Three Corrective Options - Louisiana

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program (RECAP) October 20, 2003 Advanced RECAP Workshop DEQ Brownfields in Partnership with the US Environmental Protection Agency

Comparison of Options Getting the most out of RECAP MO-2 MO-3 RECAP: Which Option? SO vs MO-1 vs MO-2 vs MO-3 What makes sense for your AOI? SO MO-2 or MO-3 MO-1 MO-3

MO-2 MO-3 SO vs MO-1 Soilni and Soili Carcinogens: SS = MO-1 RS Noncarcinogens: SS = MO-1 RS/10 SoilGW SS: based on groundwater 1 zone MO-1: site-specific SO vs MO-1

Soiles, GWes, GWair SS: not addressed MO-1: default RS available SO vs MO-1 Advantages of SO: Quick screen with minimal effort Site-specific SS based on areal extent of soil source area can be developed Helps to focus further assessment Disadvantages of SO: Cannot tailor assessment to site-specific conditions (GW, DF, etc) Most conservative, limited option Frequently leads to higher tier

AOIC based on max detect SO vs MO-1 Advantages of MO-1: Can tailor assessment to site-specific conditions (GW, DF, additivity, etc) with minimal effort AOIC based on 95%UCL-AM Addresses more pathways (Soiles, GWes, GWair) Less conservative screening option Disadvantages of MO-1: AOI must be < 0.5 acre option Requires more effort MO-2: When?

Soil: When site-specific EF&T data will LRS If AOIC > LRS and LRS is SoilGW or Soilsat (foc) If AOIC > SoilGW2 or SoilGW3 (DAF) If AOIC > Soiles or Soil-PEF If AOIC > Soilni or Soili and COC is VOA (foc) Other: If AOIC > Soilni or Soili (NC site-specific apportionment) If areal extent of soil AOI > 0.5 acre MO-2: When not? Soil: When site-specific EF&T data will not LRS Generally, when LRS is risk-based or otherwise not dependent on EF&T data

Soili or ni (risk-driven) TPH 10,000 ppm cap BG MO-2: When? Groundwater: When site-specific EF&T data will LRS If CC > MO-1 GW2 or GW 3 (DAF) If CC > MO-1 GWes If CC > GWair MO-2: When not? Groundwater: When site-specific EF&T data will not LRS

Generally, when LRS is risk-based or otherwise not dependent on EF&T data GW1 TPH 10,000 ppm cap Watersol BG MO-3: When? Soil: When site-specific exposure data or sophisticated EF&T modeling will LRS

If AOIC > Soili (possibly Soilni) If AOIC > SoilGW (DAF) If AOIC > Soiles If AOIC > Soil-PEF MO-3: When? Groundwater: When site-specific exposure data or sophisticated EF&T modeling will RS If CC > GW2 or GW3 (DAF)

If CC > GWes If CC > GWair When not? GW1 Watersol TPH cap of 10,000 ppm BG MO-3: When? Media other than soil and gw impacted Other exposure pathways present Sophisticated EF&T analysis warranted Higher cancer risk level justifiable (Section

2.14.3) Comparison of Options SO MO-1 MO-2 MO-3 AOC must meet criteria Y

Y Media other than soil and GW N N Look up tables Y Y

Can use DFs N Y Must id limiting standard Y Y

Y N Y N Y N N Y Y

Y Comparison of Options SO MO-1 Need to account for additivity Soili/ni Y SoilGW Soilsat (Y) GW1, 2, and 3 MO-2

N Y Y Y Y Y Y N

MO-3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Comparison of Options SO MO-1 MO-2 Soiles, N GWes, GWair

Y Y Y Y Y Site-specific Y/N EF&T data N

Watersol SPLP Y Site-specific exposure data (Y) N Y

N MO-3 Y Y Y Y N

Y Y Comparison of Options SO MO-1 Scenarios other than industrial or residential MO-2 MO-3

N N N Need to id AOI and COC (Y) Y

Y Max used as AOIC Y (Y) (Y) 95%UCL-AM used as AOIC

N Y Y Y Y Y (Y) Comparison of Options

SO MO-1 MO-2 MO-3 Must evaluate soil Y 0-15 and >15 Y Y Must define N

vertical and horizontal extent Y Y Y Appendix H equations/default inputs Y

Y Must present all inputs and calcs Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Comparison of Options SO MO-1 Use of other models/equations MO-2 MO-3

N N N Workplan required N N N/Y Cancer risk > 10-6

N N *Department approval required Y Y N Y* Next step? AOIC > MO-1 Soilsat

MO-2 (foc) AOIC > MO-1 Soili MO-2 (foc, site-specific apportionment) MO-3 (site-specific exposure data) AOIC > MO-1 Soilni MO-2 (foc, site-specific apportionment) MO-3 (possible) Next step? AOIC > MO-1 SoilGW MO-1 SPLP MO-2 (foc; DAF)

MO-3 (DAF) AOIC > MO-1 Soiles MO-2 (EF&T; additional sampling) MO-3 (modeling) Next step? AOIC > MO-2 Soil-PEF MO-2 (collect additional EF&T data) MO-3 (modeling) CC > GW1 Submit CAP

CC > MO-1 GW2 or GW3 MO-2 (DAF) MO-3 (DAF) Next step? CC > MO-1 GWes MO-2 (EF&T; additional sampling) MO-3 (modeling) CC > MO-1 GWair MO-2 (foc) MO-3 (modeling) Surface water, sediment, biota, etc impacted

MO-3 Two fundamental elements of RECAP: 1. Identification of AOI and Calculation of AOIC 2. Identification of the LRS Identification of the AOI and Estimation of the AOIC Identification of the Area of Investigation (AOI)

Identification of the AOI Section 2.6.1 The AOI is the zone contiguous to, and including, impacted media defined vertically and horizontally by the presence of one or more constituents in concentrations that exceed the limiting standard applicable for the option being implemented. AOI Concentration

Soil Surface Soil: 0 to 15 ft bgs Subsurface Soil: > 15 ft bgs Identification of the AOI Identify limiting standard for option

SO SS MO-1 SS MO-2 MO-1 RS (Site-specific SS) MO-3 MO-2 RS Identification of the AOI Compare limiting standard to concentration detected at each sampling location

Identify each location where the concentration > limiting standard Connect the dots to define the horizontal and vertical boundaries of AOI B26 <0.005 Identification of the AOI B27 B28 LRS = 10 ppm <0.005 B24 B20

<0.005 1 ppm 2 ppm B21 B15 B14 B4 B5 1 ppm 15 ppm 18 ppm B2 < 0.005 12 ppm B16

16 ppm B1 1 ppm B12 B13 55 ppm <0.005 AOI 29 ppm B6 B19 B7 17 ppm B3

B22 <0.005 <0.005 32 ppm 2 ppm B18 B11 B8 B9 2 ppm 18 ppm <0.005 22 ppm B10 B17

B30 B25 <0.005 <0.005 B29 B23 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Identification of the AOI B14 6 ppm

B16 4 ppm B2 14 ppm B1 33 ppm B13 B7 13 ppm <0.01 B3

12 ppm B11 11 ppm B18 <0.01 B4 <0.01 B5 <0.01 B8 2ppm

15 bgs Identification of the AOI Tiered Approach SO: Identify all sampling locations > SS Area > SS If all locations < SS NFA AOI for MO1 Identification of the AOI

Tiered Approach MO-1: 1) AOI defined by locations > SS 2) Determine AOIC for AOI 3) Compare to MO-1 LRS, if < LRS NFA 4) If AOIC > LRS Id AOI for MO-2 MO-1 AOI (Area > SS) MO-2 AOI (Area > MO-1 RS) Identification of the AOI Tiered Approach MO-2: 1) AOI defined by locations > MO-1 LRS

2) Determine AOIC for AOI 3) Compare to MO-2 LRS; if < LRS NFA 4) If AOIC > LRS Id AOI for MO-3 MO-2 AOI (Area > MO-1 RS) MO-3 AOI (Area > MO-2 RS) Identification of the AOI Tiered Approach MO-3: 1) AOI defined by locations > MO-2 LRS 2) Determine AOIC for AOI 3) Compare to MO-3 LRS, if < LRS NFA

4) If AOIC > LRS Id area to be remediated MO-3 AOI (Area > MO-2 RS) Remediate Area > MO-3 RS Identification of the AOI Site-specific SoilSSi/ni If AOC does not qualify for SO: Area of impacted soil > 0.5 acre

all other criteria for SO are met Develop site-specific SoilSSi or SoilSSni site-specific area of impacted soil Appendix H

Identification of the AOI Site-specific SoilSSi/ni Identify limiting SS site-specific Soil or Soil SSi SSni Table 1 Soil SSGW Identify AOI using limiting soil SS

May be re-iterative process Identification of the AOI If only 1 or 2 sampling locations > SS or LRS: Identification of an AOI is not possible

Options: Evaluate under higher tier If appropriate, re-sample area Remediate impacted area(s) Identification of the AOI Based on Land Use Residential AOI Soilni (Soilgw) (Soilsat) Industrial property boundary

Industrial Soil AOI Soili Soilgw Soilsat Identification of the AOI Based on COC AOI for COC #2 AOI for COC #1

Identification of the AOI Single vs Multiple I O A Considerations: Distance Receptor activity patterns AOI COC AOI

AOI Soiles Enclosed Structure Soil to ES AOI Soiles Soil AOI Soili or Soilni Soilgw Soilsat

GWes Enclosed Structure Groundwater AOI GW to ES AOI GWes GW1, 2, or 3 Watersol Soil-PEF Soil-PEF

AOI Unpaved Road Soil AOI Soili or Soilni Soilgw Soilsat Estimation of the AOIC AOIC

Soil Surface Soil AOIC: 0 to 15 ft bgs Soil , Soil , Soil , Soil-PEF (Soil , Soil ) ni i es GW sat Subsurface Soil AOIC: > 15 ft bgs Soil , Soil GW

sat (Soil AOIC: 0-depth of impact) Soil , Soil GW sat AOI Concentration Sections 2.8.1 and 2.8.2 AOIC Lower of 95% UCL-AM and Max 95% UCL-AM

what is it? why is it used? other upper bound estimates of mean AOI Concentration Sections 2.8.1 and 2.8.2

Soil AOIC Based on all data points on or within the AOI Includes Does ND on or within the AOI not include data points outside the AOI AOIC 95% UCL-AM

Determine constituent distribution* LogNormal Normal Non-Normal

AOIC Calculate 95%UCL-AM RECAP spreadsheet (lognormal only) http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/Portals/0/technology/recap/LognormalA5.xls ProUCL 4.0

http://www.epa.gov/nerlesd1/tsc/form.htm AOIC ProUCL and RECAP: Log-normal distribution: H-Statistic Normal distribution: Student-t Statistic

Non-normal distribution: ProUCL recommendation 99%UCL-AM vs 95%UCL-AM B26 <0.005 Identification of the AOI B27 B28 LRS = 10 ppm <0.005 B24 B20

<0.005 1 ppm 2 ppm B21 B15 B14 B4 B5 1 ppm 15 ppm 18 ppm B2 < 0.005 12 ppm B16

16 ppm B1 1 ppm B12 B13 55 ppm <0.005 AOI 29 ppm B6 B19 B7 17 ppm B3

B22 <0.005 <0.005 32 ppm 2 ppm B18 B11 B8 B9 2 ppm 18 ppm <0.005 22 ppm B10 B17

B30 B25 <0.005 <0.005 B29 B23 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 AOI Concentration 95% UCL-AM Dataset for the upper bound estimate of the mean: B1 55 ppm

B7 0.01 ppm B2 16 ppm B9 22 ppm B3 32 ppm B11 18 ppm B4 0.005 ppm B13 29 ppm B5 12 ppm B14 18 ppm B6 17 ppm B15 15 ppm ProUCL ProUCL Output for example AOI: 12 samples

Data are normally distributed Statistical recommendation is Students t UCL of 27.1 ppm Max concentration is 55 ppm AOIC = 27.1 ppm AOI C Other considerations: If max > LRS calculate 95%UCL-AM BEFORE assessing AOI under higher tier

If dataset is small or has high variability, the 95%UCL-AM > Max Use Max Concentration as the AOIC Nondetects: SQL vs SQL AOIC O Background Background RS are based on mean values AOIC should also be based on the mean not 95%UCL-AM

O Other measures Surface-weighted average (polygons) Volume-weighted average Soiles AOIC X X Enclosed Structure X X

X X X X X X X

Soil AOI Soiles AOIC Enclosed Structure Soil AOI Soili or Soilni Soilgw Soilsat Soiles GWes AOIC

Enclosed Structure X POC Groundwater AOI Flow GWes AOIC Enclosed

Structure Groundwater AOI GW1, 2, or 3 Watersol GWes Soil-PEF AOIC Soil-PEF AOI Unpaved Road

AOIC based on data points in this area Soil-PEF AOI Soili-PEF or Soilni- PEF Soilgw Soilsat Identification of the AOI Remediation Verification Area Identified for

Remediation (Area > LRS) Post-Remediation AOI AOI Concentration RECAP submittal should: Identify the standards used to delineate the AOI

Illustrate the boundaries of the AOI Identify data points used to calculate 95%UCL-AM Present spreadsheet/output of software Identify the value to be used as the AOIC for comparison to RS

Identification of the Limiting RECAP Standard Identification of the limiting RECAP Standard RECAP Standards are developed for: protection of human health RS prevention of cross-media transfer RS protection of resource aesthetics RS These standards are compared and the lowest is identified as the Limiting Standard Identification of the RECAP Standard

The Limiting Standard is the standard that is compared to the AOIC or CC Management Option 1 Identification and Application of the Limiting Soil RECAP Standard Table 2 Appendix H Id of the MO-1 Soil LRS Table 2

Soili (Footnote N) Soilni (Footnote N) SoilGW1 SoilGW2 (Footnote x DF2) SoilGW3 (Footnote x DF3) Soilsat Additivity See Appendix H for DF2 and DF3 Applicable to liquids

Limiting RS = lower of these 3 RS Surface Soil 0-15 ft bgs Surface AOI 15 feet Concerns: 1. Soili or Soilni 2. SoilGW 3. Soilsat

4. +/- Soiles Id of the MO-1 Limiting Soil RS Depth of Impact < 15 ft bgs 0 - depth of impact: lower of the Soili/ni, SoilGW, Soilsat Subsurface Soil > 15 ft bgs Surface AOI

15 feet Concerns: 1. SoilGW 2. Soilsat Identification of the MO-1 Limiting Soil RS Depth of Impact > 15 ft bgs 0 to 15 ft bgs: lower of Soili/ni, SoilGW, Soilsat, (Soiles)

0 to depth of impact: lower of SoilGW, Soilsat MO-1 Soil LRS 1. Identify the Soilni or Soili and adjust for additivity 2. Identify the SoilGW and multiply by DF 3. Identify the Soilsat 4. Identify the lower of these 3 values LRS Soiles

1. Identify the Soiles adjust for additivity 2. Identify the SoilGW and multiply by DF 3. Identify the Soilsat 4. Identify the lower of these 3 values LRS Id of the MO-1 Limiting Soil RS Example Example: Toluene; industrial site; GW3 aquifer; Sd = 5 ft; distance from source to SW (DW) = 1200 ft Table 2: Soili = 4800 mg/kg SoilGW3DW = 120 x DF3 of 173 = 20,760 mg/kg Soilsat = 520 mg/kg Limiting RS (LRS) = 520 mg/kg (lower of the 3 RS)

MO-1 SoilGW DF Appendix H Distance from source (feet) 0 - 50 51 - 100 101 - 150 151 - 250 251 - 500 501 - 750 751 - 1000 1001 - 1250 1251 - 1500

1501 - 1750 1751 - 2000 Longitudinal DF (dimensionless) Sd Sd = 5 ft 6-10 ft 1.5 1 2.6 1.5 4.1 2.1 8.4

4.3 29 15 63 32 111 57 173 86 248 124 337 169 440

220 Sd = 11-15 ft 1 1.2 1.6 3 9.8 21 37 58 83 113

147 Sd = 16-20 ft 1 1.1 1.3 2.3 7.4 16 28 43 62 84

110 Estimation of Sd Sd = Thickness of impacted groundwater within permeable zone Sd = 5 5 10 Impacted groundwater Un-impacted groundwater 15

Estimation of Sd Sd = Thickness of permeable zone if thickness is not known or if the zone is not impacted Sd = 15 10 Un-impacted groundwater 15 TPH If the SoilGW2 x DF2 > 10,000 mg/kg, then default to 10,000 mg/kg

If the SoilGW3 x DF3 > 10,000 mg/kg, then default to 10,000 mg/kg Management Option 1 Identification and Application of the Limiting GW RECAP Standard Table 3 Appendix H MO-1 GW LRS Table 3 GW1 (Footnote N) GW2 (Footnote x DF2)

Additivity GW3 (Footnote x DF3) GWair Additivity S (Watersol) Limiting groundwater RS = lower of the 3 RS GW 1 zone 1. Identify the GW1 if applicable, adjust for additivity 2. Identify the Watersol 3. If < 15 ft, identify the GWair if applicable, adjust for additivity

4. Identify the lower of these values as the LRS GW 2 zone 1. Identify the GW2 if applicable, adjust for additivity if applicable multiply by DF2 2. Identify the Watersol 3. If < 15 ft, identify the GWair if applicable, adjust for additivity 4. Identify the lower of these values as the LRS

GW 3 zone 1. Determine if downgradient surface water body is DW or NDW (LAC 33:IX, 1123, Table 3) 2. Identify the GW3DW or GW3NDW if applicable multiply by DF3 3. Identify the Watersol 4. If < 15 ft, identify the GWair if applicable, adjust for additivity 5. Identify the lower of these values as the LRS GWes 1. Identify the GW1, GW2 or GW3 if appropriate, adjust for additivity, apply DF

2. Identify the GWes 3. Identify the Watersol 4. Identify the lower of these values as the LRS Id of the MO-1 Limiting GW RS Example Example: EDC; industrial site; GW3 aquifer; Sd = 7 ft; distance from source to SW (DW) = 1400 ft Table 3: GW3DW = 0.00036 mg/l x DF3 of 124 = 0.045 mg/l Watersol = 8500 mg/l Limiting RS (LRS) = 0.045 mg/l (lower of the 2 RS) MO-1 GW2/GW3 DF

Appendix H Distance from source (feet) 0 - 50 51 - 100 101 - 150 151 - 250 251 - 500 501 - 750 751 - 1000 1001 - 1250 1251 - 1500 1501 - 1750

1751 - 2000 Longitudinal DF (dimensionless) Sd Sd = 5 ft 6-10 ft 1.5 1 2.6 1.5 4.1 2.1 8.4 4.3

29 15 63 32 111 57 173 86 248 124 337 169 440 220

Sd = 11-15 ft 1 1.2 1.6 3 9.8 21 37 58 83 113 147

Sd = 16-20 ft 1 1.1 1.3 2.3 7.4 16 28 43 62 84 110

Other considerations If the GW3 X DF3 < GW2, then manage COC using GW2 x DF2 Management Option 2 Identification and Application of the Limiting RECAP Standard Appendix H MO-2 LRS No look up table RS are developed using site-specific EF&T In absence of SS EF&T, use defaults in App H

Identification of LRS same as for MO-1 MO-3 LRS No look up table RS are developed using site-specific EF&T and exposure data In absence of SS EF&T and/or exposure data, use defaults in App H Identification of LRS same as for MO-1 RECAP Alternatives to Applying RECAP Standards

RECAP Soiles Soil gas or indoor air sampling (MO-2 and 3) GWes Soil gas or indoor air sampling (MO-2 and 3) SoilGW SPLP (all options) Soil to Groundwater Pathway SPLP Data Where should SPLP samples be collected? How is the SPLP data used to evaluate the soil to gw pathway? SoilGW1: Compare SPLP to GW1 x DFSummers SoilGW2: Compare SPLP to GW2 x DFSummers x DF2 SoilGW3: Compare SPLP to GW3 x DFSummers x DF3

Soil to Groundwater Pathway SPLP Data If SPLP <, then screen out soil to GW pathway If SPLP >, then delineate area of concern SPLP vs TCLP SPLP vs LRS Omit SoilGW RS from identification of LRS Other considerations RS based on: SQL Background Ceiling value

Calculation of Screening Standards and RECAP Standards RECAP Spreadsheet http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/default.aspx?tabid=1567 SS or RS for COC not in RECAP Example: isopropylbenzene (cumene) CAS 98-82-2 1. RECAP spreadsheet: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/default.aspx?tabid=1567

2. IRIS: toxicity values http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0306.htm Oral RfD = 1E-01 mg/kg-d; target: kidney RfC = 4E-01 mg/m3; target: kidney, adrenal gland Inhalation RfD = 4E-01 mg/m3 x 20m3/day/70 kg = 1.1E-01 mg/kg-d 3. Chemical/physical data Molecular weight, Koc, HLC, Da, Dw, and solubility

SS or RS for COC not in RECAP Example: isopropylbenzene (cumene) CAS 98-82-2 4. For MO-1 RS, click on tabs for each RS 5. For SS, divide the risk-based SS based on noncarcinogenic effects by 10. Soili 10 = SoilSSi Soilni 10 = SoilSSni GW1 10 = GWSS Site-Specific Soil SS Soilni or Soili source area

Q/C for VF Site size Spreadsheet: soil properties and Q/C tab length of source at the water table

width of the impacted area perpendicular to gw flow site-specific source area Example: Benzene Soili 148*148 209*209 295*295 467*467 660*660 1143*1143

Site size ft2 21,904 43,681 87,025 218,089 435,600 1,306,449

Site size 0.5 acre 1 acre 2 acre 5 acre 10 acre 30 acre

3.1 2.7 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.6 Soili mg/kg

MO-2 Soil RECAP Standards Use of Site-Specific Data Soilni or Soili (VF) source area; water-filled soil porosity; dry soil bulk density; foc Soilni-PEF or Soili-PEF source area; veg cover; windspeed

SoilGW1, SoilGW2, or SoilGW3 dry soil bulk density; water-filled soil porosity; foc; soil particle density MO-2 Soil RECAP Standards Use of Site-Specific Data DFSummers volumetric

flow rate of infiltration; volumetric flow rate of groundwater; infiltration rate; width of impacted area; length of impacted area; hydraulic gradient; hydraulic conductivity; thickness of mixing zone; soil concentration; dry bulk density; total soil porosity; water filled soil porosity; foc MO-2 Soil RECAP Standards Use of Site-Specific Data DAFDomenico source

width; hydraulic gradient; hydraulic conductivity; soil porosity; degradation rate; retardation factor; distance from source; source thickness (Sd) MO-2 Soil RECAP Standards Use of Site-Specific Data Soiles dry soil bulk density; depth to subsurface soils; water-filled soil porosity; air exchange rate; volume/ infiltration area

ratio; foundation thickness; foc; area fraction of cracks in foundation; air-filled soil porosity; total soil porosity; dry soil bulk density; soil particle density; volumetric air content in foundation cracks; volumetric water content in foundation Soilsat dry soil bulk density; water-filled soil porosity; soil particle density, foc MO-2 Groundwater RS

Use of Site-Specific EF&T Data GW1, GW2, GW3 - Not Applicable DAFDomenico source width; hydraulic gradient; hydraulic conductivity; soil porosity; degradation rate; retardation factor; distance from source; source thickness

MO-2 Groundwater RS Use of Site-Specific EF&T Data GWes depth to groundwater; air exchange rate; volume/infiltration area ratio; foundation thickness; areal fraction of cracks in foundation; thickness of capillary fringe; thickness of vadose zone; volumetric air content in foundation cracks; volumetric water content in foundation cracks; total porosity; dry bulk density; particle density; volumetric air content in capillary fringe soils; volumetric water

content in capillary fringe soils; water filled soil porosity MO-2 Groundwater RS Use of Site-Specific EF&T Data GWair depth to groundwater; wind speed; width of source area; ambient air mixing zone height; thickness of capillary fringe; thickness of vadose zone; volumetric air content in capillary fringe soils; volumetric water content in capillary fringe soils; dry bulk density; water

filled soil porosity; total porosity; particle density Fraction of organic carbon (foc) ASTM D2974 Heat Loss on Ignition foc = Percent organic matter/174 SW-846 Method 9060 Total Organic Carbon foc = TOC (mg/kg)/1E-06 Fraction of organic carbon (foc) Example: Benzene, site-specific foc= 0.02 Spreadsheet, soil properties and Q/C tab, replace default 0.006 with 0.02 Mg/kg

Soilni Soili SoilGW1 SoilGW3DW SoilGW3NDW Soilsat Soilesni

Soilesi SoilGW2 Default 0.79 1.6 0.011 0.0023 0.027

900 1.0 2.5 Site-specific 1.3 2.6 0.029

0.0063 0.071 2400 2.7 6.7 Toxicity Assessment Toxicity Assessment

Dose Response Toxicity Values Toxicity Values include: Reference doses (RfD) and Reference concentrations (RfC) which are used to assess noncarcinogenic effects (threshold effects) Cancer slope factors (CSF) and cancer unit risks which are used to assess carcinogenic effects (non-threshold effects) IRIS Integrated Risk Information System http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/index.html Toxicity Assessment

Hierarchy for Toxicity Values - RECAP IRIS EPA provisional values - NCEA HEAST Withdrawn from IRIS or Heast Other EPA source or non-EPA-source Toxicity Assessment Hierarchy for Toxicity Values Memorandum - OSWER Directive 9285.7-53 EPA Dec 5, 2003 IRIS EPA provisional peer reviewed toxicity values (PPRTV)

Other toxicity values (EPA and non-EPA) HEAST Withdrawn from IRIS or HEAST ATSDR MRL Toxicity Assessment Toxicity Values bottom line IRIS EPA Region 6 Human Health Medium-Specific Screening Levels http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/rcra_c/pd-n/screen.htm PPRTVs, HEAST, other EPA sources, withdrawn toxicity values Reference Dose/Reference Concentration

An estimate of a daily exposure level for the human population (including sensitive subpopulations) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious health effects during a lifetime. Noncarcinogenic health effects Reference Dose/Reference Concentration Noncarcinogenic = Threshold effects Protective for chronic exposure (7-70 yr) Chemical, route, duration-specific Target organ/Critical effect Reference Dose/Reference Concentration

RfDo - oral exposure; mg/kg-d RfC - inhalation exposure; mg/m3 RfDi = RfC x 20 m3/d 70 kg Dermal RfD = NA (use oral value) RAGS-E Toxicity Assessment Development of a Reference Dose: Concept of threshold effects RfD = NOAEL/UF x MF UF: 10 - intraspecies 10 - interspecies 10 - study duration 10 - LOAEL

MF: > 0 to 10 Target or effect observed at LOAEL = target/effect the RFD serves to protect Toxicity Assessment Development of a Reference Dose for Chemical Z: 2 yr Rat study - gavage 3 Rx Groups: 100, 150, and 250 mg/kg-d Results of study: 100 - no adverse effects 150 - kidney function; liver hyperplasia 250 - kidney function/failure; 20% mortality; RfDo = NOAEL/UF

RfDo = 100/10 x 10 = 1 mg/kg-d Critical effects: kidney and liver toxicity lipid infilt.liver Threshold Dose-Response Curve Noncarcinogens Response UF x MF RfD

NOAE L Dose (mg/kg-d) Slope Factor/Inhalation Unit Risk Defines quantitatively the relationship between dose and response for nonthreshold effects (carcinogenic effects = cancer) The slope factor is an upper bound estimate of the probability of a response per unit intake of chemical over a lifetime Chemical and route-specific Slope Factor/Inhalation Unit Risk

SFo is expressed in units of risk per mg/kg-d Inhalation unit risk is expressed in units of risk per ug/m3 Inhalation unit risk inhalation SF SFi = Unit risk X 70 kg/20 m3/d x CF No Dermal SF; use oral. Slope Factor/Inhalation Unit Risk No target organ/critical effect identified with regard to additivity Weight of evidence classifications Group A Human carcinogen Group B1 Probable human carcinogen, limited human data available

Group B2 Probable human carcinogen, sufficient evidence animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans Group C Possible human carcinogen Group D Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity Group E Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans in Toxicity Assessment Development of a Slope Factor: Concept of non-threshold effects Model used to extrapolate from high dose to low dose

Slope of the dose-response curve represents response per unit of chemical intake Non-threshold Dose-Response Curve Carcinogens 10 0 10-1 10-2 Probability of Response10-3 10-4

? 10-5 10-6 Dose (mg/kgd) Non-threshold Dose-Response Curve Carcinogens 10 0

101 10-2 Probability of Response 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 Dose mg/kg-d

Slope Factors Slope Factor ranges Benzene SFo = 1.5E-02 to 5.5E-02 per mg/kg-d Air Unit Risk = 2.2E-06 to 7.8E-06 per ug/m3 TCE 1,2-dibromoethane No EPA guidance Slope Factors Slope Factors: Exposure duration vinyl chloride Persistence/exposure pathway

PCB Relative potency factors PAH Toxicity Equivalent Factors PCDD/PCDF Toxicity Assessment If an EPA toxicity value is not available: Route-to-route extrapolation Oral for inhalation (organics only) EPA Regions III, VI, and IX Inhalation for oral (organics only) EPA Regions VI and IX Not appropriate if target/critical effect is a portal of

entry effect Toxicity Assessment Example: Phenol, citation from IRIS I.B.1. Inhalation RfC Summary No adequate inhalation exposure studies exist from which an inhalation RfC may be derived. A route-to-route extrapolation is not appropriate, because phenol can be a direct contact irritant, and so portal-of-entry effects are a potential concern. Toxicity Assessment If an EPA toxicity value is not available: Surrogate approach Development of a toxicity value from literature

Equivalent values - ATSDR Minimal Risk Levels Qualitative evaluation Toxicity Assessment Surrogate Approach: Structure-activity relationships Noncarcinogenic/carcinogenic effects Target organ/critical effect Toxicokinetics Surrogate Approach phenanthren e

chrysene anthracen e Benz[a]anthrac ene No toxicity values Call LDEQ Toxicological Services Division 219-3421 Before completing RECAP Assessment

Revised Toxicity Values If a Toxicity Value has been revised since 2003, the revised values should be used for: MO-2 RS MO-3 RS Additivity Addressing Exposure to Multiple Constituents that Elicit Noncarcinogenic Effects on the Same Target Organ/System Additivity - Noncarcinogens

No risk range For the assessment of noncarcinogenic health effects, exposure is acceptable when < RfD RS are based on a THQ = 1.0 acceptable exposure Hazard quotient = Exposure/RfD = AOIC/RS Risk-based RS RS address exposure via multiple pathways Soil: ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact Drinking water: ingestion and inhalation Represent an acceptable exposure level for exposure to a single chemical via a single medium (THQ =1) Do not address additivity due to exposure to multiple chemicals or

multiple exposure media Multiple constituents or impacted media could result in a total hazard index greater than 1.0 Additivity - Noncarcinogens The hazard index is defined as the sum of more than one hazard quotient for multiple noncarcinogenic constituents and exposure pathways: HI = [HQ1) + (HQ2) + + (HQi) where: HI = Hazard Index for target organ/critical effect HQi = HQ for the ith COC HI < 1.0 for all target organs/critical effects identified for noncarcinogenic COC

Risk-based RS Risk-based RS must be adjusted to account for potential additive effects Soilni, Soili, Soiles GW1, GW2, GWes, GWair Not applicable to SoilGW, Soilsat, GW3, Watersol, background levels, quantitation limits, MCLs, ceiling values Additivity - Noncarcinogens Additivity applicable only to constituents that have same critical effect/target organ Risk-based standards for constituents that produce

noncarcinogenic effects on the same target organ/critical effect must be modified to account for additive effects Constituents are grouped by critical effect (target organ/system) listed as the basis for the RfD and RfC Target organ/critical effect Example from IRIS - Toluene I.A.1. Oral RfD Summary Critical Effect Experimental Doses *UF

RfD Increased kidney weight BMDL: 238 mg/kg-day 3000 0.08 mg/kg-day *UF RfC

BMD: 431 mg/kg-day 13-week gavage study in rats (NTP, 1990) I.B.1. Inhalation RfC Summary Critical Effect Experimental Doses Neurological effects in occupationally-exposed Workers Multiple human studies NOAEL (average):

34 ppm (128 mg/m3) NOAEL (ADJ): 46 mg/m3 10 5 mg/m3 Appendix G Additivity examples Table G-1 target organs/critical effects for MO-1 RS If a toxicity value and target organ have been revised since 2003, the revised value and target should be used for MO-2 and

MO-3 but Table G-1 should be used for MO-1. Additivity - Noncarcinogens MO-1: If > 1 NC constituent has same critical effect, risk-based standards are divided by the number of constituents having the same target MO-2 and MO-3: Risk-based standards can be modified based on site-specific conditions MO-1: Accounting for Additivity Modification of risk-based MO-1 RS: group noncarcinogenic chemicals by target organ/critical effect

MO-1: Accounting for Additivity 1. Identify the target organ/critical effect for each noncarcinogenic chemical (RfD) http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/index.html 2. Group the chemicals by target organ/critical effect 3. Divide the RS by the number of chemicals affecting the same target organ MO-1: Accounting for Additivity Example Chemical Target Organ RS

A kidney 24 8 B kidney, liver 15 5 C CNS 10 D kidney 60 20 Adjusted RS Divide the RS for A, B, and D by 3 (kidney) (Same as calculating a RS using a THQ of 0.33)

MO-2: Methods for Accounting for Additivity Modification of risk-based MO-2 RS: group by target organ/critical effect site-specific apportionment of RS or THQ calculation of a total HI for each target organ MO-2: Additivity Example: Site-specific apportionment COC Target THQRS THQRS THQRS A kidney 1.0 2 0.33 0.67 0.8 1.6 B kidney 1.0

90 0.33 30 0.1 9 C kidney 1.0 120 0.33 40 0.1 12 Total HI 1.0 1.0 Additivity Exposure to Multiple Media If there is exposure to chemicals via more than

one medium, then RS must be modified to account for additivity Applicable only to MO-2 and MO-3 MO-2 Example: a receptor is being exposed to chemicals via drinking water (GW1 or GW2) and soil Additivity - Noncarcinogens Example: A release of solvents occurred at a petroleum refinery and the COC migrated offsite to an adjacent residential area. Site investigation data revealed: Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene in soil Benzene, toluene and xylene in groundwater

Additivity - Noncarcinogens Exposure assessment revealed: The receptors are being exposed to both contaminated soil and contaminated groundwater Additivity - Noncarcinogens 1.Adjust for exposure to multiple constituents A. Identify the critical effect/target organs (IRIS) B. Group the constituents according to the critical

effect(s)/target organ(s) C. Adjust Standards to account for additivity 2. Adjust for exposure to multiple media Additivity - Noncarcinogens 1A.Identify the critical effect/target organs (IRIS) and group the constituents according to the critical effect(s)/target organ(s): Toluene: liver, kidney, and neurological effects Ethylbenzene: liver, kidney, and developmental toxicity Xylene: central nervous system (CNS), decreased body weight, and increased mortality Benzene is a carcinogen so it is not adjusted for additivity.

Additivity - Noncarcinogens 1B. Summarize by critical effect/target organ: (2) Kidney: toluene, ethylbenzene (2) Liver: toluene, ethylbenzene (1) CNS/hyperactivity: xylene (1) CNS/decreased concentration: toluene (1) Body weight change: xylene

(1) Increased mortality: xylene Additivity - Noncarcinogens 1C. Adjust the risk-based levels to account for cumulative effects for each target organ/system: For toluene, ethylbenzene, the risk-based standards for soil should be divided by 2 to account for additive effects to the liver and the kidney For xylene, the risk-based standard for soil does not need to be adjusted to account for additivity because there are no other constituents present in the soil affect body weight, produce an increase in mortality, or produce CNS effects Additivity - Noncarcinogens 2.Adjust for exposure to more than one medium

The risk-based levels for soil for toluene and xylene should be adjusted to account for additive effects by dividing the risk based standard by 2. The risk-based levels for groundwater for toluene and xylene should be adjusted to account for additive effects by dividing the risk-based standard by 2. Additivity: GW1 and GW2 Include all NC COC when identifying targets If no current exposure: Adjust GW1 or GW2 RS based on NC effects Do not adjust GW1 or GW2 RS based on MCL Additivity: GW1 and GW2

If exposure is occurring: Adjust GW1 or GW2 RS based on NC effects For GW1 or GW2 RS based on MCL: 1. Calculate GW1 or GW2 RS for NC effects (Appendix H) 2. Adjust RS to account for additivity Enclosed Structure Soil and GW Additivity Example Soil: Toluene (liver, kidney, CNS) Ethylbenzene (liver, kidney, fetal) Hexachloroethane (kidney) GW: Chlorobenzene (liver) Fluoranthene (kidney, liver, hemat.)

Hexachloroethane (kidney) Enclosed Structure Soil and GW Additivity Example What is the exposure medium? Indoor Air What are the COC for indoor air? Volatile COC (HLC > 1E-05 atm-m3/mol and mw < 200 g/mol) Toluene (liver, kidney, CNS) Ethylbenzene (liver, kidney, fetal) Chlorobenzene (liver) Enclosed Structure Soil and GW

Additivity Example Based on additivity to the liver: Divide the Soiles and GWes for toluene, ethylbenzene, and chlorobenzene by 3 Additivity - Carcinogens Target risk level of 10-6 for individual constituents and media Multiple COC and pathways result in cumulative risks within the 10-4 to 10-6 risk range Therefore, not necessary to modify the standards to

account for exposure to multiple carcinogens or multiple impacted media RECAP Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Appendix D TPH Fraction and Indicator Method Petroleum hydrocarbon releases are assessed based on the identification and quantitation of indicator compounds and hydrocarbon fractions COC for Petroleum Releases

Table D-1 Page D-TPH-5 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPH Fraction and Indicator Compound Approach http://www.aehs.com/publications/catalog/tph.htm Indicator compounds may include: BTEX PAHs

Metals Additives Hydrocarbon Fractions Table D-1 Page D-TPH-5 Dependent on type of release Hydrocarbon fractions include: Aliphatics Aromatics C>6 C8 C>8 C10 C>8 C10 C>10 C12

C>10 C12 C>12 C16 C>12 C16 C>16 C21 C>16 C35 C>21 C35 C>35 C>35 TPH Mixtures TPH-G, TPH-D, and TPH-O

TPH-GRO = C6 - C10 TPH- DRO = C10 - C28 TPH-ORO = C>28 Other mixtures

How were the RS for TPH-GRO, DRO, and ORO derived? Example: Soilni for TPH-DRO (C10 C28) Aliphatics C>8-C10 Aliphatics C>10-C12 Aliphatics C>12-C16 Aliphatics C>16-C35 Aromatics C>8-C10 Aromatics C>10-C12 Aromatics C>12-C16 Aromatics C>16-C21 Aromatics C>21-C35 1200

2300 3700 10,000 650 1200 1800 1500 1800 TPH

TPH Analytical methods TPH - 8015B, Texas 1005 Fractions Texas 1006, MDEP VPH/EPH PAH 8310 or 8270

C>35 Forensic Fingerprinting TPH, PAH Have both 8015 data and fractionation data but results differ Table D-1 Identifies COC for various releases

If the type of release is not in Table D-1 contact LDEQ for COC TPH Table D-2 P/C Properties of fractions Table D-3 RfD and target organs/critical effects TPHCWG; not in IRIS

Table D-4 Critical effects/targets for all petroleum COC Aesthetic cap of 10,000 ppm Additivity and TPH Additivity: TPH Additivity - TPH RS based on 10,000 cap Do not adjust 10,000 cap Identify risk-based value in Appendix H

worksheets Adjust risk-based RS to account for additive effects If adjusted risk-based RS < 10,000, use risk-based RS If adjusted risk-based RS > 10,000, use 10,000 cap Additivity: TPH Fractions Aliphatics C>6-C8 Aliphatics C>8-C16 (C>8-C10, C>10-C12, C>12-C16) Aliphatics C>16-C35 Aromatics C>8-C16 (C>8-C10, C>10-C12, C>12-C16) Aromatics C>16-C35 Additivity: TPH Fractions Example 1

Soil: ethylbenzene, aliphatics C>8-C10, C>10-C12, C>12-C16 Id of targets: ethylbenzene: liver, kidney, developmental aliphatics C>8-C10: liver, hematological system aliphatics C>10-C12: liver, hematological system aliphatics C>12-C16 : liver, hematological system Additivity - Liver: ethylbenzene and aliphatics C>8-C16 Adjustment factor: 2 NOT 4 C>8-C16 Additivity: TPH Fractions Example 1 (contd) Adjustment of MO-1 Soilni:

ethylbenzene: 1600/2 = 800 mg/kg aliphatics C>8-C10: 1200/2 = 600 mg/kg aliphatics C>10-C12: 2300/2 = 1150 mg/kg aliphatics C>12-C16 : 3700/2 = 1850 mg/kg TPH Additivity Example 2 Gasoline release to non-industrial soil Table D-1: BTEX, aliphatics C>6-C8, C>8-C10, aromatics C>8-C10 MO-1 Additivity Example 2: Soil Gasoline release

COC MO-1 Soilni benzene C ethylbenzene 1600 toluene 680 xylene 180 aliphatics C6-8 12,000 aliphatics C8-10 1200

aromatics C8-10 650 Target Organ/Effect --liver, kidney, develop. liver, kid., CNS, nas.epi. activity, bw,mort. kidney liver, hematol. sys. bw MO-1 Additivity Example 2: Soil Gasoline release Summarize by target organ:

(3) liver: ethylbenzene, toluene, aliphatics C8-10 (3) kidney: ethylbenzene, toluene, aliphatics C6-8 (1) developmental: ethylbenzene (1) CNS: toluene (1) nasal epithelium: toluene (1) hyperactivity: xylene (2) bw: xylene, aromatics C8-10 (1) mortality: xylene (1) hematological system: aliphatics C8-10 MO-1 Additivity Example 2: Soil Gasoline release COC benzene

ethylbenzene toluene xylene aliphatics C6-8 aliphatics C8-10 aromatics C8-10 Adjusted MO-1 Soilni C 1600 3 = 533 (liver) 680 3 = 227 (liver) 180 2 = 90 (bw) 12,000 3 = 4000

(kidney) 1200 3 = 400 (liver) 650 2 = 325 (bw) MO-1 Additivity Example 2: Soil Gasoline release Identification of the limiting soil RS: COC Soilni benzene 1.5 ethylbenzene toluene 227

xylene 90 aliphatics C6-8 aliphatics C8-10 aromatics C8-10 *based on a DF3 of 440 SoilGWDW* Soilsat 4.8 900 533 29,040 52,800 520 79,200

150 4,000 10,000 NA 400 10,000 NA 325 10,000 NA 230 TPH Additivity Example 3 Gasoline release to GW1 No current exposure

Table D-1: BTEX, aliphatics C>6-C8, C>8-C10, aromatics C>8-C10 MO-1 Additivity Example 3: GW Gasoline release COC MO-1 GW1 benzene C ethylbenzene MCL toluene MCL xylene MCL

aliphatics C6-8 32 aliphatics C8-10 1.3 aromatics C8-10 0.34 Target Organ/Effect --liver, kidney, develop. liver, kid., CNS, nas.epi. activity, bw, mortality kidney liver, hematol. sys. bw

MO-1 Additivity Example 3: GW Gasoline release Summarize by target organ: (3) liver: ethylbenzene, toluene, aliphatics C8-10 (3) kidney: ethylbenzene, toluene, aliphatics C6-8 (1) CNS: xylene (2) bw: xylene, aromatics C8-10 (1) mortality: xylene (1) hematological system: aliphatics C8-10 MO-1 Additivity Example 3: GW Gasoline release COC

benzene ethylbenzene toluene xylene aliphatics C6-8 aliphatics C8-10 aromatics C8-10 Adjusted MO-1 GW1 C MCL MCL MCL 32 3 = 11 (kidney)

1.3 3 = 0.43 (liver) 0.34 2 = 0.17 (bw) MO-1 Additivity Example 3: GW Gasoline release Identification of the limiting GW RS: COC benzene ethylbenzene toluene xylene aliphatics C6-8 aliphatics C8-10 aromatics C8-10

GW1 0.005 0.7 1 10 11 0.43 0.17 Watersol 1800 170 530

160 NA NA NA Example 4 Site-specific Apportionment Soil data: COC Ethylbenzene Toulene TPH-GRO

COC AOIC Ethylbenzene 610 Toulene 1150 TPH-GRO

3500 Target organ/critical effect Liver, kidney, fetal Liver, kidney, CNS, nasal cavity Liver, kidney, hematological system, bw Example 4 Site-specific Apportionment COC Soili

Site-specific THQ to adjust for additivity Final Soili Ethylbenzene 13,000 0.05 650 Toulene

4700 0.25 1175 TPH-GRO 5100 0.7 3570

THI = 1.0 Multiply the Soili by the site-specific target hazard quotient to adjust for additivity. The target hazard quotient may be subdivided any way you like just as long as the THI for the COC < 1.0. In this example, the total acceptable exposure to the kidney and liver is apportioned on a site-specific basis: 5% for ethylbenzene, 25% for toluene, and 70% for TPH-G. Example 4 Site-specific Apportionment COC

Final Soili AOIC Exceeds? Ethylbenzene 650 610 No

Toulene 1175 1150 No TPH-GRO 3570 3500

No Multiply the Soili by the site-specific target hazard quotient to adjust for additivity. The target hazard quotient may be subdivided any way you like just as long as the THI for the COC < 1.0. In this example, the total acceptable exposure to the kidney and liver is apportioned on a site-specific basis: 5% for ethylbenzene, 25% for toluene, and 70% for TPH-G. Example 4 Site-specific Apportionment Check:

THI = AOICE/RSE + AOICT/RST + AOICG/RSG THI = 610/13,000 + 1,150/4700 + 3,500/5100 = 0.98 < 1.0 RECAP A Site-Specific MO-2 RECAP Evaluation for Typical UST Sites Appendix I Appendix I MO-2 assessment for typical UST Soili, Soilni, SoilGW, Soilsat GW1, GW2, GW3, Watersol Soiles and GWes can be addressed under MO2 assessment

GWair can be addressed under MO-2 assessment 16 Category Tables for RS Appendix I Site-specific data Foc - fraction of organic carbon Source area Soil in vadose zone with COC > MO-1 RS Use boring logs to define

=LxS w L = source length = longest length of source area parallel to gw flow S = source width = longest length of source area w perpendicular to gw flow Appendix I Appendix I

Site-specific data (contd) Sd estimated at downgradient L boundary Conveyence notice Only required when the AOIC > Soilni Not required when soil AOIC > other RS

Concrete cover does not negate requirement for notice Required for GW 2 when CC > RS (w/o DF2) within property boundary Appendix I Vapor Intrusion Pathway Screen under MO-1 Develop site-specific MO-2 RS Soil Gas Assessment Table

H5*alpha (Ca x 100) Refer to FAQ for specifics of sampling protocol Indoor air sampling Soil and GW at depth < 15 ft bgs VOA = HLC > 1E-05 atm-m3/mol and MW < 200 g/mol Appendix I 95%UCL-AM concentration

ProUCL multiple sampling events post-remediation Include all confirmation sample results and remaining site investigation results within the boundaries of the original AOI Include all data points that are representative of current site conditions Appendix I

GW3 POE Identification of AOI horizontal and vertical extent Use of SPLP data Groundwater classification

DOTD well survey RS for TPH fractions Arsenic State background level AOIC based on mean not 95%UCL-AM

site-specific background Non-Traditional Parameters Appendix D Chlorides, sulfates, pH, etc. Evaluation dependent on professional judgement MO-2 or MO-3 Protection of health, ecological receptors, livestock, crops, and vegetation Prevent migration and cross-media transfer Protect beneficial uses of medium/aesthetics Protect structures

Appendix D Identify any and all ARARs Identify tolerance levels for native veg/crops Consider solubility, soil saturation Odor and taste thresholds Visual considerations Appendix D Example: Chloride in groundwater 3 zone 1. Refer to LAC 33:IX, 1123, Table 3 to identify the criterion for chloride in downgradient SW body as the RS 2. Apply DF3 3. Compare to CC at the POC

Appendix D Example: Low pH in groundwater 3 zone 1. Refer to LAC 33:IX, 1123, Table 3 to identify the criterion for pH in downgradient SW body as the RS 2. Convert RS from pH units to [H+] 3. Apply DF3; convert RS [H+] to pH units 4. Compare to pH at the POC pH = -log10[H+] Appendix D Example: Drinking water standard for aluminum for livestock 1. Literature review to identify toxicity info

Maximum tolerable concentration in diet is 1000 mg/ kg Cow eats 9.5 kg food/day 1000 mg Al/kg food x 9.5 kg food = 9500 mg Al/day 9500 mg Al/day body weight 454 kg = 21mg/kg-d RfD = 21 mg/kg-d Appendix D

Example: Drinking water standard for aluminum for livestock 2. Drinking water standard = RfD x BW IRw = 21 mg/kg-d x 454 kg 45 l/day = 211 mg/l = RS 3. Compare RS to Al concentration at POC Data Issues Data Collection Issues Analyte list Site-related COCs

TICs Sample Quantitation Limits SQL vs limiting RS Blank Samples Analytical Method ex) PAHs Data Evaluation/Data Usability RECAP Section 2.5 Data Evaluation/Data Usability Data Evaluation

vs Data Validation Data Evaluation/Data Useability Benefits Site-related vs artifact Verification of reported concentrations Elimination of data not representative of site conditions Evaluate data with respect to: Analytical Method Blank Samples 10X Rule - common laboratory contaminants

include acetone, 2-butanone, methylene chloride, toluene, phthalate esters 5X rule other constituents Interpreting blank sample results Example: Methylene chloride was detected in the blank at 300 ug/l and in a groundwater sample at 2100 ug/l. Is it site-related or an artifact of the sampling/analysis process? Apply the 10X Rule: It is an artifact methylene chloride would be considered to be site-related if the concentration in the groundwater sample was 10X greater than the concentration in the blank: 300 ug/l X 10 = 3000 ug/l

2100 ug/l < 3000 ug/l Interpreting blank sample results Example: EDC was detected in the trip blank at 100 ug/l and in a groundwater sample at 1000 ug/l. Is it site-related or an artifact of the sampling/analysis process? Apply the 5X rule: Yes, it is site-related EDC is present in the groundwater sample at a concentration that is 5X greater than the concentration in the blank: 100 ug/l X 5 = 500 ug/l 1000 ug/l > 500 ug/l Evaluate data with respect to:

Sample Quantitation Limits SQLs for ND results vs limiting RS If ND and SQL > RS, then not useful SQLs and calc of 95%UCL-AM SQL SQL Matrix interferences One or more COC present at high concentrations Data evaluation section of risk assessment report should include: Appropriateness of method and SQL* TICs detected

Few or many? Toxicity values available? Proprietary COC present? Breakdown products of concern? Data evaluation section of risk assessment report should include: Codes and Qualifiers analytical laboratory vs data validators always refer to definitions provided almost all data is useable most qualifiers indicate uncertainty in concentration not identity of COC J estimated value - useable

R values - not useable due to quality control issues U not detected RAGS-A Chapter 5 (EPA 1989) Use of historical data Analytical methods and QA/QC are similar for both data sets Types of COC - VOA vs Inorganic Site history soil disturbance or other? Qualitative use of data Definitive vs visual SAP development Historical data

Historical data of unknown quality may not be used in determining AOIC Analytical methods, sampling techniques, quantitation limits and QA/QC for the historical data shall be included The elimination of any data set shall be fully justified in the risk assessment report MO-3 MO-3 Always submit detailed workplan All site-specific data must be documented Exposure data

EF&T data Greatly reduced EF and ED Taking land out of commerce Construction or maintenance worker scenarios RME Complex modeling Inputs, outputs, supporting documentation Address in detail in workplan Workplans MO-2 and MO-3 Workplans

+/- MO-2 assessments Required for all MO-3 assessments Should be very detailed: COC, conceptual site model, toxicity data, all exposure and EF&T assumptions, methods, models, etc. Approval of Workplans Refer review to Toxicological Services Group RECAP Submittals Avoiding NODs Submittals: Key Points

Include all requirements listed for the Option Include summary of previous RECAP assessments Present all data/information necessary to reproduce calculations Id AOI and AOI dataset 95% UCL-AM (dataset, ProUCL outputs, etc) site-specific SS or RS SS or RS not in Tables 1-3 (toxicity values, etc)

Additivity adjustments and target organs Submittals: Key Points DF or DAF, VF, and PEF Modeling inputs/outputs Present all data/information necessary to support conclusions Identify all applicable SS/RS and final LRS Present comparison of LRS and AOIC or CC Identify COC/areas/pathways > LRS Path forward Submittals: Key Points

Provide references (methods, input values, etc) Provide supporting documentation for site-specific data/inputs Use RECAP Submittal Forms (Appendix C) Frequent Deficiencies Option being used not identified Managing sites under Options they do not qualify for Incomplete site characterization - horizontal and vertical extent not defined AOI not properly identified AOI not illustrated in a figure Grouping multiple AOI into one large AOI

Dividing one AOI into multiple AOI Frequent Deficiencies Failure to justify GW classification Limiting SS or RS not identified LRS not identified properly SoilGW, Soilsat and/or Watersol not addressed Additivity not addressed Additivity addressed incorrectly Use of incorrect SS or RS values (QC value) Frequent Deficiencies Use of background levels not approved by Dept Analyte list incomplete

RECAP forms not used 95%UCL-AM not calculated data set not provided data distribution not determined; wrong stats used calculations cant be reproduced used for groundwater CC Frequent Deficiencies - TPH Indicator compounds not addressed Incorrect carbon ranges used 10,000 ppm ceiling value ignored Additivity ignored 10,000 ppm adjusted for additivity

Frequent Deficiencies Data evaluation Not included Analytical data not included Elevated SQLs Omitting data sets without adequate documentation No DOTD well survey (or outdated) Frequent Deficiencies Failure to identify input parameters Calculations not presented

References not given Toxicity Assessment Use of incorrect target organs Use of incorrect toxicity values References not given Remediation Remediation Identification of area of remediation Use LRS for option being implemented Same principles as for id of AOI Verification sampling sufficient number of samples for 95%UCLAM

samples representative of residual concentrations Remediation Demonstration of compliance with LRS - Comparison of 95%UCL-AM with LRS If 95%UCL-AM > LRS further action If 95%UCL-AM < LRS NFA - 95%UCL-AM should include all verification samples within boundaries of the original area identified for remediation Remediation Demonstration of compliance with LRS

- Too few samples, high variability, or high number of ND, then 95%UCL-AM > max - Excavation/clean fill volume weighted average for 95%UCL-AM - Nonpermanent structures/barriers - NO asphalt, concrete, etc

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Lgbt - Naadac

    Lgbt - Naadac

    Specializing in LGBTQ Treatment. Presented at NAADAC, 2014 - Seattle, WA. A bit about PRIDE Institute Who we are. ... 46% of lesbian and gay men in treatment have had homophobic therapist. 34% felt their sexuality was seen as irrelevant.
  • Folie 1 - Anton-Bruckner-Gymnasium Straubing

    Folie 1 - Anton-Bruckner-Gymnasium Straubing

    Von Rainer Beck, Weinheim VCH 1987 Bothmer, Volker: Die Struktur magnetischer Wolken im Sonnenwind, Zusammenhang mit eruptiven Protuberanzen und Einfluss auf die Magnetosphäre der Erde, Göttingen 1993 Schäfer, Josef: Der Zusammenhang zwischen der Sonnenfleckenzahl, der Richtung des interplanetaren solaren Magnetfelds...
  • Software Development Methodologies - C-Sharp

    Software Development Methodologies - C-Sharp

    3902 Syllabus. Course Summary. This is a course on professional software development. Our goals are to craft high-quality software, understand the process of Agile software development, survey design patterns, become familiar with advanced tools for software development and project management,...
  • Our 50 States: [Name of Your State] - Lakewood High School

    Our 50 States: [Name of Your State] - Lakewood High School

    Over time, many more words were introduced into English from other European countries. * * We should also mention that Latin was the language of churchmen and of the services of the Church from the ninth century to the sixteenth...
  • Lecture 9: Fourier Transform Properties and Examples 3.

    Lecture 9: Fourier Transform Properties and Examples 3.

    Convolution Some operations are simplified in the frequency domain, but there are a number of signals for which the Fourier transform do not exist - this leads naturally onto Laplace transforms Lecture 9: Exercises Theory SaS, O&W, Q4.6 Q4.13 Q3.20,...
  • Somatotypes - Featherstone High School PE Department

    Somatotypes - Featherstone High School PE Department

    Somatotypes (Section 1.2.1) ... Optimum weight is looked at in more detail in the A-Level PE course, analysis of eating diaries and calorie input and output for athletes. ... Task Read through page 98 - 99 and complete the questions...
  • P a b l o N e r u d a - Issaquah Connect

    P a b l o N e r u d a - Issaquah Connect

    "a herd / of whorish bosses / with no other law but torture / and the lashing hunger of the people" (19-22) ... to compose a rebuttal for round 2. You have . one minute. to compose a final statement...
  • The Natu re and Behavior o f Chapter

    The Natu re and Behavior o f Chapter

    The speed of a wave depends on the medium it is traveling through. Sound waves usually travel faster in liquids and solids than they do in gases. However, light waves travel more slowly in liquid and solids than they do...