sediment Water No Effect ESL The ECORISK Database, Version 4.3 (September 2022), is a screening tool developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to evaluate impacts from chemicals and radionuclides in soil, water, sediment, and air on the ecology at LANL. The ECORISK Database contains ecological screening levels (ESLs), which are media- and receptor-specific values that may be used to screen environmental data for ecological risk. Air (pore gas), soil, sediment, and water ESLs are calculated for receptors in various functional feeding guilds (carnivores, herbivores, insectivores, etc.) or selected from the peer-reviewed literature.
See the Intellus New Mexico site here to download the database and asssociated files.
4.2.14 New York Department of Environmental Conservation
These values reflect the most current scientific analysis of the Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources (DFWMR) of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regarding the potential for adverse impacts to ecological resources from sediment contamination. It is intended to provide guidelines for sediment quality assessment, but it is not a stand-alone document. The references cited should be consulted when more information is needed, particularly for procedures and methods.
Media Title Sediment Freshwater Sediment Class A Sediment Freshwater Sediment Class B Low Range Sediment Freshwater Sediment Class B High Range Sediment Freshwater Sediment Class C Sediment Marine Sediment Class A Sediment Marine Sediment Class B Low Range Sediment Marine Sediment Class B High Range Sediment Marine Sediment Class C Sediment Wildlife Sediment These values are all available from Screening and Assessment of Contaminated Sediment, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources, Bureau of Habitat, June 24, 2014. Freshwater values are in Table 5; Saltwater values in Table 6, and Wildlife values in Table 8.
4.2.15 NOAA Sediment Quality Guidelines
The sediment quality guidelines (SQGS) were initially intended for use by NOAA scientists in ranking areas that warranted further detailed study on the actual occurrence of adverse effects such as toxicity. Also, they were intended for use in ranking chemicals that might be of potential concern. In many regional surveys of sediment toxicity performed throughout North America, NOAA has used the guidelines to compare the degree of contamination among sub-regions, and to identify chemicals elevated in concentration above the guidelines that were also associated with measures of adverse effects. The SQGs were not promulgated as regulatory criteria or standards. They were not intended as cleanup or remediation targets, nor as discharge attainment targets. Nor were they intended as pass-fail criteria for dredged material disposal decisions or any other regulatory purpose. Rather, they were intended as informal (non-regulatory) guidelines for use in interpreting chemical data from analyses of sediments.
Media Title Sediment Effects Range-Low (ERL) Sediment Effects-Range Median (ERM) Values are available from NOAA's National Status and Trends Program, Sediment Quality Guidelines. The values for trace metals can be found in table 1 of the source. The values for organic compounds can be found in table 2 of the source.
4.2.16 Ohio Sediment Reference Values
Ohio-specific Sediment Reference Values (SRVs) were developed to identify representative background sediment concentrations for lotic (flowing) water bodies.
Media Title Sediment Eastern Corn Belt Plains (ECBP) Sediment Erie/Ontario Lake Plain (EOLP) Sediment Huron Erie Lake Plain (HELP) Sediment Interior Plateau (IP) Sediment Western Allegheny Plateau (WAP) Sediment Statewide (STW) These values can be found Ohio EPA DERR Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance Document. Values were established in February 2003 and revised in April 2008.
4.2.17 Ontario Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines
The purpose of the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines is to protect the aquatic environment by setting safe levels for metals, nutrients (substances which promote the growth of algae) and organic compounds. The guidelines establish three levels of effect - No Effect Level, Lowest Effect Level and Severe Effect Level. The Lowest Effect Level and Severe Effect Level are based on the long-term effects which the contaminants may have on the sediment-dwelling organisms. The No Effect Level is based on levels of chemicals which are so low that significant amounts of contaminants are not expected to be passed through the food chain. Lowest Effect Levels and Severe Effect Levels are based on the 5th and 95th percentiles, respectively, of the Screening Level Concentration (SLC) except when noted with a footnote.
Media Title Sediment Severe Effect Level Sediment Lowest Effect Level Sediment No Effect Level These values can be found here. Values were accessed in 2021; the MOE is from 1993.
4.2.18 Washington Sediment Management Standards
The Washington State Sediment Management Standards (SMS) Chapter 173-204 WAC were developed to reduce and ultimately eliminate adverse effects on biological resources and significant threats to human health from surface sediment contamination.
Media Title Sediment Freshwater Cleanup Objective (2013) Sediment Freshwater Cleanup Screening Level (2013) Sediment Marine Cleanup Objective (2013) Sediment Marine Cleanup Screening Level (2013) Values are found in Table III (Marine) and VI (Freshwater) of Washington Department of Ecology, Sediment Management Standards, Chapter 173-204 WAC, revised February 2013, Effective September 2013,
4.3 Soil
4.3.1 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Soil Quality Guidelines
Media Title Soil Agricultural Soil Residental/Parkland Soil Commercial Soil Industrial These values are all available from Canadian Council of the Environment. Website values were accessed in July 2021.
4.3.2 Dutch Soil Ecological Screening Values
The Dutch Soil Protection Act focuses both on prevention of new cases of soil contamination and on dealing with historic cases of contaminated land. Measured concentrations in soil and groundwater are compared with generic Soil Quality Standards (SQSs). There are two types of generic SQSs, namely the Background Values or Target Values and the Intervention Values. Application of these two types of SQSs results in a classification of either 'clean soil', 'slightly contaminated soil' or 'seriously contaminated soil', which have different restrictions.
Media Title Soil Dutch Soil - Background Value (2012) Soil Dutch Soil - Intervention Value (2012) Soil Dutch Soil - Ecologically-based Risk Limit Intervention Value (HC50) (2012) For more information on these values, see:
FA Swartjes, M Rutgers, JPA Lijzen, PJCM Janssen, PF Otte, A Wintersen, E Brand, L Posthuma. State of the art of contaminated site management in The Netherlands: policy framework and risk assessment tools. Sci Total Environ. 2012 Jun 15; pp. 427-428:1-10.
The SQS values are found in supplementary data tables for the above article. The earlier "Target Values" have been replaced with Background Values. Background values are found in Supplementary Data (SD) 3 - Background Concentrations, Maximal Values 'Residential' land use and Maximal Values 'Industrial' land use. For Intervention Values, the lowest of the scientifically derived ecological risk limits is chosen as the Intervention Value. The ecotoxicologically based risk limit of the Intervention Value has been defined as the HC50 (Hazardous Concentration for 50% of the tested species, i.e., 50% of potentially present organisms exposed at or above the No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC)). Both Intervention Values are found in Supplementary Data Table 1 - Critical Exposure Values (CEV), Target Values for groundwater, ecologically-based and human health-based risk limits of the Intervention Value, Intervention Values for soil (10% organic matter, 25% clay) and groundwater.
4.3.3 EPA Interim Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs)
The Ecological Soil Screening Level (Eco-SSL) derivation process is used to derive a set of risk-based Eco-SSLs for many of the soil contaminants that are frequently of ecological concern for plants and animals at hazardous waste sites. On March 15, 2005 all previously posted chemical-specific documents and several standard operating procedures were updated. The update reflects modifications to the wildlife exposure factors and bioaccumulation models. The changes did not substantially change the final Eco-SSL values.
Media Title Soil Eco SSL - Avian Soil Eco SSL - Mammalian Soil Eco SSL - Soil Invertebrates Soil Eco SSL - Plants EPA. November 2003. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Aluminum: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-60
EPA. February 2005. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Antimony: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-61
EPA. March 2005. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Arsenic: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-62
EPA. February 2005. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Barium: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-63
EPA. February 2005. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Beryllium: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-64
EPA. March 2005. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Cadmium: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-65
EPA. March 2005 (Revised April 2008). Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Chromium: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-66
EPA. March 2005. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Cobalt: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-67
EPA. July 2006 (Revised February 2007). Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Copper: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-68
EPA. November 2003. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Iron: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-69
EPA. March 2005. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Lead: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-70
EPA. April 2007. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Manganese: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-71
EPA. March 2007. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Nickel: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-76
EPA. July 2007. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Selenium: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-72
EPA. September 2006. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Silver: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-77
EPA. April 2005. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Vanadium: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-75
EPA. June 2007. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Zinc: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-73
EPA. April 2007. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for DDT and metabolites: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-57
EPA. March 2005 (Revised April 2007). Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Dieldrin: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-56
EPA. March 2005 (Revised April 2007). Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Pentachlorophenol: Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-58
EPA. June 2007). Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.7-78
4.3.4 EPA Region 4 Soil Ecological Screening Values
Media Title Soil Protection of Avians Soil Protection of All Receptors Soil Protection of Soil Invertebrates Soil Protection of Mammals Soil Protection of Plants These values are all available from Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance, March 2018 Update, Table 3.
4.3.5 EPA Region 5 Soil Screening Values
These values are from August 2003 and were obtained from an archived EPA website.
Media Title Soil RCRA Ecological Screening Value - Soil These values are all available here, August 2003.
4.3.6 EPA Region 6 Soil Ecological Screening Values
U.S. EPA Region 6 recommends use of ecological benchmarks developed for The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The TCEQ ecological risk assessment program provides guidance and resources for regulated entities that must evaluate ecological risk at a site in one of the Remediation Division programs. According to the Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) rule, some form of an ecological risk assessment is required to be conducted at all remediation sites under this rule.
Media Title Soil Soil Invertebrates Soil Plants These values are all available from Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2020 TCEQ Ecological Screening Benchmarks, August 2020.
4.3.7 Florida Soil Cleanup Target Levels
Media Title Soil Soil Leachability based on Freshwater Criteria Soil Soil Leachability based on Marine Water Criteria Soil Soil Leachability based on Freshwater and Marine Water Criteria These values are all available from Table II in Florida Chapter 62-777, last revised June 2016. Values for freshwater and marine are to be assumed the same if not listed otherwise.
4.3.8 Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) ECORISK Database - Release 4.3
Media Title Soil Soil Low Effect Soil Soil Effect The ECORISK Database, Version 4.3 (September 2022), is a screening tool developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to evaluate impacts from chemicals and radionuclides in soil, water, sediment, and air on the ecology at LANL. The ECORISK Database contains ecological screening levels (ESLs), which are media- and receptor-specific values that may be used to screen environmental data for ecological risk. Air (pore gas), soil, sediment, and water ESLs are calculated for receptors in various functional feeding guilds (carnivores, herbivores, insectivores, etc.) or selected from the peer-reviewed literature.
See the Intellus New Mexico site here to download the database and asssociated files.
4.3.9 ORNL Soil Screening Benchmarks
Media Title Soil Soil Invertebrates Soil Microbes Soil Plants For soil invertebrates and microbes, see: Efroymson, R.A. , M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II. 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic Process: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2. (Available here)
For plants, see: Efroymson, R.A. , M.E. Will, G.W. Suter II, and A.C. Wooten. 1997a. 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. (Available here)
4.3.10 United Kingdom Soil Screening Values
The Environment Agency proposed Soil screening values (SSVs) as part of a broader framework for ecological risk assessment (ERA) for historical soil contamination. SSVs were defined as: ‘... concentrations of chemical substances found in soils below which there [were] not expected to be any adverse effects on wildlife such as birds, mammals, plants and soil invertebrates, or on the microbial functioning of soils’. SSVs are levels of chemicals in soil below which there is unlikely to be any risk to its health and functions.
Media Title Soil Soil Health and Wildlife Theses values are available in Table 4.1 from from Derivation and use of soil screening values for assessing ecological risks Report - ShARE id26 (revised), January 2022.
This report available adapts SSVs for use in a different purpose, setting out their use in the technical assessment of the recovery of waste and waste-derived materials to land. It updates their scientific basis, taking into account recent developments in international methods on assessing and characterising the terrestrial ecotoxicity of chemicals published by the European Chemicals Agency. It expands the coverage of chemicals for which an SSV is proposed to include a wider range of common trace elements and persistent organic pollutants that are relevant to wastes applied to land. SSVs cannot and should not be compared directly with the levels of chemicals in a waste or waste-derived material.Soil screening values (SSVs) are indicators to an assessor that soil concentrations above this level may pose an unacceptable risk to soil health and dependent wildlife.
4.3.11 Washington Soil Screening Benchmarks
These values represent soil concentrations that are expected to be protective at any MTCA site and are provided for use in eliminating hazardous substances from further consideration under WAC 173-340-7493 (2)(a)(i). Where these values are exceeded, various options are provided for demonstrating that the hazardous substance does not pose a threat to ecological receptors at a site, or for developing site-specific remedial standards for eliminating threats to ecological receptors. See WAC 173-340-7493 (1)(b)(i), 173-340-7493 (2)(a)(ii) and 173-340-7493(3).
Media Title Soil Wildlife Theses values are available in Table 749-3 from WAC 173-340-900. Certified in January 2022.
4.4 Surface Water
4.4.1 Australian and New Zealand Surface Water Benchmarks
The Australian and New Zealand toxicant default guideline values (DGVs) for water quality in aquatic ecosystems should be used in accordance with the detailed guidance provided at Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.
Media Title Type Surface Water Freshwater Toxicant LOSP 99 Freshwater Surface Water Freshwater Toxicant LOSP 95 Freshwater Surface Water Freshwater Toxicant LOSP 90 Freshwater Surface Water Freshwater Toxicant LOSP 80 Freshwater Surface Water Freshwater Toxicant LOSP Unknown Freshwater Surface Water Marine Toxicant LOSP 99 Saltwater Surface Water Marine Toxicant LOSP 95 Saltwater Surface Water Marine Toxicant LOSP 90 Saltwater Surface Water Marine Toxicant LOSP 80 Saltwater Surface Water Marine Toxicant LOSP Unknown Saltwater To download the Australian and New Zealand screening benchmarks, go here. These values from 2000 were republished in 2018.
4.4.2 British Columbia Water Quality Guidelines
This source provides all the approved, interim, and working water quality guidelines for British Columbia. These water quality guidelines are generic provincial recommendations that are based on the most current scientific information available at the time of their derivation.
Media Title Type Surface Water British Columbia Agriculture - Irrigation Long-Term Chronic Freshwater Surface Water British Columbia Agriculture - Irrigation Short-term Acute Freshwater Surface Water British Columbia Agriculture - Livestock Long-Term Chronic Freshwater Surface Water British Columbia Agriculture - Livestock Short-term Acute Freshwater Surface Water British Columbia Aquatic Life - Estuarine Long-Term Chronic Estuarine Surface Water British Columbia Aquatic Life - Estuarine Short-term Acute Estuarine Surface Water British Columbia Aquatic Life - Freshwater Long-term Chronic Freshwater Surface Water British Columbia Aquatic Life - Freshwater Short-term Acute Freshwater Surface Water British Columbia Aquatic Life - Marine Long-term Chronic Saltwater Surface Water British Columbia Aquatic Life - Marine Short-term Acute Saltwater Surface Water British Columbia Wildlife - Long-Term Chronic Freshwater Surface Water British Columbia Wildlife - Short-Term Acute Freshwater These values are all available from here. Website values were accessed in July 2021 (current as of March 2021).
4.4.3 California Water Quality Guidelines
Media Title Type Surface Water California Criteria Maximum Concentration, 1-hour average Saltwater Surface Water California Criteria Continuous Concentration, 4-day average Saltwater Surface Water California Instantaneous maximum Saltwater Surface Water NRAWQC 24-hour average Freshwater Surface Water NRAWQC Criteria Maximum Concentration, 1-hour average Freshwater Surface Water NRAWQC Criteria Continuous Concentration, 4-day average Freshwater Surface Water NRAWQC Acute Freshwater Surface Water NRAWQC Chronic Freshwater Surface Water NRAWQC Instantaneous maximum Freshwater Surface Water NRAWQC Other Freshwater Surface Water California Criteria Maximum Concentration , 1-hour average Freshwater Surface Water California Criteria Continuous Concentration, 4-day average Freshwater Surface Water California Ocean 6-month median Marine Surface Water California Ocean daily maximum Marine Surface Water California Ocean Instantaneous maximum Marine Surface Water NRAWQC 24-hour average Saltwater Surface Water NRAWQC Criteria Maximum Concentration, 1-hour average Saltwater Surface Water NRAWQC Criteria Continuous Concentration, 4-day average Saltwater Surface Water NRAWQC Acute Saltwater Surface Water NRAWQC Chronic Saltwater Surface Water NRWAQC Instantaneous maximum Saltwater Surface Water NRAWQC Other Saltwater These values are all available from California Water Quality Goals. Website values were accessed in April 2022.
4.4.4 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Water Quality Guidelines
Media Title Type Surface Water Freshwater Short Term Freshwater Surface Water Freshwater Long Term Freshwater Surface Water Marine Short Term Saltwater Surface Water Marine Long Term Saltwater Surface Water Irrigation Freshwater Surface Water Livestock Freshwater These values are all available from Canadian Council of the Environment. Website values were accessed in July 2021.
4.4.5 Environment and Climate Change (ECC) Canada
This source includes all the approved, interim, and working water quality guidelines for British Columbia (B.C.). These water quality guidelines are generic provincial recommendations that are based on the most current scientific information available at the time of their derivation. ECC Canada values are included in the B.C. data with a reference of Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Media Title Type Surface Water Freshwater Long-Term Chronic Freshwater Surface Water Marine Long-Term Chronic Saltwater These values are available here. Website values were accessed in July 2021 (current as of March 2021).
4.4.6 EPA Equilibrium Partitioning Surface Water Benchmarks (ESBs)
As a result of the need for a procedure to assist regulatory agencies in making decisions concerning contaminated sediment problems, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division (OST/HECD) and Office of Research and Development National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (ORD/NHEERL) established a research team to review alternative approaches. The equilibrium partitioning (EqP) approach was selected for nonionic organic chemicals because it presented the greatest promise for generating defensible, national, numeric chemical-specific benchmarks applicable across a broad range of sediment types.
Media Title Type Surface Water ESBs-Final Chronic Value (FCV) Freshwater These values are available in Table 3-4 of Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures, EPA-600-R-02-013, November 2003, here.
4.4.7 EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC)
The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC)- aquatic life criteria for toxic chemicals are the highest concentration of specific pollutants or parameters in water that are not expected to pose a significant risk to the majority of species in a given environment or a narrative description of the desired conditions of a water body being "free from" certain negative conditions. The table lists EPA's recommended aquatic life criteria. State and tribal governments may use these criteria or use them as guidance in developing their own.
Media Title Type Surface Water Freshwater CMC Acute Freshwater Surface Water Freshwater CCC Chronic Freshwater Surface Water Saltwater CMC Acute Saltwater Surface Water Saltwater CCC Chronic Saltwater These values are available here. Values were accessed from the website in July 2021.
4.4.8 EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
EPA worked initially with the U.S. Geological Survey to identify aquatic ecotoxicity benchmark values from risk assessments developed by EPA for individual pesticides during previous re-registration programs. The Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process and ecological risk assessments developed for individual pesticides provide an understanding of the ecotoxicity data used to develop benchmarks. Comparing a measured concentration of a pesticide in water with an aquatic life benchmark can be helpful in interpreting monitoring data and in identifying and prioritizing sites and pesticides that may require further investigation. The toxicity data used to develop aquatic life benchmarks are extracted from the most recent publicly available OPP risk assessment for the individual pesticide and are typically based on the most sensitive value for each taxon. Aquatic life benchmarks are estimates of the concentrations below which pesticides are not expected to represent a risk of concern for aquatic life.
Media Title Type Surface Water Aquatic Life Benchmarks - Acute (for fish, invertebrates, and plants) Freshwater Surface Water Aquatic Life Benchmarks - Chronic (for fish, invertebrates, and plants) Freshwater These values are available here. Values were accessed from the website in March 2022. This source contained CAS numbers that were too large for our database. Benchmarks for additional extended CAS chemicals can be found here.
4.4.9 EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
This Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OSWER) Bulletin provides an overview of the development and use of Ecotox Threshold (ET) benchmark values in Superfund ecological risk assessments (ERAs). ETs are defined as media-specific contaminant concentrations above which there is sufficient concern regarding adverse ecological effects to warrant further site investigation. The bulletin describes how ETs are to be used for screening purposes in the Superfund ERA process and summarizes the methodologies used to calculate ETs for each medium.
Media Title Type Surface Water Freshwater ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) or EPA-derived final chronic values (FCVs) Freshwater Surface Water Freshwater Tier II Methodology Saltwater Surface Water Marine ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) or EPA-derived final chronic values (FCVs) Freshwater These values are from the Table 2 in the Eco Update of the Ecotox Thresholds, Intermittent Bulletin Volume 3, Number 2; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OSWER), Publication 9345.0-12FSI, EPA 540/F-95/038, PB95-963324, January 1996.
4.4.10 EPA Region 3 BTAG Surface Water Screening Values
For Region 3, BTAG Screening Benchmarks are values used for the evaluating sampling data at Superfund sites. These values facilitate consistency in screening level ecological risk assessments throughout Region 3. Additional toxicological information should be considered in Step 3 as provided by the Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (EPA, 1997).
Media Title Type Surface Water Freshwater BTAG Freshwater Surface Water Marine BTAG Saltwater The freshwater values can be found here and marine values here, 7/2006.
4.4.11 EPA Region 4 Surface Water Screening Values
Media Title Type Surface Water Acute Freshwater Values Freshwater Surface Water Acute Marine Values Saltwater Surface Water Chronic Freshwater Values Freshwater Surface Water Chronic Marine Values Saltwater Surface Water Narcotic Mode of Action - Freshwater Acute Values Freshwater Surface Water Narcotic Mode of Action - Saltwater Acute Values Saltwater Surface Water Narcotic Mode of Action - Freshwater Chronic Values Freshwater Surface Water Narcotic Mode of Action - Saltwater Chronic Values Saltwater Surface Water PAHs - Freshwater Acute Values Freshwater Surface Water PAHs - Saltwater Acute Values Saltwater Surface Water PAHs - Freshwater Chronic Values Freshwater Surface Water PAHs - Saltwater Chronic Values Saltwater These values are all available from Region 4 Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance, March 2018 Update, Tables 1a, 1d, and 1e.
4.4.12 EPA Region 5 Surface Water Screening Values
These values are from August 2003 and were obtained from an archived EPA website.
Media Title Type Surface Water RCRA Ecological Screening Value - Surface Water Freshwater/Saltwater These values are all available here, August 2003.
4.4.13 EPA Region 6 Surface Water Screening Values
U.S. EPA Region 6 recommends use of ecological benchmarks developed for The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The TCEQ ecological risk assessment program provides guidance and resources for regulated entities that must evaluate ecological risk at a site in one of the Remediation Division programs. According to the Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) rule, some form of an ecological risk assessment is required to be conducted at all remediation sites under this rule.
Media Title Type Surface Water Freshwater Acute Benchmarks Freshwater Surface Water Freshwater Chronic Benchmarks Freshwater Surface Water Saltwater Acute Benchmarks Saltwater Surface Water Saltwater Chronic Benchmarks Saltwater These values are all available from Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2023 TCEQ Ecological Screening Benchmarks, August 2023.
4.4.14 Florida Surface Water Screening Values
The following Contaminant Cleanup Target Levels for surface water are provided here. Values are from 2005.
Media Title Type Surface Water Freshwater Contaminant Cleanup Freshwater Surface Water Marine Water Contaminant Cleanup Marine Surface Water Freshwater and Marine Water Contaminant Cleanup Freshwater and Marine The following Surface Water Quality Standards are provided here. Values are from 2016. These values contains surface water quality criteria to be applied except within zones of mixing.
Media Title Type Surface Water Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting Criteria Freshwater Surface Water Fish Consmption in Predominantly Fresh Waters Freshwater Surface Water Fish Consumption in Predominantly Marine Waters Marine 4.4.16 Illinois Aquatic Life Criteria
These criteria serve to protect aquatic life for General Use Waters and for Lake Michigan Basin Waters. Lake Michigan Basin waters include all tributaries of Lake Michigan, harbors, and open waters of the Illinois portion of the lake. General Use Waters cover all other waters of the state except those waters designated as Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Use Waters, which consist of several canals and rivers in the Chicago area.
Media Title Type Surface Water Acute - General Use Freshwater Surface Water Acute - Lake Michigan Freshwater Surface Water Chronic - General Use Freshwater Surface Water Chronic - Lake Michigan Freshwater Values are available at Illinois Aquatic Life Criteria, last revised November 2019.
4.4.17 Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) ECORISK Database - Release 4.3
Media Title Type Surface Water Surface Water Low Effect ESL Freshwater Surface Water Surface Water No Effect ESL Freshwater The ECORISK Database, Version 4.3 (September 2022), is a screening tool developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to evaluate impacts from chemicals and radionuclides in soil, water, sediment, and air on the ecology at LANL. The ECORISK Database contains ecological screening levels (ESLs), which are media- and receptor-specific values that may be used to screen environmental data for ecological risk. Air (pore gas), soil, sediment, and water ESLs are calculated for receptors in various functional feeding guilds (carnivores, herbivores, insectivores, etc.) or selected from the peer-reviewed literature.
See the Intellus New Mexico site here to download the database and asssociated files.
4.4.18 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Ecological Screening Criteria
New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards apply to all surface waters of the State. For the following 4 categories, there are generic values as well as values for trout production and maintenance; non-trout lakes, ponds, and reservoirs in the summer; non-trout lakes, ponds, and reservoirs in the winter; pinelands waters; saline coastal general waters; and shellfish harvesting aline estuary.
Media Title Type Surface Water Freshwater Acute Freshwater Surface Water Freshwater Chronic Freshwater Surface Water Marine Acute Marine Surface Water Marine Chronic Marine Values are available in Table 7 of NJDEP-N.J.A.C 7:9B, last amended April 2020.
4.4.19 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Surface Water Benchmarks
The purpose of this report is to present and analyze alternate toxicological benchmarks for screening chemicals for aquatic ecological effects. Since the prior edition of this report (Suter and Mabrey 1994), both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and EPA Region IV have developed sets of screening benchmarks for water. This report includes those values and updates the other benchmarks that were presented in the last edition. This compilation is limited to chemicals that have been detected on the Oak Ridge Reservation and to benchmarks derived from studies of toxic effects on fresh water organisms. The list of chemicals detected on the Oak Ridge Reservation includes 45 metals and 105 industrial chemicals.
The lowest acceptable chronic value (LCV) is based on the geometric mean of the Lowest Observed Effect Concentration and the No Observed Effect Concentration. Chronic values are used to calculate the chronic NAWQC, but the lowest chronic value may be lower than the chronic NAWQC. Tier II values were developed so that aquatic benchmarks could be established with fewer data than are required for National Ambient Water Quality Criteria. The Tier II Secondary Acute Value (SAV) is derived by taking the lowest genus mean acute value from data meeting specified criteria and dividing it by a Final Acute Value Factor whose value depends on the number of acute data requirements that are met.
Media Title Type Surface Water Lowest Chronic Values - Daphnids Freshwater Surface Water Lowest Chronic Values - Fish Freshwater Surface Water Lowest Chronic Values - Non-daphnid Invertebrates Freshwater Surface Water Lowest Chronic Values - Aquatic Plants Freshwater Surface Water Lowest Chronic Values - All Organisms Freshwater Surface Water Tier II Secondary Acute Value Freshwater Surface Water Tier II Secondary Chronic Value Freshwater These values are all available from Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision.
The EC20 benchmarks are the lowest test EC20 (20% effects concentration) values. They represent the highest tested concentration not causing a reduction of as much as 20% in the reproductive output of female test organisms. The benchmarks for EC20 Sensitive Species were derived similar to chronic criteria, except that the lowest EC20 for the chemical was used in place of the lowest chronic value. The EC25 Bass Population benchmark consists of estimates of the concentration causing a 25% reduction in the recruit abundance of a population of largemouth bass.
Media Title Type Surface Water EC20 Daphnids Freshwater Surface Water EC20 Fish Freshwater Surface Water EC20 Sensitive Species Freshwater Surface Water EC25 Bass Population Freshwater These values are all available from Toxicological Benchmarks For Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern For Effects on Freshwater Biota, (Suter 1995).
4.4.20 Ohio Water Quality Standards
Media Title Type Surface Water Inside Mixing Zone Maximum (IMZM) Freshwater Surface Water Inside Mixing Zone Maximum (IMZM) Lake Erie Drainage Basin Freshwater Surface Water Inside Mixing Zone Maximum (IMZM) Water Warm Habitat (WWH) Freshwater Surface Water Inside Mixing Zone Maximum (IMZM) Limited Resource Water (LRW) Freshwater Surface Water Inside Mixing Zone Maximum (IMZM) Seasonal Salmonid Habitat (SSH) Freshwater Surface Water Outside Mixing Zone Maximum (OMZM) Freshwater Surface Water Outside Mixing Zone Maximum (OMZM) Lake Erie Drainage Basin Freshwater Surface Water Outside Mixing Zone Maximum (OMZM) Warm Water Habitat (WWH) Freshwater Surface Water Outside Mixing Zone Maximum (OMZM) Limited Resource Water (LRW) Freshwater Surface Water Outside Mixing Zone Maximum (OMZM) Seasonal Salmonid Habitat (SSH) Freshwater Surface Water Outside Mixing Zone Average (OMZA) Freshwater Surface Water Outside Mixing Zone Average (OMZA) Warm Water Habitat (WWH) Freshwater Surface Water Outside Mixing Zone Average (OMZA) Exceptional Warm Water Habitat (EWH) Freshwater Surface Water Outside Mixing Zone Average (OMZA) Modified Warm Water Habitat (MWH) Freshwater Surface Water Outside Mixing Zone Average (OMZA) Cold Water Habitat (CWH) Freshwater Surface Water Outside Mixing Zone Average (OMZA) Lake Erie Drainage Basin Freshwater Surface Water Outside Mixing Zone Average (OMZA) Seasonal Salmonid Habitat (SSH) Freshwater Surface Water Outside Mixing Zone Average (OMZA) Ohio River Drainage Basin Freshwater These values can be found at State of Ohio Water Quality Standards, OAC Chapter 3745-1. Values were deemed effective since June 2021, Table 35-1.
4.5 Air
4.5.1 Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) ECORISK Database - Release 4.3
Media Title Air Air No Effect ESL The ECORISK Database, Version 4.3 (September 2022), is a screening tool developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to evaluate impacts from chemicals and radionuclides in soil, water, sediment, and air on the ecology at LANL. The ECORISK Database contains ecological screening levels (ESLs), which are media- and receptor-specific values that may be used to screen environmental data for ecological risk. Air (pore gas), soil, sediment, and water ESLs are calculated for receptors in various functional feeding guilds (carnivores, herbivores, insectivores, etc.) or selected from the peer-reviewed literature.
See the Intellus New Mexico site here to download the database and asssociated files.
5. Radionuclides
Only two sources of ecological benchmarks for radionuclides have been identified and included in this tool. They are the Los Alamos National Laboratory ECORISK Database - Release 4.3 and the U.S. EPA Region 6 recommendation of using the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) benchmarks.
5.1 Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) ECORISK Database - Release 4.3
The LANL data provides benchmarks for soil, surface water, and sediment for 25 isotopes. Soil benchmarks include low effect and no effect levels for the following organisms:
- American kestrel (Avian top carnivore)
- American kestrel (insectivore / carnivore)
- American robin (Avian herbivore)
- American robin (Avian insectivore)
- American robin (Avian omnivore)
- Deer mouse (Mammalian omnivore)
- Earthworm (Soil-dwelling invertebrate)
- Generic plant (Terrestrial autotroph - producer)
- Gray fox (Mammalian top carnivore)
- Montane shrew (Mammalian insectivore)
- Mountain cottontail (Mammalian herbivore)
Sediment benchmarks include low effect and no effect levels for the following organisms:
- Algae (Aquatic autotroph - producer)
- Aquatic snails (Aquatic herbivore - grazer)
- Daphnids (Aquatic omnivore/ herbivore)
- Fish (Aquatic intermediate carnivore)
- Occult little brown myotis bat (Mammalian aerial insectivore)
- Violet-green Swallow (Avian aerial insectivore)
Sediment benchmarks include low effect and no effect levels for the following organisms:
- Algae (Aquatic autotroph - producer)
- American kestrel
- American robin
- Aquatic snails (Aquatic herbivore - grazer)
- Daphnids (Aquatic omnivore/ herbivore)
- Deer mouse
- Fish (Aquatic intermediate carnivore)
- Gray fox
- Montane shrew
- Mountain cottontail
- Occult little brown myotis bat
- Violet-green Swallow
| Media | Title |
|---|---|
| Sediment | LANL ECORISK Database Release 4.3 - Radiological Sediment Low Effect |
| Sediment | LANL ECORISK Database Release 4.3 - Radiological Sediment No Effect |
| Soil | LANL ECORISK Database Release 4.3 - Radiological Soil Low Effect |
| Soil | LANL ECORISK Database Release 4.3 - Radiological Soil Low Effect |
| Surface Water | LANL ECORISK Database Release 4.3 - Radiological Surface Water Low Effect |
| Surface Water | LANL ECORISK Database Release 4.3 - Radiological Surface Water No Effect |
The ECORISK Database, Version 4.3 (September 2022), is a screening tool developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to evaluate impacts from chemicals and radionuclides in soil, water, sediment, and air on the ecology at LANL. The ECORISK Database contains ecological screening levels (ESLs), which are media- and receptor-specific values that may be used to screen environmental data for ecological risk. Air (pore gas), soil, sediment, and water ESLs are calculated for receptors in various functional feeding guilds (carnivores, herbivores, insectivores, etc.) or selected from the peer-reviewed literature.
See the Intellus New Mexico site here to download the database and asssociated files.
5.2 EPA Region 6
The TCEQ data provides aquatic benchmarks (surface water and sediment) and terrestrial benchmarks (surface water and soil) for 23 isotopes. The benchmarks are based on the U.S. Department of Energy's "A graded approach for evaluating radiation doses to aquatic and terrestrial biota". Technical Standard DOE-STD-1153-2002. The benchmarks are called biota concentration guides (BCGs).
| Media | Title |
|---|---|
| Sediment | EPA Region 6 Benchmarks for Radionuclides - Aquatic Sediment BCG Benchmark (August 2020) |
| Soil | EPA Region 6 Benchmarks for Radionuclides - Terrestrial Soil BCG Benchmark (August 2020) |
| Surface Water | EPA Region 6 Benchmarks for Radionuclides - Aquatic Water BCG Benchmark (August 2020) |
| Surface Water | EPA Region 6 Benchmarks for Radionuclides - Terrestrial Water BCG Benchmark (August 2020) |
Join the RAIS User's Group for Updates
Register- © University of Tennessee, 1998 - 2023. All rights reserved
- Design: HTML5 UP