what’s good in the asc nepm 2013 amendment...ecological investigation levels (for a range of soil...

What’s Good in the ASC NEPM 2013 Amendment

Ross McFarland, Technical Director – Environment October, 2013

The 2013 ASC NEPM:

• Consists of more than 1,307 pages,

• covers nine specialist areas;

• Is published as 22 volumes,

• It takes up 24.4MB,

• It took me 28 hours to absorb and digest on a quiet island

We have about an hour…….

ASC NEPM 2013 Amendment

Health and Safety Moment

Safety on stairways

- Slips, trips and falls hazard

- On-site, in the office, public buildings and at home

- Assess your load & plan ahead

- Take caution on escalators

Objectives: What do we want to achieve today?

- Provide an overview of the new ASC NEPM

- Provide contact details for further assistance

Overview

- Introduce the ASC NEPM 2013 Amendment

- What’s changed since 1999 ASC NEPM

- Details of Key Schedule Changes:

• Schedule B1 – Investigation Levels

• Schedule B2 – Site Characterisation

• Schedule B5 – Ecological Risk Assessment and EILs

• Schedule B6 – Risk-Based Assessment of Groundwater

• Schedule B7 – Health-based Investigation Levels (including volatiles)

- Discussion and Key Contacts

2013 ASC NEPM Schedules

- Schedule B1: Investigation levels for soil & groundwater

- Schedule B2: Site characterisation

- Schedule B3: Laboratory analysis of soils

- Schedule B4: Site-specific health risk assessments

- Schedule B5: Ecological risk assessments & EILs

- Schedule B6: Risk based assessment of groundwater

- Schedule B7: Health-based investigation levels

- Schedule B8: Community engagement & risk communication

- Schedule B9: Competencies & acceptance of environmental auditors

ASC NEPM: Why is the Amendment Important?

- Premier guidance document in Australia for the assessment of site contamination

- Given effect by individual legislation and guidelines in each state and territory

- 2013 amendment repeals all 1999 schedules and substitutes with new schedules

- Transition period of up to 12 months allows for

• Regulators to implement legislative or administrative steps

NSWEPA has approved new NEPM under S105 of CLM Act

• Companies to finalise and submit work consistent with 1999 NEPM and already substantially progressed (justification needed)

• Laboratories to modify relevant procedures

Comparison - Schedule B1: 1999 Contents

Comparison - Schedule B1: 2013 Contents

Schedule B1: What’s Changed? 1999 NEPM 2013 NEPM Amendment

Health-based

Investigation

Levels (HILs)

and “HSLs”

HILs for 33 substances, limited info on

derivation (NEHF workshop derived)

Six (6) landuse scenarios. No HSLs

Detailed derivation, 41 HIL substances – very

detailed justifications provided

Four (4) landuse scenarios (confusion) and now

three 3 ESL landuse scenarios! HSLs?

Volatiles No criteria 5 new interim HILs for Volatile Organic

Chlorinated Compounds (VOCCs) +

se of CRC CARE (2011) HSLs

Ecological

Investigation

Levels (EILs)

For urban landuse, based on phytotoxicity,

soil survey data and ANZECC B values

Arbitrary/ not protective of eco. values

15 inorganic substances

Derivation based on ecotox. endpoints for

protection of terrestrial ecosystems.

6 inorganic substances +

7 organic substances, but also some

“permutations”… and four HC “fractions”

Groundwater

Investigation

Levels (GILs)

Based on ANZECC 1992 Australian Water

Quality Guidelines (AQWG) and NHMRC

1996 Drinking Water Guidelines (DWG)

Based on ANZECC 2000 AWQG and NHMRC

2011 DWG plus NHMRC 2008 guidance for

primary contact recreation receptor

Asbestos No guidance Detailed guidance and health screening levels

(and some management…)

Sediment

No criteria Reference ANZECC 2000 Interim Sediment

Quality Guidelines (ISQGs)

Aesthetics Very limited guidance More detailed guidance

Structural

Criterion for sulfate only Not discussed

Schedule B1: Soil & Groundwater Investigation Levels

More detailed guidance = greater need for site-specific considerations (but can be smart with conservative approach for low risk sites)

To best apply the new Schedule B1 investigation values, need to be familiar with the updated framework laid out in the supporting Schedules

Some key schedules identified for discussion today, but ALL others are just as important!!

No Dioxins HIL, now need to consider site-specific risk assessment

EPA and Site Auditors will be looking for references to individual Schedules in reports, not just NEPC (2013)

Schedule B2: Site Characterisation


Overall more detailed guidance, in particular including CSM, systematic planning, data quality assessment, soil vapour, asbestos & dioxins

Conceptual Site Model

• Needs to be the foundation of all contaminated site investigations

• Refine with additional information at each investigation stage

• Underpins the Sampling Analysis Quality Plan (SAQP)

• Identifies data gaps and uncertainty to guide investigations

• Important to consider margin of safety when screening data

• Divide site into assessment areas, where appropriate

• Target data collection to critical source-pathway-receptor linkages

• Assess robustness of CSM - screening tool in CRC CARE Technical Report 11


- Soil Investigation

• New techniques discussed e.g. CPT, MIP, LIF & geophysics

• Collection of representative samples emphasised, e.g. depth control and continuous soil cores recommended

• Justify investigative techniques in SAQP

• Depends on stage of investigation, the type of contaminant, depth required, the underlying geology, and type of sample required

• Jurisdictions may have specific requirements where stockpile material is to be recycled, recovered and reused

- Soil Vapour Sampling: Multiple lines of evidence important


- Data Quality Assessment

• Data Quality Objectives (DQO) approach is critical

• Evaluate data quality prior to assessment or statistical analysis

• QA/QC checklist tool provided in Appendix C of Schedule B2

• Reports should include details of:

field methods, lab methods

chemical-specific quality control methods

assessment of data quality indicators (DQIs)

field and lab QA/QC programs

- Max, Mean, 95% UCL and SD key summary statistics

Asbestos

NEPM adopts Western Australian Department of Health Guidelines for the Assessment, Remediation and Management of Asbestos-Contaminated Sites in Western Australia (WA DoH, 2009)

Note: • No Free asbestos fibres in accessible soils • Emphasis on need to demonstrate “competent person” involvement • Jurisdictions/Auditor needs to confirm what is “surface soil”

Asbestos

- Determining soil asbestos levels:

• Guidelines assume on-site management is an option

• Bonded ACM has threshold levels, calculated conservatively

• Calculation is based on sample unit specifics (e.g. 10L, 7x7mm sieve) or reasonable investigation area (e.g. 10m x 10m grid)

• Different strata must have separate sampling characterisation

• Dilution must be avoided - clean soil or larger area averaging not permitted

• Currently no NATA method but OK to use non-NATA method as long as method is justified – NATA method is under development.

- Guidance is based on management option being preferred…

Schedules B5, B6 & B7: EILs, GILs & HILs

X X X X X

X X

Lots of new information……………….

Schedule B5: Ecological Risk Assessments & EILs


• The previous NEPM (1999) outlined a tiered approach to risk assessment (Tier 1, 2 and 3); but provided limited additional guidance.

• The updated NEPM (2013) outlines a two tier approach to ERA (Tier 1 – Preliminary ERA; Tier 2 – Definitive ERA), and more structured guidance as to what should be considered in each level of risk assessment.

• Preliminary ERA – should identify the ecological values relevant to the Site; identify the most appropriate EILs for soil contamination; identify data gaps and uncertainties; provide justification for conclusion of the Preliminary ERA or need to continue to the Definitive ERA.

• Definitive ERA – should attempt to refine exposure assumptions and further quantify potential ecological risks through additional testing, modelling or a combination of both.


When should you consider the potential need for an ERA?

• When you are getting your Consultant’s PROPOSAL!

• If you don’t think about ecological risks when planning the original scope of works you may not collect all the data that you need!

• Adopt a DQO approach (Schedule B2) which emphasises the importance of ensuring data collected is of an appropriate quality (i.e. appropriate detection limits)

• You will need to consider ecological receptors for ALL sites.

• You may not need to derive EILs for all sites, but you will need to think about this before you undertake your sampling.


There are a number of Site-specific parameters that you will need to collect in order to derive EILs (e.g. soil pH, Cation Exchange Capacity, background concentrations etc.) However, it may be possible to be smart in use of conservative values to initially screen out need for EILs as Site’s risk driver.


Ecological Investigation Levels (for a range of soil characteristics):

Contaminant Age of

Contaminant

Added contaminant limits (mg added/kg soil) or EIL (mg/kg) for

various land uses

NEPM (1999)

EIL Area of ecological

significance

(99% protection)

Urban residential/

public open space

(80% protection)

Commercial and

Industrial

(60% protection)

Zinc (a) fresh 7 - 130 25 - 500 45 - 800 200

aged 15 - 280 70 - 1300 100 - 2000

Arsenic (b) fresh 20 50 80 20

aged 40 100 160

Naphthalene (b) fresh 10 170 370 -

DDT (b) fresh 3 180 630 -

Chromium (III) (a) fresh 25 - 50 75 - 160 120 - 270 400

aged 60 - 130 190 - 400 310 - 660

Copper (a) fresh 15 - 60 30 - 120 45 - 200 100

aged 20 - 80 60 - 230 85 - 340

Lead (a) fresh 110 270 440 600

aged 470 1100 1800

Nickel (a) fresh 1 - 25 10 - 170 20 - 350 60

aged 5 - 95 30 - 560 55 - 960

Barium - - - - 300

Cadmium - - - - 3

Chromium (VI) - - - - 1

Manganese - - - - 500

Mercury (inorganic) - - - - 1

Vanadium - - - - 50

Phosphorus - - - - 2000

Sulfur - - - - 600

Sulfate - - - - 2000

Added contaminant limit = lowest toxicity value / Assessment factor Fresh = present at the Site for <2 years. Aged = present at the Site for >2 years.

(a) = Added Contaminant Level (ACL) method

(b) = Total Concentration

These values do not incorporate a background concentration! They assume 100% bioavailability!!


These are the five important additional characteristics that you may now need to collect: Soil Type Soil pH Soil Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) Ambient Background Concentration (ABC) Age of contamination (more or less than 2 years…) There are a number of additional properties that will also help you to derive more site-specific EILs, if required…


ZINC (fresh)


ZINC (aged)

Toxicity data is “age adjusted” (i.e. corrected for leaching potential)

Schedule B6: Risk-Based Assessment of Groundwater

Drinking water source

Aquatic ecosystem

Recreational use

Agricultural use


- Three tiered assessment approach

• Tier 1 – Develop CSM & compare data with GILs relevant to receptors and pathways

• Tier 2 – Site-specific modification of Tier 1 GIL (e.g., hardness).

• Tier 3 – Focus on risk-driving contaminants at point of exposure. Address critical uncertainties. Fate and transport modelling, speciation modelling, direct toxicity testing all relevant

- New guidance on assessing background water quality

• Ambient and natural sources

• Sample multiple locations

• Consider analysing major ions

• Sampling for temporal variability

• Compare site data with 80th percentile of background conc


- GILs for recreational and aesthetics receptors

• NHMRC 2008 supplements ANZECC 2000 and 1996 DWGs

• Double-check the hierarchy of values specified in reports

- “Groundwater dependent ecosystems” need to be considered in CSM

• Wetlands, streams, rivers, estuarine & near-shore marine systems, aquifer and cave ecosystems (stygofauna have migrated?)

• GILs are applicable to ‘slightly - moderately disturbed’ ecosystems, consult AWQG for additional values for protection of disturbed & pristine ecosystems


Key: ADWG – 1992 Australian Drinking Water Guidelines GMRRW – 2008 NHMRC Guidelines for managing Risk in Recreational Waters

Schedule B7: Health-Based Investigation Levels

- greater focus on Exposure Pathways including vapour

This exposure data must be included in CSM


- Amended and new HILs for four land use scenarios

• Many HILs now less conservative, but some more conservative

• Scenario letters have changed e.g. old HIL F is now HIL D

• Some COPCs no longer have HILs (e.g. B[a]P, CrIII)

- Using HILs

• Exceedences of the HILs do not imply unacceptability or that a significant health risk is likely to be present – trigger for further assessment or screening clearance

• HILs are not remediation criteria nor for regulating emissions nor for waste classification!!!

- HIL derivation presented in Schedule B7 Appendices

Schedule B7:

Health-Based

Investigation Levels

Green = HIL increased

Orange = HIL decreased

Blue = New HIL

Chemical Health-based investigation levels (mg/kg)

Residential A Residential B Recreational C Commercial/

industrial D

Arsenic 100 500 300 3 000

Beryllium 60 90 90 500

Boron 4500 40 000 20 000 300 000

Cadmium 20 150 90 900

Chromium (VI) 100 500 300 3600

Cobalt 100 600 300 4000

Copper 6000 30 000 17 000 240 000

Lead 300 1200 600 1 500

Manganese 3800 14 000 19 000 60 000

Mercury (inorganic) 40 120 80 730

Methyl mercury 10 30 13 180

Nickel 400 1200 1200 6 000

Selenium 200 1400 700 10 000

Zinc 7400 60 000 30 000 400 000

Cyanide (free) 250 300 240 1 500

Carcinogenic PAHs (as BaP TEQ) 3 4 3 40

Total PAHs 300 400 300 4000

Phenol 3000 45 000 40 000 240 000

Pentachlorophenol 100 130 120 660

Cresols 400 4 700 4 000 25 000

DDT+DDE+DDD 240 600 400 3600

Aldrin and dieldrin 6 10 10 45

Chlordane 50 90 70 530

Endosulfan 270 400 340 2000

Endrin 10 20 20 100

Heptachlor 6 10 10 50

HCB 10 15 10 80

Methoxychlor 300 500 400 2500

Mirex 10 20 20 100

Toxaphene 20 30 30 160

2,4,5-T 600 900 800 5000

2,4-D 900 1600 1300 9000

MCPA 600 900 800 5000

MCPB 600 900 800 5000

Mecoprop 600 900 800 5000

Picloram 4500 6600 5700 35000

Atrazine 320 470 400 2500

Chlorpyrifos 160 340 250 2000

Bifenthrin 600 840 730 4500

PCBs 1 1 1 7

PBDE Flame Retardants (Br1 - Br9) 1 2 2 10

Metals and Inorganics

Other Organics

Other Pesticides

Herbicides

Organochlorine Pesticides

Phenols

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)


- New interim soil vapour HILs for five (5) VOCCs

• Applicable for soil vapour samples to 1m depth

• Conservative for deeper samples - see Table 1A(2)

- Updated toxicity values and exposure parameters

• Form the basis of the HIL derivation

• Consider whether exposure parameters are relevant to your site setting when selecting HILs/HSLs/EILs/ESLs

- Carcinogenic PAHs now require a TEQ approach

- Consider bioavailability for As & Pb

- HILs derived for some compounds never used in Australia – so screen out at SAQP stage (e.g. Mirex and Toxaphene)

Schedule B1: More Details

1999 2013

HILs No derivation details, 33 substances Detailed derivation, 46 substances

Volatiles No criteria Interim HILs for VOCCs and TPH HSLs

EILs & ESLs For urban landuse, based on phytotoxicity,

soil survey data and ANZECC B values.

Arbitrary and not necessarily protective of

ecological values

Detailed derivation based on eco-

toxicological endpoints

GILs Based on 1992 Australian water quality

guidelines and 1996 drinking water

guidelines.

Primary contact recreation not included

Based on 2000 Australian water quality

guidelines and 2011 drinking water

guidelines

NHMRC 2008 guidance for primary

contact recreation receptor

Asbestos No guidance Detailed guidance and health screening

levels

Sediment

No criteria Reference ANZECC 2000 ISQG

Aesthetics

Very limited guidance More detailed guidance

Structural

Criterion for sulphate only Not discussed

Volatiles

- Substantial developments in methods for investigation and assessment of VOCs since 1999

- Detailed guidance in 2013 NEPM Vapour Intrusion Assessment Framework (Schedule B2, Section 9)

• Development of the CSM

• Consideration of lateral exclusion distance (30m for VOCCs)

• Importance of multiple lines of evidence

• Consideration of potential background sources

• Conditions required for biodegradation

• Preferential pathways

• Sampling design and methodologies

• Accounting for spatial and temporal variation

Volatiles

- Not all VOCs act the same:

• CRC CARE (2011) health screening levels are for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil, soil vapour and groundwater

• Interim HILs for 5 chlorinated VOCs in soil vapour

- Separate briefing on this topic!!

Volatiles

- CRC CARE HSLs based on a number of variables – to use the HSLs appropriately we need to capture information on these variables during our investigations

- Subsurface factors that influence vapour migration:

• Soil type – more pore space = greater potential vapour migration

• Subsurface oxygen – more oxygen = greater potential for biodegradation of petroleum VOCs

• Depth to source – greater depth = more attenuation in subsurface

• Source thickness (for soil source) – HSLs based on 2m thickness, may not be protective for greater soil source thickness

- Confirm that receptor exposure parameters are likely to be consistent with default assumptions

- Separate briefing on this topic!!

Rounding of Screening Values

- Note that HSLs, EILs and ESLs have been rounded to appropriate significant figures – the numbers in the NEPM document might appear different to those in the CRC CARE report!

• Rounding rules:

< 1 to nearest 0.1

1 - <10 to nearest whole number

1 - < 100 to nearest 5

100 - <1,000 to nearest 10

1,000 - <10,000 to nearest 100

≥10,000 to nearest 1,000

Numbers ending in ‘5’ are rounded up, for example:

0.05 rounded to 0.1

1.5 rounded to 2

115 rounded to 120

Other Sources of Screening Values

- Often we deal with sites where the NEPM guidance does not provide HILs, HSLs, EILs, or ESLs

- NEPM provides guidance on hierarchy of screening value sources from other jurisdictions:

• Australian sources (e.g. NEPM Air Toxics)

• WHO (air and drinking water)

• US EPA Regional Screening Levels

• State-based US agencies (e.g. Cal-EPA)

- Caution: US EPA RSLs based on target hazard quotient of 0.1 or increased lifetime cancer risk of 1E-06 – need to modify before use (will be set up in ESDAT/EQUIS and/or you can ask a risk assessor to help)

Key Learnings on 2013 NEPM Amendment

NEPM 2013

Adoption & Transition

Build the CSM from the first stage of each project & continually

refine

Consider ecological receptors for all sites –

you might need to collect data for Soil pH, soil CEC and

ambient background concentration

Using HSLs correctly requires information

on soil profile, depth to source and receptor

exposure

New HILs might require additional

calculations – check whether the lab can report these for you

e.g. PAH TEF

When characterising background concs,

consider both spatial and temporal variation

from ambient and natural sources

If finishing up a project under the 1999 NEPM,

consider including a statement explaining

why this constitutes no added unacceptable

risk

Conclusions

• New ASC NEPM is now in force across Australia

• There are now 41HILs (were 33)

• Ecological consideration is now mandatory for all landuses

• New emphasis on volatiles (subject of separate briefing!)

• Detailed guidance on asbestos, sediments, groundwater

• There may be a way through the new NEPM that doesn’t require increased levels of data collection – but it will be smart conservative first screen….

New Skills Required

• Designing first screening approach

• Developing a conceptual site model (CSM)

• Deciding whether an ERA might be required when scoping out a project

• Calculating a site-specific EIL using the ASC NEPM toolbox

• Identifying which HIL is most appropriate to a site scenario especially where mixed uses are proposed

• PAH TEQ/TEF calculations

• Adjusting HSLs to site-specific circumstances

• Modifying HIL for As & Pb for different bioavailability

• And more…

Who Can Help? AECOM Contact Person

First Point of Contact Ross McFarland (61413 833 811)

General queries and communications Michael Archer & Claire Daly

Schedule B1 – Inv. Levels for Soil and GW Ross McFarland

Schedule B2 – Site Characterisation Aaron Groves

Schedule B3 – Lab Analysis of Soils Claire Daly + Ross McFarland

Schedule B4 – Site-Specific HRAs Claire Daly + Gemma Williams

Schedule B5 – Ecological Risk and EILs Gemma Williams

Schedule B6 – Risk-based assessment of GW Michael Archer

Schedule B7 – Health-based Inv. Levels Lesley Randall

Schedule B8 – Community & Risk Comms Ross McFarland

Schedule B9 – Competencies Eleanor Liddle

WA Jurisdictional Issues Stuart McLaren

ACT Jurisdictional Issues Ian Batterley

QLD Jurisdictional Issues Willy Van Vaerenbergh

NSW Jurisdictional Issues Claire Daly & Lesley Randall

VIC / SA / NT Jurisdictional Issues Michael Archer

NZ Jurisdictional Considerations David Dangerfield

Useful Links

Key Links:

- NEPM Training (CRC CARE) http://www.crccare.com/education/training/nepm/

nepm_training.html

– NEPM Training DVD (CRC CARE) http://www.crccare.com/education/downloads/NE

PM-Workshop-DVD.pdf

($500 including GST = 10 hours)

http://www.crccare.com/education/training/nepm/nepm_training.html

http://www.crccare.com/education/training/nepm/nepm_training.html

http://www.crccare.com/education/downloads/NEPM-Workshop-DVD.pdf






Congratulations You made it!

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

what’s good in the asc nepm 2013 amendment...ecological investigation levels (for a range of soil...

Documents