Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2013C00288:reg:2:p18
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2013C00288
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 2 (pt 18/21)
Character Range: 88315–91276

directly from Table 1B(5). The EILs for As, DDT and naphthalene are generic i.e. they are not dependent on soil type and are taken directly from Table 1B(5). Only EILs for fresh contamination are available for As, DDT and naphthalene due to the absence of suitable data for aged contaminants.

2.6              Ecological screening levels for petroleum hydrocarbon compounds

    2.6.1          Introduction
Ecological screening levels (ESLs) are presented based on a review of  Canadian guidance for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and application of the Australian methodology (Schedule B5b) to derive Tier 1 ESLs for BTEX, benzo(a)pyrene and F1 and F2 (Warne 2010a, 2010b).

The Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment (CCME) has adopted risk-based TPH standards for human health and ecological aspects for various land uses in the Canada-wide standard for petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC) in soil (CCME 2008) (CWS PHC). The standards established soil values including ecologically based criteria for sites affected by TPH contamination for coarse- and fine-grained soil types.

The standard applies to the same four fractions (F1–F4) adopted for the HSLs (refer Section 2.4.5 of this Schedule).

    2.6.2          ESL Methodology
The CWS PHC approach uses an SSD method and, when there is insufficient data for the SSD method, applies a weight-of-evidence approach to derive ecologically based 'Tier 1 eco soil contact' values for TPH fractions and specific compounds. The overall approach has similarities to the Australian EIL methodology by developing protective criteria based on EC25 toxicity for residential land use and EC50 for commercial/industrial land (cf. Australia EC30 and LOEC data).

The Australian EIL methodology was applied to the ecotoxicity data used to derive the Canadian F1 and F2 (eco soil contact) values (Warne 2010a) to produce comparable Tier 1 values for these fractions. Based on the data quality and applicability to the Australian environment, the derived values for F1 and F2 are adopted as moderate reliability ESLs (see Table 1B(6) at the end of this Schedule) and apply generically to fine- and coarse-grained soils.

Due to the limited ecotoxicity data for F3 and F4, the Australian methodology was not able to be applied. The data limitations were recognised in the Canadian guidance and an alternative weight-of-evidence approach was used to develop values for these fractions. Consequently, the adopted values for F3 and F4 (see Table 1B(6)) are considered low reliability ESLs for fine- and coarse-grained soils (Warne 2010a, 2010b).

A further review of Canadian soil quality guidelines was undertaken for BTEX and benzo(a)pyrene (Warne 2010b) and the Australian methodology applied to the ecotoxicological data as far as possible to derive equivalent ESLs. However, data limitations did not allow the full use of the EIL derivation methodology and the resulting values are adopted as low reliability ESLs