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

Hlohowskyj, I.; Hayse, J.; Kuperman, Roman G.

doi:10.2172/87015

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This report is one in a series of documents being prepared to define the plans for RI/F' S activities at J-Field. Other documents in this series include a Remedial Investigation Work Plan (Benioff et al 1995a); a Field Sampling Plan (Benioff et al 1995b); a Quality Assurance Project Plan (Prasad et al 1995); a Work Plan for the Focused Feasibility Study of the Toxic Burning Pits Area (Biang et al 1995); and a Work Plan for Conducting an Ecological Risk Assessment (Hlohowskyj et al 1995).…”

Section: Forewordmentioning

confidence: 99%

Work Plan for the Feasibility Study for Remedial Action at J-Field, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

Benioff¹,

Biang²,

Haffenden³

et al. 1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Forewordmentioning

confidence: 99%

Work Plan for the Feasibility Study for Remedial Action at J-Field, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

Benioff¹,

Biang²,

Haffenden³

et al. 1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Review of ecological‐based risk management approaches used at five Army Superfund sites

Poucher¹,

Tracey²,

Johnson

et al. 2012

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Factors used in environmental remedial decision making concerning ecological risk are not well understood or necessarily consistent. Recent Records of Decision (RODs) for Army CERCLA sites were reviewed to select case studies where remedial management occurred in response to ecological risks. Thirty-four Army RODs were evaluated representing decisions promulgated between 1996 and 2004. Five were selected based on assessments that remedial actions were clearly linked to concern for ecological receptors. The Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) approach and the subsequent risk management process were reviewed for each site. The case studies demonstrated that the ERA findings, as well as critical management decisions regarding interpretation of identified ecological risks, were determinants of remedial action objectives. Decisions regarding the selection of remedial alternatives were based on a set of criteria prescribed by Superfund requirements and guidance. Remedial alternative evaluations require protection of human health and the environment, but protective conditions were determined using different methods at each site. Examining the remedial management process for the 5 case study sites revealed that uncertainty in the risk assessment and decisions regarding appropriate spatial scales for both risk assessment and remediation were important factors influencing remedial action decisions. The case reviews also revealed that levels of documentation were variable from site to site. In the future, more detailed documentation of decision criteria and the development of criteria that consider the resilience of the site will result in more technically defensible ecological risk management.

show abstract

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

Cited by 2 publications

References 15 publications

Work Plan for the Feasibility Study for Remedial Action at J-Field, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

Work Plan for the Feasibility Study for Remedial Action at J-Field, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

Review of ecological‐based risk management approaches used at five Army Superfund sites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About