presentation: housatonic river ecological risk assessment (era) peer … · 2020-04-14 ·...

Housatonic RiverHousatonic River Ecological Risk AssessmentEcological Risk Assessment

Peer ReviewPeer Review

Introductory SessionIntroductory Session

October 30, 2003October 30, 2003

11

AgendaAgenda �� Welcome & IntroductionWelcome & Introduction �� Overview of Peer Review ProcessOverview of Peer Review Process �� Site Background and HistorySite Background and History �� Overview of RCRA Facility Investigation ReportOverview of RCRA Facility Investigation Report �� Presentation of ERAPresentation of ERA �� Peer Review Meeting and Next StepsPeer Review Meeting and Next Steps �� Lunch and View CT VideoLunch and View CT Video �� Site TourSite Tour �� QuestionsQuestions �� AdjournAdjourn

22

OverviewOverview –– Ecological RiskEcological Risk Assessment (ERA) Peer ReviewAssessment (ERA) Peer Review �� Review ofReview of EPA’s Ecological RiskEPA’s Ecological Risk

AssessmentAssessment

�� The Consent Decree (CD) specifies thatThe Consent Decree (CD) specifies that the Panel is to review the ERA tothe Panel is to review the ERA to evaluate:evaluate: •• Consistency with EPA policy and guidanceConsistency with EPA policy and guidance •• Protocols applied in the studies used in the riskProtocols applied in the studies used in the risk

assessmentassessment •• Interpretation of the information from the studiesInterpretation of the information from the studies •• Report conclusionsReport conclusions

33

OverviewOverview –– ERA Peer ReviewERA Peer Review

EPA contracted with SRA, a neutralEPA contracted with SRA, a neutral party, to manage and implementparty, to manage and implement the peer review process, including:the peer review process, including:

•• Review and assistance in independentReview and assistance in independent selection of technical experts for each panelselection of technical experts for each panel

•• Documentation of the peer review processDocumentation of the peer review process

•• Provision of neutral facilitation, disputeProvision of neutral facilitation, dispute resolution services, and logistical supportresolution services, and logistical support

44

Schedule for Peer Review ProcessSchedule for Peer Review Process

�� TodayToday –– Introduction and area tourIntroduction and area tour

�� November 12November 12 –– Panel members submitPanel members submit questions on the ERA to SRAquestions on the ERA to SRA •• EPA and/or GE will provide response by December 12EPA and/or GE will provide response by December 12

�� December 18December 18 –– ERA Document OverviewERA Document Overview MeetingMeeting •• EPA presents document and responses to questionsEPA presents document and responses to questions •• Panel may ask questions, but may not beginPanel may ask questions, but may not begin

deliberationsdeliberations

55

Schedule for Peer Review ProcessSchedule for Peer Review Process ((con’tcon’t))

�� January 2, 2004January 2, 2004 –– Panel membersPanel members provide written preliminary reviewprovide written preliminary review commentscomments •• Comments sent to all Panel membersComments sent to all Panel members

prior to the Peer Review Meetingprior to the Peer Review Meeting �� Week of January 5Week of January 5 -- conference callconference call

with all Panel memberswith all Panel members •• Revisit Charge and Peer Review MeetingRevisit Charge and Peer Review Meeting

objectives and proceduresobjectives and procedures 66

Schedule for Peer Review ProcessSchedule for Peer Review Process (concluded)(concluded)

�� January 13January 13--15, 200415, 2004 -- Peer Review MeetingPeer Review Meeting •• Public presentations to Panel on 13Public presentations to Panel on 13thth, Panel, Panel

may ask any questions of presentersmay ask any questions of presenters •• Panel reviews ERA, following the Charge, inPanel reviews ERA, following the Charge, in

public forumpublic forum •• Panel may ask only factual/clarifying questionsPanel may ask only factual/clarifying questions

during deliberationsduring deliberations

�� February 16, 2004February 16, 2004 –– Final Comments DueFinal Comments Due •• Submit final written comments to SRASubmit final written comments to SRA

77

Peer Review ProcessPeer Review Process -- DocumentsDocuments

�� Ecological Risk Assessment, includingEcological Risk Assessment, including Ecological CharacterizationEcological Characterization

�� Peer Review ChargePeer Review Charge �� Appendix J of CD (Peer Review Process)Appendix J of CD (Peer Review Process) �� Fact Sheet from the Public MeetingFact Sheet from the Public Meeting �� Comments Received During the PublicComments Received During the Public

Comment PeriodComment Period �� Video of the CT Portion of the RiverVideo of the CT Portion of the River �� Panelist Roles and ResponsibilitiesPanelist Roles and Responsibilities �� RCRA Facility Investigation ReportRCRA Facility Investigation Report �� Responses to Questions Posed to EPA by theResponses to Questions Posed to EPA by the

Panel MembersPanel Members

88

PORTION OF GE FACILITY

East Branch Housatonic River

99

Site HistorySite History –– GE FacilityGE Facility

�� 254254--acre manufacturing facility inacre manufacturing facility in PittsfieldPittsfield

�� Operations began in 1903Operations began in 1903 �� Three manufacturing divisions:Three manufacturing divisions:

•• TransformerTransformer •• OrdnanceOrdnance •• PlasticsPlastics

1010

Site HistorySite History GE Transformer DivisionGE Transformer Division

�� Manufactured and servicedManufactured and serviced transformers until mid to late 1980stransformers until mid to late 1980s

�� Used PCBs in dielectric fluids in someUsed PCBs in dielectric fluids in some of these transformers from 1932 untilof these transformers from 1932 until 19771977 •• Mainly Aroclor 1260, with some Aroclor 1254Mainly Aroclor 1260, with some Aroclor 1254 •• Some released to East Branch, HousatonicSome released to East Branch, Housatonic

RiverRiver

1111

Site DescriptionSite Description

�� Contaminants potentially associatedContaminants potentially associated with the site include:with the site include: •• PCBsPCBs •• Dioxins/furansDioxins/furans •• VOCsVOCs •• SVOCsSVOCs •• Inorganic constituentsInorganic constituents

�� PCBs are the predominant contaminantPCBs are the predominant contaminant

1212

1313

Description of Housatonic River

1414

LOCATION

River DescriptionRiver Description (con’t)(con’t)

�� Studies by GE, EPA and other agenciesStudies by GE, EPA and other agencies documented PCBs in sediment anddocumented PCBs in sediment and floodplain soils downstream into CTfloodplain soils downstream into CT

�� Data show majority of the PCBs (>1Data show majority of the PCBs (>1 mg/kg total PCBs) w/in ~ 10mg/kg total PCBs) w/in ~ 10--yryr floodplain above Woods Pond damfloodplain above Woods Pond dam

�� Predominantly Aroclor 1260 detected;Predominantly Aroclor 1260 detected; some Aroclor 1254some Aroclor 1254

1515

River DescriptionRiver Description (concluded)(concluded)

�� In 1977, fish consumption advisory issuedIn 1977, fish consumption advisory issued by CTDEP for most of River in CT for PCBsby CTDEP for most of River in CT for PCBs •• Advisory subsequently modified, most recentlyAdvisory subsequently modified, most recently

in 2002in 2002

�� In 1982, fish consumption advisoryIn 1982, fish consumption advisory (including frogs and turtles) issued by MDPH(including frogs and turtles) issued by MDPH from Dalton, MA to the CT border for PCBsfrom Dalton, MA to the CT border for PCBs

�� In 1999, a waterfowl consumption advisoryIn 1999, a waterfowl consumption advisory issued by MDPH from Pittsfield, MA to Greatissued by MDPH from Pittsfield, MA to Great BarringtonBarrington

1616

1717

Regulatory History

OverviewOverview –– Regulatory HistoryRegulatory History

�� Site has been subject to regulatorySite has been subject to regulatory investigations since the early 1980sinvestigations since the early 1980s •• Cooperative agreements with the CTDEPCooperative agreements with the CTDEP

(beginning in 1984)(beginning in 1984) •• Two Administrative Consent Orders (Two Administrative Consent Orders (ACOsACOs) with) with

MDEP (1990)MDEP (1990) •• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

Corrective Action Permit with EPA (1994)Corrective Action Permit with EPA (1994) •• CoConsent Decree in 1999 replaced RCRA Permitnsent Decree in 1999 replaced RCRA Permit

andand ACOsACOs

1818

OverviewOverview -- Consent DecreeConsent Decree

�� Settlement negotiations began in 1997Settlement negotiations began in 1997

�� GE, federal and state agencies, the CityGE, federal and state agencies, the City of Pittsfield, and the Pittsfield Economicof Pittsfield, and the Pittsfield Economic Development Authority reachedDevelopment Authority reached tentative agreement (September 1998)tentative agreement (September 1998)

�� Agreement formalized in a ConsentAgreement formalized in a Consent Decree (CD) entered by the court inDecree (CD) entered by the court in October 2000October 2000

1919

OverviewOverview –– Consent DecreeConsent Decree (con’t)(con’t)

�� Consent Decree provides for:Consent Decree provides for: •• Cleanup of the GE plant facility and otherCleanup of the GE plant facility and other

nearby areasnearby areas •• Investigation and cleanup of the RiverInvestigation and cleanup of the River •• Compensation and environmental restorationCompensation and environmental restoration

for natural resource damagesfor natural resource damages •• Government recovery of past/future responseGovernment recovery of past/future response

costscosts

2020

OverviewOverview –– Actions in the RiverActions in the River �� ½ Mile Reach½ Mile Reach –– East BranchEast Branch

•• GEGE remediatedremediated sediment/soil & conductedsediment/soil & conducted source control adjacent to the site (1999source control adjacent to the site (1999 –– 2002)2002)

�� 1 ½ Mile Reach1 ½ Mile Reach –– East BranchEast Branch •• EPA (w/ costEPA (w/ cost--sharing by GE)sharing by GE) remediatingremediating thethe

next 1 ½ miles (to the confluence with thenext 1 ½ miles (to the confluence with the West Branch)West Branch)

�� Rest of RiverRest of River •• CD provides a process for investigation,CD provides a process for investigation,

evaluation, and remedy selectionevaluation, and remedy selection 2121

2525Phase I - 1 ½ Mile Removal

2626

Phase II – 1 ½ Mile Removal

Rest of River Investigation

Corrective Measures Study

Modeling Study

Cleanup Goals

Proposed Cleanup/Public Comment

Remediation

Appeals Process

HHRAERA

Final Cleanup Decision

RFI Report

REST OF RIVER PROCESSREST OF RIVER PROCESSREST OF RIVER PROCESS Rest of River InvestigationRest of River Investigation

Corrective Measures StudyCorrective Measures Study

Modeling StudyModeling Study

Cleanup GoalsCleanup Goals

HHRAHHRAERAERA RFI ReportRFI Report

EPA

GE

Public

Proposed Cleanup/PublicProposed Cleanup/Public Appeals ProcessAppeals ProcessCommentComment

RemediationRemediationFinal Cleanup DecisionFinal Cleanup Decision

2929

SettingSetting –– Rest of RiverRest of River DefinitionDefinition �� Confluence of the East and WestConfluence of the East and West

Branches of the Housatonic River, toBranches of the Housatonic River, to the MA/CT border, and through CT tothe MA/CT border, and through CT to Long Island Sound (Long Island Sound (≈≈ 139 miles)139 miles)

�� Includes areas in which contaminantsIncludes areas in which contaminants from GE facility are located:from GE facility are located: •• River sedimentsRiver sediments •• Riverbank and floodplainRiverbank and floodplain –– extends to 1extends to 1

mg/kgmg/kg tPCBtPCB isoplethisopleth (approx. 10(approx. 10--yearyear floodplain)floodplain)

3030

SettingSetting Rest of RiverRest of River –– Reach DesignationsReach Designations

�� Reach 5Reach 5 –– confluence to Woods Pondconfluence to Woods Pond (10.5 mi.)(10.5 mi.)

�� Reach 6Reach 6 –– Woods Pond (54 acres)Woods Pond (54 acres) �� Reach 7Reach 7 –– Woods Pond dam to RisingWoods Pond dam to Rising

Pond (17 mi.)Pond (17 mi.) �� Reach 8Reach 8 –– Rising Pond (40 acres)Rising Pond (40 acres) �� Reach 9Reach 9 –– Rising Pond dam to MA/CTRising Pond dam to MA/CT

border (26 mi.)border (26 mi.) 3131

SettingSetting -- Reach DesignationsReach Designations ((con’tcon’t))

�� Reach 10Reach 10 –– MA/CT line to Great Falls Dam (7 mi.)MA/CT line to Great Falls Dam (7 mi.) �� Reach 11Reach 11 –– Great Falls Dam to Cornwall Bridge (12Great Falls Dam to Cornwall Bridge (12

mi.)mi.) �� Reach 12Reach 12 –– Cornwall Bridge to Bulls Bridge (13 mi.)Cornwall Bridge to Bulls Bridge (13 mi.) �� Reach 13Reach 13 –– Bulls Bridge to LakeBulls Bridge to Lake LillinonahLillinonah (11 mi.)(11 mi.) �� Reach 14Reach 14 –– LakeLake LillinonahLillinonah (~1200(~1200 acres)acres) �� Reach 15Reach 15 –– LakeLake ZoarZoar (~1000(~1000 acres)acres) �� Reach 16Reach 16 –– LakeLake Housatonic (~400 acres)Housatonic (~400 acres) �� Reach 17Reach 17 –– Derby Dam to Long Island Sound (14Derby Dam to Long Island Sound (14

mi.)mi.)

3232

3333

Confluence

East Branch

West Branch

3434

Reach 5A

3535

Side Channels & OxbowsSide Channels & Oxbows

Side channels/oxbows

3636

Add vernal pool slideAdd vernal pool slide

Vernal Pools

3737

Woods Pond

GE RFI PresentationGE RFI Presentation

3838

3939

EcologicalEcological CharacterizationCharacterization Housatonic RiverHousatonic River

19981998 –– 20022002

�� Multiple studies over aMultiple studies over a 55--year periodyear period

�� Focus on PrimaryFocus on Primary Study Area (PSA)Study Area (PSA)

�� Reference AreasReference Areas •• Hinsdale FlatHinsdale Flats SWMAs SWMA •• October Mountain StateOctober Mountain State

ForestForest •• Ashley LakeAshley Lake •• Threemile Pond SWMAThreemile Pond SWMA

Ecological CharacterizationEcological Characterization

�� Identified the type and spatialIdentified the type and spatial distribution of natural communitiesdistribution of natural communities

�� Identified the plants & animals inIdentified the plants & animals in each community (Species:Habitateach community (Species:Habitat Associations)Associations)

4040

SettingSetting –– Community TypesCommunity Types

�� 18 natural communities occur within18 natural communities occur within the PSA:the PSA: •• 11 lacustrinelacustrine community;community; •• 1010 palustrinepalustrine communities primarily associatedcommunities primarily associated

with the Housatonic River floodplain andwith the Housatonic River floodplain and shoreline;shoreline;

•• 33 riverineriverine communities either within thecommunities either within the channel itself or draining into it; andchannel itself or draining into it; and

•• 4 upland communities included within the 104 upland communities included within the 10-year floodplainyear floodplain

4141

4242

Setting Setting -- PhotosPhotos

�� ALSO ADD AN ALSO ADD AN EXAMPLE OF THE EXAMPLE OF THE HABITAT MAPHABITAT MAP

4343

EcologicalEcological CharacterizationCharacterization

Ecological Risk AssessmentEcological Risk Assessment Conceptual ModelConceptual Model

4444

8 Assessment Endpoints8 Assessment Endpoints

�� Community condition, survival,Community condition, survival, reproduction, and developmentreproduction, and development •• Benthic invertebratesBenthic invertebrates •• AmphibiansAmphibians

�� Survival, growth and reproductive successSurvival, growth and reproductive success •• FishFish •• Insectivorous birdsInsectivorous birds •• Piscivorous birdsPiscivorous birds •• Piscivorous mammalsPiscivorous mammals •• Omnivorous and carnivorous mammalsOmnivorous and carnivorous mammals •• Endangered speciesEndangered species

4545

ERA Document RoadmapERA Document Roadmap �� Volumes 1 and 2Volumes 1 and 2

•• ESES -- Executive SummaryExecutive Summary •• Ch 1Ch 1 -- IntroductionIntroduction •• Ch 2Ch 2 -- Problem FormulationProblem Formulation •• Ch 3Ch 3 -- Assessment EndpointAssessment Endpoint -- BenthicBenthic InvertebratesInvertebrates •• Ch 4Ch 4 -- Assessment EndpointAssessment Endpoint -- AmphibiansAmphibians •• Ch 5Ch 5 -- Assessment EndpointAssessment Endpoint –– FishFish •• Ch 6Ch 6 -- Wildlife Assessment HighlightsWildlife Assessment Highlights •• Ch 7Ch 7 -- Assessment EndpointAssessment Endpoint --Insectivorous BirdsInsectivorous Birds •• Ch 8Ch 8 -- Assessment EndpointAssessment Endpoint --PiscivorousPiscivorous BirdsBirds •• Ch 9Ch 9 -- Assessment EndpointAssessment Endpoint --PiscivorousPiscivorous MammalsMammals •• Ch 10Ch 10 -- Assessment EndpointAssessment Endpoint --Omnivorous &Omnivorous &

Carnivorous MammalsCarnivorous Mammals •• Ch 11Ch 11 -- Assessment EndpointAssessment Endpoint -- Threatened &Threatened &

Endangered SpeciesEndangered Species •• Ch 12Ch 12 -- Risk SummaryRisk Summary 4646

ERA Document Roadmap (ERA Document Roadmap (con’tcon’t))

�� Volume 3Volume 3Volume 3 ••• Appendix A.1: Ecological Characterization of theAppendix A.1: Ecological Characterization of theAppendix A.1: Ecological Characterization of the

Housatonic River: andHousatonic River: andHousatonic River: and ••• Appendix A.2: Ecological Characterization of theAppendix A.2: Ecological Characterization of theAppendix A.2: Ecological Characterization of the

Housatonic River Downstream of Woods PondHousatonic River Downstream of Woods PondHousatonic River Downstream of Woods Pond

�� Volume 4Volume 4Volume 4 ••• Appendix B: Pre-ERA (Screening)Appendix B: PreAppendix B: Pre--ERA (Screening)ERA (Screening) ••• Appendix C: Supporting Technical InformationAppendix C: Supporting Technical InformationAppendix C: Supporting Technical Information ••• Appendix D: Assessment Endpoint - BenthicAppendix D: Assessment EndpointAppendix D: Assessment Endpoint -- BenthicBenthic

InvertebratesInvertebratesInvertebrates

4747

ERA Document Roadmap (ERA Document Roadmap (con’tcon’t))

�� Volume 5Volume 5 •• Appendix E: Assessment EndpointAppendix E: Assessment Endpoint -- AmphibiansAmphibians •• Appendix F: Assessment EndpointAppendix F: Assessment Endpoint -- FishFish •• Appendix G: Assessment EndpointAppendix G: Assessment Endpoint -- Insectivorous BirdsInsectivorous Birds

�� Volume 6Volume 6 •• Appendix H: Assessment EndpointAppendix H: Assessment Endpoint -- PiscivorousPiscivorous BirdsBirds •• Appendix I: Assessment EndpointAppendix I: Assessment Endpoint -- PiscivorousPiscivorous MammalsMammals •• Appendix J: Assessment EndpointAppendix J: Assessment Endpoint -- Omnivorous andOmnivorous and

Carnivorous MammalsCarnivorous Mammals •• Appendix K: Assessment EndpointAppendix K: Assessment Endpoint -- Threatened andThreatened and

Endangered SpeciesEndangered Species •• Appendix L: Summary of Data Used in the EcologicalAppendix L: Summary of Data Used in the Ecological

Risk AssessmentRisk Assessment 4848

ERA OverviewERA Overview Contaminants of ConcernContaminants of Concern

�� TwoTwo--step screening assessmentstep screening assessment 1.1. identify contaminants of potential concern (COPCs)identify contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) 2.2. receptorreceptor--specific screening (specific screening (COCsCOCs))

�� Aquatic receptorsAquatic receptors •• PCBsPCBs Pre-ERA COPCs

•• dioxins and furansdioxins and furans •• several PAHsseveral PAHs •• several metalsseveral metals

�� Wildlife receptorsWildlife receptors •• PCBsPCBs •• 2,3,7,82,3,7,8--TCDD Equivalence (TEQ)TCDD Equivalence (TEQ)

All Contaminants

Receptor-specific COCs

4949

ERA OverviewERA Overview Assessment Endpoint SpeciesAssessment Endpoint Species

�� Benthic Invertebrates (indicator species)Benthic Invertebrates (indicator species) �� ChironomusChironomus tentanstentans (midge)(midge) �� HyalellaHyalella aztecaazteca (amphipod)(amphipod) �� Daphnia magnaDaphnia magna (crustacean)(crustacean) �� LumbriculusLumbriculus variegatusvariegatus ((oligochaeteoligochaete worm)worm)

�� Amphibian (species in study area)Amphibian (species in study area) •• Northern leopard frogNorthern leopard frog •• Wood frogWood frog

�� Fish (representative species)Fish (representative species) •• PredatorsPredators -- Yellow Perch, Largemouth BassYellow Perch, Largemouth Bass •• Forage FishForage Fish–– Bluegill, PumpkinseedBluegill, Pumpkinseed •• Bottom FishBottom Fish –– White Sucker, Brown BullheadWhite Sucker, Brown Bullhead 5050

Assessment Endpoint Species (Assessment Endpoint Species (con’tcon’t))

�� Wildlife (representative species)Wildlife (representative species) •• Insectivorous birdsInsectivorous birds -- Tree Swallow andTree Swallow and

American RobinAmerican Robin •• PiscivorousPiscivorous birdsbirds -- Osprey and BeltedOsprey and Belted

KingfisherKingfisher •• PiscivorousPiscivorous mammalsmammals -- Mink and River OtterMink and River Otter •• Omnivorous and carnivorous mammalsOmnivorous and carnivorous mammals -- RedRed

Fox and Northern ShortFox and Northern Short--tailed Shrewtailed Shrew •• Threatened and endangered speciesThreatened and endangered species -- BaldBald

Eagle, American Bittern, SmallEagle, American Bittern, Small--footedfooted MyotisMyotis

5151

ERA OverviewERA Overview Weight of Evidence AssessmentWeight of Evidence Assessment

WOE (WOE (MenzieMenzie etet al. 1996) isal. 1996) is determined by 3determined by 3 characteristics:characteristics:

•• weightweight •• magnitude ofmagnitude of

responseresponse •• concurrenceconcurrence

Comparison Of Exposure/Effects

Site-specific Toxicity

Field Studies

WOE Assessment

Threshold Effects Concentration

Risk Characterization

HQs and Downstream Assessment 5252

Ecological Risk Assessment forEcological Risk Assessment for Benthic InvertebratesBenthic Invertebrates

5353

Lines of EvidenceLines of Evidence BenthicBenthic InvertebratesInvertebrates

�� Field studiesField studies •• BenthicBenthic community studycommunity study

�� InIn situsitu toxicity teststoxicity tests •• Daphnia magna,Daphnia magna, ChironomusChironomus tentanstentans,, HyallellaHyallella aztecaazteca

�� Laboratory toxicity testsLaboratory toxicity tests •• Daphnia magna,Daphnia magna, HyallellaHyallella aztecaazteca

�� Bioaccumulation testBioaccumulation test •• LumbriculusLumbriculus variegatusvariegatus

�� Literature effects levelsLiterature effects levels 5454

Benthic InvertebratesBenthic Invertebrates Risk CharacterizationRisk Characterization

Measurement Endpoints Weighting

Coarse-Grained Sediments Fine-Grained Sediments

Evidence of Harm

Magnitude Evidence of Harm Magnitude

C. Chemical Measures

C-1. Water chemisty Low/ Mod Yes Intermediate Yes Intermediate

C-2. Sediment chemistry Low/ Mod Yes High Yes High

C-3. Tissue chemistry Moderate Yes Intermediate Yes Intermediate

T. Toxicological Measures

T-1. Sediment toxicity (laboratory) Mod/ High Yes High Yes High

T-2. Sediment toxicity (field) Mod/ High Yes Intermediate Yes High

T-3. Indications of PCB as toxicity driver in TIE Moderate - - Yes Intermediate

B. Benthic Community Measures

B-1. Abundance, richness, and biomass of invertebrates, relative to reference Moderate Yes Intermediate No -

B-2. Benthic community structure, using multivariate assessment Moderate Yes Intermediate No -

B-3. Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (MHBI) indicator of organic pollution Moderate No - No

5555

Benthic InvertebratesBenthic Invertebrates Summary of Risks (By Reach)Summary of Risks (By Reach)

Haz

ard

Quo

tient

.

100 C FS

T

Max

Min MC 25th

MC 75th Mean Median

X

10

3 ppm MATC

1 HQ = 1

0.1

5A 5B 5C 5D 6 5656

Ecological Risk Assessment forEcological Risk Assessment forEcological Risk Assessment for AmphibiansAmphibiansAmphibians

5757

Lines of EvidenceLines of Evidence Amphibian Risk AssessmentAmphibian Risk Assessment

�� Vernal pool field surveysVernal pool field surveys (EPA,(EPA, ArcadisArcadis GG & M 2003)& M 2003)

�� SiteSite--specific toxicity testsspecific toxicity tests •• Leopard frog (Leopard frog (RanaRana pipienspipiens) (Fort 2003)) (Fort 2003) •• Wood frog (Wood frog (RanaRana sylvaticasylvatica) (Fort 2003,) (Fort 2003,

ResetaritsResetarits 2002)2002)

�� Literature effects levelsLiterature effects levels

5858

5959

Risk CharacterizationRisk Characterization

AmphibiansAmphibians –– Risk CharacterizationRisk Characterization

Measurement Endpoints Weighting Evidence of Harm

(Yes/No/Undetermined)

Magnitude (High/

Moderate/Low)

C. Chemical Measures C. Concentration of PCB in frog tissues in relation to levels reported to be harmful to amphibians.

Moderate Yes Low

W. Wood Frog Toxicological Measures W-1. Sediment toxicity to hatchling/late embryo life Mod/High No -W-2. Sediment toxicity to larval life stages. Mod/High Yes Intermediate W-3. Sediment toxicity to late larval/metamorph life Mod/High Yes High W-4. GE Study (juvenile wood frogs) Low Undetermined -L. Leopard Frog Toxicological Measures L-1. Sediment toxicity to hatchling/late embryo life Mod/High Yes Low L-2. Sediment toxicity to larval life stages. Mod/High Yes High L-3. Sediment toxicity to late larval/metamorph life Mod/High Yes High L-4. Sediment toxicity to adult leopard frogs Mod/High Yes High B. Biology B-1. Vernal pool community study. Mod/High Yes Low B-2. GE leopard frog egg mass survey Low Undetermined -B-3. Anecdotal observations during collections for Moderate Yes Low

6060

Estimation of RiskEstimation of Risk for Amphibiansfor Amphibians DownstreamDownstream

Some areas ofSome areas of potential riskpotential risk –– Woods Pond dam toWoods Pond dam to Rising PondRising Pond

No risk below RisingNo risk below Rising PondPond

Woods PondRising Pond

Ecological Risk Assessment forEcological Risk Assessment for FishFish

6161

Lines of EvidenceLines of Evidence Fish Risk AssessmentFish Risk Assessment

�� Field StudiesField Studies •• Biomass studyBiomass study •• Largemouth bass population study (R2Largemouth bass population study (R2

Consultants 2002)Consultants 2002)

�� SiteSite--specific toxicity testsspecific toxicity tests ((TillittTillitt 2003)2003)

�� Literature effects levelsLiterature effects levels

6262

6363

Fish Risk CharacterizationFish Risk Characterization

Measurement Endpoints Weighting Evidence of Harm Magnitude

A. Site-Specific Toxicity

A1. Phase I reproductive effects Mod/High Yes Low

A2. Phase II reproductive effects High Yes Intermediate

B. Fish Body Burden

B1. Observed fish tissue/ Literature toxic levels Mod Yes Low

B2. Observed fish tissue/ Phase I toxic levels Mod/High Yes Low

B3. Observed fish tissue/ Phase II toxic levels Mod/High Yes Low

C: Fish Community and Reproduction Studies

C1: EPA Study and GE Community Study Low/Mod Undetermined -

C2: GE Reproduction Study Low/Mod Undetermined -

Summary of Risks bySummary of Risks by Fish SpeciesFish Species

Haz

ard

Quo

tient

.

10 Threshold effects level = 49 ppm Max

Min MC 25th

MC 75th Mean Median

X

1

0.1

Bro

wn

Bul

lhea

d

Adu

lts

Whi

te S

ucke

r

Adu

lts

Pum

pkin

seed

A

dults

Yel

low

Per

ch

Adu

lts

Lar

gem

outh

Bas

s L

arge

Adu

lts

Lar

gem

outh

Bas

s Sm

all A

dults

6464

6565

Extrapolation of Risks to FishExtrapolation of Risks to Fish �� Other warmwater species in PSA similar to ERAOther warmwater species in PSA similar to ERA

surrogatessurrogates �� Trout assumed to be 4 times more sensitiveTrout assumed to be 4 times more sensitive

�� No risks to warmwater species (e.g., bass, sunfish)No risks to warmwater species (e.g., bass, sunfish) downstream of Woods Ponddownstream of Woods Pond

�� Coldwater species (e.g., brown trout, rainbow trout)Coldwater species (e.g., brown trout, rainbow trout) have marginal risks between Woods Pond and MA/CThave marginal risks between Woods Pond and MA/CT state linestate line

�� No risks to fish in ConnecticutNo risks to fish in Connecticut

Ecological RiskEcological RiskEcological Risk Assessments for WildlifeAssessments for WildlifeAssessments for Wildlife

6666

WildlifeWildlife -- Modeled Exposure andModeled Exposure and EffectsEffects -- Line of EvidenceLine of Evidence

�� Exposure parameters derived usingExposure parameters derived using sitesite--specific information and/orspecific information and/or literatureliterature

�� Effects concentrations derived fromEffects concentrations derived from the literaturethe literature

�� Methods included both Monte CarloMethods included both Monte Carlo and Probability Bounds techniquesand Probability Bounds techniques

6767

Lines of EvidenceLines of Evidence Insectivorous BirdsInsectivorous Birds

�� Field studiesField studies •• Tree swallow study (Custer 2002)Tree swallow study (Custer 2002) •• American robin field study (American robin field study (ArcadisArcadis

G & M 2002)G & M 2002)

�� Modeled exposure andModeled exposure and effectseffects

6868

Insectivorous BirdsInsectivorous Birds Risk CharacterizationRisk Characterization

Measurement Endpoints Weighting Value

(High, Moderate, Low) Evidence of Harm Magnitude

Field Study High (Tree Swallow)

Mod/High (American Robin) No (Tree Swallow)

No (American Robin) Low (Tree Swallow)

Low (American Robin)

Modeled Exposure and Effects Moderate Yes High

6969

Area

Primary Study Area

Lines of EvidenceLines of Evidence Piscivorous Birds Risk AssessmentPiscivorous Birds Risk Assessment

Primary Study Area�� Belted kingfisher fieldBelted kingfisher field

Monte Carlo

study (study (ArcadisArcadis G & MG & M 2002)2002)

Exc

eeda

nce

Prob

abili

ty (%

)

100

Low-intermed. criterion Intermed.-high criterion

60

40

20

0

LPB UPB

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

80

Dose (mg/kg bw/d)

LPB = Lower probability bound�� Modeled Exposure andModeled Exposure and UPB = Upper probability bound

Exposure of Ospreys to tPCBs in Reaches 5 and 6 of the Housatonic RiverPSAEffectsEffects

OSPREY

7070

Piscivorous BirdsPiscivorous Birds Risk CharacterizationRisk Characterization



Modeled Exposure and Effects Moderate Yes (Kingfisher)

Yes (Osprey) High (Kingfisher)

High (Osprey)

Belted Kingfisher Field Study (Henning 2002)

Mod/High No (Kingfisher) Low (Kingfisher)

7171

Lines of EvidenceLines of Evidence PiscivorousPiscivorous Mammals RiskMammals Risk

AssessmentAssessment �� Field SurveysField Surveys

-- EPAEPA -- Bernstein et al 2003Bernstein et al 2003

�� SiteSite--specific toxicity test (specific toxicity test (BursianBursian et alet al 2002, 2003)2002, 2003)

�� Modeled exposure and effectsModeled exposure and effects

7272

Risk CharacterizationRisk Characterization PiscivorousPiscivorous MammalsMammals

Measurement Endpoints

Weighting Value (High, Moderate, Low)

Evidence of Harm (Yes, No, Undetermined)

Magnitude (High, Intermediate, Low)

Field Surveys EPA Moderate/High Yes High

GE Moderate No Low

Feeding Study High Yes High

Modeled Exposure and Effects

Moderate/High Yes High

7373

Lines of EvidenceLines of Evidence Omnivorous and CarnivorousOmnivorous and Carnivorous

MammalsMammals

�� Small mammal field surveySmall mammal field survey

�� Shrew field study (Shrew field study (BoonstraBoonstra 2002)2002)


7474


( High, Moderate, Low)

Evidence of Harm Magnitude

Field Surveys Mod/High Undetermined Low

Population Demography Field Study

Mod/High Undetermined

(Shrew) Intermediate

Modeled Exposure and Effects Mod/High Yes (Shrew)

Undetermined (Fox)

High

Intermediate

Omnivorous/Carnivorous MammalsOmnivorous/Carnivorous Mammals Risk CharacterizationRisk Characterization

7575

Lines of EvidenceLines of Evidence T & E SpeciesT & E Species


7676

Threatened & Endangered SpeciesThreatened & Endangered Species Risk CharacterizationRisk Characterization



Modeled Exposure and Effects Bald Eagle

Mod/High Yes Intermediate

Modeled Exposure and Effects American Bittern

Mod/High Yes High

Modeled Exposure and Effects Small-Footed Myotis

Mod/High Undetermined High

7777

ERA Summary of ResultsERA Summary of Results Risks in PSARisks in PSA

7878

Peer Review ProcessPeer Review Process

7979

Peer Review ProcessPeer Review Process -- ChargeCharge ContextContext

�� The Panel is to evaluate the ERA for:The Panel is to evaluate the ERA for: •• Consistency with EPA policy and guidanceConsistency with EPA policy and guidance •• Protocols applied in the studiesProtocols applied in the studies •• Interpretation of information from the studies in the ERAInterpretation of information from the studies in the ERA •• Report conclusionsReport conclusions

�� In evaluating the general items specified inIn evaluating the general items specified in the Consent Decree, the Panel shall givethe Consent Decree, the Panel shall give specific consideration to the questions listedspecific consideration to the questions listed in the Charge.in the Charge.

8080

Peer Review ChargePeer Review Charge General ExpectationsGeneral Expectations

�� Panel members will preparePanel members will prepare comments focusing on the questionscomments focusing on the questions posed in the Chargeposed in the Charge

�� The Peer Review Meeting agenda willThe Peer Review Meeting agenda will be based on the Chargebe based on the Charge

8181


�� If significant errors are observed inIf significant errors are observed in application of appropriateapplication of appropriate methodologies, Panel members aremethodologies, Panel members are expected to provide specific commentsexpected to provide specific comments describing errors and suggestingdescribing errors and suggesting improvements.improvements.

8282

Further ClarificationFurther Clarification General ExpectationsGeneral Expectations

�� While Panel members should addressWhile Panel members should address consistency of their evaluations andconsistency of their evaluations and suggestions with EPA guidance andsuggestions with EPA guidance and policy, you are not limited by EPApolicy, you are not limited by EPA guidance and policy and should alsoguidance and policy and should also evaluate, and may make suggestionsevaluate, and may make suggestions regarding, the reasonableness of EPA’sregarding, the reasonableness of EPA’s procedures and inputs apart from suchprocedures and inputs apart from such guidance or policy.guidance or policy. 8383


�� It is not expected or intended thatIt is not expected or intended that the Panel Reviewers reach consensusthe Panel Reviewers reach consensus on all issueson all issues –– Panel members arePanel members are expected to express their opinions onexpected to express their opinions on the issues without regard tothe issues without regard to consensus.consensus.

8484

Peer Review ProcessPeer Review Process –– MeetingMeeting

�� 13 weeks to review documents13 weeks to review documents �� Peer Review Meeting on JanuaryPeer Review Meeting on January

1313--15 in Lenox at the15 in Lenox at the CranwellCranwell ResortResort •• Schedule and Room Location TBDSchedule and Room Location TBD

�� Panel preliminary review commentsPanel preliminary review comments will be available to interestedwill be available to interested parties at the Meetingparties at the Meeting

8585

Peer Review ProcessPeer Review Process ––MeetingMeeting (con’t)(con’t)

�� Prior to Panel discussions, audience willPrior to Panel discussions, audience will have opportunity to present oralhave opportunity to present oral commentcomment •• Defined time span, allocated per entity, andDefined time span, allocated per entity, and

within the time allotted on the agendawithin the time allotted on the agenda •• GE will have time to present oral commentGE will have time to present oral comment •• Panel Members may ask questions of the oralPanel Members may ask questions of the oral

presenterspresenters •• Anticipate the first day will be primarily aAnticipate the first day will be primarily a

description of process and oral presentationsdescription of process and oral presentations 8686

Peer Review ProcessPeer Review Process -- MeetingMeeting (con’t)(con’t)

�� After hearing oral comments, the PanelAfter hearing oral comments, the Panel will commence discussion of the ERA inwill commence discussion of the ERA in the context of the Chargethe context of the Charge

�� No active audience participation allowedNo active audience participation allowed

�� During deliberations, the Panel mayDuring deliberations, the Panel may only ask questions that are factual oronly ask questions that are factual or seek clarificationseek clarification

8787

Peer Review ProcessPeer Review Process -- MeetingMeeting (con’t)(con’t)

�� If a Panel Member has a question, SRA will lookIf a Panel Member has a question, SRA will look to EPA and GE to determine if the question isto EPA and GE to determine if the question is factual in nature or seeking clarification.factual in nature or seeking clarification.

�� If both parties agree it is factual or seeksIf both parties agree it is factual or seeks clarification, EPA will provide a response.clarification, EPA will provide a response. If theIf the question is related to information provided byquestion is related to information provided by GE or GE’s actions, EPA may ask GE to respond.GE or GE’s actions, EPA may ask GE to respond.

�� If GE does not agree with EPA’s response, GEIf GE does not agree with EPA’s response, GE may state this and provide information on whymay state this and provide information on why they do not agree with EPA’s response.they do not agree with EPA’s response.

8888

Peer Review ProcessPeer Review Process -- MeetingMeeting (concluded)(concluded)

�� EPA or GE may need to caucus to determine ifEPA or GE may need to caucus to determine if the question is factual or seeks clarification.the question is factual or seeks clarification. During this time, the Panel may continue itsDuring this time, the Panel may continue its discussion or wait for a response.discussion or wait for a response.

�� If EPA and GE decide that the question calls forIf EPA and GE decide that the question calls for opinion or analysis, the Panel will be instructedopinion or analysis, the Panel will be instructed to debate or otherwise handle the issue as theyto debate or otherwise handle the issue as they wish, no response will be provided.wish, no response will be provided.

�� Panelists are not to discuss the peer reviewPanelists are not to discuss the peer review subject among themselves or with othersubject among themselves or with other interested parties outside of the publicinterested parties outside of the public meeting.meeting. 8989

Peer Review ProcessPeer Review Process -- Wrap UpWrap Up

�� The Peer Review Meeting will beThe Peer Review Meeting will be videotaped and copies of the videovideotaped and copies of the video made available to the Panel Membersmade available to the Panel Members and included in the proceedings for theand included in the proceedings for the Peer Review MeetingPeer Review Meeting

�� The video and Peer Review PanelThe video and Peer Review Panel Comments will be compiled and madeComments will be compiled and made public by SRA by February 19public by SRA by February 19

9090

Peer Review ProcessPeer Review Process Wrap UpWrap Up (continued)(continued)

�� EPA will prepare a responsivenessEPA will prepare a responsiveness summary addressing the Peer Reviewsummary addressing the Peer Review comments and may revise thecomments and may revise the document as necessarydocument as necessary

9191

Peer Review ProcessPeer Review Process -Important Dates to RememberImportant Dates to Remember

�� NOVEMBER 12NOVEMBER 12 –– Initial Questions DueInitial Questions Due �� DECEMBER 18DECEMBER 18 –– Document ReviewDocument Review

MeetingMeeting �� JANUARY 2JANUARY 2 –– Written Summary of ReviewWritten Summary of Review �� Week of JANUARY 5Week of JANUARY 5 –– PanelistsPanelists

Conference CallConference Call �� JANUARY 13JANUARY 13--1515 –– Peer Review PanelPeer Review Panel

MeetingMeeting �� FEBRUARY 16FEBRUARY 16 –– Final Comments Due toFinal Comments Due to

SRASRA 9292