EIC’s Generic Assessment Criteria: What are the numbers and what are the implications? Rob Reuter

1. EIC’s Generic Assessment Criteria: What are the numbers and what are the implications? Rob Reuter

2. Overview • Project Inception and Aspirations • Collation of Physical Chemical and Toxicological Data • Parameter Selection and Peer Review Process • GAC Value and Report Production • Uses and Limitations

3. Motivation • Limited production of SGVs prior to “Way Forward” • Lack of Soil Guideline Values and/or Generic Assessment Criteria post “Way Forward” outcome • EA programme only for limited number of SGVs • Uncertainty about LQM/CIEH producing updated GAC • Use collective Knowledge and in-house resources of EIC members to produce set of industry approved parameters/GAC

4. Aspirations • Derive a database of industry agreed parameter values • Work on as many substances as possible not being covered by EA or LQM/CIEH • Derive industry agreed GAC for those substances with sufficient available data • Present researched property values and GAC in a fully transparent manner • Get volunteers to take part based on an assumed commitment of 5 days per volunteer to attend workshops and undertake research/work

5. Volunteering Organisations • AMEC • Atkins • BuroHappold • Delta Simons • DTS Raeburn • Ecologia • Entec • Enviros • ERM • ESI • Faber Maunsell • Firth Consultants • Golder Associates • Grontmij • Halcrow • Hyder • Hydrock • Jacobs • Opus Joynes Pike • Parsons Brinckerhoff • Sirius • URS • Wardell Armstrong • WD Environmental • WorleyParsons • WSP

6. Phasing • Project can be divided into 3 General phases: • Phase 1 – Project Scoping • Phase 2 – Data Compilation and Peer Review • Phase 3 – Review Panel and GAC Derivation

7. Phase 1 – Project Scoping • Collect information on substances held by volunteers on in-house databases • Consult with EA and LQM/CIEH regarding substances they were planning on deriving SGV/GAC values for • Prepare detailed proformas to be used by volunteers to record data • Conduct workshop in February 2009 to: • Finalise priority list • Agree procedures for collecting data • Finalise proformas • Agree the review process • Allocate tasks and finalise the project schedule

8. Phase 2 – Data Compilation & Peer Review • Each volunteering organisation assigned 3 - 6 substances for compilation of physico-chemical and toxicological input data required in CLEA model • Peer review partners assigned for each volunteering organisation • Book sharing days were arranged at various locations to enable access to all of the references for physico-chemical data in SR7 • Physico-chemical and toxicity proformas compiled independently • Proformas exchanged between partners for peer review • Discussion between partners encouraged during process • Second Workshop held in May 2009 where: • Resolved problems with data collection/property value selection • Agreed way forward with entire group • Finalised volunteers for final review panels, GAC production and report writing

9. Phase 3 – Review Panel & GAC Derivation • Volunteers asked to perform final review on their proformas in line with protocol agreed in second workshop • CLEA model populated and preliminary GAC values produced • Two review panels convened from volunteers to undertake final review on all proformas and harmonise selection process • 7 member toxicological review panel • 5 member physico-chemical review panel

10. Toxicological Data / Review Process • Collation and choice of HCV and MDI data followed guidance in SR2 as closely as reasonably practical • All 33 sources listed in Appendix A of SR2 consulted • 5 additional sources consulted for substances with insufficient data including USEPA PPRTVs obtained directly from USEPA • TDI or ID recommended dependent on behaviour of chemical as either threshold or non-threshold substance. • International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification preferred as indication of human carcinogenicity

11. Toxicological Selection Criteria • Route-to-route extrapolation not used to derive HCV • HCV only recommended where sufficient supporting evidence contained in source • Sources labelled “do not cite or quote” not used to derive HCV • Uncertainty factors, other than those used by original authors, not applied • OEL data not considered appropriate to derive HCVs, quoted for information only • Note where additivity should be considered • MDI set to zero if no data available and literature suggests it would be negligible • Available relevant background data used to recommend MDI • Where data was available that was inappropriate to the UK using the 50% rule was considered conservative

12. To create new slide, copy and paste this slide before inserting text

13. Physico-Chemical Data / Review Process • Collation and selection of physico-chemical data undertaken in general accordance with methods and procedures in SR7 • All nine primary reference sources listed in Table 1.3 of SR7 consulted • Selection process described in Table 1.4 of SR7 followed • All property values from each source listed on proforma • Values from studies closest to ambient soil temperature preferred • Where property values not available in literature they were estimated using methods recommended in SR7 • Kaw estimated by direct calculation method from solubility data if available for ambient soil temperature instead of Clapeyron relationship from Henry’s Law • All proformas checked for consistency of approach

14. To create new slide, copy and paste this slide before inserting text

15. Outcome • 44 substances researched – 36 GAC to be derived

16. External Review • Association of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Specialists - AGS • Contaminated Land Applications in Real Environments - CL:AIRE • Environmental Industries Commission - EIC • Chartered Institute of Environmental Health - CIEH • Department of Environment, Northern Ireland - DOENI • Environment Agency - EA • Environmental Protection UK - EPUK • Health Protection Agency - HPA • Soil and Groundwater Technology Association - SAGTA • Scottish Environment Protection Agency - SEPA • Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum For Environmental Research - SNIFFER

17. Report Format • CL:AIRE style front cover • Content intended to be fully transparent • Acknowledgements • 8 – 12 pages of text detailing how GAC Derived and how they should be used • Tables of GAC • Tables of parameter values • Toxicological, background and physico-chemical proformas • CLEA model outputs • Excel spreadsheet with parameter values in CLEA format • All outputs will be freely available for all to download

18. Uses and Limitations • GAC values derived in accordance with appropriate UK guidance • GAC intended to be trigger values – similar to SGVs • GAC are generally conservative and should not be used as remediation criteria • GAC exceedence alone does not indicate SPOSH • GAC do not take account of potential acute exposure • GAC have been produced based on standard soil types and standard conceptual site models – do not use if your site does not fit the CSM

19. Thank You For Your Time rreuter@wardell-armstrong.com www.wardell-armstrong.com