1.1 Heer Office Legal Authorities
...Law, which grants authority to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The HERL grants certain authority and responsibility to the HDOH to respond to both emergency ...
 
...(HAR, 1995). These state administrative rules are based upon (but not the same as) the USEPA CERCLA-related administrative rules called the National Contingency Plan (NCP). ...
 

1.3 Heer Office Organization
...significant contamination Assessment and site inspections funded by and coordinated with USEPA under the federal CERCLA program Investigations generated by release reporting. ...
 
...cleanup options. Support for non-profits and state/county agencies in applying for USEPA brownfields grants. Assistance to the counties to develop an inventory of brownfields ...
 

1.4 Environmental Health Administration Divisions
...changes, establishing new positions, and assisting programs in obtaining funding from the USEPA. 1.4.7 State Laboratories Division " target="_blank">The ...
 

2.3 Emergency Response
...Releases of radionuclides regulated by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)) Releases of hazardous substances that are discharged or emitted from an outfall, ...
 

3.2 Systematic Planning Of Site Investigation
...Objectives (DQOs) published in some guidance documents (Robbat, 1997, USEPA, 2000; USEPA, 2001; Tindall, 2006; USEPA, 2006; Triad, 2007). This term is ...
 
...2000; USEPA, 2001; Tindall, 2006; USEPA, 2006; Triad, 2007). This term is retained for ...
 
...2001; Tindall, 2006; USEPA, 2006; Triad, 2007). This term is retained for use in this Manual. Early DQO ...
 
... in more detail in Section 13. Note that the HDOH EALs, as well as USEPA Regional Screening Levels (USEPA, 2014) and similar criteria, are not intended for comparison ...
 
...Regional Screening Levels (USEPA, 2014) and similar criteria, are not intended for comparison to individual, discrete sample ...
 
...Comparison to action levels that focus on a single potential concern, such as the USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for direct-exposure (USEPA, 2014), may not ...
 
...Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for direct-exposure (USEPA, 2014), may not be adequate. The presence of other potential hazards such as leaching, ...
 
...of these environmental hazards are incorporated into the HDOH Tier 1 EALs. Unlike the USEPA RSLs, this allows the HDOH EALs to be used as a stand-alone screening tool at most sites. ...
 
...the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) dated (day/month/year), and analyzed using USEPA SW-846 Method 6020, exceeds 200 mg/kg, THEN it will be concluded that the soil in DU ...
 
...procedures include use of a sectoral splitter or hand Multi Increment sampling (USEPA, 2003b). Representative sub-sampling in the lab is generally considered the most important ...
 
...Providing limits on decision errors provides limits on the uncertainty in the data (USEPA, 2006b). Uncertainty limits are site-specific, and include considerations such as precision, ...
 

3.3 Conceptual Site Models
... Additional information on the development of CSMs is available in USEPA’s Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA ...
 
... for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA (USEPA, 1988) and USEPA’s Data Quality Objectives Process for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations ...
 
...1988) and USEPA’s Data Quality Objectives Process for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations (USEPA, 2000). ...
 
...Data Quality Objectives Process for Hazardous Waste Site Investigations (USEPA, 2000). Note that examples of CSMs in these guidance documents often focus on human health ...
 

3.4 Selection Of Decision Units
...is generally considered for surface soil DUs, depending on the site-specific DQOs (USEPA 2011d; CalEPA 2013). The top 0-6 or 0-4 inches of soil are commonly selected ...
 
...lower than the highest concentration reported in the one-acre DUs that were tested (USEPA, 1989b). DUs should be placed in a systematic random distribution, and with consideration ...
 
...lower than the highest concentration reported in the one-acre DUs that were tested (USEPA, 1989b). The configuration of DUs across very large areas with respect ...
 

3.6 Sampling And Analysis Plans
...risk evaluations. Information regarding sampling design is also available in USEPA’s Guidance on Choosing a Sampling Design for Environmental Data Collection (USEPA, ...
 
...Guidance on Choosing a Sampling Design for Environmental Data Collection (USEPA, 2002f), although the guidance focuses on the collection of discrete samples. ...
 

3.7 Quality Assurance Project Plans
...of a QAPP is available in the Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans (USEPA/DoD/DOE, 2005), Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Studies ...
 
...Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA (USEPA 1988), and Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (USEPA, 2002g). In addition, ...
 
...1988), and Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (USEPA, 2002g). In addition, Data Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures are discussed in ...
 

3.8 Data Quality Assessment
...information regarding data validation and data quality assessment is available from USEPA in Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical Methods for Data Analysis (USEPA, ...
 
...in Guidance for Data Quality Assessment: Practical Methods for Data Analysis (USEPA, 2000d) and Data Quality Assessment: A Reviewer’s Guide (USEPA, 2006). ...
 
... 2000d) and Data Quality Assessment: A Reviewer’s Guide (USEPA, 2006). 3.8.1 DATA VALIDATION Data ...
 

4.1 Sampling Theory And Variability Of Contaminant Concentrations In Soil
...to be uniform within [a contamination zone/spill area] and zero outside it (USEPA, 1985; To apply this [discrete sampling] method� [it must be assumed that] any sample located ...
 
...any sample located within the contaminated zone will identify the contamination (USEPA, 1987); When there is little distance between points it is expected ...
 
...there will be little variability (in contaminant concentrations) between points (USEPA, 1989b). The mass of soil to be collected as a ...
 
...for analysis, including quality control (default 100 grams per sample recommended; USEPA, 1987). The concept of "data quality" was then shifted to the laboratory with the main ...
 
... Both the HDOH Environmental Action Levels (EALs; HDOH 2016) as well as the USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs; USEPA, 2014) are intended for comparison to the mean ...
 
...Regional Screening Levels (RSLs; USEPA, 2014) are intended for comparison to the mean concentration of a contaminant ...
 
...in field investigation guidance being developed during the same time period (USEPA, 1992b): For Superfund assessments, the concentration term (C) in the ...
 
...was similarly recognized but not fully appreciated in early risk assessment guidance (USEPA 1992): Sampling data from Superfund sites have shown ...
 

4.2 Use Of Multi Increment Samples To Characterize DUs
...data for mineral exploration and mining (Pitard, 1993, 2005, 2009; USEPA 1999c; Minnitt et al., 2007). The approach can be used for both non-volatile ...
 
...but should be minimized to the extent practicable (see Section 11; see also USEPA, 2003c). 4.2.6.2 SUBSAMPLE COLLECTION ...
 
... and analysis of particulate samples: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2003b) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM, 2003). These, as well as ...
 
...discrete, or judgmental samples. One issue discussed in both the USEPA and ASTM guidance documents is the choice of a minimum subsample mass for extraction/analysis ...
 
...mass is 10 grams. Laboratories may need to modify USEPA methods appropriately to achieve the minimum 10 gram subsample mass for extraction and ...
 
... of the contaminants in the < 2 mm or smaller particle fraction of the soil (USEPA, 2011d). Milling of the < 2 mm fraction can also overestimate the risk posed by metals ...
 
...in order to minimize heating of the sample. USEPA SW-846 Method 8330b for processing and analyzing energetic compounds calls for grinding ...
 
...energetic compounds calls for grinding the samples to meet data quality objectives (USEPA, 2006d). This method also includes guidance on field Multi Increment sampling ...
 
...if it is a liquid at 25ºC or if the Henry’s Law Constant exceeds 0.00001atm-m3/mol (USEPA 2015). Chemicals listed in the HDOH EAL guidance that fall into this category ...
 
...is a well-known measure of the variation from the mean among a group of samples (USEPA 2006g,b). The lower the standard deviation (i.e., the closer the replicate data are to ...
 
...greater than 1 and within target 10-4 to 10-6 excess cancer risk range; see USEPA 2006g and HDOH 2016). Provide additional, multiple lines ...
 
...unlikely event that this concentration represented the true mean for the DU (refer to USEPA 2006g). As a default, an alternative screening level equal to 150% of the original screening ...
 
...in Section 5, testing of soil for VOCs should follow approaches described in USEPA Method 5035 Closed System Purge-and-Trap and Extraction for Volatile Organics in Soil ...
 

4.3 Use Of Discrete Samples
... points (HDOH 2016; refer to Subsection 4.1 and Section 13) as well as the USEPA Regional Screening Levels (USEPA, 2014). Action/screening levels for direct-exposure, ...
 
...Regional Screening Levels (USEPA, 2014). Action/screening levels for direct-exposure, for example, assume random contact ...
 
...Exposure Area DUs is therefore appropriate (refer to Section 3; see also USEPA, 1987, 2013b). The concentration of a contaminant at any given discrete sample point within ...
 
...that these types of samples are sometimes informally referred to as "composites" in USEPA and other field investigation guidance (e.g., USEPA 1989, USGS 2014, USGS ...
 
...and other field investigation guidance (e.g., USEPA 1989, USGS 2014, USGS 2016). Use of the term �composite� is discouraged for projects ...
 
...targeted exposure areas in environmental site assessments and remedial actions (e.g., USEPA 1987, 2013b). The reliability of this approach was called into question by the ...
 
...to test the quality of the estimated mean, however. Past USEPA guidance has recommended that a minimum of 20 to 30 discrete samples are required to adequately ...
 
...required to adequately represent contaminant heterogeneity within a targeted area (USEPA, 1992b): Data sets with 20 to 30 samples provide fairly consistent ...
 
...the needs of the laboratory for analysis (default 100 grams per sample recommended; USEPA 1987), rather than sampling theory. This issue should likewise be addressed in the SAP. ...
 
...omitted from a data set in order to force the data set to fit a geostatistical model (USEPA 1989, 2006b, g; see also HDOH 2015b); (Note that this conflicts ...
 
...see also HDOH 2015b); (Note that this conflicts with recommendations in the USEPA Pro UCL guidance; USEPA 2013b). The true mean is the concentration of the ...
 
... Pro UCL guidance; USEPA 2013b). The true mean is the concentration of the target contaminant that would be reported ...
 

4.4 Common DU-MIS Investigation Mistakes And Problems
... samples needed to estimate the mean concentration of a contaminant within a DU (USEPA 2013b) are not, however, directly translatable to the number of increments required under ...
 
... § 761.61 (PCB remediation waste) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA; USEPA 1998h). The Hawai‘i State Contingency Plan also authorizes HDOH to require the investigation ...
 
... properties (refer to Section 2). This joint authority has caused problems as USEPA lags behind HDOH in the transition to multi increment sampling methods from outdated discrete ...
 
...and disposal of PCB remediation waste and associated guidance documents (e.g., USEPA 1985, 1986). Use of alternative procedures is provided ...
 
...40 CFR 761.61(c)(1) risk-based disposal approval, subject to the approval of the USEPA Regional Administrator: Any person wishing to sample, cleanup, or dispose ...
 
...DU-MIS investigation methods under TSCA is currently being pursued between HDOH and USEPA Region IX. This MOU would then be referenced for continued investigation and remediation ...
 
...this guidance manual, with notification and allowance for review and comment made to USEPA Region IX. ...
 
...has been made, responsible parties are encouraged to contact the TSCA office of USEPA Region IX when concentrations of PCBs in soil greater than 50 mg/kg are reported for MI ...
 
...at such PCB sites must be approved on a case-by-case basis by both HDOH and USEPA Region IX. Of particular concern under TSCA is the need to minimize ...
 
...with HDOH. If PCB concentrations >50 mg/kg are identified in any DU then USEPA Region IX may also request to review and approve DUs designated for characterization of ...
 
...use of "composite" samples is also limited under TSCA regulations and guidance (e.g., USEPA 1985, 1986). As interpreted by HDOH, a Multi Increment sample is not a composite ...
 
...area," referred to in this guidance as "Spill Area DU" (see Section 3.4.3)(USEPA 1985): The PCB level is assumed to be uniform within (a contamination ...
 
...in order to ensure that at least one sample was collected from each potential area (USEPA 1987): The decision maker must determine� the acceptable probability ...
 
...order to reduce the total cost of laboratory analysis (Figure 4-30; USEPA, 1985, 1987, 1998h). This in effect allowed intentional "dilution" of suspect spill areas ...
 
...coordinate DU designation at PCB-release sites with HDOH and, as necessary, with USEPA Region IX. As noted earlier, the intentional mixing of known or anticipated ...
 

5.0 Collection Of Soil And Sediment Samples
... laboratory if they are to be used for final decision making purposes (e.g., USEPA, 1995b; USACE, 1996; NJDEP, 2005; Nielsen, 2006; see Section ...
 

5.3 Surface Soil Sample Collection
...is generally considered for surface soil DUs, depending on the site-specific DQOs (USEPA, 2011d; CalEPA, 2013). On Hawai‘i sites, the top 0-6 inches or 0-4 inches of ...
 

5.6 Collection Of Multi Increment Samples For VOC Analysis
...desired detection limits, sample preservation method, and holding time limitations (USEPA, 2002h; refer also to MADEP, 2002, TRNCC, 2002 and CalEPA, 2004b). The guidance ...
 
...not recommended (See Section 11.2. This approach was included in the original, USEPA 5035 lab method in order to allow for lower detection limits of VOCs in soil in comparison ...
 
...detection limits of VOCs in soil in comparison to samples extracted into methanol (USEPA, 2002h). Improvements in laboratory methods since that time should provide methanol based ...
 
... combined in methanol at the laboratory prior to analysis (refer to USEPA, 2002h; also see Section 11.2). Individual increments for MI samples are collected in separate ...
 

5.7 Sediment Sampling
...Superfund Program, Representative Sampling Guidance, Volume 5: Water and Sediment (USEPA, 1995c), USGS National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (USGS, 2005), ...
 

5.9 Equipment Preparation / Decontamination
...to minimize the generation of potential hazardous waste (see Section 5 & USEPA 2015). Document the decontamination procedure in the SAP and the final investigation report. ...
 

6.1 Groundwater Monitoring Well Placement
...Place at least one of these wells slightly down gradient of the source area (USEPA, 1995c). Place the third well approximately cross gradient so the three wells ...
 
...upgradient in unaffected areas for the collection of background data is recommended (USEPA, 1995c). Background data are especially important if one or more contaminants of concern occur ...
 

6.2 Monitoring Well Installation and Abandonment
... All permanent groundwater monitoring wells have certain design components in common (USEPA, 1991a). A schematic of a standard groundwater monitoring well is presented in Figure 6-1. ...
 
...activities. Consider the following in the selection of the casing material (USEPA, 1991a; CalEPA, 1995b). The casing material must not alter the groundwater ...
 
...Suggested Practices for the Design and Installation of Groundwater-Monitoring Wells (USEPA, 1991a). Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Volume II, Chapter 11. SW-846 (USEPA, ...
 
...1991a). Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Volume II, Chapter 11. SW-846 (USEPA, 1991c). Monitoring Well Design and Construction for Hydrogeologic Characterization, ...
 
...in Figure 6-2. Joining methods that use solvent welding are not acceptable (USEPA, 1991a), since the practice may introduce solvents into the well. The United States ...
 
...may introduce solvents into the well. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) also excludes the use of welding for stainless steel casings (USEPA, 1991a). ...
 
...also excludes the use of welding for stainless steel casings (USEPA, 1991a). Select the screen for a large percentage of open area, non-clogging slots, ...
 
...area, non-clogging slots, resistance to corrosion, and sufficient structural strength (USEPA, 1995c). Select the screen slot size such that it will retain 90 to 100 percent of the filter ...
 
...screen slot size such that it will retain 90 to 100 percent of the filter pack material (USEPA, 1991a). For typical investigations of shallow groundwater in Hawai`i, a 2-inch diameter ...
 
...or auger used should have an inside diameter of at least 6 and 8 inches, respectively (USEPA, 1991a). Placing the filter pack slowly down the borehole will minimize bridging and surging ...
 
...of bentonite (pellets, chips, or powder) or cement, or bentonite/cement mixtures (USEPA, 1991a). Bentonite is a naturally occurring clay mineral that expands upon hydration. Neat ...
 
... The following criteria are typically achieved during well development (USEPA, 2002b): Removal of at least three times the calculated volume of ...
 
...6-1 to determine the water quality parameters. For the specific methods refer to the USEPA document entitled "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes" (USEPA, 1983) and the ...
 
...document entitled "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes" (USEPA, 1983) and the ASTM standards identified in Table 6-1. Table 6-1 ...
 
...that are commonly found in soil and groundwater contamination fall into four groups (USEPA, 2004c): Chlorinated solvents used in metal finishing, semiconductor manufacturing, ...
 
... to 1 will be influenced by groundwater movement to a greater degree. The USEPA has published a guidance document that helps in the selection of delineation techniques at ...
 
...The following DNAPL properties help in selecting the appropriate delineation techniques (USEPA, 2004c): As a chemical class, DNAPLs are electrically resistive (non-conductive) ...
 
...borehole, the borehole will cease to be a potential conduit for contaminant dispersion (USEPA, 1991a). A groundwater monitoring well that is no longer needed, sustains damage ...
 
...to prevent bridging. Free-fall placement of grout into the borehole is not acceptable (USEPA, 1991a; CalEPA, 1995b; USACE, 1998). When the grout has reached to 5 feet ...
 
...if the groundwater is acidic. Water with an acidic pH may corrode the cement (USEPA, 1991a). The rationale for the choice of grout mixture should be documented in the project-specific ...
 

6.3 Groundwater Gauging
...that measurements are taken within a shorter time period. These conditions include (USEPA, 1999a): The magnitude of the observed changes between wells appears too large. ...
 
...tape with chalk or an electronic water level indicator to measure the depth to water (USEPA, 2002b and 1999a). Select the measuring device carefully for wells deeper than ...
 
... carefully for wells deeper than 200 feet to ensure that the tape does not stretch (USEPA, 2002b). The measurement must be taken with an accuracy of ±0.01 feet. ...
 
...well. Repeat the total well depth measurement at least once to confirm the measurement (USEPA, 1999a). If groundwater sampling is to be completed on the same day, measure the ...
 
...after sampling has been completed to prevent suspension of silt into the water column (USEPA, 1999a). Figure 6-10. Oil-water Interface Meter ...
 
...groundwater table/potentiometric surface and possibly in the groundwater flow direction (USEPA, 1992d; CalEPA, 1995a): Barometric effects Variations in precipitation ...
 
... criteria in the evaluation of data from piezometer/well nests and multi-level wells (USEPA, 1992d): Data obtained from multiple piezometers or wells placed in a single borehole ...
 
...single multi-level monitoring well or sampling device in a single borehole. Refer to the USEPA document entitled "Handbook of Suggested Practices for the Design and Installation of Groundwater-Monitoring ...
 
...of Suggested Practices for the Design and Installation of Groundwater-Monitoring Wells" (USEPA, 1991a) for a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of these types of ...
 
... geological units, and water bearing units. Refer for guidance (USEPA, 1989a; Cedergren, 1977; and Freeze et. al., 1979) on construction and evaluation ...
 

6.4 Purging
...since it may dilute or increase the contaminant concentrations at the sampling point (USEPA, 2002b). Choose a purging device that will not alter the geochemical and physical ...
 
...the purging device material is chemically inert and that it does not adsorb contaminants (USEPA, 2002b). Preferred device materials are PVC, stainless steel and Teflon®. ...
 
... ensures that during sampling, the groundwater has the shortest riser length to pass (USEPA, 2002b). If the intake is placed within the well screen interval, place the intake ...
 
...This method is especially effective if a low-flow purging and sampling technique is used (USEPA, 2002b). All groundwater extracted from wells during purging must be properly containerized, ...
 
...within the well. Do not use this method with screens exceeding 10 feet in length (USEPA, 2002b). The approach is based on the assumption that under minimal ...
 
...high enough that sediment from the bottom of the well is not introduced into the pump (USEPA, 2002b). Keep the pump rate low enough to avoid turbulent flow within the well; ...
 
...a 2-inch well that is typically less than one gallon per minute or 3.8 liters per minute (USEPA, 2002b). Alternatively, use a bailer to remove groundwater from the well. Start ...
 
...to prevent excessive draw down, so bailers or inertial-lift pumps should not be utilized (USEPA, 2002b). In wells that are screened across the water table, it has ...
 
... with less than 4 feet of water in the well and a depth to water of more than 20 feet (USEPA, 2002b). Another option is the use of "minimum-drawdown" purging for low yield ...
 

6.5 Groundwater Sample Collection Methods
...in a monitoring well Contaminants of concern do not include any on the previous list (USEPA, 2002b) Under these circumstances the rationale for peristaltic pump ...
 

6.7 Aquifer Data Collection Methods
...These should be considered when designing aquifer tests and interpreting the results (USEPA, 1992d). On sites with stratified aquifers, perform multiple aquifer tests at different ...
 
...the variability of the hydraulic conductivity and other parameters across the site (USEPA, 1992d). Compare the results of the aquifer test with the data on the existing ...
 
... the isolated section. The procedure provides reliable data when performed properly (USEPA, 1992d). Do not introduce water into a monitoring well that extends into a contaminant plume. ...
 

6.8 Groundwater Modeling
...hydraulic containments; and (5) testing and designing remediation approaches and systems (USEPA, 1992a, 1995c). Computer models may consist of analytical approaches ...
 
...hazards. A groundwater modeling report should, at a minimum, include (USEPA, 1992a): Previous studies Site conceptual model(s) ...
 

6.9 Surface Water Sample Collection Methods
...requires a more rigorous sampling procedure. Follow the procedure recommended by the USEPA in its publication entitled: "Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality ...
 
...entitled: "Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels" (USEPA, 1996d). 6.9.8 Filtration For surface water ...
 

7.0 Soil Vapor and Indoor Air Sampling Guidance
...reports and advisories published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and other states, as well as other publications. A list of references consulted during ...
 

7.1 Soil Vapor Transport Mechanisms and Conceptual Models
... the presence of relatively shallow, free product in vadose-zone soil or groundwater (see USEPA 2013). Under most site scenarios, the breakdown of petroleum compounds by naturally occurring ...
 
...initial release areas and impact overlying homes and buildings (e.g., see API 2005, USEPA 2004e, USEPA 2012) Both chlorinated solvents and non-chlorinated ...
 
...2004e, USEPA 2012) Both chlorinated solvents and non-chlorinated petroleum ...
 

7.2 Soil Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air
...flux of VOC diffusion through the vadose zone is relatively simple to model (e.g., see USEPA 2004e). In practice, estimation of the upward, mass flux of vapor-phase VOCs in the subsurface ...
 
...would be predicted by models based on the soil type observed in the field (see HDOH 2016, USEPA 2012). This is probably due in part to adsorption of vapor-phase VOCs to clays in the soil ...
 
...the use of exhaust fans in kitchens or shop areas (see Figure 7-1; see also USEPA 2004e, ITRC 2007, USEPA 2012d). Wind-induced depressurization of buildings will be ...
 
...2004e, ITRC 2007, USEPA 2012d). Wind-induced depressurization of buildings will be the most likely cause of vapor intrusion ...
 
...could induce the outward flow of indoor air into subslab soils (see also USEPA 2012d). Samples of subslab soil vapor would in turn reflect the concentration of VOCs in indoor ...
 
...of VOCs beneath the slab of a home or building are likely to be heterogeneous (USEPA 2012d; Brewer et al. 2014, in prep). This factor and uncertainty regarding specific, ...
 

7.6 Soil Vapor Sample Collection Procedures
...or the presence of free product on groundwater (e.g., Abreu et. al 2009, McHugh 2010; USEPA 2013). For dissolved-phase contaminants a �vertical separation� distance of fifteen feet ...
 
...vapor sampling should be selected based on the objectives of the investigation (see also USEPA 2012d). If the objective is to identify and map a soil vapor plume, then strategically located ...
 
...concentrations in these soils, in comparison to soils with a higher moisture content (USEPA 2012d). Samples from utility trenches may also be warranted, since coarse fill in the trenches ...
 
...other potential, preferential pathways through the floor and into the building (see also USEPA 2012d). Sample collection adjacent to buildings can be considered if the source of contamination ...
 
...of VOCs beneath the slab of a home or building are likely to be heterogeneous (USEPA 2012d; Brewer et al. 2014, in prep). A minimum of three vapor points is currently recommended ...
 
...be the highest in the absence of specific �hot spots� of contamination beneath the slab (USEPA 2012d; CalEPA 2011; see Section 7.7.2). Vapor points also should be placed in ...
 

7.7 Indoor Air Sample Collection Procedures
...VOCs in soil vapor in indoor air from sources within or outside of the building (e.g., USEPA 2011e). As noted in Table 7-2, background levels of VOCs in indoor air ...
 
...and TCA from degreasing solvents, etc.,). Common sources of VOCs in indoor air include (USEPA 2011e, ITRC 2007, HDOH 2016): Table 7-2 Comparison ...
 
... HDOH 2016; residential indoor air action level noted. USEPA 2011b; Range of 50th percentile noted (<RL = less than laboratory reporting limit). ...
 

7.8 Soil Vapor or Indoor Air Sample Analysis
...shipment. A holding time of 30 days is recommended once the sample has been collected (USEPA 1999b). Most laboratories recommend that canisters be returned within 14 days of receipt in ...
 
...to estimate actual concentration data is hotly debated and not yet widely accepted (e.g., USEPA 2009). This is because the volume of vapor that comes into contact with the adsorbent is ...
 
... from passive sampling are at best within an order of magnitude (e.g., USEPA 2009). Due to this uncertainty, passive soil vapor data are considered to give qualitative ...
 
...the accuracy and quality of field data without increasing lab cost. USEPA conducted a verification study of the major vendor-supplied passive diffusion sample collectors ...
 
...of the major vendor-supplied passive diffusion sample collectors in the late 1990’s (USEPA 1998, USEPA 1998d). As part of this study, the results of passive diffusion samplers ...
 
...1998, USEPA 1998d). As part of this study, the results of passive diffusion samplers were compared to active ...
 
...Diffusion Sampler A passive diffusion sampler (PDS) has been developed by the USEPA Office of Research and Development for soil vapor characterization (Paul 2009). This ...
 
...in application to petroleum and chlorinated solvents have been carried out (e.g., USEPA 2009). Table 7-5 lists the results of one study wherein PDS sampler results were ...
 
...were consistently higher than those reported for the active samples for both PCE and TCE (USEPA 2009). Among other possibilities, this suggests either: 1) A consistent error ...
 

7.9 Gas Phase Sample Evaluation
...gaps in the building slab where vapor intrusion is considered to be most likely (see also USEPA 2012d, CalEPA 2011). Examples of the latter include areas where utilities penetrate ...
 
...used as the primary tubing for soil vapor sampling probes (Ouellette 2004, SDC 2011, USEPA 2009). Tests using these materials show minimal (<10%) loss of VOCs during sample collection. ...
 

7.10 Documentation of Soil Vapor or Indoor Air Sampling
...general in nature and reflect commonly accepted designs and methods recommended by the USEPA (USEPA 1996c), industry standards (ASTM 2006f) and various other entities (e.g., MDNR ...
 
...(USEPA 1996c), industry standards (ASTM 2006f) and various other entities (e.g., MDNR 2005, ...
 
... storms are likely to be nominal for uncovered areas at depths of 2 feet bgs or more (USEPA 2007e). Infiltration from rainfall can potentially impact soil vapor concentrations by displacing ...
 
...and require a longer equilibration time. Recent studies conducted by the USEPA have evaluated equilibration times for a variety of probe types (USEPA 2010c, ...
 
...have evaluated equilibration times for a variety of probe types (USEPA 2010c, USEPA 2010d). Data from these studies indicate that temporary probes (see ...
 
...2010c, USEPA 2010d). Data from these studies indicate that temporary probes (see Section 7.9.1) achieve ...
 

9.1 Pesticide Contamination at Former Agricultural Facilities and Sites
...in the United States Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Level guidance (USEPA 2012b). An evaluation of potential contaminant mobility in terms of ...
 
...of arsenic in the fine-grained fraction of contaminated soil. The USEPA recommends a default bioavailability of 60% for arsenic in soil, based on a review of data ...
 
...in soil, based on a review of data for samples collected primarily on the mainland (USEPA 2012c). This default can be applied to the concentration of total arsenic reported ...
 
...separate chemical. Laboratories should be directed to test for technical chlordane using USEPA Method 8081A or an equivalent method (USEPA 1996). This must be specifically requested ...
 
...Method 8081A or an equivalent method (USEPA 1996). This must be specifically requested prior to submitting the samples for analysis and ...
 
...and use of PCP for wood treatment was significantly restricted by the Federal government (USEPA 2008e; see also ATSDR 2001). The reported concentration of PCP in soil is often below or only ...
 
...to screening levels that do not consider leaching is therefore not appropriate (e.g., USEPA Regional Screening Levels, USEPA 2012b). Reference to the more comprehensive HDOH EALs ...
 
...Regional Screening Levels, USEPA 2012b). Reference to the more comprehensive HDOH EALs or equivalent is required. It is important ...
 
...past, residential action levels (e.g., 390 to 1,000 ng/kg; see Appendix 9-F; see also USEPA 1998g). This does not pose a significant risk to future residents when more site-specific exposure ...
 

9.2 Pesticide Contamination at Non-Agricultural Facilities and Sites
... the military and counties to protect buildings against termite damage. The USEPA banned all production and import of these and other OC pesticides in the 1970s (DDT) and 1980s ...
 

9.3 Petroleum Contaminated Sites
... SGC lab method should be used rather than a shake or funnel method (e.g., Method 3630C, USEPA 1996k). If polar compounds are removed, both non-SGC and SGC data should be reported. ...
 

10.3 Data Quality Assurance Procedures
...and SW-846 Method 8000C       Guidance (USEPA, 2003a) pertaining to laboratory QC. The ...
 
...and sample duplicate pairs will be used to calculate an RPD for evaluating precision (USEPA, 2003a). These are default values that laboratories may use until they develop in-house QC ...
 
... limits for each method, in accordance with the guidelines established in SW-846 (USEPA, 2008a). Laboratory sub-sampling poses the greatest potential for error in soil ...
 
...of the spiked samples are used to calculate the percent recovery for evaluating accuracy (USEPA, 2003a). where: S = Measured spike sample concentration ...
 

10.4 Quality Control
...procedures are those outlined in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) publication entitled: "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-846" (USEPA, 2008a), ...
 
...publication entitled: "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, SW-846" (USEPA, 2008a), and laboratory standard operating procedures (SOPs). Investigators should consult ...
 
... standard operating procedures (SOPs). Investigators should consult the "> USEPA SW-846 website under the following circumstances: During project planning to determine ...
 
... For particulate (e.g., soil or sediment) samples, laboratories should follow the USEPA lab sub-sampling guidance (USEPA, 2003b) to ensure that representative lab sub-samples are ...
 
...lab sub-sampling guidance (USEPA, 2003b) to ensure that representative lab sub-samples are obtained for subsequent analysis. ...
 
... Many of the laboratory QC procedures and requirements are described in USEPA-approved analytical methods, laboratory method SOPs, and method guidance documents. If, however, ...
 

10.5 Field Equipment and Laboratory Instrument Calibration
...day assess whether the calibration curve has drifted as a result of instrument use (USEPA, 2008a). ...
 

10.7 Laboratory QA/QC
...analyzed at a frequency of at least 1 per every 20 field samples (5%) of the same matrix (USEPA, 2003a). 10.7.2 Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) ...
 
...at a frequency of at least 1 per every 20 field samples (i.e., 5%) of the same matrix (USEPA, 2003a). The LCS and LCSD are typically similar in composition to the primary ...
 
...method. The parameters should be developed in accordance with guidelines established in USEPA SW-846 (USEPA, 2008a). In the absence of established guidelines, RPD goals of 20% and Percent ...
 
...SW-846 (USEPA, 2008a). In the absence of established guidelines, RPD goals of 20% and Percent Recovery ...
 
...20% and Percent Recovery goal ranges of 70 to 130% should be used as default objectives (USEPA, 2003a). When both an LCS and an LCSD are processed for a batch of ...
 
...at a frequency of at least 1 per every 20 field samples (i.e., 5%) of the same matrix (USEPA, 2003a). The concentrations of analytes in the sample matrix are known prior to the addition ...
 
...Several cleanup methods may be employed depending upon the target analytes of interest. USEPA Method 3600 from SW-846 provides general guidance on selecting cleanup methods (USEPA, ...
 
...Method 3600 from SW-846 provides general guidance on selecting cleanup methods (USEPA, 2008a). As indicated in USEPA Method 3600, the purpose of applying ...
 
... 2008a). As indicated in USEPA Method 3600, the purpose of applying cleanup methods to extracts is to remove interferences ...
 
...to project-specific particle size, typically Multi-Increment sampling. The USEPA lab sub-sampling guidance (USEPA, 2003b) provides detailed information on sub-sampling procedures. ...
 
...lab sub-sampling guidance (USEPA, 2003b) provides detailed information on sub-sampling procedures. ...
 

11.1 SAMPLE CONTAINERS
...Soil Sample Containers United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 5035 describes a closed-system purge-and-trap process for the analysis of volatile ...
 
...volatile organic compounds in solid materials (e.g., soils, sediments, and solid waste) (USEPA, 1997g), which was subsequently updated with Method 5035A (USEPA, 2002h). The method ...
 
...1997g), which was subsequently updated with Method 5035A (USEPA, 2002h). The method is designed for use on samples containing low levels of VOCs, but procedures ...
 

11.2 SAMPLE PRESERVATION AND HOLD TIMES
... in EPA Method 5035 and 5035A and summarized in Appendices 11-A and 11-B, respectively (USEPA 1997g, 2002h). The sample collection and preparation methods in EPA Method ...
 

11.4 SAMPLE SHIPPING
...hydroxide added to water samples if their pH or percentage by weight criteria is met (USEPA, 1996; USACE, 1998b; US Navy, 2007). Standard preservative volumes in standard ...
 
...(e.g., HCl in 40 ml volatile organic analysis [VOA] jar) fall under this definition (USEPA, 1996; USACE, 1998b; US Navy, 2007). It is extremely important to be aware ...
 

11.5 APPROVED ANALYTICAL METHODS
... Use the methods and standard operating procedures listed in EPA SW-846 (USEPA, 1991c and 2003b) for the analyses conducted under the guidance of this TGM. Consider ...
 
...other EPA-approved methods (such as Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (USEPA, 1983) for analyses that measure parameters such as pH, specific conductance, dissolved ...
 
...3050) to reduce fundamental error in the analysis (see discussion in Section 4.2.2 and USEPA, 2003b; ASTM, 2003). Laboratories conducting metals analyses of soils should therefore ...
 

Appendix 11-A Tables
...and not prescriptive as the EPA prefix methods. Holding times are from SW-846 (USEPA 2007). A longer holding time may be appropriate if it can be demonstrated ...
 
... References:   USEPA, 2007, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (Revision ...
 

13.2 DEVELOPMENT OF VAPOR INTRUSION SCREENING TOOLS
...update to indoor air:subslab soil vapor attenuation factors initially proposed by USEPA researchers in the early 2000s and published for public review in 2012 (USEPA 2012b.). ...
 
...researchers in the early 2000s and published for public review in 2012 (USEPA 2012b.). The �empirical database� used to derive the 2012 USEPA attenuation factors ...
 
...2012b.). The �empirical database� used to derive the 2012 USEPA attenuation factors was subsequently determined to be unreliable (Brewer et al. 2014b.). ...
 
...for potential vapor intrusion risks. Reliability of the approach used by USEPA required a high degree of uniformity of VOC concentrations in vapors beneath building slabs. ...
 
... regarding actual vapor entry points into a building, negates the validity of the USEPA database for derivation of indoor air:subslab attenuation factors. As an alternative, Brewer ...
 
... Brewer et al. (Brewer et al., 2014b), refer back to the original approach proposed by USEPA (USEPA, 2004f.) based on better supported building leakage rates in various climate ...
 
...(USEPA, 2004f.) based on better supported building leakage rates in various climate regions ...
 
...to develop soil vapor action levels presented in the HDOH EHE guidance. Two USEPA vapor intrusion guidance documents were being finalized for publication at the time that the ...
 
...al. (Brewer at al., 2014b.) research was published, one for vapor intrusion in general (USEPA 2015c.) and one specific to vapor intrusion associated with petroleum (USEPA ...
 
... 2015c.) and one specific to vapor intrusion associated with petroleum (USEPA 2015b). The research published by Brewer et al. (Brewer et al., ...
 
...published by Brewer et al. (Brewer et al., 2014b.) is referenced in the USEPA petroleum vapor intrusion guidance. The research is not, however, referenced in the general ...
 
...prepared and revised somewhat independently. Although publication of the USEPA vapor intrusion guidance documents postdate publication of the Brewer et al. (Brewer et al., ...
 
...of indoor air:subslab vapor attenuation factors in the documents based on the 2012, USEPA �empirical database� should be considered invalid and not referred to for use in site-specific, ...
 

13.4 CHEMICALS NOT LISTED IN LOOKUP TABLES
...hazards (refer to Section 13.1; see also HDOH, 2016). In particular, the USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs, USEPA, 2012a and updates) cannot be used as standalone ...
 
...Regional Screening Levels (RSLs, USEPA, 2012a and updates) cannot be used as standalone criteria for the evaluation of contaminated ...
 

14.2 Removal Actions for Non-Emergency Environmental Cleanups
...on affects on environmental media). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) provides guidance on  " target="_blank"> presumptive remedies, which are ...
 

16.1 Conducting a Remedial Investigation
...based on effects on environmental media). United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) provides guidance on presumptive remedies, which are preferred by the HEER Office where appropriate. ...
 
... on presumptive remedies, which are preferred by the HEER Office where appropriate. The USEPA " target="_blank"> Presumptive Remedies website. When reviewing presumptive ...
 
...is considered to be the preferred choice for a particular site. The USEPA has developed specific presumptive remedy " target="_blank">guidance documents pertaining ...
 

16.2 Setting Remedial Action Objectives and Conducting a Remedial Alternatives Analysis
...applicable HDOH EALs for a residential (unrestricted use) scenario Utilize USEPA " target="_blank">presumptive remedies to the to the extent practicable While ...
 

19.1 Site Closure Scoping
...future land use is available from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2001d). 19.1.2 Remedy Selection and Site Closure Implications ...
 

7.10 Documentation of Soil Vapor or Indoor Air Sampling
...areas often exceed purely risk-based, indoor air action levels (HDOH 2016, USEPA 2011e, USEPA 2012, USEPA 2012b). For residential structures, outdoor ...
 
...2011e, USEPA 2012, USEPA 2012b). For residential structures, outdoor air samples ...
 
... 2012, USEPA 2012b). For residential structures, outdoor air samples should be ideally collected ...
 
...when conducting building surveys. Vapor intrusion assessment guidance manuals from the USEPA (USEPA 2004e), the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC 2007) and the California ...
 
...(USEPA 2004e), the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC 2007) and the California EPA ...
 
... Samples collected in Summa canisters should be analyzed for VOCs in the laboratory using USEPA method TO-14 or TO-15 (Section 7.13.1). Methods TO-14 and TO-15 are similar. Method TO-15 offers ...
 
...Samples collected on sorbent tubes or passive samplers are typically analyzed using USEPA methods TO-1, TO-2, or TO-17, with the latter most commonly selected (see Section ...
 

7.10 Documentation of Soil Vapor or Indoor Air Sampling
... (0.01-100 ppbv) USEPA 1999b TO-2 3 ...
 
... (0.1-200 ppbv) USEPA 1999b TO-3 ...
 
... (0.1-200 ppbv) USEPA 1999b TO-4A ...
 
... 0.5 � 2 µg/sample USEPA 1999b TO-10A ...
 
... 0.5 � 2 µg/sample USEPA 1999b TO-12 ...
 
... (100-200,000 ppbv) USEPA 1999b TO-13A 3 ...
 
... (0.6 � 600 ppbv) USEPA 1999b TO-14A ...
 
... (0.2-2.5 ppbv) USEPA 1999b TO-15 4 ...
 
... (0.2-2.5 ppbv) USEPA 1999b TO-15A ...
 
... (0.002-0 .04 ppbv) USEPA 1999b TO-17 3,4 ...
 
... (0.2-2.5 ppbv) USEPA 1999b Method 3C ...
 
... (10,000 ppbv) USEPA 1999b Method 16 ...
 
... (50 ppbv) USEPA 1999b 8015B/ ...
 
... (100 � 10,000 ppbv) USEPA 1998b 8021B ...
 
... (0.3 � 30 ppbv) USEPA 1998b 8260B ...
 
... (0.6 � 25 ppbv) USEPA 1998b 8270C ...
 
... (20,000 � 100,000 ppbv) USEPA 1998b D1945-03(2010) ...
 
... TO-17, 8015 USEPA 1999b USEPA 1998b ...
 
...1999b USEPA 1998b ...
 
... TO-15, TO-17, 8012, 8260 USEPA 1999b USEPA 1998b ...
 
...1999b USEPA 1998b ...
 
... TO-2, TO-17, 8260, 8021 USEPA 1999b USEPA 1998b ...
 
...1999b USEPA 1998b ...
 
...TO-17, 8270 (sorbent methods) USEPA 1998b ...
 
... ASTM D-1946, 3C USEPA 1996j Polynuclear aromatic ...
 
... TO-13 USEPA 1999b Notes: ...
 
...vapor samples typically reserved for landfill gas samples may be appropriate (USEPA 1998b). There is some concern that the solid waste program methods might be biased ...
 
... and maintenance of the analytical equipment. Most analytical methods recommended by the USEPA include minimum quality control measures designed to assess the performance of the analytical ...
 
... calibration of instruments and an assessment of the analytical accuracy and precision (USEPA 2000d, API 2005). Analytical accuracy and precision are typically assessed through the use ...
 
...quality control measures for analytical methods are included in the method documentation (USEPA 1998b; USEPA 1999b; USEPA 2004e). ...
 
...1998b; USEPA 1999b; USEPA 2004e). ...
 
...1999b; USEPA 2004e). ...
 

7.10 Documentation of Soil Vapor or Indoor Air Sampling
...be compared to both risk-based action levels and typical background concentrations (e.g., USEPA 2011d). A summary of action levels and typical background concentrations of common VOCs ...
 
... Building Air Quality, A Guide for Building owners and Facility Managers (USEPA 1991d); The Inside Story: A Guide to Indoor Air Quality (USEPA 1995f); ...
 
...1991d); The Inside Story: A Guide to Indoor Air Quality (USEPA 1995f); Building Indoor Air Quality Action Plan (USEPA 1998f); Indoor ...
 
...1995f); Building Indoor Air Quality Action Plan (USEPA 1998f); Indoor Air Quality Building Education and Assessment Model (USEPA 2008d). ...
 
...1998f); Indoor Air Quality Building Education and Assessment Model (USEPA 2008d). A detailed review of site-specific vapor intrusion risks can also be carried ...
 
... might include one or more of the following components (e.g., refer to USEPA 2008c, CalEPA 2011b): Base of permeable fill with collection system ...
 

Appendix 4-A1 Volatile Chemicals Requiring Field Preservation Of Soil Sample Increments
... conditions (V - volatile, SV - Semi-Volatile (*SV - Treated as "volatile" in USEPA risk assessment models if H > 0.00001), S - solid, ...
 

Appendix 4-A1 Volatile Chemicals Requiring Field Preservation Of Soil Sample Increments
... conditions (V - volatile, SV - Semi-Volatile (*SV - Treated as "volatile" in USEPA risk assessment models if H > 0.00001), S - solid, ...
 

Appendix 4-A2 Volatile Chemicals Requiring Field Preservation Of Soil Sample Increments
...- volatile, SV - Semi-Volatile (*SV - Treated as "volatile" in USEPA risk assessment models if H >0.00001), S - solid, L - liquid, G - gas). ...
 

13.7 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS
...health effects resulting from human exposure to hazardous substances. In 1986, the USEPA established risk assessment guidelines to provide consistency and technical support between ...
 
...risk assessment guidelines to provide consistency and technical support between the USEPA and other regulatory agencies. The HEER Office recommends that HHRAs be prepared following ...
 
...other regulatory agencies. The HEER Office recommends that HHRAs be prepared following USEPA risk assessment guidelines. The fundamentals of USEPA�s HHRA methodology are presented in Risk ...
 
...risk assessment guidelines. The fundamentals of USEPA�s HHRA methodology are presented in Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I, Human ...
 
...Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) (USEPA, 1989e). A HHRA applies four evaluation components as the basis ...
 
...potential health risks posed to current and/or potential future receptors at a site (USEPA, 1989e), as shown in Table 13-5. Table 13-5 Evaluation ...
 
...maximum exposure (RME) by any potential exposure route. The RME, as defined by the USEPA (USEPA, 1989e), is the "highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur" and ...
 
...(USEPA, 1989e), is the "highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur" and is intended ...
 
...combination. Exposure factors are available in Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997e), Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document (USEPA ...
 
... 1997e), Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document (USEPA 1996b), and Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund ...
 
...Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites (USEPA, 2002e), among other sources. An exposure point concentration is a reasonable estimate of the ...
 
...estimate of the concentration likely to be contacted over time by potential receptors (USEPA, 1989e). A discussion of approaches to determine average contaminant concentrations ...
 
...Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) (USEPA, 1989e). 13.7.1.3 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT The purpose of ...
 
... exposure to a COPC and the increased likelihood and/or severity of adverse effects (USEPA, 1989e). Because the USEPA has established values for the toxicity of most typically ...
 
...1989e). Because the USEPA has established values for the toxicity of most typically encountered COPCs, the toxicity ...
 
...to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a portion of a lifetime (USEPA, 1989e). Refer to Appendix 1 of the HDOH EHE guidance for a summary ...
 
...action levels. Except as noted, the toxicity factors for the EALs reflect those used for USEPA Regional Screening Levels guidance (USEPA, 2012). 13.7.1.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION ...
 
...Regional Screening Levels guidance (USEPA, 2012). 13.7.1.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION For complete ...
 
... For carcinogens, cancer risks are calculated according to the following equation (USEPA, 1989e): Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk = Lifetime Average Daily Intake x Cancer ...
 
...For non-carcinogens, hazard quotients are calculated according to the following equation (USEPA, 1989e): Hazard Quotient = Average Daily Intake / Reference Dose ...
 
...Dose Incremental lifetime cancer risk probabilities may be compared to the USEPA acceptable risk levels. The USEPA has established a potentially acceptable range of 10-4 ...
 
...acceptable risk levels. The USEPA has established a potentially acceptable range of 10-4 to 10-6 for lifetime cancer risk (USEPA, ...
 
...has established a potentially acceptable range of 10-4 to 10-6 for lifetime cancer risk (USEPA, 1989e, 1991b). Remediation or risk management is almost always warranted at sites ...
 
...this range are "potentially acceptable", depending on site-specific considerations) (USEPA, 1991b). It should be noted that the calculated risk values are upper-bound estimates of excess ...
 
...index of less than or equal to one indicates no potential for non-cancer health hazard (USEPA, 2001c). 13.7.2 REPRESENTATIVE CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS ...
 
... assessment. This was referred to as the �exposure point concentration� in past guidance (USEPA 1989e). Exposure �area� concentration is more precise of the intent of the data, however. Receptors ...
 
...sample data is strongly recommended for estimation of exposure area concentrations. Early USEPA guidance relies on statistical tests for discrete sample data sets to estimate an exposure ...
 
...using the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children (IEUBK) (USEPA, 1994b). For adults, EPA�s 1996 adult interim guidance should be used � the "Adult ...
 
...For adults, EPA�s 1996 adult interim guidance should be used � the "Adult Lead Model" (USEPA, 1996e). These models are available for download free-of-charge from the USEPA web site. ...
 
...1996e). These models are available for download free-of-charge from the USEPA web site. Both models take into account intake and uptake components of lead exposure, ...
 
...of the associated lead exposure for both current and potential future populations (USEPA, 2002, USEPA, 2002i). USEPA guidance for lead-contaminated soil calls ...
 
...2002, USEPA, 2002i). USEPA guidance for lead-contaminated soil calls for the comparison of ...
 
...2002i). USEPA guidance for lead-contaminated soil calls for the comparison of lead concentrations in the ...
 
...comparison of lead concentrations in the <250 micron soil fraction to action levels (USEPA, 2000e). The fine soil fraction is considered to be the particle size fraction ...
 
...also call for the use of the %lt;250 micron soil fraction in bioaccessibility tests (USEPA, 2000e). This also applies for bioaccessibility tests carried out on arsenic-contaminated soils. ...
 
...include the following: Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual (USEPA, 1988c) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I, Human Health Evaluation ...
 
...Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) (USEPA, 1989e) Technical Support Document: Parameters and Equations ...
 
...Used in the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children (USEPA, 1994b) Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual (CalEPA, 1994) ...
 
...2004b) Superfund Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document (USEPA, 1996b) Supplemental Guidance For Human Health Multimedia Risk Assessments of ...
 
...Sites and Permitted Facilities (CalEPA, 1996b) Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997e) Health Effects Summary Tables (USEPA, 1997) Assessing the Significance of ...
 
...1997e) Health Effects Summary Tables (USEPA, 1997) Assessing the Significance of Subsurface Contaminant Vapor Migration to ...
 
... Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites (USEPA, 2002e) USEPA Regional Screening Levels: (USEPA, 2012). ...
 
...2002e) USEPA Regional Screening Levels: (USEPA, 2012). The 2012 USEPA Regional ...
 
...Regional Screening Levels: (USEPA, 2012). The 2012 USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) replace Preliminary Remediation ...
 
...2012). The 2012 USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) replace Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) previously published ...
 
...(RSLs) replace Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) previously published by individual USEPA regions (e.g., USEPA, 2012). The USEPA RSLs have been incorporated into HDOH Environmental ...
 
...regions (e.g., USEPA, 2012). The USEPA RSLs have been incorporated into HDOH Environmental Action Levels for screening ...
 
...2012). The USEPA RSLs have been incorporated into HDOH Environmental Action Levels for screening of potential ...
 

13.8 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSEMENTS
...a hazardous waste site on plants and animals other than people or domesticated species (USEPA, 1989c). An Ecological Risk Assessment consists of four interrelated activities, listed in ...
 
... Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume II Environmental Evaluation Manual (USEPA, 1989c) Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for ...
 
... for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments (USEPA, 1997d) Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessments at Hazardous Waste Sites and ...
 

Appendix 9-B Initial Shortlist of Pesticides Used in Sugarcane and Pineapple Operations
... Toxicity value availability noted as "Yes" if listed in May 2008 USEPA Regional Screening Levels guidance (USEPA, 2008). KoC values from ...
 
... Regional Screening Levels guidance (USEPA, 2008). KoC values from same reference. ...
 
... 4 USEPA. Reregistration Eligibility Decision - Amitrole. List A. Case 0095. (http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/0095red.pdf) ...
 

Appendix 9-B Initial Shortlist of Pesticides Used in Sugarcane and Pineapple Operations
... ● KoC values from USEPA May 2008 RSL guidance when available; otherwise as complied as noted in Appendix 9-A. ...
 

5.10 Investigation Derived Waste
...of following completion of the investigation. Typical types of IDW include (after USEPA 2014; see also USEPA 1991, SERAS 1994): Personal protective equipment ...
 
...2014; see also USEPA 1991, SERAS 1994): Personal protective equipment (PPE, e.g. disposable ...
 
...site investigation in order to qualify for small quantity generator exemption; refer to USEPA 1991, 2014). Double bag and dispose of in an on-site ...
 
...any hazardous IDW. The use of solvents for cleaning of equipment should be minimized (USEPA 2014). Solvent-free cleaning procedures for routine cleaning and decontamination as described ...
 
...cleaning and decontamination as described in Section should be referred to (see also USEPA 2015). If the use of solvents is required, for example at sites impacted with tarry material, ...
 
...a sheen, and is not allowed to runoff into a surface water body or storm drain (refer to USEPA 2014). If these criteria cannot be met then the water must be disposed of at an offsite, regulated ...
 

8.0 FIELD SCREENING METHODS
...a general overview of selected field screening methods that have been approved by USEPA or other state environmental protection programs and is not intended to be comprehensive. A ...
 
...fluorescence, membrane interface probes and fiber-optic chemical sensors. Refer to the USEPA link for Field Analytic Technologies noted in Table 8-2 for more detailed information on ...
 
...methods is consistent with the �Triad� approach to site investigations promoted by the USEPA (USEPA, 2010e, Triad Resource Center, 2011). This includes the use of real-time field ...
 
...(USEPA, 2010e, Triad Resource Center, 2011). This includes the use of real-time field measurements ...
 
...sets of samples (refer to TGM Section 4.2.7). The USEPA maintains a detailed overview of Field Analytic Techniques (USEPA, 2007). Refer to EPA�s ...
 
...maintains a detailed overview of Field Analytic Techniques (USEPA, 2007). Refer to EPA�s web page for additional information. New methods are constantly ...
 

8.2 DATA QUALITY CONTROL AND DOCUMENTATION
...of the concentration of arsenic reported through use of ex situ field XRF analyses to USEPA Method 6010B (ICP) laboratory analyses (e.g., refer to discussion of Field XRF below). A minimum ...
 

8.3 FIELD SCREENING METHODS AND DOCUMENTATION
...Field screening methods with supporting documentation equivalent to that published by the USEPA for standard laboratory methods typically offer a higher level of data quality and reliability ...
 
...methods typically offer a higher level of data quality and reliability (e.g., SW-846, USEPA 2010). Documentation for the field screening methods describes the intended use, proper ...
 
...and result calculation. As described in Subsection 8.4 below and in the links to USEPA methods, documentation has been published by the USEPA for many but not all field screening ...
 
...methods, documentation has been published by the USEPA for many but not all field screening methods. Field screening methods from a source other than ...
 
...but not all field screening methods. Field screening methods from a source other than the USEPA methods would ideally cover the same level of detail, but at a minimum, documentation for field ...
 

8.4 FIELD SCREENING METHODS FOR SELECT CONTAMINANTS AND MEDIA
... Information is provided below for examples of field screening methods (USEPA methods or state environmental program methods) that may be applicable for site investigations ...
 
...that may be applicable for site investigations or removal/remediation work. For USEPA methods, check for the latest applicable method editions at the SW 846 methods website ...
 
...check for the latest applicable method editions at the SW 846 methods website (USEPA, 2010). Other sources of field screening methods may be acceptable, as discussed in ...
 
... Method 6200 (USEPA 2007g): Field Portable XRF Spectrometry for the Determination of Elemental Concentrations ...
 
...operator of the analytical equipment. The common laboratory USEPA 3050B acid digest method, though not as complete a digestion as stronger acid digest methods, ...
 
... investigations (refer to Sections 3 and 4 for further information). USEPA Method 6200 provides information relevant to data quality objectives specific for use of ...
 
... provides information relevant to data quality objectives specific for use of an XRF (USEPA 2007g). Target Analytes: The number of metals that can ...
 
...with elevated lead can be problematic due to fluorescence peak interference (USEPA 2007), as the dominant lead peak (L-alpha) emits at the same energy as the ...
 
...at the laboratory and analyzed using a nearly complete acid extraction (e.g., USEPA Method 3051) and Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry analysis ...
 
...be required to generate an acceptable regression line in some situations (e.g., USEPA 2007). If more than one soil type is present at a site (e.g., with different proportions ...
 
...XRF. A subset of these samples was analyzed offsite for both total arsenic (USEPA Methods 3050B/6020) and bioaccessible arsenic (environmental hazards ...
 
...detailed information on these types of analyses. USEPA 4030 (USEPA, 1996l): Soil Screening for Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Immunoassay ...
 
...4030 (USEPA, 1996l): Soil Screening for Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Immunoassay ...
 
... confirmation data required for final decision making. USEPA 9074 (USEPA, 2007h): Turbidimetric Screening Method for Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons ...
 
...9074 (USEPA, 2007h): Turbidimetric Screening Method for Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons in ...
 
...available turbidimetric kits include the PetroFLAG™ system (see also USEPA 2001f). Target Analytes: Broad spectrum of petroleum hydrocarbons ...
 
... USEPA Innovative Technology Verification Reports (USEPA, 2008): Note: Various field testing ...
 
...Innovative Technology Verification Reports (USEPA, 2008): Note: Various field testing methodologies are evaluated and detailed ...
 
... and judged reliable for TPH in soil include: 1) the Remediaid TPH Starter Kit (USEPA, 2001g) and 2) the UVF 3100 TPH Analytical Test Kit (USEPA, 2001g). ...
 
...2001g) and 2) the UVF 3100 TPH Analytical Test Kit (USEPA, 2001g). Remediaid TPH Starter Kit (USEPA, 2001g): ...
 
...2001g). Remediaid TPH Starter Kit (USEPA, 2001g): Method: Measurement based on a combination ...
 
... UVF 3100 TPH Analytical Test Kit (USEPA, 2001h): Method: Soil measurement utilizes an ultraviolet ...
 
... confirmation data required for final decision making. USEPA 4035 (USEPA, 1996m): Soil Screening for PAHs by Immunoassay ...
 
...4035 (USEPA, 1996m): Soil Screening for PAHs by Immunoassay Method: ...
 
...ring PAH compounds and also recognizes most of the five and six ring PAHs listed in USEPA Method 8310. This test detects PAHs present at concentrations above 1 mg/kg. ...
 
...into positive and negative ions that can then be measure with a detector (see USEPA Field Analytic Technologies link in Table 8-2; refer also to RAE Systems ...
 
... USEPA 4020 (USEPA, 1996n): Screening for PCBs by Immunoassay ...
 
...4020 (USEPA, 1996n): Screening for PCBs by Immunoassay Method: Test ...
 
... comparison data required for final decision making purposes. USEPA 9078 (USEPA, 1996o): Screening Test Method for PCBs in Soil ...
 
...9078 (USEPA, 1996o): Screening Test Method for PCBs in Soil Method: ...
 
... comparison data required for final decision making purposes. USEPA 9079 (USEPA,1996p): Screening Test Method for PCBs in Transformer Oil ...
 
...9079 (USEPA,1996p): Screening Test Method for PCBs in Transformer Oil ...
 
...and polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDD/PCDF) compounds. USEPA 4025m (USEPA, 2014b): Screening for PCDDs/PCDFs by Immunoassay ...
 
...4025m (USEPA, 2014b): Screening for PCDDs/PCDFs by Immunoassay Method: ...
 
...of this method has been validated by the SITE Program in two separate phases (USEPA 2008f). The effectiveness of the rapid sample preparation (separate from ...
 
...of CALUX bioassay kit for Dioxins and PCBs (Xenobiotic Detection Systems, USEPA Method 4435). USEPA ...
 
...Method 4435). USEPA 4435 (USEPA, 2014c): Method for TEQ Determinations for Dioxin-like Chemical Activity with ...
 
...4435 (USEPA, 2014c): Method for TEQ Determinations for Dioxin-like Chemical Activity with the CALUX ...
 
... equivalent (TEQ) dioxins using both High Resolution GC/MS and CALUX, USEPA Field Screening Method 4435 (HDOH 2007e). The study showed that CALUX consistently ...
 
...VOC screening USEPA 3815 (USEPA, 2007i): Screening Solid Samples for Volatile Organics ...
 
...3815 (USEPA, 2007i): Screening Solid Samples for Volatile Organics ...
 
...components USEPA 4041 (USEPA, 1996q): Soil Screening for Chlordane by Immunoassay ...
 
...4041 (USEPA, 1996q): Soil Screening for Chlordane by Immunoassay ...
 
... also present at the site, this method may not be appropriate. USEPA 4042 (USEPA, 1996r): Soil Screening for DDT by Immunoassay ...
 
...4042 (USEPA, 1996r): Soil Screening for DDT by Immunoassay Method: ...
 
... also present at the site, this method may not be appropriate. USEPA 4040 (USEPA, 1996s): Soil Screening for Toxaphene by Immunoassay ...
 
...4040 (USEPA, 1996s): Soil Screening for Toxaphene by Immunoassay ...
 
...samples are required for final decision making. USEPA 4015 (USEPA, 1996t): Screening for 2,4-D in Soil or Water by Immunoassay ...
 
...4015 (USEPA, 1996t): Screening for 2,4-D in Soil or Water by Immunoassay ...
 
...data are required for final decision making purposes. USEPA 4670 (USEPA, 2007j): Triazine Herbicides as Atrazine in Water by Quantitative Immunoassay ...
 
...4670 (USEPA, 2007j): Triazine Herbicides as Atrazine in Water by Quantitative Immunoassay ...
 
...comparison data is required for final decision making purposes. USEPA 4010A (USEPA, 1996u): Screening for Pentachlorophenol (in Soil and Wastewater) by Immunoassay ...
 
...4010A (USEPA, 1996u): Screening for Pentachlorophenol (in Soil and Wastewater) by Immunoassay ...
 
... are also present at the site, this method may not be appropriate. USEPA 8540 (USEPA, 2007k): Pentachlorophenol in Soil by UV-induced Colorimetry ...
 
...8540 (USEPA, 2007k): Pentachlorophenol in Soil by UV-induced Colorimetry ...
 
...kit. USEPA 4050 (USEPA, 1996v): TNT Explosives in Soil by Immunoassay ...
 
...4050 (USEPA, 1996v): TNT Explosives in Soil by Immunoassay Method: ...
 
...comparison samples are required for final decision making purposes. USEPA 4051 (USEPA, 1996w): RDX in Soil by Immunoassay Method: The method ...
 
...4051 (USEPA, 1996w): RDX in Soil by Immunoassay Method: The method is performed ...
 
... samples are required for final decision making purposes. USEPA 8515 (USEPA, 1996x): Colorimetric Screening Method for TNT in Soil ...
 
...8515 (USEPA, 1996x): Colorimetric Screening Method for TNT in Soil ...
 

8.5 FIELD SCREENING WITH CONE PENETROMETER AND SENSORS/PROBES
...samples collected from the site to allow accurate interpretation of the CPT data (USEPA 2005). Correlate conductivity (resistivity) data collected by CPT techniques to ...
 
...have a very low conductivity and can thus be detected by conductivity measurements (USEPA 2004c and 2005). Light non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPLs) can also be detected; however, ...
 
...can also be detected; however, other methods are more efficient in locating LNAPL plumes (USEPA 2005). Because conductivity is influenced by soil type, water saturation, solute ...
 
...contaminant pathways in the subsurface, or to aid in the selection of sampling locations (USEPA 2005). Available chemical analytical sensors include: laser-induced fluorescence ...
 
...systems for the detection of volatile organic compounds in soil and groundwater (USEPA 2004 and 2005). USEPA evaluation of chemical sensors used with CPT has ...
 
...2004 and 2005). USEPA evaluation of chemical sensors used with CPT has revealed that the sensor output does not correlate ...
 
...the sensor output does not correlate well with results obtained from laboratory methods (USEPA 1998; USEPA 1995). The HEER Office considers chemical data collected with CPT techniques as ...
 
...1998; USEPA 1995). The HEER Office considers chemical data collected with CPT techniques as qualitative. ...