Establishing Critical Protective Concentration Levels (PCLs) for Lead-Affected Soils

Similar documents
Methodology for Establishing Cleanup Levels for Contaminated Sites

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE. Groundwater Protection Model ON CONTAMINATED SITES

Ground Water Assessment. Investigating Ground Water: Discussion Topics. Leaching. Soil Impacts to Ground Water

Demonstrating Stormwater Infiltration to UICs is Protective of Groundwater Quality

DERIVATION OF HYDROCARBON SOIL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF SURFACE WATER QUALITY. Stephen Thomson URS New Zealand Limited

Plume Cut-Off Treatment Example

Groundwater Risk Assessment

SOUTHWEST DIVISION Comparing Air Measurements and Modeling Results at a Residential Site Overlying a TCE Plume October 18, 2004

Risk Assessment Methodologies in Ranking Decontamination Actions on National and Local Level. a Hungarian Experience

OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION

Remediation of Brine Spills- What Goes Wrong Kerry Sublette

RemTech Remediation Technologies Symposium

Development of Soil Cleanup Standards for Explosive Residues on Military Ranges

WORK PLAN AND SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN ADDENDUM

WORK PLAN AND SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN ADDENDUM

Soil Cleanup Goals. Minnesota Department of Agriculture Pesticide and Fertilizer Management Division. Guidance Document 19

2007 World of Coal Ash (WOCA), May 7-10, 2007, Northern Kentucky, USA

Plume Area Treatment Example

Establishing Contact

Wellsite Salt Remediation: Subsoil Salinity Tool vs. Site- Specific Salt Risk Assessment? Erik J. Martin, Ph.D., DABT

OAKLAND RISK-BASED CORRECTIVE ACTION: TECHNICAL BACKGROUND DOCUMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND TRANSPORT MODELING OF EXPLOSIVES IN THE UNSATURATED ZONE

APPENDIX I A SITE-SPECIFIC RECAP EVALUATION FOR TYPICAL UST SITES

Updated J&E Model VIAModel.xls

Guidance for the Determination of the Dilution-Attenuation Factor for the Impact to Ground Water Pathway. June 2, 2008

Re: Interim Removal Action for Metals-Impacted Sand Bedding Material at Area of Concern 65, Camp Stanley Storage Activity, TX

Total Concentration Limits

EXPERIMENTAL AND MODELING STUDIES OF THE FATE

Final Report FATE OF COALBED METHANE PRODUCED WATER IN DISPOSAL PONDS IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN

July 21, Bernie Zavala, Hydrogeologist LG, LHG EPA-Region 10, Office of Environmental Assessment

PE Exam Review - Geotechnical

CORRECTIVE ACTION COMPLETION REPORT

CEE 370 Environmental Engineering Principles

Water Budget IV: Soil Water Processes P = Q + ET + G + ΔS

Risk of well water pollution from the surface of a recharge area

CHASING VADOSE ZONE NITRATE: CASE STUDIES IN NEBRASKA. Daniel Snow, Ph.D. University of Nebraska Water Sciences Laboratory

Storage and Flow of Groundwater

Screening Evaluations for Upland Confined Disposal Facility Effluent Quality

Lecture 2: Soil Properties and Groundwater Flow

Site-Specific Numerical Soil Standards. Version 2.1. Prepared pursuant to Section 64 of the Environmental Management Act

Tier 1 Remedial Criteria Development. Alberta

On-site Systems and Groundwater Washington State Department of Health February 6, 2014

CSAP PD Webinar. SLRA and Groundwater Models - Nov.10th, 2016

Mark Kelley Battelle Environmental Technology and Restoration

Groundwater Flow Evaluation and Spatial Geochemical Analysis of the Queen City Aquifer, Texas

PROTOCOL 27, SOIL LEACHING ASSESSMENT FOR USE IN DERIVING SITE SPECIFIC STANDARDS CSR STAGE 11 AMENDMENT WEBINAR #5 NOVEMBER 28, 2017

APPLICATION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL VAPOUR ASSESSMENT TO MANAGE HEALTH RISKS AND DEVELOP REMEDIATION CRITERIA AT HYDROCARBON IMPACTED SITES

Introduction to Land Surface Modeling Hydrology. Mark Decker

2. Appendix Y: Vapor Intrusion Modeling Requirements (Appendix to Statewide health standard VI guidance in the Technical Guidance Manual)

Leachability Evaluation in In Situ Stabilization / Solidification

POROSITY, SPECIFIC YIELD & SPECIFIC RETENTION. Physical properties of

Dispersion of Leachate in Aquifers

Public Meeting. Proposed Municipal Setting Designation. PSC Plano Campus MSD. PSC Plano Campus 2300 West Plano Parkway VCP No ~71.

In Situ, Low Temperature Thermal Remediation of LNAPL with Pesticides and Other Recalcitrant Compounds

Modeling the Vapor Intrusion Pathway: Revisions to the MCP GW-2 Groundwater Standards

SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLY GROUND WATER HYDRAULICS

Lecture Notes on Groundwater Hydrology. Part 1

(,,,) = ( )exp ( + C(x,y,z,t) = the concentration of the contaminant at location x, y, z from the source at time t.

dissolved fraction particulate fraction Resuspension

Site Specific Remediation Objectives for Soil Vapour in Alberta (Draft) Norman Sawatsky

Background. Comparison of Leaching of PAHs from two Contaminated Soils under Varying Hydraulic Retention Time

Pennsylvania s Land Recycling Program. Vapor Intrusion Technical Guidance

The nitrate contamination concern

A-2. Soils. Soil Media. Chapter Contents. Soil Media In-situ Soil Testing Separation from Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT)

Comparison of Sampling Methods to Document the Contribution of Aerobic Biodegradation to the Attenuation of Vapor Concentrations at UST Sites

RISK MANAGEMENT OF A FORMER SALT STORAGE YARD

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER DIVISION- INDUSTRIAL SECTION

LNAPL Volume and Mobility Estimation to Assess When to Stop Active Recovery. by Louis Sabourin, P.Eng. and David Tarnocai, P.Geo.

Design Guideline for Gravity Systems in Soil Type 1. January 2009

Solidification/Stabilization

Geol 220: GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY

FAX

2005 Review of Canada-Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil: Report of the Model Parameter Advisory (MPA) Sub Group

Hydraulics Section IV: Groundwater and Onsite

Groundwater Occurrence & Movement: An Introductory Discussion with Application to Northeastern Illinois

SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENT (SLRA) UPDATE CSR STAGE 11 AMENDMENT WEBINAR #6 DECEMBER 5, 2017

Methodology for the Derivation of Remedial Targets for Soil and Groundwater to Protect Water Resources

Vadose Zone Profiling to Better Understand Processes

Part 3 Fundamentals. Most Common VI Bloopers. Handy Unit Conversions:

Petroleum Restoration Program. Pathway To Closure. March 30, 2017

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A ?

Using Fate and Transport Models to Evaluate Cleanup Levels

APPENDIX B ESTIMATING MEDIA CONCENTRATION EQUATIONS AND VARIABLE VALUES

Assessment of groundwater vulnerability to pollution by pesticides in catchment scale

August 15, 2006 (Revised) July 3, 2006 Project No A

Lecture 20: Groundwater Introduction

LNAPL Recovery Using Vacuum Enhanced Technology. Theresa Ferguson, R.G. June 2014

Stormwater Retention Pond Recovery Analysis

1/31/2006 CE Engineered Landfills Construction & Filling Sequence. Engineered Landfills Key Components. Perimeter Berm or Embankment.

GIS-BASED ALGORITHMS FOR VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

EART 204. Water. Dr. Slawek Tulaczyk. Earth Sciences, UCSC

Groundwater basics. Groundwater and surface water: a single resource. Pore Spaces. Simplified View

Guidance for Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM) Waste/Solid Waste #5.03, October 2005

Soil Physical Properties and Wastewater Treatment

PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT BURKHART ESTATE MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS

Challenges to Site-Specific Assessment at Salt and Fertilizer-Impacted Sites

Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Sites in New Zealand (Revised 2011)

The National Cooperative Soil Survey Program when complete. will have produced soil survey reports for all counties in the

APPLICATION OF SUBSURFACE VAPOUR ASSESSMENT AT HYDROCARBON IMPACTED SITES

Groundwater and surface water: a single resource. Santa Cruz River, Tucson

Transcription:

Establishing Critical Protective Concentration Levels (PCLs) for Lead-Affected oils Introduction Effective Date: August 2, 2001 The purpose of this document is to describe the processes for establishing critical PCLs for lead-affected soils which are protective of human receptors under the Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) and to provide some pre-calculated values. Tier 1 For lead-affected soils, the TRRP Tier 1 Tot oil Comb PCL is 500 mg/kg (residential) and 1,600 mg/kg (commercial/industrial), and the Tier 1 GW oil Ing PCL is 3.0 mg/kg (Class 1 and 2 groundwater) and 300 mg/kg (Class 3 groundwater). Historically, ynthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (PLP) or Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests have been used in determining site-specific GW oil PCLs for lead in soil. However, the aggressive acidic treatment to which soils are subjected in the TCLP/PLP extraction procedure do not always provide appropriate results to derive lead soil-water partition coefficients (K d ) and may over predict the amount of leachable lead that is impacting groundwater for many sites. Background For sites with Class 1 or 2 groundwater, the Texas-specific median soil lead background concentration of 15 mg/kg, as stated in '350.51(m) or a higher site-specific background concentration replaces the Tier 1 GW oil Ing PCL for lead. If a site-specific background assessment is planned, samples must be collected from areas unaffected by activities related to waste management activities, in accordance with '350.51(l)(2) and must be representative of the same geologic stratum as the potentially affected stratum with the lead concentrations. Tier 2 The TRRP Tier 2 GW oil Ing PCL equation can be used to develop a site-specific level for lead in soil that is protective of groundwater in lieu of the Tier 1 or background approaches. This equation is located at the end of this document. The goal in developing a site-specific lead GW oil Ing PCL using the Tier 2 equation is to establish a GW oil Ing PCL which is based on soil and lead-specific properties that affect the migration potential of lead from the soil to groundwater at the site. The following site-specific data may greatly impact the calculated Tier 2 GW oil Ing PCL for lead at an affected property: size of lead source area soil type and ph thickness of lead-affected soils depth to groundwater groundwater classification

Even though the Tier 2 equation is used to develop GW oil PCLs, default Tier 1 inputs or site-specific data can be used for most of the parameters in the equations. For example, Tier 1 default inputs may be chosen for all the inputs to the K sw equation except for K d. ince K d varies based on the soil type and ph of the soil as shown in Figure 30: TAC 350.73(e)(1)(A), the calculation of a site-specific K d allowed under Tier 2 provides typically higher GW oil PCLs than utilizing the default Tier 1. The parameters L 1 and L 2 should be determined on a site-specific basis. Inputs to the Tier 2 equation are derived from the following affected property data: 1) size of source area; 2) soil type and ph; 3) thickness of affected soil; 4) depth to groundwater; and 5) groundwater classification. A description of how the affected property data can affect the determination of a GW oil Ing PCL is discussed below. ize of ource Area For affected properties with Class 1 or 2 groundwater or where the depth to groundwater is unknown, the lateral extent of affected soil should be determined to 15 mg/kg (Texas-specific median background concentration) or a higher site-specifically established background concentration. Affected properties with Class 3 groundwater should be assessed to the lower of a background concentration or 300 mg/kg (Tier 1 GW oil Class 3 PCL). tatistical methods for comparing site-specific background levels to potentially impacted soil are described in '350.79(2)(B). Once the areal extent of lead-affected soil is determined, the data are used to determine the lateral dilution factor (LDF) input to the Tier 2 equation. There are two options for developing the LDF input to the equation. Either the Tier 1 default inputs may be used or a site-specific LDF can be calculated. If a background concentration or a Tier 1 GW oil Class 3 PCL was used to establish the source area size, then an LDF of 20 may be used for a source area less than or equal to 2 acre, or an LDF of 10 should be used if the source area is greater than 2 acre but not greater than 30 acres. For source areas greater than 30 acres a site-specific LDF should be determined. The steps necessary to develop a site-specific LDF are not addressed in this document. oil Type and ph oil type and ph are used to determine the appropriate K d which is an input into the K sw equation. oils should be classified using the Unified oil Classification ystem ATM D2488-00 standard or an equivalent classification determined using the U.. Department of Agriculture classification system of sand, loam or clay within the affected soil horizon. The soil ph within that soil horizon may be estimated from literature studies such as U.. oil Conservation ervice (C) surveys. If the C surveys indicate a ph range which crosses over a ph category, then the geometric mean ph value must be used. If literature information is unavailable, field soil ph should be analyzed throughout the affected soil horizon. Once the soil type and ph within the affected soil horizon are measured, refer to Figure: 30 TAC 350.73(e)(1)(A) - Aoil-Water Distribution Coefficients (K d ) for Aluminum and Lead@ for identification of the applicable K d value.

Depth of Affected oil to Background (L 1 ) and Depth to Groundwater (L 2 ) A ratio of the depth from the top of the affected soil to groundwater (L 2 ) and the thickness of affected soil (L 1 ) is calculated to estimate attenuation of contamination in the soil column above groundwater. The vertical extent of affected soil (L 1 ) should be set as the thickness of the soil that contains chemicals of concern (COCs) in excess of the applicable Tier 1 GW oil PCL (either the default or site-specific background concentration will be the Tier 1 PCL as they are at higher concentrations than the default Tier 1 GW oil PCL). The vertical extent of affected soil is input as L 1 in the Tier 2 equation. The parameter L 2 should be measured from the top of the affected soil to groundwater. However, if the vertical limit of soil lead concentrations which exceed default or site-specific background has been characterized and no groundwater was encountered, the L 2 should be measured from the top of the affected soil to a depth which results in a concentration at or below the corresponding Tier 2 Lead Groundwater-to-oil PCL (see example PCLs in the below table). For example, a commercial affected property with loamy soil has a soil ph in the range of 7, a source area of 0.5 acres and an L 1 thickness of 8 feet (located from 0-8 feet below ground surface) with a highest concentration of 2000 mg/kg. According to the below table, since an L 2 /L 1 value of 2 allows a GW oil Ing PCL of 1098 mg/kg and since this PCL is greater than the 1000 mg/kg sample concentration, the boring completion depth should extend to no less than 16 feet below ground surface (L 2 ). ince the critical PCL is the lowest PCL for a COC within a source medium determined from all applicable human health exposure pathways, the critical PCL for lead would be 1098 mg/kg ( GW oil Ing PCL) for all soils. Groundwater Classification The classification of the groundwater affects the groundwater PCL in the Tier 2 equation. If the groundwater is classified as Class 1 or Class 2, then 0.015 mg/l should be inserted into the equation. If the groundwater is classified as Class 3, then 1.5 mg/l should be inserted into the equation (i.e., 100 x GW GW Ing). Example Calculations The following two examples are provided to illustrate calculation of GW oil Ing PCLs using the Tier 2 equation with modifications to Tier 1 parameter values as noted: Example 1 - For an affected property with an affected area less than 0.5 acres containing clayey soils and a soil ph between 5 and 9, the K d is 1,830 (ee Figure: 30 TAC '350.73(e)(1)(A)) and the LDF is 20, the depth to groundwater is unknown so L 2 /L 1 equals one. The resulting lead GW oil Ing PCL is 549 mg/kg. The calculation is shown below: GW oil Ing = (0.015) * 20 * 1 K W = 1.67 = 5.46 X 10-4 K W 0.16 + (1830)(1.67) + (0)(0.21) Gw oil Ing = 549 mg/kg

Example 2 - For an affected property with a source area less than 0.5 acres containing 100% clayey soils and a ph between 5 and 9, the K d is 1,830 (ee Figure: 30 TAC '350.73(e)(1)(A)), the LDF is 20. However, in this example the depth of affected soil and the depth from the top of the affected soil to groundwater is known. The total depth from the top of the affected soil horizon to the groundwater table (L 2 ) is 20 feet and the total thickness of the affected soil (L 1 ) is 2 feet. Therefore L 2 /L 1 equals 10. The lead GW oil PCL is 5,490 mg/kg. The calculation is shown below: GW oil Ing = (0.015) * 20 * 10 K W = 1.67 = 5.46 X 10-4 K W 0.16 + (1830)(1.67) + (0)(0.21) Gw oil Ing = 5490 mg/kg This example illustrates how incorporating the depth to groundwater into the calculation can significantly change the GW oil Ing PCL. Examples of precalculated Tier 2 lead GW oil Ing PCLs for 0.5 and 30 acres source areas with sandy, loamy and clayey soil, ph greater than and less than 5, for ratios of L 2/L 1 ranging from 1 to 8 are depicted in the attached table. Determining Critical PCLs for urface oils and ubsurface oils The calculated GW oil Ing PCL concentrations stated in this document are critical PCLs for subsurface soils, but may not be critical PCLs for surface soils. The definition for surface and subsurface soils are presented in '350.4(a)(88) and (86), respectively. For example, using the above-stated Tier 2 situation and where the affected property is a commercial/industrial land use, the Tier 1 Tot oil Comb PCL (1600 mg/kg) is the critical PCL for surface soils (0-5 foot depth) assuming the property has a 0.5 acre source area size and L 2 /L 1 of 10 and a ph greater than 5. In this example, the GW oil Ing PCL (5490 mg/kg) is the critical PCL for soils located below the 5 foot depth (subsurface soils). However, as shown in the example calculations in the attached table, if the soil type was sandy instead of clayey and all other parameters remained the same, the critical PCL for both the surface and subsurface soils would be based upon the GW oil Ing PCL of 702 mg/kg, since it is less than the Tot oil Comb PCL of 1600 mg/kg. Tier 3 If soil concentrations exceed the Tier 2 PCL, one may be able to demonstrate that the soil leachate-togroundwater exposure pathway is not complete according to '350.75(i)(7)(C); therefore, it may not be necessary to establish a soil leachate-to-groundwater PCL. This section of the TRRP rule provides general criteria where site-specific information gathered through an affected property assessment may be used to demonstrate that contaminated surface soils will not likely leach to groundwater. For example, if lead affected soil overlies several hundred feet of unfractured shale and shallow groundwater is not encountered in the soil horizon, one can deduce the soil-to-groundwater pathway is not complete and that the GW oil PCL is not an exposure pathway of concern.

Example Tier 2 Lead Groundwater-to-oil PCLs for 0.5 and 30 Acre ource Areas with andy, Loamy and Clayey oils for soils with ph <5 and ph >5. andy oil 0.5 acre source area GW oil Ing for Lead (mg/kg) 30 acre source area GW oil Ing for Lead (mg/kg) L 2/L 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 L 2/L 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ph<5 ph>5 K d =234 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 ph<5 70 140 210 280 350 420 490 560 ph>5 K d =234 1.5 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 35 70 105 140 175 205 240 275 Loamy oil 0.5 acre source area GW oil Ing for Lead (mg/kg) 30 acre source area GW oil Ing for Lead (mg/kg) L 2/L 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 L 2/L 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ph<5 ph>5 K d =597 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 ph<5 179 358 537 716 895 1074 1253 1432 ph>5 K d =597 1.5 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 Clayey oil 0.5 acre source area GW oil Ing for Lead (mg/kg) 30 acre source area GW oil Ing for Lead (mg/kg) L 2/L 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 L 2/L 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ph<5 K d =12 ph>5 K d =1830 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 ph<5 K d =12 549 1098 1647 2196 2745 3294 3843 4392 ph>5 K d =1830 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 275 549 824 1099 1374 1649 1924 2199

Tier 2 oil-to-groundwater PCL Equation * Critical groundwater PCL as determined in accordance with '350.78. Term LDF L 1 L 2 K sw COC Chemical/Physical and Affected Property Parameters Definition Leachate Dilution Factor 0.5 acre source area 30 acre source area Thickness of affected soil (cm) Depth from top of affected soil to groundwater table (cm) oil-leachate partition factor for COC (mg/lwater/mg/kg-soil) Tier 1 Defaults 20 10 NA Change to Tier 1 Default Allowed? Recommend setting L 1 = to thickness of soil zone containing COCs in excess of Tier 1 GW oil Rule Citation L 2 = L 1 property-specific '350.75(e) and ρ b oil bulk density (g-soil/cm 3 -soil) 1.67 θ T Total soil porosity = 1 - (ρ b /ρ s ) (cm 3 -pore space/cm 3 -soil) ρ s Particle density (g/cm 3 ) 2.65 θ ws θ as K d Volumetric water content of vadose zone soils (soil-togroundwater) (cm 3 -water/cm 3 -soil) Volumetric air content of vadose zone soils (cm 3 -air/cm 3 -soil) = θ T -θ ws oil-water partition coefficient (cm 3 -water/g-soil) $ for organics $ for inorganics K oc oil organic carbon-water partition coefficient (cm 3 - water/g-carbon) foc H' H Fraction of organic carbon in soil (g-carbon/g-soil) (soil-to-groundwater) Henry's Law Constant (dimensionless) H= = H/RT Henry=s Law Constant (atm-m 3 /mol) H = H=RT 0.16 0.21 (Figure 30 TAC '350.73(e)) K d = K oc @ foc K d = ph dependent value (Figure 30 TAC '350.73(e)) 0.002 (soil-togroundwater) (Figure 30 TAC '350.73(e)) No '350.73(e) and (Figures 30 TAC '350.73(e)(1)(A-C) '350.73(e) and (Figures 30 TAC '350.73(e)(1)(A-C) NA ee H= No NA

Term COC Chemical/Physical and Affected Property Parameters Definition Tier 1 Defaults Change to Tier 1 Default Allowed? Rule Citation R Universal Gas Constant (atm-m 3 /gmol-ek) 8.25 x 10-5 No NA T Temperature (EK) = 273 + EC 293 No NA U gw δ gw Groundwater Darcy velocity (cm/yr) U gw = K@ i x 36,500 d-cm/yr-m Note: U gw must be converted to units of cm/yr Groundwater mixing zone thickness (m) upper bound: δ gw # b gw K Hydraulic conductivity (m/day) i Hydraulic gradient (m/m) b gw Aquifer thickness (m) W s Lateral width of affected vadose zone in direction of groundwater flow (m) α v Vertical groundwater dispersivity = 0.0056 x W s (m) I f K vs Net infiltration rate of water through soil (cm/yr) Upper bound: I f # K vs (3.15 x 10 7 s/yr) $sand $silt $clay aturated hydraulic conductivity of vadose zone soils (cm/s) NA 0.0018(P) 2 0.0009(P) 2 0.00018(P) 2 P Mean annual precipitation (cm/yr)