New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
Site Remediation and
Waste Management Program
Evaluation of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
in Soil Technical Guidance
June 2019
Version 1.0
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTENDED USE OF GUIDANCE ..................................................................................... 4
2.0 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................ 5
3.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 6
4.0 OVERVIEW OF PROCEDURE: ........................................................................................ 8
4.1 Determine Correct EPH Category .................................................................................... 8
4.1.1 Category 1 Defined: .................................................................................................. 8
4.1.2 Category 2 Defined: .................................................................................................. 8
4.1.3 Mixtures: ................................................................................................................... 8
4.2 Determine Human Health-Based Remediation Goal ....................................................... 8
4.2.1 Exceedance of the EPH Default Product Limits ....................................................... 9
4.2.2 Technical Impracticability – large or complex non-residential sites ...................... 10
4.3 Address Additional Analytical Requirements ................................................................ 11
4.4 Assess Ecological Risk................................................................................................... 11
5.0 EPH EVALUATION STEPS ............................................................................................ 12
5.1 CATEGORY 1 - Discharges of only Number 2 (No. 2) heating oil or diesel fuel:
Residential Land Use ..................................................................................................... 12
5.2 CATEGORY 1 - Discharges of only Number 2 (No. 2) heating oil or diesel fuel:
Non-Residential Land Use ............................................................................................. 16
5.3 CATEGORY 2 – Discharges of petroleum products other than No. 2 heating oil or
diesel fuel: Both Residential and Non-Residential Land Uses ...................................... 19
6.0 GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................... 24
7.0 ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................... 26
8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 27
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 Summary Table of EPH Soil Remediation Criteria,
Thresholds for Additional Analyses and Evaluations,
and EPH Product Limits .................................................................................... 29
APPENDIX 2 EPH Alternative Product Limit Calculation Procedures ................................... 30
2.1 Obtaining Appropriate Grain Size Distribution Data ................................................. 34
2.2 Documentation and Information to be Submitted for Calculation
of an AOC-specific EPH Alternative Product Limit in Soil ....................................... 37
3
2.3 Derivation of Equation for Calculating an EPH Alternative
Product Limit in Soil ................................................................................................... 38
2.4 Variables Table and Table of Petroleum Product Viscosity and Density ................... 46
APPENDIX 3 Established EPH Product Limits, Standards,
Screening Levels, Basis and Policy ................................................................... 53
3.1 EPH Default Product Limits, Basis ............................................................................ 54
3.2 EPH Product Ceiling Limit, Basis .............................................................................. 57
3.3 EPH Category 1: Health Based Soil Remediation Criteria, Derivation...................... 58
3.4 EPH Screening Level, Ecological ............................................................................... 60
3.5 Application of pre-September 2010 Petroleum Hydrocarbon Data ............................ 61
4
EVALUATION OF EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS IN SOIL
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
INTENDED USE OF GUIDANCE
This technical guidance is designed to help the person(s) responsible for conducting the
remediation to comply with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
requirements, the Technical Requirements for Site Remediation (Technical Rules), N.J.A.C.
7:26E. This guidance will be used by many different people involved in the remediation of a
contaminated site; such as Licensed Site Remediation Professionals, Non-LSRP environmental
consultants and other environmental professionals. Therefore, the generic term “investigator”
will be used to refer to any person that uses this guidance to remediate a contaminated site on
behalf of a remediating party, including the remediating party itself.
The procedures for a person to vary from the technical requirements in regulation are outlined in
the Technical Rules at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.7. Likewise, the procedures for a person to vary from
technical guidance are outlined in the Site Remediation Reform Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10C-14c(4).
In both instances, the investigator must appropriately document and adequately support with data
or other information.
This guidance supersedes previous DEP guidance issued on this topic. Technical guidance may
be used immediately upon issuance. However, the Department recognizes the challenge of using
newly issued technical guidance when a remediation affected by the guidance may have already
been conducted or is currently in progress. To provide for the reasonable implementation of new
technical guidance, the Department will allow a 6-month “phase-in” period between the date the
technical guidance is issued (or the revision date) and the time it is effective for all sites.
This guidance was prepared with stakeholder input. The following people were on the
committee that prepared this document:
David Barskey, Co-Chair, Department (retired)
John Ruhl, Co-Chair, Department
Kathleen Kunze, Department guidance coordinator (retired)
Ronald Baker, USGS New Jersey Water Science Center (retired)
Michel Boufadel, New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT)
Geoffrey Clark, LSRP, GHD Services, Inc. (8/25/2015 – 1/10/2017)
John Donohue, Fuel Merchants Association of New Jersey
David Puchalski, LSRP, NewFields Princeton, LLC (1/25/2017 - present)
5
PURPOSE
This technical guidance replaces the previous Protocol For Addressing Extractable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (EPH Protocol, Version 3.0, 9 August 2010). The main differences between
the August 2010 EPH Protocol and this technical guidance are:
• the addition of six EPH-applicable petroleum products to Table 2-1 of N.J.A.C. 7:26E-
2.1(d);
• the addition of an equation to calculate AOC-specific EPH alternative product limit
concentrations;
• the 8,000 mg/kg EPH default product limit typically associated with Category 1 EPH is
now designated to some Category 2 petroleum products;
• the establishment of an EPH ceiling limit concentration; and
• inclusion of compliance averaging options for the ingestion-dermal exposure pathway per
the Technical Guidance for the Attainment of Remediation Standards and Site-Specific
Criteria (https://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/#attainment_comp) for EPH Category 1
residential and non-residential soil remediation criteria.
This technical guidance provides direction on how to evaluate the EPH soil sample data from the
site investigation, remedial investigation, and remedial action phases at sites with petroleum
storage and discharge areas of concern (AOCs) pursuant to the Department’s Technical
Requirements for Site Remediation (Technical Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:26E) and the Department’s
guidance library. It is most useful when the horizontal and vertical delineation of the discharge
is complete in both the saturated and unsaturated soil pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.2(a) so that
the distribution of EPH in soil is well understood. This may include the remedial action
verification sampling.
As listed in Table 2-1 at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d), this technical guidance addresses petroleum
products that include No. 2 heating oil, diesel fuel, No. 4 heating oil, No. 6 heating oil, hydraulic
oil, cutting oil, crude oil, lubricating oil, waste oil, unknown petroleum hydrocarbons, waste
vehicular crankcase oil, mineral oil, dielectric fluid, dielectric mineral oil, transformer oil, or
manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites. For petroleum products and mixtures not listed in Table 2-
1 at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d), consult with the Department contact(s) for EPH listed at
http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/srra/srra_contacts.htm.
This technical guidance does not apply to discharges from the more volatile petroleum products
(e.g., gasolines, kerosene, jet fuels, or light petroleum distillates), which must be investigated
pursuant to the Technical Rules. Also note that for those situations where multiple petroleum
hydrocarbon mixtures are involved, the evaluation must address all the types known to be
present. Where the petroleum product type is unknown, sampling and analytical parameters for
waste oil must be applied.
In accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(a)6, the analytical method "Analysis of Extractable
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Compounds (EPH) in Aqueous and Soil/Sediment/Sludge Matrices"
(NJDEP EPH Method 10/08, Revision 3 August 2010) shall be used when investigating
petroleum storage and discharge areas. https://nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/srra/eph_method.pdf
The results of this analytical method are reported as extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPH).
6
INTRODUCTION
This technical guidance applies to all petroleum storage facilities and petroleum discharge AOCs
for EPH analysis of soil required pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d). The focus of this guidance
is on the evaluation of EPH data for its compliance with the EPH soil remediation criteria which
are not included in the Department’s Remediation Standards (N.J.A.C. 7:26D), and on EPH
product limits which are not included in other technical guidance. The EPH soil remediation
criteria and EPH default product limits are summarized in APPENDIX 1.
The Department is mandated by the Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act
(N.J.S.A. 58:10B-12) to employ a health-based approach when developing remediation
standards. The EPH residential and non-residential soil remediation criteria are based on an
exposure scenario for protection from noncarcinogenic health effects at a hazard index of 1 and
are based solely on effects via the ingestion-dermal exposure pathway. This technical guidance
provides a health-based approach to accomplish the remediation of EPH for the petroleum
products identified in Table 2-1 of N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d) that require analysis for EPH.
Likewise, remediation shall also comply with Technical Requirements for Site Remediation
(N.J.A.C. 7:26E), including, but not limited to, the requirements to treat or remove free product
and residual product to the extent practicable (N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.1(e)).
This technical guidance provides direction for:
• Evaluating the EPH soil sample data from the investigation of petroleum storage and
discharge areas (Category 1, Category 2, or mixture).
• Applying the EPH soil remediation criteria (SRC)
A discussion of the derivation of the human health-based residential and non-residential
SRC which are based on the ingestion-dermal exposure pathway is found in Appendix
3.3. Some components of this guidance can be used to address EPH contamination at
sites regulated under the Heating Oil Tank System Remediation (HOTSR) Rule
(N.J.A.C. 7:26F). However, compliance with the HOTSR Rule is not included in this
EPH technical guidance. Refer to the HOTSR Rule and its associated technical
guidance.
• Evaluating the soil sample data for the additional analyses required pursuant to
Table 2-1 at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d).
• Evaluating potential ecological concerns pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.16 when the
ecological screening criterion of 1,700 mg/kg EPH is exceeded.
• Applying the EPH default product limits (or an AOC-specific EPH alternative
product limit or the ceiling limit).
The basis for the Department’s two default product limits for EPH in soil is detailed in Sanders
(2009) in Appendix 3.1. An EPH product limit of 8,000 mg/kg has been established for
Category 1 EPH. Additionally, the EPH product limit of 8,000 mg/kg is also applied to the
Category 2 EPH products: crude oil (source of No. 2 heating oil); LNAPL at MGP sites, which
7
contain compounds comparable to Category 1 fuels; cutting oils, which are diverse in
compositions; and unknown petroleum hydrocarbons. An EPH product limit of 17,000 mg/kg
has been established for all other Category 2 EPH petroleum products. The EPH default
product limits are based on an assessment of the residual saturation concentrations for various
petroleum products and in various soil types included in a paper by Brost and DeVaull (2000).
The residual saturation data for medium sand (a representative soil texture for most soil in New
Jersey) was selected for establishing default limits for EPH product based on residual
saturation. If the applicable default product limit is exceeded, the investigator can use the
EPH Alternative Product Limit Calculator to calculate an AOC-specific EPH alternative
product limit. In part, the calculator is based on the relationships between soil texture, product
viscosity, and product density. EPH product determined to be immobile by this method can
have an alternative product limit greater than the EPH default product limit concentration, but
may not exceed the 30,000 mg/kg product “ceiling limit”. The Department established the
ceiling limit with the consensus of the stakeholder EPH Technical Guidance Committee
(Appendix 3.2).
Exceedances of the EPH product limits, whether they are the default limits or AOC-specific
EPH alternative product limits, require treatment or removal pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.1(e).
Containment (i.e., engineering control) of EPH product can only be considered where
treatment or removal of EPH product is not practicable pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.1(e).
This technical guidance presumes compliance with all other Departmental rules and guidance
that apply to the remediation of contaminated sites in general and to remediation of petroleum
hydrocarbons contamination in all media. This includes, but is not limited to the following:
• Technical Guidance for Investigation of Underground Storage Tank Systems
• Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance
• Light Non-aqueous Phase Liquid (LNAPL) Initial Recovery and Interim Remedial
Measures Technical Guidance
• Technical Guidance for the Attainment of Remediation Standards and Site-Specific
Criteria
• Ground Water Technical Guidance: Site Investigation Remedial Investigation Remedial
Action Performance Monitoring
• Technical Guidance for Site Investigation of Soil, Remedial Investigation of Soil, and
Remedial Action Verification Sampling for Soil
• In Situ Remediation: Design Considerations and Performance Monitoring Technical
Guidance Document
The technical guidances listed above can be found at: https://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/.
8
OVERVIEW OF PROCEDURE:
4.1 Determine Correct EPH Category
In order to apply this guidance, the investigator must determine the appropriate EPH
category or categories requiring evaluation at each petroleum storage and discharge area
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d), based on the current and historical petroleum products
stored or used at each AOC being investigated.
Category 1 Defined:
Category 1 consists of only No. 2 heating oil and diesel fuel.
Category 2 Defined:
Category 2 consists of No. 4 heating oil, No. 6 heating oil, hydraulic oil, cutting oil,
lubricating oil, crude oil, waste oil, unknown petroleum hydrocarbons, waste vehicular
crankcase oil, mineral oil, dielectric fluid, dielectric mineral oil, transformer oil, or EPH-
type discharges associated with manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites.
Mixtures:
Where both Category 1 and Category 2 petroleum products may have been discharged at
an AOC, unknown petroleum products may have been discharged, waste oil comprised of
Category 1 and Category 2 petroleum products, or complex mixtures such as crude oil or
manufactured gas plant (MGP) materials are of concern, evaluate EPH using both the
Category 1 and the Category 2 sections of this technical guidance. Complex EPH
product mixtures such as crude oil or MGP materials often contain compounds that
display characteristics common to both Category 1 and Category 2 products; and
therefore, need to be evaluated using the guidance for both. For these situations, the
investigator should use the on-line EPH Soil Remediation Criteria (SRC) Calculator and
Category 1 EPH product limit, as summarized below.
4.2 Determine Human Health-Based Remediation Goal
Evaluate the EPH sample concentrations against the applicable EPH Soil Remediation
Criteria (SRC) and the applicable EPH product limit. If the Department has established
an EPH soil remediation standard in N.J.A.C. 7:26D, then the soil remediation
standard (SRS) supersedes the SRC in this technical guidance.
For Category 1, if all EPH soil concentrations are ≤1,000 mg/kg, then remediation is
complete and an unrestricted use Remedial Action Outcome (RAO) can be issued for EPH
in soil. For EPH soil concentrations >1,000 mg/kg for Category 1 EPH at sites with
residential land use, the EPH SRC of 5,100 mg/kg applies. For Category 1 EPH at sites
with non-residential land use, the EPH SRC of 54,000 mg/kg is superseded by the EPH
default product limit of 8,000 mg/kg, or if calculated the lower of an AOC-specific
alternative product limit or 30,000 mg/kg EPH ceiling limit.
9
Because the composition of Category 2 EPH varies by petroleum product, the Department
applies the approach used for Category 1, but the health-based criterion is determined on a
sample-specific basis. For Category 2 EPH, calculate sample-specific EPH SRC using the
Department provided on-line EPH SRC Calculator found at:
https://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/srra/evaluation_eph_soil_cat2_health_based_calculat
or.xlsm. For residential use, calculate the applicable residential SRC for each sample from
the AOC. For non-residential use, calculate both the residential and non-residential EPH
SRC for each sample from the AOC to determine the sample concentrations to be included
in the institutional control and to establish those areas requiring an engineering control for
the EPH remedial action.
The Technical Rules require the horizontal and vertical delineation of free product and
residual product pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.2(a)4, and the treatment or removal of free
product and residual product to the extent practicable pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.1(e).
The Department previously selected EPH default product limits of 8,000 mg/kg for Category
1 EPH and 17,000 mg/kg for Category 2 EPH (see Appendix 3.1). With this technical
guidance, the default product limit of 17,000 mg/kg for Category 2 EPH is no longer
universally assigned. Instead, either 8,000 mg/kg or 17,000 mg/kg EPH is the applicable
EPH default product limit based on the specific petroleum product (see Appendix 1). If the
default product limit is exceeded, this guidance provides an option for determining an AOC-
specific EPH alternative product limit as described in Appendix 2. Collection of soil
samples for grain size distribution analysis is required if the investigator seeks to develop an
AOC-specific alternative product limit.
Exceedance of the EPH Default Product Limits
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.1(e) the person responsible for conducting the remediation
shall treat or remove free product and residual product to the extent practicable.
Consequently, when the concentration of EPH exceeds the default product limits, an
AOC specific alternative product limit, or the EPH ceiling limit, compliance averaging is
not an acceptable alternative for remediation of EPH product. Where EPH product
exceeds the applicable EPH default product limit and an EPH alternative product limit is
calculated, EPH product shall be remediated to the lower of the EPH alternative product
limit or the ceiling limit.
A Remedial Action Permit for soil that includes both institutional controls and
engineering controls is required for a site where the EPH concentration exceeds the
default product limits, an AOC specific alternative product limit or the EPH ceiling limit,
as applicable, and it is impracticable to remove or treat the EPH product.
For situations where there is evidence of EPH free product (e.g., LNAPL on ground
water) and EPH soil concentrations are less than the EPH product limits, additional
investigation or remedial action of soil may be needed to address a source of EPH
product that may not have been previously identified.
10
Technical Impracticability – large or complex non-residential sites
The Department recognizes that compliance with the EPH product limit may be
impracticable for meeting the requirement at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.1(e) to treat or remove
free product and residual product at large or complex non-residential sites. For
purposes of this technical guidance, large sites would consist of refineries and
petroleum storage facilities that extend over multiple acres with multiple AOCs. An
example of a complex site is a MGP site. Typically, these large and complex sites also
involve:
• Impacts to ground water or surface water;
• a potential for vapor intrusion or ecological risk;
• off-site migration of EPH product; or
• an active facility with continuing operations.
For these types of sites, the investigator is advised to seek consultation with the
Department before proceeding with a determination of impracticability or making a
final decision on a remedial action. The typical variation for these types of sites may
involve long-term remedial actions that may delay full compliance with the requirement
to treat or remove free product and residual product, or it may involve remedial actions
that include some form of containment and active remedial actions for soil and other
media. All variances from the Technical Rules shall be documented in the applicable
remedial phase report pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.7. All deviations from this
technical guidance shall be documented in the applicable remedial phase report
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.5(b) and Administrative Requirements for the
Remediation of Contaminated Sites (ARRCS) Rules pursuant to N.J.A.C 7:26C-
1.2(a)3.
There are circumstances where it may be technically impracticable to completely
remediate free product and residual product to the applicable EPH product limit in soil.
Common impediments are physical obstacles that inhibit or preclude accessibility to the
product. It is contingent upon the investigator to evaluate both removal and treatment
options before acceding it is technically impracticable to remediate free product and
residual product, and to include a description of the evaluations used to conclude
technical impracticability in the applicable remedial phase report. Consider using the
Department’s In Situ Remediation: Design Considerations and Performance
Monitoring Technical Guidance Document
(https://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/#in_situ) for evaluating possible removal and
treatment options. The report must also include a detailed description of the means
used to contain the free product and residual product.
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.3, any remediation initiated on or after May 7, 2010,
where either new construction or a change in use creates a residence, a school, or a
child care center, the person responsible for conducting the remediation shall submit a
remedial action workplan pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.5 and obtain the Department's
written approval before implementing a remedial action at any area of concern when
treatment or removal of free product or residual product is not practicable.
11
4.3 Address Additional Analytical Requirements
Address all additional analysis requirements listed in Table 2-1 ("Analytical Requirements
for Petroleum Storage and Discharge Areas") at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d). For Category 1
petroleum products, samples are required to be analyzed for 2-methylnaphthalene and
naphthalene when the EPH soil concentrations at the AOC exceed 1,000 mg/kg, and
additional remediation is not to be conducted. For Category 2 petroleum products,
analytical requirements listed in Table 2-1 at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d) apply for the selection
of the additional analyses.
Where both Category 1 and Category 2 petroleum products are being investigated at an
area of concern (AOC), conduct the applicable additional analyses pursuant to Table 2-1
at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d) for each petroleum product. For those situations where the
petroleum product type is unknown, or for Category 2 petroleum products that have been
used and are not virgin products, sampling and analytical parameters for waste
oil/unknown petroleum hydrocarbons apply as listed in Table 2-1 at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-
2.1(d).
A sufficient sample volume should be collected from each sample location for both initial
EPH analysis and the additional analyses specified in Table 2-1 at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d).
The investigator should also collect sufficient soil volume for performance of Synthetic
Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) analysis to evaluate the potential of an impact to
groundwater (IGW) if the results of the additional parameters are detected above the
default IGW soil screening levels. The investigator shall comply with the soil sample
handling and holding time restrictions for EPH analysis stipulated by the analytical method,
the additional analyses specified in Table 2-1 at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d), and SPLP available
at: (https://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/rs/).
4.4 Assess Ecological Risk
For all EPH concentrations exceeding 1,700 mg/kg, the investigator also needs to determine
whether a remedial action is necessary for EPH to address ecological risk pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.16 and -4.8 and the Department’s Ecological Evaluation Technical
Guidance (https://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/#eco_eval). Note that an ecological
evaluation is not required at areas of concern that consist of an underground storage tank
storing heating oil for on-site consumption in a one to four family residential building
(Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act at N.J.S.A. 58:10B-12a).
12
EPH EVALUATION STEPS
Step by step guidance for the completion of the tasks just described is provided below. A
tabular summary of the technical guidance is provided as Appendix 1. All steps in the EPH
evaluation must be followed and all site conditions documented in the applicable remedial phase
report. The licensed site remediation professional is reminded that pursuant to the requirements
of the Administrative Requirements for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites (N.J.A.C. 7:26C-
1.2), departures from this technical guidance require written rationale to be provided if the LSRP
determines the guidance is inappropriate or unnecessary to meet the remediation requirements of
all applicable New Jersey statutes and New Jersey rules.
5.1 CATEGORY 1 - Discharges of only No. 2 heating oil or diesel fuel:
Residential Land Use
The steps below presume a residential land use is the endpoint of the remedial action at the
area of concern (AOC). Complete all steps below with appropriate documentation in the
applicable remedial phase report. Reference to sample contaminant concentrations includes
site investigation, remedial investigation, and remedial action confirmation samples.
When all EPH sample concentrations are ≤1,000 mg/kg at the AOC, then remediation is
complete and an unrestricted use RAO for EPH can be issued.
For all EPH sample concentrations >1,000 mg/kg, complete each of the Steps below to
determine whether remediation of EPH or other contaminants is necessary.
Step 1. Evaluate EPH against RSRC and product limits/ceiling limit
Evaluate all EPH sample concentrations against the 5,100 mg/kg residential soil
remediation criterion (RSRC) and the EPH default product limit of 8,000 mg/kg (or
the lower of the AOC-specific EPH alternative product limit or ceiling limit as
described in Appendix 2), then go to Step 2.
A. For all EPH sample concentrations ≤5,100 mg/kg, remediation is complete for
the EPH RSRC and the EPH default product limit of 8,000 mg/kg. Go to Step
2.
B. For all EPH sample concentrations greater than the EPH default product limit
of 8,000 mg/kg (or the lower of the AOC-specific EPH alternative product
limit or ceiling limit as described in Appendix 2), either:
i. Excavate or treat EPH product-contaminated soil and collect remedial
action confirmation samples, then return to Step 1; or
ii. Contain all soil with EPH concentrations greater than the EPH default
product limit of 8,000 mg/kg (or the lower of the AOC-specific EPH
alternative product limit or ceiling limit) may be considered when
treatment or removal is not practicable pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.1(e).
13
This will require implementation of institutional and engineering
controls. Include appropriate documentation in the remedial action
workplan (RAW) and remedial action report (RAR) to support why
treatment or removal is not practicable and how containment will be
implemented and monitored. This may result in Department review of
the RAW or RAR, so possible containment of EPH product should be
discussed with the Department prior to implementation. A RAW shall
be submitted for Department written approval pursuant to N.J.A.C.
7:26E-5.3(d) for any AOC when new construction of, or a change in use
to, a residence, a school, or child care center will occur. If contaminants
other than EPH will be subject to an institutional and engineering control,
determine whether that engineering control is also feasible as the
engineering control to contain EPH product. Go to Step 1.C.
C. For all EPH sample concentrations >5,100 mg/kg and <8,000 mg/kg (or the
lower of the AOC-specific EPH alternative product limit or ceiling limit as
described in Appendix 2), either:
i. Excavate or treat contaminated soil and collect remedial action
confirmation samples, then return to Step 1, or
ii. Perform compliance averaging using the Department’s Technical
Guidance for the Attainment of Remediation Standards and Site-Specific
Criteria
(http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/srra/attainment_compliance.pdf)
a. If compliance requirements are satisfied, then remediation is
complete for the EPH soil remediation criterion and the EPH
product limit. Go to Step 2.
b. If compliance requirements are not satisfied, then repeat Step
1.C.i, or
iii. Consider implementation of institutional and engineering controls, if
feasible after completion of the remaining steps in this technical
guidance. Establishing an institutional and engineering control will
restrict the future use of the property. Go to Step 2.
Step 2. Analyze samples > 1,000 mg/kg EPH for contingency analyses
For all EPH sample concentrations >1,000 mg/kg, collect samples, if not already
collected, for additional analyses of both 2-methylnaphthalene and naphthalene
pursuant to Table 2-1 at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d). Determine the number of samples
requiring additional analysis using the table below, then go to Step 3.
14
No. of Samples with EPH
>1,000 mg/kg
No. of Samples for Additional
Analyses
1-4 1
5-8 2
9-12 3
13 or more
1 additional sample for each
additional set of 1 to 4 samples
Note: Pursuant to Table 2-1 at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d) ("Analytical Requirements
for Petroleum Storage and Discharge Areas"), additional sample analysis shall be
conducted on those samples with the highest EPH concentration(s). The
investigator shall be aware of the soil sample handling and holding time
restrictions for EPH and all additional analyses when evaluating the initial EPH
sample concentrations and should ensure sufficient sample volume is collected
for both EPH and additional analyses.
Step 3. Evaluate the sample concentrations of the contingency analyses
A. If all sample concentrations do not exceed the impact to ground water (IGW)
soil screening level of 8 mg/kg for 2-methylnaphthalene and do not exceed
the residential direct contact soil remediation standard of 6 mg/kg for
naphthalene, then remediation is complete for 2-methylnaphthalene and
naphthalene. Go to Step 4.
B. If any sample concentration is >8 mg/kg for 2-methylnaphthalene or >6 mg/kg
for naphthalene, then
i. Excavate or treat soil and collect remedial action confirmation samples,
then return to Step 3, or
ii. For all samples where the concentration of 2-methylnaphthalene is >8
mg/kg or for all samples where the concentration of naphthalene is >6
mg/kg, using available guidance complete the remedial investigation or
remedial action, as applicable, for these exceedances of the soil
remediation standards (SRS). Go to Step 4.
Note: The following option for 2-methylnaphthalene concentrations
greater than the IGW soil screening level departs from the protocol found
in technical guidance Development Of Site-Specific Impact To Ground
Water Soil Remediation Standards Using The Synthetic Precipitation
Leaching Procedure
(http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/rs/splp_guidance.pdf). This option
is applicable only if one or two of the contingency samples analyzed for 2-
15
methylnaphthalene is >8 mg/kg, and is not applicable where three or more
contingency samples analyzed for 2-methylnaphthalene is >8 mg/kg.
Consider conducting SPLP analysis on the one or two samples. Compare
the sample leachate concentrations to the 600 ug/L leachate concentration
for 2-methylnaphthalene.
a. If all sample leachate concentrations are ≤600 ug/L, remediation is
complete for 2-methylnaphthalene. Go to Step 4.
b. If one or both sample leachate concentrations is >600 ug/L,
remediation for 2-methylnaphthalene is not complete. Return to
Step 3.B.
Step 4. Evaluate EPH for ecological concern
Note: An ecological evaluation is not required at areas of concern that consist of
an underground storage tank storing heating oil for on-site consumption in a one to
four family residential building (Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation
Act at N.J.S.A. 58:10B-12a). Otherwise, go to Step 4.A.
A. If all EPH sample concentrations are less than or equal to the ecological soil
screening level of 1,700 mg/kg, then the remediation is complete relative to
addressing ecological risk for EPH. For all EPH sample concentrations greater
than the ecological soil screening level of 1,700 mg/kg, go to Step 4.B.
B. For all EPH sample concentrations >1,700 mg/kg, where EPH is present in or
may migrate to an environmentally sensitive natural resource (ESNR), complete
an ecological evaluation pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.16 and 4.8 and the
Department’s Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance
(http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/srra/ecological_evaluation.pdf). In lieu of
an ecological evaluation for a terrestrial soil ESNR, excavate or treat soil until
EPH is less than or equal to 1,700 mg/kg.
i. If a remedial action for EPH to address ecological risk is not necessary
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.8 and the Department’s Ecological
Evaluation Technical Guidance, then the remediation to address
ecological risk for EPH is complete.
ii. If a remedial action to address ecological risk is required pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.8 and the Department’s Ecological Evaluation Technical
Guidance, then perform a remedial action for EPH to the site-specific
ecological risk-based remediation goal for the applicable media in an
ESNR. However, EPH cannot exceed 4,000 mg/kg in an ESNR for
terrestrial soil (see Section 6.4.5 in the Ecological Evaluation Technical
Guidance).
16
5.2 CATEGORY 1 - Discharges of only Number 2 (No. 2) heating oil or diesel fuel:
Non-Residential Land Use
The steps below presume a non-residential land use is the endpoint of the remedial action at
the area of concern (AOC). If an unrestricted use is desired, use the Category 1 –
residential land use section of this technical guidance. Complete all steps below with
appropriate documentation in the applicable remedial phase report. Reference to sample
contaminant concentrations includes site investigation, remedial investigation, and remedial
action confirmation samples.
When all EPH sample concentrations are ≤1,000 mg/kg at the AOC, then remediation is
complete and an unrestricted use RAO for EPH can be issued.
For all EPH sample concentrations >1,000 mg/kg, complete each of the Steps below to
determine whether remediation of EPH or other contaminants is necessary.
Step 1. Evaluate EPH against NRSRC and product limits/ceiling limit
Evaluate all EPH sample concentrations against the 54,000 mg/kg non-residential
soil remediation criterion (NRSRC) and the EPH default product limit of 8,000
mg/kg (or the lower of the AOC-specific EPH alternative product limit or ceiling
limit as described in Appendix 2).
A. If all EPH sample concentrations are less than or equal to the EPH default
product limit of 8,000 mg/kg (or the lower of the AOC-specific EPH
alternative product limit or ceiling limit), then remediation is complete for
the EPH NRSRC and the EPH product limit. However, all EPH sample
concentrations greater than the 5,100 mg/kg residential soil remediation
criterion (RSRC) shall be included in an institutional control for the AOC.
In addition, an engineering control may be needed to prevent migration from
the AOC to other media or prevent on-site exposure to surface soil above the
applicable SRC. Go to Step 2.
B. Evaluate all EPH sample concentrations greater than the EPH default product
limit of 8,000 mg/kg (or the lower of the AOC-specific EPH alternative
product limit or ceiling limit), as follows:
i. Excavate or treat EPH product-contaminated soil and collect remedial
action confirmation samples and return to Step 1.A.
ii. Containment of a horizontally and vertically delineated volume of soil
with EPH concentrations greater than the EPH default product limit of
8,000 mg/kg (or the lower of the AOC-specific EPH alternative product
limit or ceiling limit) may be considered when treatment or removal is
not practicable pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.1(e). This will require
implementation of institutional and engineering controls. Include
appropriate documentation in the remedial action workplan (RAW) and
17
remedial action report (RAR) to support why treatment or removal is not
practicable and how containment will be implemented and monitored.
This may result in Department review of the RAW or RAR, so possible
containment of EPH product should be discussed with the Department
prior to implementation. A RAW shall be submitted for Department
written approval pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.3(d) for any AOC when
new construction of, or a change in use to, a residence, a school, or child
care center will occur. If contaminants other than EPH will be subject to
an institutional and engineering control, determine whether that
engineering control is also feasible as the engineering control to contain
EPH product. Finally, all EPH sample concentrations greater than the
5,100 mg/kg residential soil remediation criterion (RSRC) and less than
the EPH product limit shall be included in the institutional control. Go
to Step 2.
Step 2. Analyze samples > 1,000 mg/kg EPH for contingency analyses
For all EPH sample concentrations >1,000 mg/kg, collect samples, if not already
collected, for additional analysis of both 2-methylnaphthalene and naphthalene
pursuant to Table 2-1 at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d). Determine the number of samples
requiring additional analysis using the table below, then go to Step 3.
No. of Samples with EPH
>1,000 mg/kg
No. of Samples for Additional
Analyses
1-4 1
5-8 2
9-12 3
13 or more
1 additional sample for each
additional set of 1 to 4 samples
Note: Pursuant to Table 2-1 at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d) ("Analytical Requirements for
Petroleum Storage and Discharge Areas"), additional sample analysis shall be
conducted on those samples with the highest EPH concentration(s). The
investigator shall be aware of the soil sample handling and holding time restrictions
for EPH and all additional analyses when evaluating the initial EPH sample
concentrations and should ensure sufficient sample volume is collected for both
EPH and additional analyses.
Step 3. Evaluate the sample concentrations of the contingency analyses
A. If all sample concentrations do not exceed the impact to ground water (IGW)
soil screening level of 8 mg/kg for 2-methylnaphthalene and do not exceed
the non-residential direct contact soil remediation standard of 17 mg/kg for
18
naphthalene, then remediation is complete for 2-methylnaphthalene and
naphthalene. Go to Step 4.
B. If any sample concentration is >8 mg/kg for 2-methylnaphthalene or >17 mg/kg
for naphthalene, then
i. Excavate or treat soil and collect remedial action confirmation samples,
then return to Step 3, or
ii. For all samples where the concentration of 2-methylnaphthalene is >8
mg/kg or for all samples where the concentration of naphthalene is >17
mg/kg, using available guidance complete the remedial investigation or
remedial action, as applicable, for these exceedances of the soil
remediation standards (SRS). Go to Step 4.
Note: The following option for 2-methylnaphthalene concentrations
greater than the IGW soil screening level departs from the protocol found
in technical guidance Development Of Site-Specific Impact To Ground
Water Soil Remediation Standards Using The Synthetic Precipitation
Leaching Procedure
(http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/rs/splp_guidance.pdf). This option
is applicable only if one or two of the contingency samples analyzed for 2-
methylnaphthalene is >8 mg/kg, and is not applicable where three or more
contingency samples analyzed for 2-methylnaphthalene is >8 mg/kg.
Consider conducting SPLP analysis on the one or two samples. Compare
the sample leachate concentrations to the 600 ug/L leachate concentration
for 2-methylnaphthalene.
a. If all sample leachate concentrations are ≤600 ug/L, remediation is
complete for 2-methylnaphthalene. Go to Step 4.
b. If one or both sample leachate concentrations is >600 ug/L,
remediation for 2-methylnaphthalene is not complete. Return to
Step 3.B.
Step 4. Evaluate EPH for ecological concern
Note: An ecological evaluation is not required at areas of concern that
consist of an underground storage tank storing heating oil for on-site
consumption in a one to four family residential building (Brownfield and
Contaminated Site Remediation Act at N.J.S.A. 58:10B-12a). Otherwise,
go to Step 4.A.
A. If all EPH sample concentrations are less than or equal to the ecological soil
screening level of 1,700 mg/kg, then the remediation is complete to address
ecological risk for EPH. For all EPH sample concentrations greater than the
ecological soil screening level of 1,700 mg/kg, go to Step 4.B.
19
B. For all EPH sample concentrations >1,700 mg/kg, where EPH is present in or
may migrate to an environmentally sensitive natural resource (ESNR), complete
an ecological evaluation pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.16 and 4.8 and the
Department’s Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance
(http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/srra/ecological_evaluation.pdf). In lieu of
an ecological evaluation for a terrestrial soil ESNR, excavate or treat soil until
EPH is less than or equal to 1,700 mg/kg.
i. If a remedial action for EPH to address ecological risk is not necessary
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.8 and the Department’s Ecological
Evaluation Technical Guidance, then the remediation to address
ecological risk for EPH is complete.
ii. If a remedial action to address ecological risk is required pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.8 and the Department’s Ecological Evaluation Technical
Guidance, then perform a remedial action for EPH to the site-specific
ecological risk-based remediation goal for the applicable media in an
ESNR. However, EPH cannot exceed 4,000 mg/kg in an ESNR for
terrestrial soil (see Section 6.4.5 in the Ecological Evaluation Technical
Guidance).
5.3 CATEGORY 2 – Discharges of petroleum products other than No. 2 heating oil or
diesel fuel: Both Residential and Non-Residential Land Uses
CATEGORY 2 petroleum products include: Numbers 4 and 6 heating oil, hydraulic oil,
cutting oil, lubricating oil, crude oil, waste oil, unknown petroleum hydrocarbons, waste
vehicular crankcase oil, mineral oil, dielectric fluid, dielectric mineral oil, or waste mineral
oil, or EPH-type discharges associated with manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites.
The steps below address unrestricted use, limited restricted use, and restricted use remedial
actions. Limited restricted use will require an institutional control (i.e., deed notice), but
usually not an engineering control. Restricted use will require both an institutional control
and an engineering control. Because a sample-specific soil remediation criterion (SRC) for
EPH is generated for each sample, none of the compliance averaging options described in the
Department’s Technical Guidance for the Attainment of Remediation Standards and Site-
Specific Criteria can be used for Category 2 EPH. Determine the applicable EPH default
product limit of either 8,000 mg/kg or 17,000 mg/kg based on the specific petroleum product
or products stored or discharged. Complete all steps below with appropriate documentation
in the applicable remedial phase report. Reference to sample contaminant concentrations
includes site investigation, remedial investigation, and remedial action confirmation samples.
Step 1. Determine sample-specific EPH soil remediation criterion
For each sample, determine the sample-specific soil remediation criterion (SRC) for
EPH.
20
A. Determine whether each sample is to be analyzed for EPH using the non-
fractionation or fractionation option in the NJDEP EPH Method (N.J.A.C.
7:26E-2.1(a)6).
i. If there is reason to believe that the EPH concentration in a sample is
≤2,300 mg/kg, then the non-fractionation option of the NJDEP EPH
Method may be used. It is important to ensure sufficient sample
volume is collected in case the sample requires fractionation when the
non-fractionated EPH concentration is >2,300 mg/kg.
ii. If there is reason to believe that the EPH concentration in a sample is
>2,300 mg/kg, or if the non-fractionated EPH concentration for a sample
is >2,300 mg/kg, then analyze the sample using the fractionation option
of the NJDEP EPH Method.
B. For each EPH sample concentration, determine whether the sample-specific
health-based soil remediation criterion (SRC) shall be calculated using the
Department’s on-line EPH SRC Calculator.
i. For each non-fractionated or fractionated EPH sample with a
concentration ≤2,300 mg/kg, go to Step 5.
ii. For each fractionated EPH sample with a concentration >2,300 mg/kg, use
the Department’s on-line EPH SRC Calculator to calculate the sample-
specific EPH SRC for both the residential and non-residential exposure
pathways. Go to Step 2.
Step 2. Evaluate fractionated EPH against SRC and product limits/ceiling limit
Evaluate each fractionated EPH sample concentration >2,300 mg/kg against the
sample-specific EPH SRC for the applicable residential or non-residential land use
and the applicable EPH default product limit of 8,000 mg/kg or 17,000 mg/kg (or
the lower of the AOC-specific EPH alternative product limit or ceiling limit as
described in Appendix 2).
A. For all EPH sample concentrations less than or equal to the calculated
residential soil remediation criteria (RSRC) and are less than or equal to the
applicable EPH default product limit of 8,000 mg/kg or 17,000 mg/kg, go to
Step 5.
B. For all samples where the EPH sample concentrations are greater than the
calculated RSRC and are less than or equal to the applicable EPH default
product limit of 8,000 mg/kg or 17,000 mg/kg, complete Steps 4 and 5.
C. For all samples where the EPH sample concentrations are greater than the
calculated RSRC and are also greater than the applicable EPH default product
21
limit of 8,000 mg/kg or 17,000 mg/kg (or AOC-specific EPH alternative
product limit or ceiling limit), complete Steps 3, 4, and 5.
D. For all samples where the EPH sample concentrations are less than or equal to
the calculated RSRC and are greater than the applicable EPH default product
limit of 8,000 mg/kg or 17,000 mg/kg (or AOC-specific EPH alternative
product Limit or ceiling limit), complete Steps 3 and 5.
Step 3. EPH concentration greater than the applicable default product limit
For all samples with EPH concentrations greater than the applicable EPH default
product limit of 8,000 mg/kg or 17,000 mg/kg (or the lower of the AOC-specific
EPH alternative product limit or ceiling limit):
A. Excavate or treat EPH product-contaminated soil and collect remedial action
confirmation samples, then return to Step 2.
B. Containment of a horizontally and vertically delineated volume of soil with
EPH concentrations greater than the applicable EPH default product limit of
8,000 mg/kg or 17,000 mg/kg (or the lower of the AOC-specific EPH
alternative product limit or ceiling limit) may be considered when treatment or
removal is not practicable pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.1(e). This will require
implementation of institutional and engineering controls. Include appropriate
documentation in the remedial action workplan (RAW) and remedial action
report (RAR) to support why treatment or removal is not practicable and how
containment will be implemented and monitored. This may result in
Department review of the RAW or RAR, so possible containment of EPH
product should be discussed with the Department prior to implementation. A
RAW shall be submitted for Department written approval pursuant to N.J.A.C.
7:26E-5.3(d) for any AOC when new construction of, or a change in use to, a
residence, a school, or child care center will occur. If contaminants other than
EPH will be subject to an institutional and engineering control, determine
whether that engineering control is also feasible as the engineering control to
contain EPH product.
Step 4. EPH concentration greater than its calculated SRC
For each sample with an EPH concentration greater than its calculated SRC:
A. Excavate or treat soil and collect remedial action confirmation samples based
on the calculated sample-specific SRC for the applicable residential or non-
residential AOC land use and selected unrestricted, limited restricted, or
restricted use remedial action, then return to Step 2.
B. Implement either institutional or institutional and engineering controls as
follows:
22
i. For residential AOC land use, for all EPH sample concentrations greater
than their calculated RSRC, implement an institutional control and
appropriate engineering control.
ii. For non-residential AOC land use:
a. For all EPH sample concentrations greater than their calculated
RSRC, but less than or equal to their calculated non-residential SRC
(NRSRC), implement an institutional control.
b. For all EPH sample concentrations greater than their calculated
NRSRC, implement institutional and engineering controls.
Step 5. Determine additional analytical requirements
A. Perform all additional analyses that apply based upon the petroleum product(s)
discharged, as listed in Table 2-1 at N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d).
B. Evaluate the additional analytical sample concentrations as follows:
i. For all sample concentrations that do not exceed the applicable soil
remediation standards (N.J.A.C. 7:26D) and the default IGW soil
screening levels (or AOC-specific IGW soil remediation standards), go to
Step 6.
ii For all sample concentrations that exceed the applicable soil remediation
standards (N.J.A.C. 7:26D) or the default IGW soil screening levels (or
AOC-specific IGW soil remediation standards), complete the remedial
investigation or remedial action, as applicable. Go to Step 6.
Step 6. Evaluate EPH for ecological concern
Note: An ecological evaluation is not required at areas of concern that
consist of an underground storage tank storing heating oil for on-site
consumption in a one to four family residential building (Brownfield and
Contaminated Site Remediation Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10B-12a). Otherwise, go
to Step 6.A.
A. If all EPH sample concentrations are less than the ecological soil screening
level of 1,700 mg/kg, then the remediation is complete to address ecological
risk for EPH. For all EPH sample concentrations greater than the ecological
soil screening level of 1,700 mg/kg, go to Step 6.B.
B. For all EPH sample concentrations >1,700 mg/kg, where EPH is present in or
may migrate to an environmentally sensitive natural resource (ESNR),
complete an ecological evaluation pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.16 and 4.8 and
the Department’s Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance
(http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/srra/ecological_evaluation.pdf). In lieu
23
of an ecological evaluation for a terrestrial soil ESNR, excavate or treat soil
until EPH is less than or equal to 1,700 mg/kg.
i. If a remedial action for EPH to address ecological risk is not necessary
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.8 and the Department’s Ecological
Evaluation Technical Guidance, then the remediation to address
ecological risk for EPH is complete.
ii. If a remedial action to address ecological risk is required pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.8 and the Department’s Ecological Evaluation Technical
Guidance, then perform a remedial action for EPH to the site-specific
ecological risk-based remediation goal for the applicable media in an
ESNR. However, EPH cannot exceed 4,000 mg/kg in an ESNR for
terrestrial soil (see Section 6.4.5 in the Ecological Evaluation Technical
Guidance).
24
GLOSSARY
Area of concern (AOC) – defined in the Technical Requirements For Site Remediation,
N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.8.
Category 1 EPH – consists of discharges of only Number 2 (No. 2) fuel oil and/or diesel fuel.
Category 2 EPH – consists of discharges of petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures other than No. 2
fuel oil and/or diesel fuel (i.e., Number 4 fuel oil, Number 6 fuel oil, hydraulic oils, cutting oils,
crude oil, lubricating oil, waste oil, waste vehicular crankcase oil, and waste mineral oil.
Environmentally sensitive natural resource – an area defined at N.J.A.C. 7:1E-1.8(a), or an
area or resource that is protected or managed pursuant to the Pinelands Protection Act, N.J.S.A.
13:18A-1 et seq., and the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan, N.J.A.C. 7:50.
EPH alternative product limit concentration in soil – for a specified petroleum product for an
AOC, it is the lower concentration of either the median of the calculated EPH product limit
concentrations for an inputted set of grain size samples or the EPH ceiling limit.
EPH ceiling limit – the maximum concentration of EPH allowed to remain in soil on a sample-
specific basis which is 30,000 mg/kg as established in this guidance.
EPH default product limits – the 8,000 mg EPH/kg soil and 17,000 mg EPH/kg soil generic
concentrations established as upper limits in the NJDEP’s “Default EPH Product Limits for No.
2 Fuel Oil, Diesel, and Heavier TPH Products” (Sanders 2009 in Appendix 3.1) to prevent the
occurrence of mobile free product.
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH) – For the purposes of this technical guidance, the
results in milligrams of EPH per kilogram of soil or sediment as determined and reported using
the NJDEP analytical method "Analysis of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon Compounds
(EPH) in Aqueous and Soil/Sediment/Sludge Matrices" (NJDEP EPH Method 10/08, Revision 3
August 2010) https://nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/srra/eph_method.pdf.
Free product – defined in the Technical Requirements For Site Remediation, N.J.A.C. 7:26E-
1.8.
Heating oil tank system – defined in the Heating Oil Tank System Remediation Rules, N.J.A.C.
7:26F-1.5.
Petroleum product – For the purposes of this technical guidance, the petroleum products listed
in TABLE 2-1 Analytical Requirements For Petroleum Storage And Discharge Areas of
N.J.A.C. 7:26E-2.1(d) that require analysis for EPH in Soil/Sediment.
Residual product – defined in the Technical Requirements For Site Remediation, N.J.A.C.
7:26E-1.8.
25
Technical impracticability – a condition where remediation of soil is not feasible from an
engineering perspective because of the extent or type of physical impediment(s) that limit the
ability to complete soil remediation to the applicable standards or criteria. Cost is only
considered as subordinate to that of ensuring protection of public health, safety and the
environment.
26
ACRONYMS
AOC area of concern
CSM conceptual site model
EPH extractable petroleum hydrocarbons
ESNR environmentally sensitive natural resource
HOTS heating oil tank system
IGW impact to ground water
LNAPL light non-aqueous phase liquid
LSRP licensed site remediation professional
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
MGP manufactured gas plant
MLE multiple lines of evidence
NAPL non-aqueous phase liquid
NJDEP New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection
NRSRC non-residential soil remediation criterion
RAO remedial action outcome
RAR remedial action report
RAW remedial action workplan
RSRC residential soil remediation criterion
SPLP synthetic precipitation leaching procedure
SRC soil remediation criteria
SRP Site Remediation Program
SRS soil remediation standards
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UST underground storage tank
27
REFERENCES
ASTM. (ASTM International). 2007. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils
(Withdrawn 2016). ASTM D422-63(2007)e2. www.astm.org
ASTM. (ASTM International). 2017. Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution
(Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis, ASTM D6913 / D6913M-17. www.astm.org
ASTM. (ASTM International). 2017. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution
(Gradation) of Fine-Grained Soils Using the Sedimentation (Hydrometer) Analysis. ASTM
D7928-17. www.astm.org
Bear, J. 1988. Dynamics of Flow in Porous Media. New York, Dover.
Bobo, A. M., N. Khoury, H. Li, and M. C. Boufadel. 2012. "Groundwater Flow in a Tidally
Influenced Gravel Beach in Prince William Sound, Alaska," Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
17(4): 494-494.
Boufadel, M. C., M.T. Suidan, A. D. Venosa, C.H. Rauch, and P. Biswas. 1998. “2D Variably
Saturated Flows: Physical Scaling and Bayesian Estimation.” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering,
3(4): 223-231, October 1998.
Brost, E. J. and G. E. DeVaull. “NonAqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) Mobility Limits in Soil.”
Soil & Groundwater Research Bulletin (9): June 2000.
Cedergren, H. R. 1967. Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets. New York, John Wiley and Sons.
Clark, M. M. 1996. Transport Modeling for Environmental Engineers and Scientists. New York,
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
de Marsily, G. 1986. Quantitative Hydrogeology, Groundwater Hydrology for Engineers. San
Diego and London, Academic Press, Inc.
Fetter, C.W. 1994. Applied Hydrogeology. Third Edition, Prentice Hall.
Mualem, Y. 1976. "A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated porous
media," Water Resources Research 12(3).
NJDEP. 2008. Guidance Document, Inhalation Standards Compliance, Development Of
Alternative Remediation Standards For The Inhalation Pathway, June 2008.
NJDEP. 2014. Frequently Asked Questions for the Impact to Ground Water Pathway in Soil
Remediation Standards, Version 2.0, March 2014.
28
USDA-SCS (United States Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service). 1987. Soil
Mechanics Level 1, Module 1 – Unified Soil Classification System, Study Guide.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044811.pdf
van Genuchten, M. T. 1980. "A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of
unsaturated soils," Soil Science Society of America Journal 44(5): 892-898.
van Genuchten, M.T., F.J. Leij, and S.R. Yates. (1991) The RETC Code for Quantifying the
Hydraulic Functions of Unsaturated Soils. USEPA Report, EPA/600/2-91/065, (NTIS 92-
119668).
Vukovic, M. and A. Soro. 1992. "Determination of hydraulic conductivity of porous media from
grain-size composition," Water Resources Publications. Littleton, Colorado.
29
APPENDIX 1
Summary Table of EPH Soil Remediation Criteria, Thresholds for Additional Analyses and Evaluations, and EPH Product Limits
EPH Category Category 1 Category 2
AOC Use Residential *
1
Non-residential *
1
Residential *
1
Non-residential *
1
EPH Soil Remediation
Criteria
5,100 mg/kg 54,000 mg/kg Sample-specific calculation Sample-specific calculation
EPH Threshold
Concentration for
Additional Analyses
>1,000 mg/kg >1,000 mg/kg
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-
2.1, Table 2-1
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-
2.1, Table 2-1
Additional Analyses
(if required)
2-methylnaphthalene and
naphthalene
2-methylnaphthalene and
naphthalene
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-
2.1, Table 2-1
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-
2.1, Table 2-1
EPH Default Product
Limit
8,000 mg/kg 8,000 mg/kg
17,000 mg/kg (except for
MGP, crude oil, cutting oil,
and unknown petroleum
products which are 8,000
mg/kg; waste oil is parent
product dependent)
17,000 mg/kg (except for
MGP, crude oil, cutting oil,
and unknown petroleum
products which are 8,000
mg/kg; waste oil is parent
product dependent)
AOC-specific EPH
Alternative Product
Limit Concentration
for Soil
Lower of:
AOC-specific median of
Calculated EPH Product
Limit Concentration for
grain size samples
-OR-
30,000 mg/kg ceiling limit
Lower of:
AOC-specific median of
Calculated EPH Product
Limit Concentration for
grain size samples
-OR-
30,000 mg/kg ceiling limit
Lower of:
AOC-specific median of
Calculated EPH Product
Limit Concentration for
grain size samples
-OR-
30,000 mg/kg ceiling limit
Lower of:
AOC-specific median of
Calculated EPH Product
Limit Concentration for
grain size samples
-OR-
30,000 mg/kg ceiling limit
EPH Threshold
Concentration for
Ecological
Evaluation*
2
>1,700 mg/kg >1,700 mg/kg >1,700 mg/kg >1,700 mg/kg
*1
: For tank systems subject to the Heating Oil Tank System Remediation (HOTSR) Rule (N.J.A.C. 7:26F), refer to the HOTSR Rule for specific requirements.
*2
: An ecological evaluation is not required at areas of concern that consist of an underground storage tank storing heating oil for on-site consumption in a one
to four family residential building (Brownfield and Contaminated Site Remediation Act, N.J.S.A. 58:10B-12a).
Technical Guidance for Evaluation of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil
30
APPENDIX 2
EPH Alternative Product Limit Calculation Procedures
2.1 Obtaining Appropriate Grain Size Distribution Data
2.2 Documentation and Information to be Submitted for Calculation of an AOC-
specific EPH Alternative Product Limit in Soil
2.3 Derivation of Equation for Calculating an EPH Alternative Product Limit in
Soil
2.4 Variables Table and Table of Petroleum Product Viscosity and Density
31
APPENDIX 2
EPH Alternative Product Limit Calculation Procedures
When to use the EPH Alternative Product Limit Calculator
The Department’s selection of and basis for the two EPH default product limits in soil is
provided in Appendix 3.1. To summarize, the Department relied on residual
concentration calculations published by Brost and DeVaull in 2000. For Category 1 EPH,
the Department selected 8,000 mg/kg based on the value listed by Brost and DeVaull for
medium sand. For Category 2 EPH, the Department selected 17,000 mg/kg based on the
“residual saturation for fuel oils heavier than diesel” assuming all soils are composed of
“medium sand”. The Department also judged “that the value of 17,000 mg/kg used for
heavier fuel oil is also adequately protective for lubricating oils” for a generic New Jersey
soil composed of medium sand.
It is recognized that not all soils in New Jersey have textures solely consisting of medium
sand. Consequently, the EPH Technical Guidance Committee developed an equation that
provides the investigator via a spreadsheet calculator, a method to determine an AOC-
specific EPH alternative product limit concentration based on the AOC-specific soil texture
and the stored or discharged petroleum product(s).
The derivation of the equation for calculating an EPH alternative product limit in soil is
provided in Appendix 2.3. The equation includes several variables which are defined and
described in Appendix 2.4. For consistency and protectiveness, the Department has fixed
several variables utilizing conservative assumptions for nearly all the variables. The
investigator needs only to identify the discharged petroleum product(s) and obtain the
“effective diameter” (D
10
) value from grain size distribution analyses from soil as the same
lithology (i.e., same depth interval) as the EPH product zone. Calculating an AOC-specific,
EPH alternative product limit concentration is most useful when the soil texture is finer
than medium sand as reflected by the D
10
value. Based on the conceptual site model
(CSM) and multiple lines of evidence (MLE), the investigator determines whether the EPH
default product limit or the EPH alternative product limit concentration becomes the
EPH product limit for the AOC. The decision to calculate an EPH alternative product limit
concentration in lieu of using the EPH default product limit resides with the investigator.
Variables used in the equation are defined in Appendix 2.4 including a table of petroleum
product-specific density and dynamic viscosity values assigned to the petroleum products
for which the EPH Alternative Product Limit Calculator can be used.
The technical guidance addressing the number and locations of soil samples needed to
determine the D
10
value is provided in Appendix 2.1. Refer to Appendix 2.2 for the
documentation and information to be included in the applicable remedial phase document
when an AOC-specific EPH alternative product limit has been calculated and applied to EPH
remediation in soil.
32
The following steps outline the process to complete the calculation of an AOC-specific EPH
alternative product limit:
Step 1. For each AOC, complete horizontal and vertical delineation of EPH in soil to the
applicable EPH default product limit concentration for the petroleum product that
was stored or discharged. Delineation of EPH must be completed in both the
saturated and unsaturated zones without regard to the property boundary pursuant
to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.2(a)4.
Step 2. Soil samples for grain size analysis may be collected at any time. If the
investigator suspects that the petroleum product discharge may exceed the EPH
default product limit when conducting remediation, it may be prudent to collect soil
samples for grain size analysis early in the investigation. It should be noted that
soil samples for grain size analysis should be free of EPH so that the laboratory
sieves and hydrometers are not adversely impacted. It is important to discuss this
aspect with the laboratory to avoid sample rejection.
Step 3. The soil samples should be sent under proper chain-of-custody procedures to
the laboratory. If it is not certain whether there is an exceedance of the EPH
default product limit, the grain size samples may be placed on “laboratory hold”
until the EPH analyses are completed. The determination of grain size is a
physical test, without any holding time restrictions on soil samples.
Step 4. The soil samples for grain size analysis can be analyzed using an appropriate
analytical method that accurately characterizes the soil grain sizes including clay,
silt, sands and gravel mass fraction. The laboratory report will provide the weight
fractions for specific sieve and hydrometer particle sizes. The ultimate goal is to
identify the effective diameter D
10
which represents the equivalent particle size in
millimeters where 10% by dry weight passes (i.e., is finer). It is suggested the
investigator request the laboratory calculate the D
10
to decrease the quantity of
manual data entry into the EPH Alternative Product Limit Calculator. Alternately,
because the laboratory reports the mass fraction of the grain sizes, the EPH
Alternative Product Limit Calculator can determine the D
10
value for each soil
sample.
Step 5. After receiving the laboratory report, access the Department’s on-line EPH
Alternative Product Limit Calculator and follow the instructions to calculate an EPH
Alternative Product Limit Concentration for Soil for the AOC.
Step 6. The Calculator automatically determines the “EPH Alternative Product Limit
Concentration for Soil in this AOC” by determining the median of the calculated EPH
product limit concentrations for the grain size samples that were inputted and
comparing the median against the 30,000 mg/kg EPH Ceiling Limit concentration.
The more stringent (lesser concentration) between the median value and the ceiling
limit is the “EPH Alternative Product Limit Concentration for Soil in this AOC”.
33
If the AOC has more than one lithologic zone with EPH concentrations that exceed the EPH
default product limit (i.e., when the petroleum product discharge has migrated to other
distinct soil textures) calculate an AOC-specific alternative product limit for each additional
product zone. An AOC-specific alternative product limit must be calculated for each
distinct soil matrix where an EPH concentration exceeds an EPH default product limit (see
Appendix 2.1). If more than one petroleum product is being investigated or was
discharged at the AOC, calculate an EPH alternative product limit concentration for soil for
each petroleum product.
34
Appendix 2.1
Obtaining Appropriate Grain Size Distribution Data
The following describes the process for collection of an appropriate number and characteristics
of soil samples for grain size distribution analysis for calculation of an AOC-specific EPH
alternative product limit concentration. The grain size distribution data generated via sieve
and hydrometer analyses are used to derive the effective diameter “D
10
” input parameter for use
in the Department’s EPH Alternative Product Limit Concentration Calculator. The calculator
employs grain size distribution analyses. A web-link to several test methods is included in
Section 8.0 REFERENCES.
Selection of appropriate soil samples for grain size distribution analysis should be based on the
conceptual site model, characterization of the limits of EPH concentrations in the soils and
include consideration of soil lithology for each distinct stratigraphic horizon containing
petroleum product in exceedance of the applicable default product limit within the AOC. The
guidance was developed with the perspective that the soil to be evaluated for developing an EPH
alternative product limit was deposited naturally, and that the horizontal variation in texture
across short “AOC-sized” distances is expected to be minimal. Where historic fill material is
documented, the investigator must determine if the historic fill material is suitable for
calculation of an EPH alternative product limit concentration. Soil samples from historic fill
material may not be amenable to the sieve and hydrometer analyses because of inherent
contamination; consultation with the laboratory is recommended. Also, non-uniform historic
fill material (e.g., construction debris, non-hazardous solid waste, etc.) may not be amenable to
developing an EPH alternative product limit. For these situations, use the EPH default product
limits. The procedures for collecting soil samples, whether naturally deposited or from
suitable historic fill material, are described below.
It is recommended that the investigator first delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of the
EPH product mass to the applicable EPH product limit concentration pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-
4.2(a)4. However, it may be possible to collect soil samples for grain size distribution analysis
concurrent with EPH product delineation. Whichever option is chosen, grain size soil samples
should be collected as close as practicable to the EPH product mass to be most representative of
the soil lithology retaining EPH concentrations in exceedance of the default product limit. The
investigator is cautioned that analytical laboratories may reject samples for grain size analyses
which contain EPH. Therefore, the investigator should contact the prospective laboratory to
determine the constraints under which the laboratory will analyze petroleum-contaminated
samples for grain size distribution.
The Department’s Office of Quality Assurance does not offer certification for grain size/particle
size analyses.
Collect grain-size soil samples free of EPH from locations that are side-gradient to the mass of
soil with EPH exceeding the default product limit. Figure 2.1-1 presents potential grain size
sampling locations based on one contiguous lithology across the entire AOC. If petroleum
product impacts two or more lithologies in an AOC, the investigator should collect an additional
set of three soil samples for each distinct lithology. In general, follow the criteria below for the
collection of appropriate soil samples.
35
• The grain size samples should be biased toward soil sample locations that are physically
similar to the lithology of the EPH zone.
• Collect additional grain size soil samples where the EPH product concentrations exceed
the default product limit is larger than one-quarter acre (10,890 square feet) based on the
delineation of the site.
• If there are multiple AOCs in close proximity (e.g. within one-quarter acre) with
exceedences of the EPH default product limit in the same lithologic soil horizon, it may be
appropriate to collect grain size distribution soil samples whose results can be applied to
more than one AOC.
• If two soil lithologies are encountered and the delineation indicates they are both subject
to impact in exceedence of the default product limit, collect a minimum of three grain size
samples from each lithology type.
• The investigator should report all the calculated EPH alternative product limit
concentrations.
• Utilize the “EPH Alternative Product Limit Concentration for Soil in this AOC” from
the Calculator spreadsheet.
36
37
Appendix 2.2
Documentation and Information to be Submitted for Calculation of an
AOC-specific EPH Alternative Product Limit in Soil
The person responsible for conducting the remediation shall submit the required
information, documentation, and discussion pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.9 “Remedial
investigation report”, N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.5 “Remedial action workplan requirements”, and
N.J.A.C. 7:26E-5.7 “Remedial action report requirements” for the applicable remedial phase
under which an AOC-specific EPH alternative product limit for soil is calculated. The data
presentation should conform with N.J.A.C. 7:26E-1.6 “General reporting requirements” and
include the following information for each AOC where an EPH alternative product limit has
been calculated:
• the petroleum product source material (if known) and applicable EPH default
product limit;
• a description of the source and cause of the discharge (if known);
• the EPH concentrations that exceed the EPH default product limit including the soil
sample field identification numbers and depth intervals;
• the EPH concentrations that horizontally and vertically delineate the product zone
including the soil sample field identification numbers and depth intervals;
• the vertical and horizontal soil lithologic profiles across the EPH product source
area including the soil physical descriptions;
• the stratigraphic log for each EPH soil sample that exceeds the EPH default product
limit and that horizontally and vertically delineates the product zone;
• the EPH alternative product limit concentration calculated for each AOC which
exceeded the EPH default product limit;
• all printouts from the EPH Alternative Product Limit Calculator;
• the complete laboratory data deliverables supplied by the laboratory for all
analytical methods used in the grain size distribution analysis(es); and
• if the effective diameter D
10
is calculated by the laboratory, include the laboratory’s
method used to calculate D
10
.
38
Appendix 2.3
Derivation of Equation for Calculating an Alternative
EPH Product Limit in Soil
Introduction
The purpose of this appendix is to define an equation and its terms for use in calculating an
EPH alternative product limit concentration “C”. As discussed in Appendix 3.1, the
Department’s EPH default product limits are based on residual saturation concentrations
for petroleum products in medium sand (Brost and DeVaull 2000). Where an EPH
alternative product limit may be appropriate based on the AOC-specific soil grain size and
petroleum product properties, the equation derived in this appendix may be used.
Definition of Immobile NAPL Conditions
The calculation of NAPL concentration in soils at which the NAPL is considered immobile
requires baseline assumptions of mobility and site characteristics. This derivation utilizes
the following parameters to define the site characteristics which identify the limit of NAPL
mobility.
i – Vertical Groundwater Gradient – dimensionless 1.0 feet/foot
q - Darcy Flux value – feet/year 0.01 feet/year
S
r
- Residual petroleum hydrocarbon saturation – percent 2%
ρ
s
- Grain density of the soil - grams/cm
3
2.54 gm/cm
3
Temp – Standard temperature of the NAPL in the soil 15-degrees C
For all the terms presented below, please see Appendix 2.4 for their definitions, purpose,
and values as used in the following equations.
Mass Concentration of NAPL in Soil
An EPH alternative product limit concentration can be calculated by defining the mass
concentration of non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) in a dry soil
1
as given by Equation 1
(Eq. 1) below:
C =
=
(Eq. 1)
Consider a soil with the following properties: porosity
φ
, grain density
s
ρ
, and ratio of
NAPL volume per total volume of soil sample
o
θ
, and oil density
o
ρ
. The NAPL ratio
o
θ
cannot be greater than and is usually less than total porosity (
φ
), because the content
1
It is a standard practice to report the concentration of chemicals in soil on a dry sample basis.
39
of material filling the pore space between soil grains can never exceed the total pore space
by definition. Substituting these terms into Eq. 1, one has the following:
The mass of dry soil is:
M
=
(
1
)
(Eq. 2)
The mass of oil is:
M
=
(Eq. 3)
Therefore, substituting the terms for the mass of NAPL and the mass of dry soil we can
determine the mass concentration of NAPL in dry soil is:
C =
=
(
)
(Eq. 4)
Example:
An example calculation is provided to illustrate an equation result for No. 2 heating oil.
Consider a soil with porosity
φ
= 0.41 and the grain density
s
ρ
= 2,540 kg/m
3
.
Furthermore, assume that the soil has an oil content of 10% (i.e.,
o
θ
= 0.10) and the
petroleum product density is
o
ρ
= 820 kg/m
3
(0.82 g/cm
3
). Substituting these values
into Eq. 4, one obtains the mass concentration of NAPL in this dry soil of:
C =
M
M
=
(
1
)
=
0.10 820
(
1 0.41
)
2540
=
82
1499
0.055
kg of NAPL
kg of dry soil
C = 55.0
55,000
NAPL Mobility
Eq. 4 calculates the mass concentration of NAPL in a dry soil without consideration of NAPL
mobility, which is a function of petroleum product type and additional soil characteristics
beyond porosity. To calculate a site-specific EPH alternative product limit, NAPL mobility
in soil must be considered. The flow or movement of NAPL, such as a petroleum product,
through a porous medium (i.e., soil) can be characterized using the same soil properties
and equations that apply to ground water. (Fetter 1994, p. 95).
By definition, the residual saturation of NAPL is the value at which NAPL in soil becomes
discontinuous (Bear 1988) and will not migrate due to gravity and therefore is immobile
(Brost and DeVaull 2000). The mobility of NAPL in a porous medium can be assessed
using Darcy’s law:
q = K
*
i (Eq. 5)
40
Where q is the Darcy flux (flow rate) and i is the hydraulic gradient (Fetter 1994, Section
4.4). The term K is the hydraulic conductivity given by:
=
(Eq. 6)
Where g is gravity acceleration,
ρ
and
µ
are the density and dynamic viscosity of the
fluid, respectively, k is the intrinsic permeability of the medium, and k
r
is the relative
permeability, which depends on the saturation of the medium by the fluid (Boufadel et al.
1998). The values of ρ, μ, and k could be obtained by measurement, whereas k
r
would
need to be estimated based on a migration velocity within the soil below which the NAPL is
considered to be immobile. For example, if the NAPL is migrating at 0.01 foot/year, it is
reasonable to consider NAPL immobile for purposes of this guidance.
For a hydraulic gradient of 1.0 (a large hydraulic gradient such as water running
downward along a vertical wall), and a Darcy mass flux [q value of 0.01 foot/year], then
one may compute K from Eq. 6. The value for q cannot be set at zero, so it has been set by
the committee at 0.01 foot/year as defining NAPL as immobile (see Table 2.4-1 of Appendix
2.4). Then, with ρ, μ, and k measured, one can find the value of k
r
from Eq. 6. After
finding k
r
, one would be able to find the NAPL saturation θ, as discussed below.
The relation between k
r
and θ can be obtained using the van Genuchten-Mualem model
(Mualem 1976, van Genuchten 1980). One solves for the effective saturation S
e
, which
represents the relative fraction of saturation available for NAPL flow (Boufadel, et al.
1998). Hence,
(
/
)
[1-(1-
/()
)
(n-1)/ (n)
]
2
=k
r
(Eq. 7)
Where “n” (the van Genuchten uniformity coefficient) can be obtained by capillary-
retention (or capillary-saturation) experiment using water as a surrogate for NAPL
(Boufadel et al. 1998). One then finds S
e
, and subsequently, the NAPL saturation ratio S:
S = (1-S
r
)S
e
+S
r
(Eq. 8)
Where S
r
(residual saturation of NAPL) could be estimated (along with n) from a capillary-
retention experiment with water, but the EPH Technical Guidance Committee has set
default values of S
r
= 0.02 and n = 4 (see Appendix 2.4 for basis). The amount of NAPL or
petroleum hydrocarbon content (volume basis) in the sample is then:
=
φ
(Eq. 9)
As n is set equal to 4 one can use Eq. 7 to find S
e
from a given value of k
r
. Then, the NAPL
saturation ratio S can be found from Eq. 8. Figure 2.3-1 shows a plot of S
e
as function of k
r
for n = 4. Also shown is the best fit equation using a power law:
S
e
= 1.135*k
r
0.31
(correlation coefficient R
2
=0.9998) (Eq. 10)
41
Given k
r
, it is much easier to use Eq. 10 to obtain S
e
than to use the fundamental equation,
Eq. 7. The large R
2
associated with Eq. 10 suggests that the difference in S
e
obtained from
the two equations is negligible.
Figure 2.3-1: Variation of effective saturation of water as function of the saturation ratio for n = 4.
Example:
To find the (residual concentration of NAPL or “immobile” NAPL concentration as used at
end of the example) – consider a soil with a petroleum product such as #2 heating oil with
a dynamic viscosity (µ) of 0.020 poise (i.e., approximately 20 times the dynamic viscosity of
water) and a density (ρ
o
) of 820 kg/m
3
in a sandy soil with a grain density (ρ
s
) of 2,540
kg/m
3
, intrinsic permeability (k) =10
-11
m
2
, porosity (
φ
) = 0.41, van Genuchten uniformity
coefficient (n) = 4; residual petroleum hydrocarbon ratio (S
r
) = 0.02 (i.e., 2% of the
porosity, Appendix 2.4). Setting the Darcy Flux value (q) equal to 0.01 foot/year under a
hydraulic gradient of 1.0, thus, Hydraulic conductivity (K) = 0.076 m/year, which is equal to
9.67x10
-11
m/s. From Eq. 5, one obtains the relative permeability (k
r
) for the specific
NAPL material:
= (0.020 9.6710
) / (820 9.81 110
) = 2.4x10
-5
(unitless)
Using the value of k
r
in Eq. 10, one obtains S
e
≅
0.042, and Eq. 8 gives:
y = 1.1349x
0.3095
R² = 0.9998
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Se calculated from kr
kr
Effective saturation (Se) vs. relative permeability of soil (k
r
)
where n (water retention curve shape parameter)=4
42
=
(
1
)
+
= 0.98 0.042 + 0.02 0.06 (unitless)
Thus, the NAPL saturation ratio (S) that satisfies the criterion of 0.01 foot/1 year for q is
6% of the pore space while the residual saturation (S
r
) is 2%. The volumetric content of
NAPL is obtained by multiplying the NAPL saturation ratio by the porosity, which gives:
= = 0.06 0.41 = 0.025 ()
Using this value in Eq. 4, along with the given values above, the maximum NAPL
concentration that can be considered immobile for a sandy soil and NAPL (No. 2 heating oil
or diesel petroleum product) of the 55,000 mg/kg calculated in the Eq. 4 example
calculation on page 2:
C =
=
(
)
=
.
(
.
)
=
.
0.013
C = 13.67
13,670
Therefore, the calculated “immobile” mass concentration of NAPL is approximately 13,670
mg/kg of dry sandy soil for a number 2 heating oil release in a sandy soil with an intrinsic
permeability of 1x10
-11
m
2
.
Permeability
The Eq. 4 example just calculated for the mass concentration of NAPL in soil does not
consider site-specific soil permeability. To calculate a site-specific residual saturation
NAPL concentration, one needs to modify Eq. 6 to input site-specific soil permeability for k
to replace the default value of 10
-11
m
2
.
Using the Kozeny-Carmen equation (Clark 1996), an estimate of the intrinsic permeability,
k, can be obtained based on the sample porosity
φ
and D
10
value obtained from a grain
size distribution analysis. The D
10
value, also referred to as d
10
, is the particle size
(millimeters) where 10% of the mass of a soil sample is finer than that sieve size (USDA-
SCS 1987), or alternatively, the sieve size that retains 90% of the mass of the dry sample.
The selection of the value of D
10
is slightly arbitrary following convention. The D
10
is also
used in the permeability estimation using the Hazen formula (Cedergren 1967), which is
used in geotechnical engineering. Recent studies, summarized in Bobo et al. (2012),
suggest using different formulas or diameters based on the grain size may provide similar
estimates of intrinsic permeability. For example, the US Bureau of Reclamation uses the
D
20
and/or the uniformity coefficient (equal to D
60
/D
10
)
(Vukovic and Soro 1992, Bobo et al.
2012). For calculating an EPH alternative product limit, the Department has selected to
use the Kozeny-Carmen equation. The Kozeny-Carmen equation is valid when D
10
grain
size diameters are less than 3 mm (Bobo et al. 2012).
The Kozeny-Carmen equation (Clark 1996) is given as:
=
(
)
(Eq. 11)
43
Where
f
τ
is the tortuosity to flow, commonly taken as 0.5, and F is a shape factor that
varies from 2.0 for circular pores to 3.0 for flat pores. As a reasonable and protective
value, F can be taken equal to 2.5, thus Eq. 11 becomes:
=
(
)
(Eq. 12)
An illustration of computation of the intrinsic permeability is shown in Figure 2.3-2 for the
porosity of ϕ = 0.41 for D
10
varying from 0.02 mm to 1.0 mm. Sand has a D
10
typically
larger than 0.2 mm.
Figure 2.3-2: The intrinsic permeability, k, as function of the D
10
. Note that one needs to
divide the ordinate (i.e., “y” axis) by 10
12
to obtain the value in m
2
. For example, the value
1,000 on the “y” axis represents an intrinsic permeability of 10
-9
m
2
.
Example –Effects of Permeability
Using the estimated permeability based on the D
10
characteristics of the soil and
concentration of oil in Eq. 4, the maximum NAPL concentration that can be considered for a
site-specific soil and a No. 2 heating oil NAPL may be estimated as follows.
If D
10
= 0.50 mm, the Kozeny-Carmen yields the following
k =
(
)
=
.
(
.
)
(
0.50
)
= 0.00275 mm
2
= 2.75x10
-10
m
2
Substituting site specific permeability estimate into Eq. 6 yields
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
k*(10
^12
), m2
D
10
, mm
Porosity=0.41
44
=
(. .
)
( . .
)
8.610
(unitless)
Using the site-specific value of k
r
, one calculates the effective petroleum saturation (S
e
) as
follows from Eq. 10:
S
e
= 1.135*k
r
0.31
= 1.135 * (8.6x10
-7
)
0.31
0.015
Using Eq. 8 to calculate the NAPL saturation ratio,
=
(
1
)
+
= 0.98 0.015 + 0.02 0.035 (unitless)
The volumetric content of NAPL is obtained by multiplying the NAPL saturation ratio by
the porosity, which gives:
= = 0.035 0.41 0.014 (unitless)
Combining the site-specific residual petroleum hydrocarbon content (θ
r
) and the physical
characteristics of a No. 2 heating oil into the modified Eq. 6 yields the following.
C =
=
(
)
=
.
(
.
)
=
.
0.00785
C = 7.85
7,850
The calculated “immobile” mass concentration of NAPL is approximately 7,850 mg/kg in
soil with a D
10
of 0.5 mm for a No. 2 heating oil discharge.
Thus, data for three variables are needed to determine an AOC-specific EPH product limit
concentration in soil (i.e., C in Eq. 1). They are: (1) the density and (2) dynamic viscosity
of the petroleum product, and (3) the D
10
value derived from the grain size distribution
analysis of the soil.
A comprehensive diagram of the preceding equation components used to calculate an EPH
alternative product limit in soil is presented in Figure 2.3-3.
45
Figure 2.3-3: Diagrammed Equation used to Calculate an EPH Alternative Product Limit in Soil
46
Appendix 2.4
Variables Table and Table of Petroleum Product Viscosity and Density
Table 2.4-1
Variable Definition/Purpose Units
Default
Value
Literature
Source for
Default Value
Measurement or
Calculation Notes
C
Mass concentration of NAPL in
dry soil
mg/kg No N/A Calculation
Calculated value (Eq. 1,
Eq. 4, and Diagrammed
Equation in Figure 2.3-3
of Appendix 2.3).
M
o
Mass content of non-aqueous
phase liquid
mg No N/A Calculation
Calculated value (Eq. 3
in Appendix 2.3).
M
s
Mass of dry soil kg No N/A Calculation
Calculated value (Eq. 2
in Appendix 2.3).
Ø
Porosity:
Total volume not occupied by soil
grains; includes volume filled
with air, water, and petroleum
hydrocarbon liquid phases
Unitless 0.41
Default value
(NJDEP 2008)
N/A
Cannot change from
NJDEP default value.
47
Variable Definition/Purpose Units
Default
Value
Literature
Source for
Default Value
Measurement or
Calculation Notes
ρ
s
Grain density: Mass per unit
volume of the soil grains
g/cm
3
2.54 N/A Calculation
Calculated from dry soil
bulk density and
porosity, ρ
s
= ρ
b
/ (1- Ø).
Using default values for
porosity and bulk
density (NJDEP 2008),
grain density equals
2.54 g/cm
3
. [ρ
s
= (1.5
g/cm
3
) / (1 - 0.41) =
2.54 g/cm
3
].
ϴ
o
Petroleum hydrocarbon content
(volume basis): Ratio of
petroleum hydrocarbon volume
per soil sample volume.
Unitless No N/A Calculation
Calculated value (Eq. 9
in Appendix 2.3). ϴ
o
≤ Ø. ϴ
o
> ϴ
r
.
Unique for a given soil
and petroleum product.
ρ
o
Petroleum hydrocarbon density:
Mass of petroleum hydrocarbon
per unit volume of petroleum
hydrocarbon liquid phase
g/cm
3
Specific to each
petroleum
product type
Environment
Canada
N/A
See Table 2.4-2 below of
petroleum product
density and viscosity for
the default values used
in the EPH Alternative
Product Limit
Concentration
Calculator. Most
protective values were
selected.
ρ
b
Bulk density: Mass per unit
volume of entire undisturbed soil
sample
g/cm
3
1.5
Default value
(NJDEP 2008)
N/A
Cannot change from
DEP default value.
48
Variable Definition/Purpose Units
Default
Value
Literature
Source for
Default Value
Measurement or
Calculation Notes
q
Darcy flux value: velocity below
which liquid (water or petroleum
hydrocarbon liquid) is
considered immobile. Defined
for the purposes of this
calculation.
m/s 10
-10
Default value
(NJDEP 2014)
N/A
Default value of 10
-10
m/s equates to
approximately 0.01 foot
per year which is
defined as immobile for
this guidance
(1ft./100yrs) from IGW
SESOIL FAQ (NJDEP
2014). (Eq. 5 in
Appendix 2.3).
K (eq. 6)
Hydraulic conductivity value: The
hydraulic conductivity value that
will pr
oduce the Darcy flux value.
Defined for the purposes of this
calculation.
m/s 10
-10
N/A N/A
For i=1 and q=10
-10
m/sec, this is a
constant. Equates to
approximately 0.01
foot/year (Eq. 5 and Eq.
6 in Appendix 2.3).
i
Hydraulic gradient of NAPL:
Slope of the advective pathway,
defined as the decrease in
pressure (head) of the liquid
body over the distance of travel.
unitless 1 N/A N/A
Set to 1, as this is a
conservative approach
(i.e., will make the
petroleum hydrocarbon
flow faster).
Conservative because
“i” should be <1, as the
petroleum is moving in
a relatively flat plane.
g
Gravitational acceleration: Rate
at which a falling object
accelerates toward earth in the
absence of interfering forces such
as wind resistance.
m/s
2
9.81 (de Marsily 1986) N/A
This is the acceleration
due to gravity at sea
level at approximately
New Jersey latitude.
49
Variable Definition/Purpose Units
Default
Value
Literature
Source for
Default Value
Measurement or
Calculation Notes
μ
Dynamic viscosity of fluid
(i.e.,
petroleum hydrocarbon):
Resistance to shearing flows,
where adjacent layers of the
same liquid move parallel to each
other with different speeds
poise (kg/(m·s))
Specific to each
Petroleum
Product type
Environment
Canada
N/A
See Table 2.4-2 below of
petroleum product
density and viscosity for
the default values used
in the EPH Alternative
Product Limit
Concentration
Calculator. Most
protective values
selected.
k
Intrinsic permeability:
Permeability which is
characteristic of the soil structure
only (and not of the fluid).
m
2
No N/A Calculation
Calculated value (Eq. 6
and Eq. 12 in Appendix
2.3) from porosity and
D
10
using Kozeny-
Carmen equation (Eq.
11 in Appendix 2.3).
k
r
Relative permeability to
petroleum hydrocarbon. It is
the ratio of the effective
permeability to the intrinsic
permeability.
Unitless No N/A Calculation
Calculated value from
Eq. 7 in Appendix 2.3.
S
e
Effective petroleum hydrocarbon
saturation ratio: Ratio of volume
occupied by mobile oil to the
maximum possible volume of
mobile oil.
Unitless No N/A Calculation
Calculated value from
Eq. 10 in Appendix 2.3
.
Calculated using best fit
equation for n=4.
50
Variable Definition/Purpose Units
Default
Value
Literature
Source for
Default Value
Measurement or
Calculation Notes
n
van Genuchten Uniformity
Coefficient related to pore size
distribution and reflects a “shape
parameter”
n = 1 / (1 - m)
m is also a van Genuchten
Uniformity Coefficient related to
pore size distribution. An
empirical constant affecting the
shape of the retention curve.
m = (1 - 1/n)
Unitless 4
(van Genuchten
(1980);
(van Genuchten et
al. 1991)
N/A
Set by committee at 4 as
a reasonable choice for
a well-sorted soil.
Note that unitless
parameters m and n are
related to one another
(m=0.75 when n = 4).
Default value cannot be
changed.
S NAPL saturation ratio Unitless No N/A Calculation
Calculated from Eq. 8 in
Appendix 2.3.
S
r
Residual petroleum hydrocarbon
ratio: Ratio of volume of
petroleum hydrocarbon liquid to
porosity.
Unitless 2%
(Brost & DeVaull
2000)
N/A
Set at 2% by committee
based on Table 3 (Brost
& DeVaull 2000) which
identifies S
r
of 0.02 as a
screening value for fine
to medium sand at 95%
statistical tolerance
limit.
θ
r
Residual petroleum hydrocarbon
content (volume basis): Ratio of
residual petroleum hydrocarbon
volume per soil sample volume.
Unitless 0.082 N/A Calculation
Default value calculated
from S
r
and porosity =
0.41
θ
r
= S
r
*
Ø
51
Variable Definition/Purpose Units
Default
Value
Literature
Source for
Default Value
Measurement or
Calculation Notes
D
10
Known as “effective diameter” in
geotechnical engineering. Sieve
diameter that passes 10% of the
mass of the dry sample.
mm No N/A Measurement
Must be laboratory-
determined by grain
size distribution sieve
analysis with
hydrometer (field
description
insufficient).
52
Table of Petroleum Product Dynamic Viscosity and Density used in the EPH Alternative Product Limit Calculator
Table 2.4-2
Petroleum Product
[TABLE 2-1 of N.J.A.C.
7:26E-2.1(d)]
Density
(g/cm^3)
Dynamic Viscosity
(poise)
Petroleum Product Values
used in EPH Alternative
Product Limit Calculator
Information Source
No. 2 Heating Oil 0.8245 @ 15°C 0.02 @ 15°C Diesel Fuel Environment Canada
Diesel Fuel 0.8245 @ 15°C 0.02 @ 15°C Diesel Fuel Environment Canada
No. 4 Heating Oil 0.9250 @ 20°C 0.23 @ 20°C No. 4 Heating Oil Environment Canada
No. 6 Heating Oil 0.9879 @ 15°C 403.4 @ 15°C No. 6 Heating Oil Environment Canada
Hydraulic Oil 0.8727 @ 15°C 1.02 @ 15°C ATF III (mineral) Environment Canada
Cutting Oil 0.8245 @ 15°C 0.02 @ 15°C Diesel Fuel Environment Canada
Lubricating Oil 0.8498@ 15°C 1.4217 @ 15°C Lubricating Oil Electrical Environment Canada
Unknown Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
0.8245 @ 15°C 0.02 @ 15°C Diesel Fuel Environment Canada
Waste Vehicular
Crankcase Oil
0.8848 @ 15°C 1.75 @ 15°C
Lubricating oil (Engine,
Gasoline)
Environment Canada
Mineral Oil 0.8673 @ 15°C 0.19 @ 15°C Electrical Insulating Oil - used Environment Canada
Dielectric Fluid,
Dielectric Mineral Oil,
Transformer Oil
0.8673 @ 15°C 0.19 @ 15°C Electrical Insulating Oil - used Environment Canada
Notes:
• Values used were from sources with paired Density and Dynamic Viscosity values
• Contact the Department for Crude Oil and Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) sites
• If the petroleum product has been used (e.g. a Waste Oil), select the appropriate parent petroleum product
53
APPENDIX 3
Established EPH Product Limits, Standards, Screening
Levels, Basis and Policy
3.1 EPH Default Product Limits, Basis
3.2 EPH Product Ceiling Limit, Basis
3.3 EPH Category 1: Health Based Soil Remediation Criteria, Derivation
3.4 EPH Screening Level, Ecological
3.5 Application of pre-September 2010 Petroleum Hydrocarbon Data
54
Appendix 3.1
EPH Default Product Limits, Basis
Default EPH Product Limits for No. 2 Fuel Oil, Diesel, and Heavier TPH Products
Paul Sanders, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
Bureau of Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment
Division of Remediation Management and Response
New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection
November 2009
Health-based soil remediation standards for No. 2 fuel oil, diesel fuel, other fuel oils, and
lubricating oils may be very high under certain conditions (e.g., non-residential pathways). For
this reason, it is necessary to develop maximum allowed concentrations for total petroleum
hydrocarbons in soil to protect against other undesired effects of these contaminants when
present at high levels. The presence of non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) when the soil
saturation limit (Csat) is exceeded is one parameter that has been used as an upper limit on
individual contaminant concentrations in soil (USEPA, 1996; New Jersey Soil Remediation
Standards: New Jersey Administrative Code 7:26D, accessed 2009). However, for petroleum
products, this concentration has been calculated to be quite low, and far below health-based
screening levels. For example, a Csat concentration of 18 mg/kg has been estimated for diesel,
compared to the NJDEP residential health-based concentration of 5,300 mg/kg (Brost and
DeVaull, 2000). Thus, the Csat concentration is not a useful parameter to use as an upper limit
concentration for petroleum hydrocarbon products. A more practical parameter, the residual
saturation point, has been defined as the concentration below which NAPL becomes
discontinuous and is immobilized by capillary forces within the soil (Mercer and Cohen, 1990).
This is analogous to the field capacity parameter for soil moisture. Above this concentration,
NAPL may become mobile and be subject to downward drainage due to the effects of gravity. The
fraction of the NAPL above the residual saturation point has been termed "free product," or
"flowable product," and is generally not allowed by the NJDEP to remain in soil after remedial
action is taken. The residual saturation concentration is therefore suitable as an upper limit for
petroleum product concentrations in soil when the health-based soil remediation standard is
very high. This parameter has also been utilized by Washington State [Washington
Administrative Code 173-340-747, accessed 2009], Ohio [Ohio Administrative Code C 3745-300-
09, accessed 2009] and Alaska (Alaska Statement of Cooperation Working Group, 2006).
The American Petroleum Institute recently reviewed available measurements of residual
saturation points of various petroleum fuels as a function of soil type (Brost and DeVaull, 2000).
This review includes the work of Cohen and Mercer (1990), Fussell et al. (1981), Hoag and
Marley (1986), API (1980), and others. The residual saturation point is dependent on
contaminant properties (especially viscosity) and upon soil properties (particularly soil texture).
Low viscosity fuels, such as gasoline, have lower residual saturation points, while higher
viscosity fuels, such as No. 2 heating oil, have higher values. Residual fuels, such as No. 6 fuel oil,
55
are high viscosity products and may have residual saturation points many times higher than
gasoline. Finer soil textures (such as silt) exhibit higher residual saturation points than coarser
textures (such as sand).
The compiled data from Brost and DeVaull indicate that residual saturation concentrations for
"middle distillates" (i.e., No. 2 fuel oil and diesel) ranged from 2,300-23,000 mg/kg as soil texture
ranged from coarse gravel to silt (data from Fussell et al.). API (1980) reports a value for
residual saturation diesel in "soil" as 34,000 (moisture content unknown). Sand was selected
by the NJDEP as a reasonably conservative soil texture for determination of a default upper limit
concentration for No. 2 fuel oil and diesel based on the residual saturation point. The results of
Fussell et al. indicate that the residual saturation point for "medium sand" ranged from of 8,000-
13,000 mg/kg. The soil moisture in these measurements was approximately 0.04 (v/v), which
is in between median values for the wilt point (~0.02) and the field capacity (~0.06) for
subsurface sand (Carsel et al., 1988). Since infiltrating petroleum would likely displace some of
the soil moisture being held at field capacity, this soil moisture content was felt to be
appropriate. As is discussed in Brost and DeVaull, the residual saturation concentrations from
the study of Fussell et al. tend to be lower than those from other studies. This is illustrated by
comparing the range of residual saturation points of gasoline in medium sand by Fussell et al.
(3,000-6,000 mg/kg), with a range of 20,000-44,000 mg/kg reported for medium sand under
similar moisture contents (Hoag and Marley, 1986). Thus, the residual saturation points of
Fussell et al. appear to be conservative relative to other studies. Based on this assessment,
Brost and DeVaull recommend a residual saturation concentration of 8,000 mg/kg for medium
sand soil and middle distillates (i.e., diesel and No. 2 fuel oil). The NJDEP concurs that this
value appears reasonable as a generic concentration to use as an upper limit for these fuel types
in order to prevent the occurrence of mobile free product.
Using a similar analysis for "fuel oils" (i.e., fuel oils heavier than diesel and No. 2 fuel oil), the
compiled data from Brost and DeVaull indicate that residual saturation concentrations for
heavier fuel oil ranged from 5,000-51,000 mg/kg as soil texture ranged from coarse gravel to silt
(data from Fussell et al.). API (1980) reports a value for residual saturation fuel oil and
lubricating oil in "soil" as 53,000 (moisture content unknown). Again, looking at the results for
medium sand from Fussell et al., where soil moistures were judged to be appropriate, the
residual saturation point was estimated to be in the range of 17,000 to 30,000 mg/kg, and the
recommended value for residual saturation for fuel oils heavier than diesel is 17,000 mg/kg.
The NJDEP concurs with this assessment.
Data for lubricating oils other than mineral oil, as reported in Brost and DeVaull, is scarce.
Furthermore, many of the reported results either do not include soil moisture contents or were
inappropriately run on dry soil. For this reason, Brost and DeVaull do not recommend a residual
saturation concentration for lubricating oils. However, review of the Brost and DeVaull report
yields residual saturation values for mineral oil in glacial till and alluvium with water contents of
0.02 and 0.03, respectively. The reported residual saturation values are 11,000-19,000 mg/kg
for glacial till and 61,000 mg/kg for alluvium. Both of these materials may vary widely in soil
texture, but glacial till is more likely to be similar to sandy soils than alluvial material. Given that
the residual saturation value selected for heavier fuel oils lies within the range reported for
mineral oil in glacial till, it is judged by the NJDEP that the value of 17,000 mg/kg used for
heavier fuel oil is also adequately protective for lubricating oils.
56
References
Alaska Statement of Cooperation Working Group (2006). Maximum allowable concentration,
residual saturation, and free-product mobility: Technical background document and
recommendations. Prepared by Geosphere/CH2MHILL.
API (1980). Underground spill cleanup manual. American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, DC. Publication No. 1628.
Brost, J.B. and DeVaull, G.E. (2000). Non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) mobility limits in
soil. American Petroleum Institute, Soil & Groundwater Research Bulletin, June 2000,
No. 9.
Carsel, R.F., Parrish, R.S., Jones, R.L., Hansen, J.L. and Lamb, R.L. (1988). Characterizing
the uncertainty of pesticide leaching in agricultural soils. J. Contaminant Hydrol., 2: 111-
124.
Fussell, D.R., Godjen, H., Hayward, P., Lilie, R.H., Macro, A. and Panisi, C. (1981). Revised inland
oil spill clean-up manual. Conservation of Clean Air and Water – Europe, Den Haag, The
Netherlands. CONCAWE Report No. 3/79.
Hoag, G.E. and Marley, M.C. (1986). Gasoline residual saturation in unsaturated uniform
aquifer materials. J. Environ. Engineering, 112(3): 586-604.
Mercer, J.W. and R.M. Cohen (1990). A review of immiscible fluids in the subsurface: properties,
models, characterization and remediation. J. Contamin. Hydrol. 6, 107-163.
USEPA (1996). Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC.
EPA/540/R-95/128.
57
Appendix 3.2
EPH Product Ceiling Limit, Basis
Various petroleum products released into fine grained soil materials may become immobile at
relatively high EPH concentrations. The EPH Alternative Product Limit Calculator has the
potential to generate AOC-specific alternative product limit concentrations that are in the
percent range concentrations in soil (10,000 mg/kg or 1% by mass, and greater). In order to
be protective, an EPH product ceiling limit (ceiling limit) based on the professional judgement
of the Department and the consensus agreement of the stakeholder EPH Technical Guidance
Committee has been established. The selected ceiling limit is 30,000 mg/kg or 3%
hydrocarbons by mass of soil which is applicable to both EPH Category 1 petroleum products
and EPH Category 2 petroleum products.
58
Appendix 3.3
EPH Category 1: Human Health-Based Soil Remediation Criteria, Derivation
The 5,100 mg EPH/kg residential soil remediation criterion and 54,000 mg EPH/kg non-
residential soil remediation criterion are based on an exposure scenario for protection from
noncarcinogenic health effects at a hazard index of 1 and only apply to discharges of No. 2
heating oil and diesel fuel. These values are based solely on effects via the ingestion-dermal
exposure pathway. Potential inhalation exposure pathway concerns are addressed by
evaluating naphthalene, and potential impact to ground water exposure pathway concerns are
addressed by evaluating 2-methylnaphthalene.
A field study (EPH-TPH Field Study) was conducted between July and August 2007 at various
sites located throughout New Jersey. The purpose of the field study was to determine a typical
chemical composition of No. 2 heating oil. Based on this average composition, the health-based
criteria were developed.
The Site Remediation Program (SRP) decided to take the conceptual approach of Massachusetts
and the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Working Group which evaluated No. 2 fuel oil and/or
diesel fuel oil as a mixture of individual components, each with an assigned toxicity factor. The
method used for the field study analyzed the samples as aliphatic and aromatic fractions, each
with five equivalent carbon ranges. Representative toxicity factors were assigned to each of
these analytical fractions. An average health-based criterion was then derived using standard
USEPA residential and nonresidential exposure scenarios and factors, by calculating a weighted
average based on the composition and the assigned toxicity values, such that the hazard index
does not exceed one (1). The originally calculated residential value was 4,800 mg/kg. This
value has been further assessed as part of the Department’s initiative to update the Remediation
Standards Rule in 2010 which affirmed 5,100 mg/kg as protective.
The EPH-TPH Field Study conducted between July and August 2007entailed collection of soil
samples from14 different residential sites undergoing underground storage tank (UST) removal.
The sites were located throughout New Jersey to ensure geographic and geologic diversity. At
each site one sample was collected near the underground storage tank in an area with free or
residual product and one sample from the perimeter of the excavation. The perimeter sample
was generally collected some distance away from the UST at a location with indications of
contamination (odors and sheen) but no free product. All samples were analyzed using both
USEPA Method 418.1(TPH data) and the “Analysis of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Compounds (EPH) in Aqueous and Soil/Sediment/Sludge Matrices” (“NJDEP EPH Method”; EPH
data).
Objectives of the EPH-TPH Field Study included empirically generating No. 2 heating oil
composition information; determining the ability of the NJDEP EPH Method to analyze actual soil
samples contaminated with No. 2 heating oil; determining whether the two methods (EPH and
418.1) yielded comparable results; and determining whether there is a compositional difference
59
between samples collected close to the point of discharge and those collected farther from the
point of discharge.
To determine the comparability of Method 418.1 and NJDEP EPH Method, the SRP statistically
evaluated the data pairs for all of the soil samples using linear regression. Based on this
analysis, the SRP has concluded that the EPH and TPH data are comparable at a ratio of roughly
1:1 (regression coefficient (R
2
) of 0.8473). Therefore, Method 418.1 results can be directly
applied to the findings that were derived using EPH data. Alternatively, findings based on
Method 418.1 results can be extended to situations where EPH analyses are employed.
60
Appendix 3.4
EPH Screening Level, Ecological
At the time that petroleum storage and discharge areas were evaluated for TPH, the 1,700 mg
TPH/kg ecological screening level was established following a literature search and a review of
the pertinent documents. There are clear adverse effects on soil organisms above this TPH
concentration. Below 1,700 mg/kg TPH, adverse effects to ecological receptors are possible
but not likely and further ecological evaluation in most cases is not warranted.
Based on the Department’s field study results of 2007 that compared TPH and EPH, the
Department concluded these methods produce equivalent results. Therefore, the EPH
concentrations reported using the NJDEP EPH Method will be considered equivalent to the TPH
values in the historical literature. If data from contaminated site soil sample analysis are above
1,700 mg/kg EPH and a sensitive ecological receptor is potentially impacted, the soils shall be
either remediated to 1,700 mg/kg EPH or a site-specific, risk-based ecological remediation goal
shall be determined from more rigorous biological testing. Additional basis for the 1,700
mg/kg screening level is presented in section 6.4.5 Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons of the
Department’s Ecological Evaluation Technical Guidance.
61
Appendix 3.5
Application of pre-September 2010 Petroleum Hydrocarbon Data to
Active Investigations
Investigations that commenced prior to September 1, 2010 may require the Investigator to
consider laboratory results for soil samples analyzed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons using
analytical methods in use prior to the adoption of NJDEP EPH Method Revision 3. The
historical TPH methods include USEPA Method 418.1, USEPA SW846 Methods 8015B and
8015B/C, NJDEP OQA-QAM-025 and OQA-QAM-025 rev. 7, and NJDEP EPH Method Revision 2.
For Category 1 EPH; the existing TPH data can be used. However, since the contingency
analyses for naphthalene and 2-methylnapthalene had not been required, 25% of the samples
with EPH or TPH results greater than 1,000 mg/kg, will need to be resampled and analyzed for
the presence of these contaminants. The samples collected for the contingency analytes shall
be biased to locations and elevations presenting the highest TPH or EPH concentrations.
Remediation is still required in areas where historical TPH sample results exceeded 10,000
mg/kg.
For Category 2 EPH, the Department will allow the person responsible for conducting the
remediation to reanalyze 25 percent of the samples, biased to worst-case, where petroleum
hydrocarbons were detected between 2,300 mg/kg and 10,000 mg/kg. This will determine
whether any of the areas where petroleum hydrocarbons were historically detected exceed the
sample-specific EPH health-based criterion. It is not possible to have an exceedance of a
health-based concentration of 2,300 mg/kg or lower. Therefore, any historical TPH
concentration of 2,300 mg/kg or lower should also be below the sample-specific health-based
criterion.
If the resampling of the worst-case historical results does not indicate contamination in
exceedance of the calculated health-based criteria, no additional resampling of historical areas
will be required. The entity in charge of remediation oversight (e.g., Department, LSRP, Sub-
surface Evaluator) will determine on a case-by-case basis what additional sampling is required if
the resampling of the worst-case historical results indicates contamination in exceedance of
health-based criteria.
Remediation is still required in areas where historical TPH sample results exceeded 10,000
mg/kg. The person responsible for conducting the remediation has the option of resampling
the locations of TPH exceedances, analyzing the samples using the NJDEP EPH Method and
calculator, and delineating to below sample-specific health-based criterion or the Investigator
may choose to remediate where the TPH samples exceed 10,000 mg/kg.
