OSWER Directive 9481.00-GC 

CHAPTER X 

POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO WILDLIFE, VEGETATION, 

AGRICULTURE, AND PHYSICAL STRUCTURES 

(40 CFR 264.94(b)(1) (viii) and (2) (ix)) 

In addition to risks to human health, environmental risks must be addressed in 

. an ACL demonstration. Unless an ACL demonstration is based on the point of 

exposure at the point of compliance, and the nearest likely receptor is human, risks 

to animals, plants, and structures resulting from exposure to the hazardous 

constituents must be considered. This environmental risk assessment involves an 

exposure assessment and an effects assessment. This chapter delineates the 

information needed to perform the assessments of risks other than those to human 

health. 

The initial step in assessing possible environmental impacts is to determine the 

probable exposure pathways for hazardous constituents to reach environmental 

receptors. For ACL purposes, the receptors of concern include wildlife and 

vegetation in aquatic and terrestial environments; agricultural crops, products, and 

lands; and physical structures. The exposure assessment involves examining the 

extent of the hazardous contaminant plume, and the location of receptors and 

environments of concern. The exposure assessment will result in delineation of 

likely exposure pathways. Information submitted to fulfill requirements discussed 

in previous chapters should be adequate to determine probable surface water and 

terrestrial exposure pathways. The permit applicant should examine the data 

requirements of Chapters VI and VII before proceeding with this chapter. The data 

for assessing the effects of exposure of physical structures and agricultural crops, 

lands, and products to the hazardous constituents are discussed in subsequent 

sections of this chapter. 

The permit applicant must examine the potential impacts to all the receptors 

discussed above if exposure to hazardous constituents is likely to occur. Otherwise, 

the permit applicant should discuss specific data that supports no probable 

exposure as well as justify why the potential impacts assessment is unnecessary. 

10-1 
OSWER Directive 9481.00-GC 

Generally, data on chronic toxicity levels of the hazardous constituents are 

sufficient to characterize potential environmental impacts. However, chronic 

environmental toxicity data may not be available for many waste constituents likely 

to be the subject of ACL requests. In the absence of environmental toxicity data, 

ACL applicants may be able to argue that a contaminant will have no adverse 

environmental effects. This argument could be based upon considerations of 

exposure levels and the toxicities of similar chemical compounds. If environmental 

receptors are actually being exposed to ACL constituents above chronic toxicity 

levels, or above background levels if no chronic toxicity levels are established, then 

field assessments of the impacts can be performed to support the proposed ACLs. 

The types of field studies that should be carried out are discussed in more detail in 

the following sections. 

Terrestrial Impact Assessment 

The quantification of adverse terrestrial environmental effects is difficult. 

However, examination of several environmental factors will provide an estimate of 

potential impacts to the environment due to exposure to contaminated ground 

water. 

Potential impacts to terrestrial wildlife and vegetation can be assessed by 

examining exposure and environmental toxicity factors. The exposure assessment 

involves determining whether the contaminated ground water at a facility has the 

potential to impact any terrestrial environment. The specific data necessary to 

assess the exposure are discussed in Chapters II, Ill, and IV. If there is a likely 

pathway for wildlife and vegetation to become exposed to contaminants, then 

environmental toxicity factors should be examined. ACL applicants probably will 

not need to address terrestrial environmental impacts in detail when there are no 

direct exposure routes between terrestrial systems and ground water. In these 

cases, or when the POE is set at the POC, the applicant can omit this section and 

move on to the endangered species section of this chapter. 

The toxicity and bioaccumulation of hazardous constituents by terrestrial flora 

and fauna should be examined if exposure is likely. Terrestrial species can be 

exposed to toxicants either directly through assimilation of or contact with 

contaminated ground water, or indirectly through food web interactions. Toxicants 

10-2 
OSWER Directive 9481 .00-6C 

can accumulate in exposed biota and increase to levels that are lethal or have 

chronic effects. The permit applicant should perform a comprehensive literature 

search for toxicity and bioaccumulation values for the ACL constituents and their 

degradation products. The information should be summarized in a table that 

includes information on the toxicants, the test species, the specific effects, the effect 

levels, the bioaccumulation potential, and the reference. The permit applicant can 

base the potential terrestrial toxicity assessment on the most toxic constituent 

within a group of constituents if appropriate groupings of constituents exist for a 

facility. If literature information is sparse or non-existent, then a more thorough 

analysis of potential environmental impacts may be necessary. This analysis could 

be based on consideration of exposure levels and the toxicities of similar chemical 

compounds. Bioassays could also be used to support the proposed ACLs; however, 

techniques for performing bioassays on terrestrial ecosystems are not an exact 

science, and they involve considerable time and expense to carry out. If the permit 

applicant plans to perform bioassays, he/she should consult U.S. EPA (1984d) for 

more discussions on the use of bioassays to characterize chemical waste sites. 

lfterrestrial environments are presently being exposed to contaminants above 

chronic toxicity levels, or above background levels for constituents without 

established chronic toxicity levels, then field studies can be used to support the 

proposed ACLs. The permit applicant should examine the dominant terrestrial 

habitats in the vicinity of the facility. Evidence of any stressed vegetation should be 

documented and can be supported with aerial infrared photography or ground 

photography and vegetation surveys. Both a topographic map and low level aerial 

photographs delineating any stressed terrestrial environments should be submitted. 

Vegetation survey data on species and abundance of macrofloral plants, usually 

trees and shrubs, should be collected. However, if the dominant habitat is an alpine 

or prairie environment, grasses and other plants should be examined. The 

community floral diversity can be calculated from the species information. 

Discussions of diversity should include species richness and community structure. 

This diversity information should be summarized in tabular form. Any differences 

between the background and affected habitats should be explained. The selection 

of the background habitat should be carefully planned so as to ensure that it is 

outside the influence of the facility. Sampling protocols for diversity and 

productivity studies along with the data collected and a complete discussion of 

results should be submitted by the applicant. 

10-3 
OSWER Directive 9481.00-GC 

Endangered Species Impact Assessment 

Endangered and threatened species near the facility should be identified. The 

facility owner or operator should contact the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, for a current list of endangered or threatened species in the 

vicinity of the facility. If any endangered or threatened species are in the area, then 

the potential impacts of the contaminated ground water on the species, including 

critical habitat impacts, should be discussed. A table should be submitted that lists 

the endangered and threatened species. 

Aquatic Impact Assessment 

The permit applicant should assess potential aquatic environmental effects by 

examining exposure factors. The exposure assessment for surface waters was 

discussed in Chapters VI and VII. Ground-water contaminants, flow direction, 

discharge areas, and proximity of surface waters are important considerations. The 

permit applicant should examine potential pathways of contaminant migration to 

surface waters. If exposure to contaminants is likely, then aquatic toxicity factors 

should be examined. The Office of Water, U.S. EPA, has published a document that 

the applicant and reviewer should find useful in evaluating aquatic impacts (U.S. 

EPA, 1985a). If no hazardous constituents can reach surface waters, then the permit 

applicant should provide supporting evidence of this fact. The aquatic impact 

assessment can be omitted if sufficient evidence is available to support a claim of no 

surface water exposure. 

ACLs may be established based on contaminant discharge into a surface water 

body. This is allowable only where the contaminant plume has already reached the 

surface water body and the constituents do not cause a statistically significant 

increase in contaminant levels over background in the surface water concentrations. 

That is, after accounting for the inherent variation in the sampling and analysis 

data, the release of a constituent into a surface water body should not cause an 

increase in the background surface water concentration ofthat constituent. 

In order to make this determination of statistical significance, samples of 

surface water should be taken during a period in which the flow (for rivers and 

10-4 
OSWER Directive 9481.00-6C 

streams) or standing volume {for ponds and lakes) of the water body is near average 

conditions for the specific season. It may also be necessary to collect sediment 

samples to make this determination. The permit applicant should determine the 

flow of the surface water at or near the time of sampling and supply this 

determination, the actual monitoring data, and historical information that 

demonstrates that the flow at the time of sampling was near the seasonal average. 

Surface water samples should be collected within the discharge zone of the 

ground- water contaminant plume. The discharge zone will have to be determined 

on a site-specific basis, and is dependent on the local hydrogeology. Since groundwater movement near surface water bodies can be quite complex, some of the 

initial samples may have to be collected adjacent to the facility as well as some 

distance downstream in order to identify the discharge zone. If, upon sampling in 

the discharge zone, the levels of the constituent of concern are not detectable, a 

statistical comparison of sampling data does not need to be performed. However, if 

the discharge levels are detectable, an appropriate statistical procedure should be 

used to compare the constituent concentration in the discharge zone to the 

constituent concentration upstream in the surface water body. The Agency expects 

to develop further guidance on appropriate statistical techniques for making these 

comparisons. The background concentration should be determined by sampling the 

surface water body in an area that is not expected to be affected by the RCRA 

facility, and is also not near other sources of contamination. 

If a RCRA facility receives an ACL based upon the release of a contaminant into 

a surface water body, the facility's permit should contain a requirement for periodic 

surface water sampling. The sampling frequency should be determined on a sitespecific basis to assure that the constituent concentration does not surpass a 

statistically significant level over background in that surface water body. 

If it is found that the ground-water contamination discharge is not causing a 

statistically significant increase over background in the surface water body, then an 

ACL for an operating unit may be set at the contaminant levels currently at the 

point of compliance. However, if the ground-water contaminant plume contains 

much higher levels of contamination {i.e., hot spots) than have already reached the 

surface water, these hot spots may have to undergo some form of corrective action, 

so as to not violate the standard of statistical significance. To meet this standard, 

10-5 
OSWER Directive 9481.00-6C 

appropriate ground-water contaminant plume management techniques will have 

to be selected on a site-specific basis. 

Agricultural Impact Assessment 

The potential impacts of ground-water contamination on agriculture should 

be examined when the POE is not set at the POC. Exposure pathways, crop impacts, 

and livestock impacts should be included in the assessment. The exposure 

assessment is used to determine if there are likely pathways for ground-water 

contaminants to reach any agricultural lands or products. As part of the exposure 

assessment, data on the agricultural land uses near the facility should be submitted 

by the permit applicant. Specific uses such as row crops, rangeland, grazing, tree 

farming, and timber should be depicted on an appropriately scaled map. A table 

that lists acreages of the specific uses should also be submitted. 

The potential exposure pathways that the permit applicant should examine 

include shallow ground water, ground-water irrigation, and surface water 

irrigation. The shallow ground-water flow direction, aquifer attentuation 

mechanisms, and ground- water elevation are important characteristics that are 

used to determine exposure due to direct crop uptake of ground water. These 

topics were discussed in Chapters Ill and IV and must be evaluated by the permit 

applicant during this exposure assessment. The irrigation wells near the facility 

should be identified and delineated on a map employing the appropriate scale. 

Chapter VII lists specific use information that is necessary for this assessment of the 

irrigation wells. Surface waters that are used for irrigation and have the potential 

to be impacted by ground-water contamination must be evaluated (see Chapter VI). 

The current and projected irrigation withdrawal rates should be determined from 

each irrigation source. 

Agricultural crop impacts should be assessed by the permit applicant if 

exposure to ACL constituents is likely to occur. The following potential agricultural 

impacts should be assessed: 

1. Direct crop impacts and reduced productivity, and 

2. Bioaccumulation of contaminants. 

10-6 
OSWER Directive 9481.00-GC 

The permit applicant may be able to estimate the expected crop and 

productivity impacts resulting from exposure to hazardous contaminants in the 

ground water by examining the literature. Literature values that exist on crop 

impacts from exposure to the contaminants should be summarized in a table that 

includes the contaminant, the crop tested, the effect level, the bioaccumulation 

potential, and the specific reference. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

can be a source of crop effects information and testing methods. If literature 

information does not exist and crops are likely to be exposed to ACL constituents, 

the ACL demonstration may be denied and the ground-water standards may be set 

at background levels. However, the permit applicant has the opportunity to carry 

out experiments to estimate potential crop impacts. The applicant should be aware 

that standard experimental protocols do not exist and that all data to support the 

ACL demonstration must be submitted in a timely fashion. If tests are performed by 

the permit applicant, all protocols and data should be submitted. 

The permit applicant should describe potential livestock impacts that may 

occur from direct and indirect exposure to contaminants found in the ground water. 

Direct exposure would include livestock contact through watering. Indirect 

exposure could include contact during animal grazing and foraging. The applicant 

should submit any available information on potential livestock impacts of the ACL 

contaminants. If literature values exist, the information should be summarized in 

tabular form and include the factors discussed above in the crop impacts section. 

The USDA may have information on this topic. Permit applicants are not normally 

expected to carry out experiments on exposed livestock because of the high costs 

and long-term nature of such experiments. If exposure modeling shows that 

livestock exposure occurs and sufficient literature information does not exist to 

support an ACL, then the concentration limit may be set at background levels. 

Physical Structure Impact Assessment 

Physical strucures can be adversely affected by hazardous constituents in the 

ground water. The situation at Love Canal, NY, where toxicants entered basements 

of homes, is just one example. The determination of potential damage to physical 

structures in the area around the facility requires the examination of exposure 

pathways, waste characteristics, environmental factors, and construction materials 

and techniques. 

10-7 
OSWER Dire<tive 9481.00-GC 

Determining the potential exposure of the physical structures to waste contaminants requires identification of physical structures in the area and exposure 

pathways. All manmade structures including buildings, buried cables and pipes, 

railroad beds, roads, parking areas, and machinery near the facility should be 

identified and delineated on a vicinity map if they are likely to be reached by 

contaminants. The possible exposure pathways of the ground-water contaminants 

to the physical structures should be identified. The permit applicant should refer to 

Chapter IV to determine what information should be submitted in order to 

determine contaminant migration pathways. If the exposure assessment 

determines that physical structures are likely to come in contact with ACL 

contaminants, then the potential effects of the contaminants on the physical 

structures should be examined. Otherwise, the permit applicant needs only to 

explain why the assessment is not needed. 

The hazardous constituent characteristics of primary concern for the physical 

structure impact assessment are reactivity, ignitability, and migration potential. 

Two important categories of reactive chemicals are corrosives and solvents. The 

ground-water contaminants that fall into either of these two categories should be 

listed in a table by the permit applicant. The potential effects of these compounds 

on building materials such as concrete, iron, steel, plastic, wood, asphalt, and 

limerock should be identified and summarized in a table. The ability of the 

contaminants to permeate these materials should also be discussed. The permit 

applicant should submit data on the flammability and ignitability of the ACL 

constituents that have the potential to permeate subsurface structures. Volatile 

organic compounds should be given special attention since they have been 

implicated in sewer-line explosions. 

10-8 
OSWER Directive 9481.00-GC 

CHAPTER XI 

PERSISTENCE AND PERMANENCE OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS 

(40 CFR 264.94(b)(1)(ix) and (2)(x)) 

Many of the chapters in this guidance document discuss informational needs 

for ACL demonstrations that are related to the persistence and permanence of the 

ACL constituents. The general ACL policy will be to assume a worst case approach of 

no degradation of the ACL constituents, unless information on the persistence of 

the ACL constituents in the environment is submitted. Similarly, if a potential exists 

for exposure to the ACL constituents to result in adverse effects, the adverse effects 

will be considered permanent unless they are generally accepted to be not 

permanent or information is submitted by the permit applicant to justify that they 

are not permanent. This chapter describes the information that is needed to 

characterize the persistence of the ACL constituents in the environment and the 

permanence of their adverse effects if exposure occurs. 

Persistence 

Information on the persistence of the contaminants in the environment should 

be discussed in varying detail, depending on the basis of the ACL demonstration. 

The applicant should discuss the process by which each ACL constituent will degrade 

if the demonstration is attenuation-based. The processes should be discussed from 

a ground-water perspective, a surface water perspective, or any other environments 

or combination of environments depending on the site-specific situation. 

Contaminant degradation in ground water occurs predominantly through 

chemically mediated processes. If the applicant is claiming attenuation as a means 

of reducing the contaminant concentrations, the applicant must discuss the types of 

processes that may occur. These processes can include biodegradation, hydrolysis, 

photolysis, oxidation, reduction, adsorption, dispersion, or precipitation, all of 

which were discussed in Chapter II. The various degradation products, if known, 

should also be discussed. 

11-1 
OSWER Directive 9481.00-6( 

If surface water exposure is involved, bioconcentration and biotransformation 

processes are important. Bioconcentration factors are important for evaluating 

human intake levels of contaminants from consumption of aquatic organisms and 

for assessing the permanence of ecological effects. Bioconcentration factors can be 

derived by experimentation or calculation or are provided in the literature. The 

applicant should provide justification for the use of any bioconcentration factors. 

Biotransformation is primarily carried out by microorganisms in the surrounding 

media. A lag time or acclimation period usually occurs before the biodegradation 

process begins. If biotransformation is used in the ACL demonstration, the 

applicant should determine whether the microbes are acclimated to the 

contaminant. A discussion of biotransformation and the use of bioconcentration 

factorscan be found in U.S. EPA (1980) and U.S. EPA (1979). 

If degradation processes are used in the ACL demonstration, the process rates 

should be calculated. Whether the mechanism of degradation is biological or 

chemical, all rates describing the processes should be included in the ACL 

demonstration. The parameters, coefficients, and assumptions used by the permit 

applicant to calculate the degradation rates for each contaminant should be 

submitted in tabular form. 

Permanence 

Information on the permanence of the adverse effects resulting from exposure 

to the ACL constituents will be required only if the ACL demonstration is based on 

attenuation mechanisms. This information should be included in the 

demonstration's health risk assessment (Chapter IX) and the environmental risk 

assessment (Chapter X). Permanence information is necessary in order to give the 

permit reviewer some idea of the long-term effects associated with exposure to 

each ACL constituent as well as a better understanding of which ground-water 

contaminants are of most concern. 

Many environmental systems exhibit a high degree of resiliency. If the 

damage is limited to individual organisms within the population and the gene pool 

is not irreparably depleted, the environmental damage may be reversible. 

However, if irretrievable habitat change has occurred, then environmental damage 

may be permanent. The permit applicant should examine the literature on the 

11-2 
OSWER Directive 9481.00-GC 

contaminant's environmental effects to determine the permanence of likely 

ecological impacts. Many biological evaluations can be performed to examine the 

resiliency and stability of an environmental system. Some examples include tissue 

analyses to determine bioaccumulation, diversity and recovery studies to estimate 

elasticity, and intolerant species analyses to determine the degree of degradation. 

A detailed explanation of these studies is presented in the Technical Support 

Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability 

Analyses (U.S. EPA, 1983d). The permanence of the adverse effects is related to the 

contaminant's concentration level at the point of exposure. The acute and chronic 

effects levels for each contaminant should be determined if the ACL demonstration 

is based on attenuation considerations. The effects should be classified as either 

reversible or irreversible. 

11-3 
OSWER Directive 9481.00-6C 

CHAPTER XII 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

The factors involved in preparing and supporting an ACL demonstration were 

discussed in the previous chapters. Chapter I outlined the Agency's policy quidelines 

for implementation of the ACL process. Information on each of the criteria 

discussed in this guidance document is not required in every ACL demonstration 

because every RCRA facility is unique with different environmental properties and 

waste characteristics. Therefore, each ACL demonstration based on attenuation 

mechanisms must reflect site-specific conditions. Much of the information required 

for an ACL demonstration may be taken from the facility's Part B permit application. 

This guidance document points out when additional information that satisfies the 

criteria should be submitted and also when it may not be necessary. However, the 

burden is always on the permit applicant to justify all arguments used for not 

submitting information on specific criteria. Appendix B contains a list of tables and 

figures that can be submitted as part of an ACL demonstration. The use of these 

tables and figures will greatly facilitate the review of the ACL demonstration by the 

permit writers. Appendix B also contains a summary outline of the information that 

can be used to support an ACL demonstration. The permit applicant should be sure 

to submit all data necessary to fulfill the information requirements outlined in this 

Appendix. 

Once the data have been submitted by the permit applicant, the permit writer 

must assess the quality of the submitted information and determine the allowable 

concentrations of contaminants at the point of exposure, and the ACLs at the point 

of compliance. In many cases, the permit writer will have to use professional 

judgement in determining the adequacy of the submitted information. 

The Agency will indicate its decision on the merits of the ACL demonstration 

when it issues the permit. The permit will contain a ground-water protection 

standard {GWPS) for each ground-water contaminant. The GWPS will contain either 

background values or the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation 

limits listed in Table I of Section 264.94{a) {if EPA rejects the ACL demonstration), or 

12-1 
OSWER Directive 9481.00-6( 

it will contain ACLs. If any constituent exceeds its ACL, corrective action will be 

necessary. The ACL then becomes the benchmark for the intensity and duration of 

the corrective action. 

As part of the ground-water protection standard, an ACL is in effect during the 

compliance period. The compliance period is the number of years equal to the 

active life of the waste management area, including the closure period. If, at the 

end of the compliance period, the owner or operator is engaged in a corrective 

action program, the compliance period is extended until the owner or operator can 

demonstrate that the GWPS, which may contain ACLs, has not been exceeded for a 

period of three consecutive years. 

Once the ground-water protection standard has been set in the permit, the 

permittee can only seek ACLs through permit modifications under the procedures 

outlined in 40 CFR Part 124. Such modifications are always major and the burden of 

proof to justify the variance is on the applicant. If a facility owner or operator 

violates the ground-water protection standards, he or she cannot postpone 

corrective action in order to argue for ACL changes. 

12-2 
OSWER Directive 9481.00·6C 

CHAPTER XIII 

REFERENCES 

Bouwer, H., 1978. Ground-water Hydrology. McGraw Hill, New York, NY. 

Brady, N.C., 1974. The Nature and Property of Soils. The MacMillan Company, New 

York, NY. 

Freeze, A.R. and J.A. Cherry, 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall Inc., 

Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 

Kruseman, G.P. and N.A. De Ridder, 1979. Analysis and Evaluation of Pumping Test 

Data. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement Bulletin 11, 

Wageningen, The Netherlands. 

Ruffner, J.A., 1980. Climates ofthe States. Gale Research Company, Detroit, MI. 

Ruffner, J.A. and F.E. Blair, 1981. The Weather Almanac. Gale Research Company, 

Detriot, MI. 

Todd, D.K., 1980. Ground-water Hydrology. 2nd Ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New 

York, NY. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 

129 Priority Pollutants Volumes I and II. EPA-440/4-79-029a and b, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Water Quality Criteria 

Documents; Availability. Federal Register 45:79318-79357, November 28, 1980. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982a. Subpart F-Ground-water Protection. 

Federal Register47:32350-32356, July 26,1982. 

13-1 
OSWER Directive 9481.00-6( 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983a. Draft RCRA Permit 

Writers' Manual for Ground-water Protection. Contract No. 68-01-6464, October 4, 

1983. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983d. Technical Support Manual: 

Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses. 

Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C., November, 1983. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984a. Ground-Water Protection Strategy, 

Office of Ground-Water Protection, Washington, D.C. August, 1984. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984b. Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Ground Water Testing and Monitoring Activities; Proposed Rule. Federal 

Register 49: 38786-38809, October I, 1984. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984d. Characterization of Chemical Waste 

Site Contamination and Its Extent Using Bioassays (Draft Report). Contract No. DEAC06-76RLO 1830, December, 1984. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985a. Technical Support 

Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. Office of Water, Washington, 

D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986a. RCRA Ground-Water 

Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document, Washington, D.C., 

September, 1986. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986b. Superfund Public Health Evaluation 

Manual, Washington, D.C., October, 1986. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986c. Final Guidelines for 

Estimating Exposures. Federal Register 51: 34042-34054, September 24, 1986. 

Walton, W.C., 1970. Ground-water Resource Evaluation. McGraw-Hill Publishing 

Company, New York, NY. 

13-2 
OSWER Directive 9481.00-GC 

Other resource documents 

Black, C.A., 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis. American Society of Agronomy, 

Madison, WI. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978.1nvestigation of Landfill Leachate 

Pollutant Attenuation by Soils. EPA 600/2-78-158. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Adsorption, Movement, and 

Biological Degradation of Large Concentrations of Selected Pesticides in Soils. 

EPA 600/2-80-124. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982. Handbook for Remedial Action at 

Waste Disposal Sites. EPA-625/6-82-006, Washington, D.C., June, 1982. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982. Preamble-Section D: Ground-water 

Protection (Part 264 Subpart F). Federal Register 47:32291-32312, July 26, 1982. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982. Handbook for Performing Exposure 

Assessments (Draft). Washington, D.C., November, 1982. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983. Draft Guidelines for Deriving 

Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aguatic Life 

and its Uses. Washington, D.C., July 5, 1983. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983. Protocol for Bioassessment of 

Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA-600/2-83-054, July, 1983. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983. Water Quality Standards Handbook, 

Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, D.C., December, 

1983. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984. Soil Properties Classification and 

Hydraulic Conductivity Testing (Draft Report). SW-925. 

13-3