Toxicological benchmarks for screening potential contaminants of concern for effects on terrestrial plants: 1994 revision

Will, M.E.; Suter, G.W. II

doi:10.2172/10107985

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Exceedance of these benchmarks does not necessarily mean the water is adversely affecting plants, but it does indicate that further study is warranted. However, comparison of the screening benchmarks (Will and Suter, 1994) with the estimated concentrations in the BLRA (DOE, 1995b) indicates that cobalt and copper concentrations in ground water are just above the benchmarks while arsenic, manganese, vanadium, and zinc were 3.5 t o 34 times greater than the benchmarks. This information indicates that the contaminated ground water at the Grand Junction site may potentially have an adverse effect on vegetation and that further study is warranted.…”

Section: Contaminated Around Watermentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Since plants that have a potential to be rooted in the contaminated ground water were not sampled, contaminants of potential concern in the plant tissue were determined by estimating the concentration in the soil in the saturated zone and using soilto-plant bioconcentration factors (DOE,1 995b). Screening-level ecological risk assessments prepared for the UMTRA Project subsequent to the Grand Junction assessment have used screening benchmark concentrations of constituents that may result in phytotoxicity to plants (Will and Suter, 1994). Since this is the method now used on the UMTRA Project to analyze for potential phytotoxic effects, the mean concentrations of constituents that were statistically above background in ground water were compared to the screening benchmarks for plants (DOE, 1995b).…”

Section: Contaminated Around Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Site observational work plan for the UMTRA project site at Grand Junction, Colorado

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared this initial site observational work plan (SOWP) for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project site in Grand Junction, Colorado. This SOWP is one of the first UMTRA Ground Water Project documents developed to select a compliance strategy that meets the UMTRA ground water standards (40 CFR Part 192, as amended by 60 FR 2854) for the Grand Junction site. This SOWP applies information about the Grand Junction site to the compliance strategy selection framework developed in the UMTRA Ground Water Project draft programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) (DOE, 1995a). This risk-based, decision-making framework identifies the decision logic for selecting compliance strategies that could be used to meet the ground water standards. The DOE goal is to implement a cost-effective site strategy that complies with the ground water standards and protects human health and the environment. Based on an evaluation of the site characterization and risk assessment data available for the preparation of this SOWP, DOE proposes that the most likely compliance strategy for the Grand Junction site is no remediation with the application of supplemental standards. This proposed strategy is based on a conceptual site model that indicates site-related contamination is confined to a limited-use aquifer as defined in the ground water standards. The DOE developed the conceptual site model by evaluating available site-specific and regional data. There are two aquifers beneath the site: a surficial, unconfined alluvial aquifer underlain by a shale formation, which acts in part as an aquitard, and a deeper confined sandstone aquifer underlying the shale. There is an upward vertical gradient from the confined aquifer to the unconfined alluvial aquifer. The conceptual model demonstrates that the uranium processing-related contamination at the site has affected the unconfined alluvial aquifer, but not the deeper confined aquifer. The contamination in the alluvial aquifer appears to be migrating west and southwest of the site until the ground water eventually discharges to the Colorado River. Evaluation of DOE data and studies published by others indicate that ground water in the alluvial aquifer is of limited use with the total dissolved solids in the alluvial aquifer most likely exceeding 10,000 milligrams per liter and widespread, ambient contamination that did not result from activities involving residual radioactive materials. There is no current known use of ground water crossgradient or downgradient of the site in the area impacted by uranium processing activities. Assessments of human health and ecological risk indicate that use of background ground water could have adverse effects. Additional data still are needed to confirm that the alluvial aquifer qualifies for supplemental standards and that supplemental standards will be protective of human health and the environment. These data will help define the regional background ground water quality, the impacts of recharge fr...

show abstract

Section: Contaminated Around Watermentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Contaminated Around Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

Site observational work plan for the UMTRA project site at Grand Junction, Colorado

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This selection must be made by the DQO Team. Single chemical toxicity data are the most readily available type of data Compilations of data and recommended benchmarks are available for aquatic biota (Suter and Mabrey 1994), sediment-associated biota (Hull and Suter 1994), terrestrial wildlife (Opresko et al 1999, plants (Will andSuter 1995a), and soil and litter invertebrates and heterotrophic processes (Will and Suter 1995b). These data will be sufficient for many risk assessments.…”

Section: Conceptual Model Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guide for developing data quality objectives for ecological risk assessment at DOE Oak Ridge Operations facilities

Barnthouse¹,

Suter²

1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Derivation of MATCs will follow the methodology presented in Calabrese and Baldwin (1993). To the extent possible, the dose response relationships developed during the Phase 2 activities from definitive toxicity tests, as well as published toxicity data (e.g., Will and Suter 1994;Opresko et al 19941, will be used to develop site-specific toxicity benchmark values for terrestrial wildlife.…”

Section: Toxicity Benchmark Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Work plan for conducting an ecological risk assessment at J-Field, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

Hlohowskyj¹,

Hayse²,

Kuperman

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Toxicological benchmarks for screening potential contaminants of concern for effects on terrestrial plants: 1994 revision

Cited by 7 publications

References 84 publications

Site observational work plan for the UMTRA project site at Grand Junction, Colorado

Site observational work plan for the UMTRA project site at Grand Junction, Colorado

Guide for developing data quality objectives for ecological risk assessment at DOE Oak Ridge Operations facilities

Work plan for conducting an ecological risk assessment at J-Field, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About