RBCA - Manual - 2018

VERSION 2
ENVIRONMENTAL
MODELING AND
RISK ASSESSMENT
SOFTWARE
RISK-BASED CORRECTIVE ACTION
Software Guidance Manual
RBCA Tool Kit for Chemical Releases
Risk-Based Corrective Action Tool Kit

Version 2
John A. Connor, Richard L. Bowers, Thomas E. McHugh, and AnnMarie H. Spexet
GSI Environmental Inc.
Copyright © 2007
All rights reserved.
Produced in the United States of America.

No part of this product, including this
manual and the associated software, may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any
means without the prior written permission of
This manual and the associated software product

are sold “as is.” Considerable care has been exercised in preparing
this manual and software product; however, no party, including without
limitation GSI Environmental Inc., makes any representation
or warranty regarding the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of
the information contained herein, and no such party shall be liable for
any direct, indirect, consequential, incidental or other damages resulting
from the use of this product or the information contained herein.
Information in this publication is subject to change without notice.
GSI Environmental Inc., disclaims any responsibility or
obligation to update the information contained herein.
Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Excel, and Visual Basic are either registered trademarks
or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the USA and/or other countries.
Groundwater Services, Inc.

d/b/a GSI Environmental Inc.
2211 Norfolk, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77098-4054
www.gsi-net.com
713-522-6300, 713-522-8010 (fax)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 1
RBCA TOOL KIT QUICK START ...................................................................................................... 3

• Minimum System Requirements .................................................................................................. 3
• Installation..................................................................................................................................... 3
• Program Start-up .......................................................................................................................... 3
• Registration................................................................................................................................... 4
• Data Input and Output .................................................................................................................. 6
• On-line Help.................................................................................................................................. 6
• Technical Support......................................................................................................................... 6
RBCA TOOL KIT STEP-BY-STEP..................................................................................................... 7
MAIN SCREEN ................................................................................................................................... 9
INPUT SCREENS ............................................................................................................................. 14

• Exposure Pathway Identification ................................................................................................ 14
• Exposure Factors and Target Risk Limits .................................................................................. 18
• Source Media Constituents of Concern (COCs) ........................................................................ 21
• Chemical / Toxicity Database ..................................................................................................... 24
• Transport Modeling Options ....................................................................................................... 27
• Site-Specific Soil Parameters ..................................................................................................... 33
• Site-Specific Groundwater Parameters ...................................................................................... 35
• Site-Specific Air Parameters....................................................................................................... 38
OUTPUT SCREENS ......................................................................................................................... 42

• Exposure Pathway Flowchart..................................................................................................... 42
• Chemical Data for Selected COCs............................................................................................. 42
• Input Parameter Summary ......................................................................................................... 43
• User-Specified COC Data .......................................................................................................... 44
• Transient Domenico Analysis..................................................................................................... 45
• Baseline Risks ............................................................................................................................ 47
• Cleanup Levels........................................................................................................................... 50
COMPUTER TROUBLESHOOTING TIPS....................................................................................... 53
APPENDICES
A Risk-Based Site Evaluation Process .......................................................................................A-1
B Fate and Transport Modeling Methods....................................................................................B-1
C Mixture-Specific SSTLs for TPH ..............................................................................................C-1
D Source Depletion Algorithm .....................................................................................................D-1
E Fields in Toxicity Database ......................................................................................................E-1
F References............................................................................................................................... F-1
RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES i

Version 2. © GSI Environmental Inc., 2007. All rights reserved.
TABLES AND FIGURES
Page No.
FIGURES
Figure 1 Setup Screen ........................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 Excel Macro Settings ............................................................................................... 4
Figure 3 Excel Macro Security Settings ................................................................................. 4
Figure 4 Registration Page .................................................................................................... 5
Figure 5 Security Code ........................................................................................................... 5
Figure 6 Registration On-Line ................................................................................................ 5
Figure 7 Print Report Dialog.................................................................................................... 8
Figure 8 Main Screen ............................................................................................................. 9
Figure 9 Screen Navigation Chart ........................................................................................ 10
Figure 10 Forward and Backward Calculation Modes ........................................................... 11
Figure 11 Units Selector ......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 12 Exposure Pathway Identification Screen ............................................................... 14
Figure 13 Exposure Factors and Target Risk Limits Screen ................................................. 19
Figure 14 Source Media COCs Screen ................................................................................. 21
Figure 15 Select COC Dialog Box .......................................................................................... 22
Figure 16 Soil Source Zone Concentration Calculator .......................................................... 23
Figure 17 Chemical Toxicity Database ................................................................................... 25
Figure 18 Chemical Database Management Dialog .............................................................. 27
Figure 19 Transport Modeling Options Screen ...................................................................... 28
Figure 20 Biodegradation Capacity Calculator ...................................................................... 31
Figure 21 Site-Specific Soil Parameters Screen .................................................................... 33
Figure 22 Site-Specific Groundwater Parameters Screen ..................................................... 36
Figure 23 Site-Specific Air Parameters Screen ..................................................................... 39
Figure 24 Exposure Pathway Flowchart ................................................................................ 42
Figure 25 Chemical Data for COCs ....................................................................................... 43
Figure 26 Input Parameter Summary ..................................................................................... 44
Figure 27 Review Chemical Specific Input ............................................................................ 44
Figure 28 Transient Domenico Analysis Worksheet .............................................................. 46
Figure 29 Baseline Risks ....................................................................................................... 47
Figure 30 Baseline Risk Summary ......................................................................................... 49
Figure 31 Cleanup Levels ...................................................................................................... 50
Figure 32 Cleanup Levels by Medium .................................................................................... 50
Figure 33 Modeling Results Summary by Individual COC ..................................................... 51
Figure 34 Cumulative Risk Worksheet ................................................................................... 52
APPENDIX A TABLES
Table A.1 Example Exposure Factors for Tier 1 and Tier 2 Evaluations ..............................A-5
Table A.2 RBSL and SSTL Equations Used in the RBCA Tool Kit......................................A-14
APPENDIX A FIGURES
Figure A.1 Conceptual Exposure Flowchart............................................................................A-2
Figure A.2 Back-Calculation of SSTL Values for Soil and Groundwater ................................A-7
Figure A.3 SSTL Analyses for Both Potential and Actual Receptors ......................................A-9
Figure A.4 Potential Risk-Based Remedy Selection Criteria ...............................................A-10
APPENDIX B TABLES
Table B.1 Utilization Factors for Selected Electron Acceptors.............................................B-18
RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES ii

TABLES AND FIGURES
APPENDIX B FIGURES
Figure B.1 NAF Calculation Schematic for Indirect Exposure Pathways ...............................B-2
Figure B.2 Cross-Media Transfer Factors in the RBCA Tool Kit: ...........................................B-3
Figure B.3 Definition of Domenico Model Source Term ........................................................B-14
Figure B.4 Lateral Transport Equations in the RBCA Tool Kit ..............................................B-17
Figure B.5 Electron Acceptor Superposition Method ............................................................B-18
Figure B.6 Stability Classification for Air Transport Modeling ...............................................B-20
Figure B.7 Dispersion Coefficients for Air Stability Classifications........................................B-21
APPENDIX D FIGURE
Figure D.1 First Order Decay Adjustments to SSTLs..............................................................D-2
APPENDIX E TABLE
Table E.1 Chemical Toxicity Database Fields........................................................................E-1
RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS
Acronym Definition
ADF Air Dispersion Factor
ALP Aquatic Life Protection
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BC Biodegradation Capacity
BGS Below Ground Surface
BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylene
CAS Chemical Abstracts Service
CLEA Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model (United Kingdom)
COC Constituent Of Concern
CM Cross-Media Transfer Factor
CRF Constituent Reduction Factor
DAF Dilution Attenuation Factor
EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
GW Groundwater
HI Hazard Index
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System (EPA)
LDF Leachate Dilution Factor
LF Leaching Factor
LT Lateral Transport Factor
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
NAF Natural Attenuation Factor
NAPL Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
NTIS National Technical Information Service
OSHA Occupational Safety & Health Administration
PEF Particulate Emission Factor
PEL Permissible Exposure Limit
PIRI Partners in RBCA Implementation
POC Point Of Compliance
POE Point Of Exposure
RBC Risk-Based Concentration
RBCA Risk-Based Corrective Action
RBEL Risk-Based Exposure Limit
RBSL Risk-Based Screening Level (Tier 1 generic cleanup level)
Res Residual Saturation
RfC Reference Concentration
RfD Reference Dose
SAM Soil Attenuation Model
SF Slope Factor
Sol Solubility
SSTL Site-Specific Target Level (Tier 2 or Tier 3 cleanup level)
SW Surface Water
THQ Target Hazard Quotient
TLV Threshold Limit Value
RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS
Acronym Definition
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TR Target Risk Limit for carcinogenic effects
TWA Time-Weighted Average
UCL Upper Confidence Limit
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
UF Utilization Factor
VF Volatilization Factor
RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES v

INTRODUCTION
The RBCA Tool Kit for Chemical Releases, Version 2, is a comprehensive modeling and risk
characterization software package designed to support Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) at
chemical release sites. RBCA is a practical management approach to address actual or
potential risks associated with the presence of chemicals of concern (COCs) in environmental
media (e.g., soil, groundwater and surface water) due to the release of chemicals to the
environment by human activities such as industrial operations or waste management practices.
The RBCA approach focuses explicitly on the protection of human health and the environment
and promotes energy and cost-efficient remedies to address risks, thus allowing often-limited
resources to be targeted to sites posing the highest levels of risk. A keystone of the RBCA
framework is the development of site-specific environmental cleanup criteria following a tiered
risk evaluation approach. This approach is broadly applicable to chemical release sites located
in different geographical settings and managed under various regulatory authorities.
The RBCA Tool Kit software is specifically designed to

complete all calculations required for Tiers 1 and 2 of the
ASTM-RBCA planning process, as defined in ASTM E-
2081-00 Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action
(ASTM, 2004) and ASTM E-1739-95 Standard Guide for
Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum
Release Sites (ASTM, 2002), and consistent with current
U.S. EPA guidelines for human health risk assessment
(U.S. EPA, 1989a, 1996). However, beyond this basic
functionality, Version 2 provides many additional modeling
and parameter options to allow for more sophisticated and
customized RBCA evaluations, including Tier 3
evaluations and limited ecological evaluations. In addition,
the flexibility and range of modeling and parameter
options provided in Version 2 allows the RBCA Tool Kit to
be employed outside the specific context of the ASTM-RBCA process for development of risk-
based soil and groundwater clean-up levels consistent with local regulations or requirements in
many parts of the world.
The RBCA Tool Kit consists of a series of linked workbooks designed to operate from within
Microsoft® Excel, versions 2000 through 2003, for calculation of baseline risk levels and/or
cleanup levels for soil and groundwater remediation, based upon information provided by the
user. Key features of the RBCA Tool Kit include:
Risk-Based Cleanup Level Calculations: Completes all calculations required for Tier 1 and
Tier 2 RBCA evaluations, including: risk-based exposure limits and natural attenuation factor
derived from simple fate and transport models or user-specified values. Options include explicit
consideration of concentration-based regulatory standards in addition to risk-based criteria.
Fate and Transport Models: Validated analytical models for air, groundwater, and soil
exposure pathways, including all models used in the ASTM RBCA standards.
Chemical/Toxicological Database: Integrated toxicological and chemical parameter library

preloaded with over 600 compounds, including default toxicity dose-response parameters from
recognized official sources in the United States, Netherlands and United Kingdom. Database is
RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES 1

INTRODUCTION
customizable by the user, including import/export features for management of multiple

databases.
User-Friendly Interface: Point-and-click graphical user interface with on-line help, unit
conversion, statistical calculators, and Load/Save As capability.
This manual provides a general description of the RBCA Tool Kit design followed by step-by-
step user instructions and detailed information on modeling and calculation procedures. For
guidance on the overall scope of the RBCA planning process, the user is referred to ASTM
Standards E-2081-00 and E-1739-95 or other similar guidelines issued by environmental
regulatory agencies or industry groups worldwide.

RBCA TOOL KIT QUICK START
MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
The RBCA Tool Kit, version 2, requires a computer system running Microsoft Excel 2000, 2002
(XP), or 2003 for Windows. This version is not currently supported for use with Microsoft Office
2007.
INSTALLATION
The RBCA Tool Kit is delivered in a single installation file, RBCAsetup.exe. The installation
setup will open several windows requesting setup preferences and will extract the program files
to a user-defined folder that will contain the files necessary for the operation of the RBCA Tool
Kit. By default, the RBCA Tool Kit will install in a folder in the Program Files directory.
Figure 1: Setup Screen
PROGRAM START-UP
To start the RBCA Tool Kit, use the start menu icon, created in a folder called "RBCA Tool Kit
for Chemical Releases". The Tool Kit may also be started by opening the installation folder and
double-clicking "RBCAstart.xls". This file initializes the Excel environment and opens the other
files needed by the Tool Kit. Note that the RBCA Tool Kit cannot be started from either the
RBCA.xls or RBCA.xla files. The RBCA Tool Kit requires macros to be enabled within Excel in
order to operate; therefore the user should always choose to enable macros when starting up
the RBCA Tool Kit (see Figure 2). In addition, the recommended security setting for enabling
macros is medium or high (see Figure 3).

Figure 2: Excel Macro Settings
Figure 3: Excel Macro Security Settings
REGISTRATION
When the RBCA Tool Kit is opened for the first time, the user will be prompted to register the
software by entering registration information. The following steps must be followed to complete
registration:

1. The first time the RBCA Tool Kit is opened,

the user is prompted to register the software by
entering a registration number and other
information. Please enter the registration
number exactly as it was provided with your Tool
Kit purchase.
Figure 4: Registration Page

2. After reviewing the license agreement and
clicking "I agree", the user is prompted to enter
a valid security code which corresponds to the
access code provided on this screen. Click
“Get Security Code On-line,” if that option is
available (i.e., an Internet connection is
detected), to obtain the security code
automatically. Or, call GSI for assistance
during regular business hours (8:00 am – 5:30
pm, US Central Standard Time [GMT -6; Nov-
Mar] or Central Daylight Time [GMT -5; Apr-
Oct]) at +1 713-522-6300.
Enter the security code in the space provided

to complete your registration.
Figure 5: Security Code

3. The security code can be acquired on-line
at http://www.gsi-net.com/software.asp under
the "Security code" link. You will need to enter
the access code you are given in the previous
step.
Figure 6: Registration On-Line

DATA INPUT AND OUTPUT
The user interface of the RBCA Tool Kit is spreadsheet-based and organized around the Main
Screen (see page 8). Input values are entered into spreadsheet cells and navigation among the
cells on each input screen can be performed using the arrow keys or the mouse. The individual
screens of the RBCA Tool Kit may be printed using the buttons provided or by using the Print
command within Excel.
On each input screen, white cells indicate input values, while black cells indicate calculated
results. Values can only be entered into the white input cells, and all other cells are locked.
Sections on the screen are numbered in the order that data should be input. Navigation to
another screen is performed by clicking the appropriate labeled button (e.g., “Main Screen,”
“Return,” etc.) in the “Commands and Options” section.
ON-LINE HELP
• Click on “HELP” or “?” buttons When you start up the RBCA Tool Kit Help system it
located throughout the software. will open to the Table of Contents page. The left side
of the Help window contains the Contents tab (listing
all the main Help pages), the Index tab, the Search tab, and the Favorites tab. The right side of
the Help window displays the currently selected Help topic.
Most pages and dialogs have a “Help” button or buttons marked with a question mark (?). Click
that button to open a Help topic associated with the dialog.
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
• Phone: 713-522-6414 Technical support for the RBCA Tool Kit is available from
• Fax: 713-522-8010 GSI on a pay-per-incident basis via phone or email.
• Web: www.gsi-net.com
• Hours: 8:00 am – 5:30 pm “Pay-per-incident” means that the user will be charged a
(USA Central Time) one-time flat-rate fee for resolution of a single technical
support issue. Any technical support issues relating to
malfunction in the RBCA Tool Kit will be handled free of charge. You can also view answers to
the latest technical support issues at: http://www.gsi-net.com/software/faq.asp

RBCA TOOL KIT STEP-BY-STEP
How do I evaluate baseline risks?
1) Main Screen: Enter project information. Select “Tier 1” or “Tier 2”. Select “Baseline Risks
(Forward mode)”. Proceed through the applicable input screens described below by clicking
on the buttons under “Prepare Input Data”. (When the input data required on a particular
sheet are complete, the corresponding button will display a solid green box. Otherwise, a
solid red box indicates that additional information is required on that screen.)
2) Exposure Pathways: Click “Exposure Pathways” to identify all complete exposure

pathways. Complete white data input cells. Click “Exposure Factors & Target Risks” to edit
exposure factors (default values are provided by the software). Return to the Main Screen.
3) Constituents of Concern (COCs): Click “Add/Insert” to display the Select COCs dialog
box. Select COCs from the list of available chemicals or add new chemical data. Click
“Close” to enter the COCs in the calculation worksheets (this may take several minutes,
depending on the number of COCs, the speed of the computer, and amount of memory
available). Enter representative source zone concentrations of COCs in the white cells.
Return to the Main Screen.
4) Transport Models: If applicable, select transport modeling options. Return to the Main
Screen.
5) Soil Parameters: Enter applicable site-specific soil parameters, completing all white input
cells. Return to the Main Screen.
6) Groundwater Parameters: Enter applicable site-specific groundwater parameters,

completing all white input cells. Return to the Main Screen.
7) Air Parameters: Enter applicable site-specific air parameters, completing all white input
8) Main Screen: Click “Baseline Risks…” in the “Review Output” section. Select a pathway to
view the corresponding baseline risks.
How do I calculate site-specific cleanup levels?
1) Main Screen: Enter project information. Select “Tier 1” or “Tier 2/3”. Select “RBCA
Cleanup Levels (Backward mode)”. Proceed through each applicable input screen,
described below, by clicking on the buttons under “Prepare Input Data”. (When input data
required on a particular sheet is complete, the corresponding button will display a solid
green box. Otherwise, a solid red box indicates that additional information is required on
that screen.)
2) Exposure Pathways: Click “Exposure Pathways” to identify all complete exposure

pathways. Complete white data input cells. Click “Exposure Factors & Target Risks” to edit
exposure factors (default values are provided by the software). Return to the Main Screen.

RBCA TOOL KIT STEP-BY-STEP
3) Constituents of Concern (COCs): Click “Add/Insert” to display the Select COCs dialog
box. Select COCs from the list of available chemicals or add new chemical data. Click
“Close” to enter the COCs in the calculation worksheets (this may take several minutes,
depending on the number of COCs, the speed of the computer, and amount of memory
available). Enter representative source zone concentrations of COCs in the white cells.
Return to the Main Screen.
4) Transport Models: If applicable, select transport modeling options. Return to the Main
Screen.
5) Soil Parameters: Enter applicable site-specific soil parameters, completing all white input
6) Groundwater Parameters: Enter applicable site-specific groundwater parameters,

completing all white input cells. Return to the Main Screen.
7) Air Parameters: Enter applicable site-specific air parameters, completing all white input
8) Main Screen: Click “Cleanup Levels…” in the “Review Output” section. Select a source
medium (e.g., soil or groundwater) to view the corresponding cleanup levels.
How long will it take to exceed risk goals at a groundwater point of exposure
(POE)?
To obtain a conservative estimate of when constituent concentrations in groundwater at a

selected well location might exceed the applicable target risk levels, based upon available
information, follow these steps:
1) Site-Specific Parameters: Complete steps 1 through 6 for a Tier 2 evaluation of Baseline

Risks or Cleanup Levels (see above).
2) Main Screen: Click “Transient Domenico Analysis…” then select “Domenico Modeling
Summary (All COCs)” which displays the time, if any, required to exceed the specified
concentration limit for each COC at each groundwater POE.
How do I prepare documentation for a RBCA evaluation

report?
To generate output text documenting your RBCA evaluation for

use in your report submittal and/or project records, follow these
steps:
1) Site-Specific Parameters: Complete steps 1 through 8 for

Baseline Risks and/or Cleanup Levels (see above).
2) Main Screen: Click, “Print Report” and select the desired

input and output screens for printing (see Figure 7).
Alternatively, proceed through each applicable output screen
and click “Print Sheet”.
Figure 7: Print Report Dialog

MAIN SCREEN
The Main Screen is the hub of the user interface, and is automatically opened at startup (see
Figure 8). Most of the input and output screens are accessed from and return to this screen
(see Figure 9). On this screen the user enters project information, selects the type of RBCA
analysis and calculations to be performed, and progressively steps through the RBCA
evaluation process by navigating to the appropriate input and output screens. Input and output
options become successively available as individual steps of the process are completed. In
addition, the user may create, load and save user input data files.
Figure 8: Main Screen
1) Project Information
Basic site and project information entered here will be displayed on all input and output screens
for easy identification and record-keeping.
2) Which Type of RBCA Analysis?
The RBCA Tool Kit can be used to perform either a Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 RBCA analysis. Tier
1 analyses involve generic risk-based screening levels (RBSLs) for on-site exposure, assuming
default exposure factors and site properties. In a Tier 2 analysis the user can evaluate baseline
risks and/or site-specific target levels (SSTLs) for both on-site and off-site receptor locations
based on site-specific soil, groundwater, and air parameters, using the same models as Tier
1. Tier 2 analyses allow the use of transport models in calculating risks and cleanup levels
related to off-site receptors. A Tier 3 analysis is comparable to a Tier 2 calculation in the RBCA
Tool Kit; however, instead of using the default fate and transport models provided in the RBCA
Tool Kit, the user may conduct the RBCA calculation using “natural attenuation factors”
determined from another model external to the RBCA Tool Kit or from site-specific
measurements. An example of a Tier 3 evaluation would include use of measured natural
attenuation factors or decay rates for constituent concentrations in groundwater based on a
time-series monitoring study conducted at the site.

MAIN SCREEN
Figure 9: Screen Navigation Chart

MAIN SCREEN
3) Calculation Options
The RBCA Tool Kit will perform both forward-mode and backward-mode risk-based calculations,
as specified by the user. This concept is illustrated by the arrows in Figure 10. Select the
forward mode option when baseline risks are to be calculated based on measured
concentrations of site constituents of concern (COCs). This option requires applicable source-
zone COC concentrations to be entered for affected soil and/or groundwater. Select the
backward mode option to back-calculate cleanup levels (i.e., Tier 1 RBSLs or Tier 2/3 SSTLs)
based on user-specified target risks. This option does not require source zone COC
concentrations; however, if source zone concentrations are entered, the RBCA Tool Kit will
identify those source concentration values which exceed the applicable cleanup levels.
Figure 10: Forward and Backward Calculation Modes
The user may specify both individual and cumulative risk goals. “Individual” risk means that
baseline risks and cleanup levels will be calculated on the basis of exposure to individual
constituents of concern separately, whereas “Cumulative” means that baseline risks and
cleanup levels will be calculated on the basis of cumulative effects of exposure to all
constituents of concern together.
Also under Tier 2 or Tier 3, the user may choose whether to apply the “Source Depletion
Algorithm,” which can be used to adjust cleanup levels to account for reductions in source
mass—due to volatilization, dissolution, leaching, and biodegradation—over time until a future
exposure occurs. When the source depletion algorithm is selected, individual first-order decay
constants are calculated for every constituent of concern (COC) in each source area (soil and
groundwater). This first-order decay constant accounts for the decrease in source mass due to
volatilization, dissolution or leaching, and biodegradation (see Figure D.1). Further information
regarding the source depletion algorithm is presented in Appendix D.

MAIN SCREEN
4) RBCA Evaluation Process
This part of the Main Screen guides the user through the RBCA evaluation process in a step-by-
step manner. Each button leads to other screens where necessary input data are entered or
output data are displayed. Figure 9 presents the hierarchy of screens with respect to the Main
Screen as the hub of the user interface.
Generally, the user will complete the steps of data input and then proceed to review and print
the results of the RBCA analysis. Output options become available for review as soon as
sufficient input data has been provided. Buttons that appear “grayed out” either do not apply to
the selected options or are not yet available pending completion of relevant input steps.
Individual input and output screens are described in detail in the following sections.
a) Prepare Input Data
The first two steps of the RBCA evaluation process involve identification of complete exposure
pathways and constituents of concern (COCs) for the site under evaluation. When a new project
is begun, only these first two buttons are available while all other buttons are disabled. When at
least one complete exposure pathway is identified, other input steps related to that pathway are
activated (i.e., they are no longer grayed out).
The buttons leading to the input screens are marked with green and red boxes. When all
required data on a given input screen are complete, the green box on the corresponding button
appears solid. Otherwise, the red box appears solid to indicate that additional inputs are
required on that screen. Note that for a new project, some buttons may initially indicate that data
are complete. On these screens, Tier 1 default values are initially entered for both Tier 1 and
Tier 2 analyses. While these values may be edited by the user, no additional data are required if
the user chooses to use the default assumptions.
b) Review Output
The buttons leading to output screens become active as soon as sufficient input data are
entered to complete the corresponding output screens. For example the “Exposure Flowchart”
and “COC Chem. Parameters” buttons are active after exposure pathway and COC
identification, whereas “Baseline Risks…” and “Cleanup Levels…” do not become active until all
input screens are complete. Whenever a button leading to a particular output screen is selected,
all pertinent calculations related to that screen are automatically updated.
5) Commands and Options
The buttons in this section of the Main Screen (see Figure 8) perform the following actions:
• New Site: Clears all input values, resets options for the current project, and restores Tier 1
default values, where applicable. If the current project data set is not saved, a message will
prompt the user to either save or discard any changes.
• Load Data…: Loads the input values and options for a previously-saved project data set. If
the current project data set is not saved, a message will prompt the user to either save or
discard any changes.

MAIN SCREEN
• Save Data As…: Saves all input values and options for the current data set as a separate
Excel workbook (.xls file). Saved data files do not have to be in the same directory as the
RBCA Tool Kit application files. (Note: Workbooks for saved data sets are specially
formatted for compatibility with the RBCA Tool Kit macros. Therefore, to preserve their
integrity, such files should only be edited and saved via the user interface of the RBCA Tool
Kit.) Users may also save a data file at any time by using Ctrl+S. Saving will return the user
to the Main Screen. Note that chemical-specific parameters for selected COCs are stored in
the saved file, and the saved chemical parameters will be reloaded and used for the specific
RBCA evaluation whenever the file is loaded, even if the corresponding parameters in the
current chemical database are different than the saved values. To revert any previously
saved chemical parameters to values from the current chemical database, use the “Resolve
Row” or “Resolve All” buttons on the Chemical Data for Selected COCs output screen (see
page 43).
• Quit: Quits the RBCA Tool Kit application and all associated files. If the current project
data are not saved, a message will prompt the user to either save or discard any changes.
Note that the application files RBCA.xls and RBCA.xla are Read-Only and changes to these
files are not saved. The “Quit” button will always save any changes to the custom chemical
database file, UserChemTox.xls. Choosing “Close” from Excel’s “File” menu, pressing
Ctrl+W, or clicking on the RBCA Tool Kit window will work the same as clicking “Quit.” Excel
will remain running following each of these actions. Choosing “Exit” from Excel’s “File”
menu or clicking on the Excel application window will quit both the RBCA Tool Kit and the
Excel application.
• Print Sheet: Performs the same action as choosing “Print” from Excel’s “File” menu or
pressing Ctrl+P.
• Print Report: Allows the user to print out all of the RBCA Tool Kit pages of interest at once.
• Set Units: See Figure 11. Allows the

selection and conversion of units of
measurement used throughout the RBCA
Tool Kit. “Set Units” buttons are also located
on other input screens, and units may be
changed at any time with all affected values
changing to reflect the newly selected units.
• Chemical Toxicity Database: Displays the

user-specified custom chemical database
stored in the workbook
UserChemTox.xls. Please read the section
on the Chemical Toxicity Database for more Figure 11: Units Selector
information.
• Help: Opens the On-Line help for the Main Screen.

INPUT SCREENS
EXPOSURE PATHWAY IDENTIFICATION
This screen is accessed by clicking “Exposure Pathways” on the Main Screen. As shown on
Figure 12, on this screen, the user specifies:
• the complete exposure pathways for the site

• the type of receptors (residential, commercial, etc.) for each complete pathway
• the distance from the source to each receptor
In the RBCA Tool Kit, the term “on-site” refers to a receptor located at the source zone, whereas
“off-site” refers to a receptor at any point away from the source zone, even if on the same
property. For Tier 1 analyses, only on-site receptors apply, and all off-site options are inactive
and are grayed out. For Tier 2 analyses, the user may also enter data for two off-site receptor
locations. The two off-site receptor locations may be used to evaluate risks and cleanup levels
for both an actual receptor (e.g., an actual, existing well location) and a potential receptor (e.g.,
a hypothetical well location) in the same area. For the purpose of the RBCA evaluation, the
“source” is the area of affected soil or groundwater to which an on-site receptor could be
exposed or which could migrate off-site (e.g., via volatilization, dissolution, advection,
dispersion, etc.) to impact other areas. In simple terms, the “source” is the area of impacted
soils at the location where the release occurred and/or the heart of the affected groundwater
plume.
For each complete exposure pathway, relevant receptors are identified by selecting the
appropriate receptor type from each drop-down box. Applicable source media, exposure routes,
and other options are selected by checking the appropriate boxes.
The selections on the exposure pathway identification screen are summarized on the Exposure
Pathway Flowchart, which is accessible from both the Pathway Identification and the Main
Screen. Note that the combination of exposure pathways identified on this screen determines
the input requirements and availability of options on all subsequent input screens.
Figure 12: Exposure Pathway Identification Screen

INPUT SCREENS
The Exposure Pathway Screen has four sections:

1) Groundwater Exposure
2) Surface Soil Exposure
3) Air Exposure
1) Groundwater Exposure
a) Groundwater Ingestion / Surface Water Impact
This exposure pathway involves the direct ingestion of affected groundwater or exposure to
surface water which receives a discharge of affected groundwater. For this pathway, the
groundwater may be affected either directly by a contaminant source in contact with the
groundwater (e.g., a non-aqueous phase liquid or “NAPL”) or indirectly by leaching from
overlying affected soils.
Number and Types of Receptors
As described above, only on-site receptors are available for Tier 1 analyses, whereas on-site
and up to two off-site receptors are available for Tier 2/3 analyses. Four types of receptors may
be designated for the groundwater ingestion pathways: residential, commercial, user-defined,
and “MCL” (maximum contaminant level). In addition, a surface water receptor, described
below, is available for the second off-site receptor. If no complete exposure pathway exists for
a particular groundwater receptor, “None” should be selected as the receptor type. For
residential, commercial, and user-defined receptors, baseline risks and/or source media
cleanup levels are calculated on the basis of applicable exposure factors and target risk levels.
To set the exposure limit at the receptor location equal to a specified concentration, such as the
drinking water MCL, select “MCL” as the receptor type.
The MCL corresponds to the drinking water criterion (i.e., a specified concentration) for the
selected chemical in water. For the MCL option, baseline risks are not calculated, and media
cleanup levels are based strictly on ensuring that MCL concentrations are not exceeded in
groundwater at the receptor location. Alternatively, when the option “Apply MCL value as
ingestion RBEL” is selected in conjunction with another receptor type (e.g., residential), cleanup
levels are calculated using the MCL as the target concentration limit, if an MCL is specified in
the chemical database, or, if no MCL is available, then the calculated risk-based exposure limit
for the specified type of receptor is used.
The second off-site receptor (Off-site 2) allows an additional receptor for the surface water
(“SW”) exposure pathway. This pathway does not correspond to groundwater ingestion, but
rather to exposure to surface water that has been affected by a discharge of affected
groundwater. Selecting “SW” and a source medium will activate the surface water receptor
choices described below.
Source Media and Receptor Distance from Source
Source media and exposure routes contributing to the groundwater ingestion/surface water
exposure pathways are identified by checking the appropriate boxes for affected groundwater or
affected soils leaching to groundwater. The term “source medium” refers to the zone of affected
soils or groundwater for which baseline risks and/or cleanup levels will be calculated. Typically,

INPUT SCREENS
the source zone should correspond to the “core” of the affected soil zone or groundwater plume
where the maximum chemical concentrations are observed.
Whenever both a receptor type and an affected source medium have been identified for a given
receptor, the corresponding input cell for the distance from the source medium to the receptor
becomes active. The lateral distance from the downgradient edge of the source area to each
active groundwater receptor is entered directly into the white input cells.
b) Surface Water Receptors
The groundwater to surface water exposure pathway involves three possible mechanisms for
human or ecological exposure: i) human exposure by swimming; ii) human exposure via fish
consumption; and iii) direct exposure of humans or aquatic species. This exposure pathway
and the surface water receptor choices are activated by selecting “S.W.” as the receptor type for
the second off-site receptor (Off-site 2) and selecting at least one source medium (affected soil
or groundwater).
For swimming and fish consumption, baseline risks and/or cleanup levels are calculated on the
basis of applicable human exposure factors and target risk levels. The “Specified Water Quality
Criteria” option allows the user to enter applicable surface water protection or quality criteria
(e.g., as established by state or federal regulations in the U.S.A.) as the surface water exposure
limit. For the surface water pathway, baseline risks are calculated for swimming and fish
consumption receptors only. Media cleanup levels are based on the lower of i) applicable risk-
based limits for swimming and fish consumption or ii) the concentration-based surface water
quality criterion, each as applicable depending on the selected options.
2) Surface Soil Exposure
This exposure pathway addresses the combined effects of human exposure to affected surface
soils via dermal contact, incidental ingestion, inhalation of vapors and dust, and (for residential
receptors only) vegetable ingestion. This exposure is assumed to occur in the immediate area
of the affected soil zone and, therefore, by definition, applies to on-site receptors only. Three
types of on-site receptors may be designated for the soil pathways: residential, commercial, or
user-defined. If no complete surface soil exposure pathway exists for an on-site receptor,
“None” should be selected as the receptor type. When a receptor is selected, the user must
specify all applicable exposure mechanisms for this pathway.
In addition to the selected receptor type, an on-site construction worker receptor may also be
considered by checking the “Construction Worker” box. This option allows calculation of risks to
a construction worker based on short-term contact with affected soils during excavation
activities. The parameters distinguishing a construction worker from a commercial worker are
specified on the exposure factors and target risks page. Note, however, that the construction
worker calculations use the same chronic toxicity factors that are used for residential or
commercial receptors.
An option is available for applying United Kingdom CLEA (Contaminated Land Exposure
Assessment) soil guideline values in lieu of a calculated cleanup level for backward-mode
calculations. Available CLEA guideline values are tabulated in the chemical/toxicity database.
This option does not affect forward-mode calculations. For more information on the use and
derivation of CLEA soil guideline values, the user is referred to the Contaminated Land Report

INPUT SCREENS
(CLR) series of documents published by the Environment Agency of England and Wales (EA,
2002).
3) Air Exposure
a) Outdoor Air Inhalation
This exposure pathway involves the outdoor inhalation of vapors which emanate from affected
soils and/or groundwater and soil particulates which emanate from affected surface soils.
Four receptor choices are available for the outdoor air inhalation pathways: residential,
commercial, user, and “TWA” (time-weighted average). If no complete exposure pathway exists
for a particular outdoor air receptor, “None” should be selected as the receptor type. For
residential and commercial receptors, baseline risks and/or source media cleanup levels are
calculated on the basis of applicable exposure factors and target risk levels. To set the
exposure limit at the receptor location equal to occupational permissible exposure levels (PELs)
or threshold limit values (TLVs) as established under U.S. worker exposure criteria, select
“TWA” as the receptor type. For this option, baseline risks are not calculated, and media
cleanup levels are based strictly on preventing exceedance of the specified air concentration
limits at the receptor location.
In addition to the selected receptor type, an on-site construction worker receptor may also be
considered by checking the “Construction Worker” box. This option allows calculation of risks to
a construction worker based on short-term inhalation of outdoor air during excavation activities.
Note, however, that the construction worker calculations use the same chronic toxicity factors
that are used for residential or commercial receptors.
Source media contributing to the outdoor air inhalation pathway are identified by checking the
appropriate boxes for volatilization from affected soils and groundwater and for emission of
particulates from affected surface soils. The term “source medium” refers to the zone of
affected soils or groundwater for which baseline risks and/or cleanup levels will be calculated.
The lateral distance from the downwind edge of the source area to each outdoor air receptor is
entered directly into the white input cells.
b) Indoor Air Inhalation
This exposure pathway involves the indoor accumulation and inhalation of vapors which
emanate from affected soils and/or groundwater.
This exposure pathway represents volatilization from affected media directly into an overlying
enclosed space. Four receptor choices are available for the indoor air inhalation pathway:
residential, commercial, user-defined, and TWA (time-weighted average). If no complete
exposure pathway exists for an indoor air receptor, “None” should be selected as the receptor
type. For residential and commercial receptors, baseline risks and/or source media cleanup

INPUT SCREENS
levels are calculated on the basis of applicable exposure factors and target risk levels. To set
the exposure limit at the receptor location equal to occupational permissible exposure levels
(PELs) or threshold limit values (TLVs), as established under U.S. worker exposure criteria,
select “TWA” as the receptor type. For the TWA option, baseline risks are not calculated, and
media cleanup levels are based strictly on preventing exceedance of the specified air
concentration limits at the receptor location. For a user-defined receptor, click “Bldg Options” to
select between residential or commercial building parameters to be used with this receptor.
Source media contributing to the indoor air inhalation pathway are identified by checking the
appropriate boxes for volatilization from affected soils and groundwater and for emission of soil
particulates from affected surface soils. The term “source medium” refers to the zone of
affected soils or groundwater for which baseline risks and/or cleanup levels will be calculated.
The lateral distance from the downgradient edge of the source area to each indoor air receptor
is entered directly into the white input cells.
• Main Screen: Returns to the Main Screen.
pressing Ctrl+P.
• Set Units: Allows the selection and conversion of units of measurement used throughout
the RBCA Tool Kit. “Set Units” buttons are also located on other input screens, and units
may be changed at any time with all affected values changing to reflect the newly selected
set.
• Help: Displays on-line help for this screen.
• Exposure Factors & Target Risks: Leads to the “Exposure Factors and Target Risk
Limits” input screen described in the following subsection. A green box indicates that the
required data on that screen is complete, whereas a red box indicates that additional data
input is required.
• Exposure Flowchart: This is a shortcut to the “Exposure Pathway Flowchart” output

screen described in the Output Screens section of this manual (see Figure 24). The
exposure flowchart provides a graphical depiction of the selected exposure pathways and
receptors.
EXPOSURE FACTORS AND TARGET RISK LIMITS
This screen is accessed by clicking “Exposure Pathways & Target Risks” on the Exposure
Pathway Identification screen. On this screen, the user must enter appropriate exposure factors
for each complete pathway, specify the desired risk calculation options, and enter target health
risks to be applied.
For a new project data set, this screen initially contains default values. The user may modify
these values as described below.

INPUT SCREENS
Figure 13: Exposure Factors and Target Risk Limits Screen
1) Exposure Parameters
Applicable exposure factors for each complete exposure pathway must be entered in the white
input cells. Initially, this section contains default values corresponding to ASTM Standard E-
2081, if available, or otherwise Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) values specified in U.S.
EPA guidance (U.S. EPA, 1997).
There are six exposure factor columns representing the different types of receptors that can be
modeled with the RBCA Tool Kit. These receptor types allow the user to calculate baseline risks
and cleanup levels based on different physical (e.g., skin area, body weight, etc.), and
exposure-related (e.g., soil and water ingestion rate, fish consumption, etc.) parameters. All of
these parameters may be adjusted by the user on the Exposure Factors and Target Risk Limits
Screen.
a) Residential Receptors
Child: Models infants and young children (default age 6 and under), with a low body weight
and small skin surface area.
Adolescent: Models a juvenile (default total years = 12), with an intermediate body weight and
skin area.
Adult: Models an adult with a full grown body weight and skin surface area.
b) Commercial Receptors
Adult: Models an adult working at a full-time job where exposure to surface soil is limited.

INPUT SCREENS
Construction: Models a construction worker, where, by default, the soil exposure is increased,
and the amount of time at the site is presumed to be less than that of a normal worker at the
site.
c) User-Defined Receptors
Allows parameters (e.g., soil/water ingestion, skin surface area, dermal exposure, body weight,
etc.) to be specified by the user for any type of receptor.
2) Age Adjustment for Carcinogens
By default, age adjustment is applied for all carcinogens, but this option may be deselected by
unchecking the boxes in this section. For the residential exposure scenario, the “age
adjustment” option calculates an average exposure values among the child/juvenile/adult values
in order to adjust for varying body weights, exposure durations, skin areas, etc., for an exposure
duration assumed to span periods of childhood, adolescence and adulthood. Age adjustment is
applied for carcinogenic COCs only, where carcinogenic exposures are assumed to be chronic
over the lifetime of the receptor. Age adjustment does not apply to non-residential exposure
scenarios. When age adjustment is not selected, risk calculations for carcinogens for the
residential scenario are performed for the adult receptor only. Chemicals are identified by the
RBCA Tool Kit as being carcinogenic for any given exposure pathway by virtue of there being a
related slope factor or unit risk factor specified in the chemical database.
3) Non-Carcinogenic Receptor
For non-carcinogens, risk calculations are performed for the receptor selected in this section. By
default, for residential exposure scenarios, the child receptor is chosen, being the most
sensitive receptor for acute, non-carcinogenic exposures. Age adjustment is typically not
performed for non-carcinogens because the toxicity for non-carcinogens is not dependent on
exposure duration.
4) Target Health Risk Limits
The user must specify excess lifetime risk limits for carcinogenic effects and upper-bound
hazard quotient values for non-carcinogen effects for individual and/or cumulative constituents,
as applicable. Excess lifetime risk limits for carcinogens typically range from 1 in 1,000,000 (10-
6
) to 1 in 10,000 (10-4). Hazard quotients for individual non-carcinogenic effects are commonly
set at 1.0, while the hazard index for cumulative effects is in the range of 1 to 10.
• Return to Exposure Pathways: Returns to the “Exposure Pathways” input screen.
• Use Default Values: Resets all input cells to the default values corresponding to
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) values.
pressing Ctrl+P.

INPUT SCREENS
SOURCE MEDIA CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN (COCs)
This screen is accessed by clicking “Constituents of Concern (COCs)” on the Main Screen. On
this screen, the user must identify the constituents of concern (COCs) present at the site and, if
baseline risks are to be calculated, must also provide representative concentrations of the
COCs in the relevant source media. For Tier 1 evaluations, any constituent associated with the
source and consistently detected above method detection limits and natural background levels
can be considered a possible COC. For Tier 2 analyses, only those constituents present above
Tier 1 cleanup levels are typically retained as COCs.
Figure 14: Source Media COCs Screen
1) Selected COCs
In order to perform a RBCA analysis, the chemicals of concern (COC) must be selected, and
the currently selected COCs are then listed in the black cells at the left of the screen. Individual
COCs may be selected or deleted, or the COC list may be sorted using the buttons described
below.
Each of the following commands applies to the COC in the row of the active spreadsheet cell.
To use these commands, select any cell in a row of the appropriate COC. If no active COC row
is selected, “Add/Insert” will insert new COCs at the top of the list, whereas the other commands
will return an error message.
• Add/Insert: Displays the “Select COC” dialog box, described below, which allows the
selection of COCs from the chemical databases.
• Delete: Deletes the selected COC from all COC worksheets in the RBCA Tool Kit. The
progress of this procedure is reported as a percentage (0 to 100) on the status bar at the
bottom of the Excel application window.
The remaining buttons are for resorting the COC list.

• Top: Moves the selected COC to the top of the list.
• Bottom: Moves the selected COC to the bottom of the list.
• Move Up: Moves the selected COC up one position.
• Move Down: Moves the selected COC down one position.

INPUT SCREENS
Select COC Dialog Box
COCs may be added to the list of selected COCs by clicking the “Add/Insert” button. This
button displays a dialog box (see Figure 15) which presents the full list of available chemicals in
the Chemical Toxicity (Chem/Tox) database. The RBCA Tool Kit includes a Chemical Toxicity
database preloaded with data for over 600 chemicals, including petroleum hydrocarbon TPH
fractions, organic solvents, pesticides, and metals. Users may select chemicals from the list,
add their own, or edit the chemicals in the database. An asterisk (*) indicates chemicals for
which the Chem/Tox database has been customized by the user, as described below.
The chemicals in the Chem/Tox database may be sorted either alphabetically or by Chemical
Abstracts Service (CAS) numbers by selecting the corresponding options. When the user
highlights a chemical from the list and clicks “Select”, a new row is added to the input screen
indicating the selection. When the COC selection dialog box is closed, the RBCA Tool Kit
automatically loads chemical/toxicological parameters and data entry/calculation rows for all
selected COCs and returns to the input screen. This procedure may take several minutes to
complete, depending on the number of COCs selected, the speed of the computer, and
available memory. A status window will appear to show the load progress when the user clicks
“Close” on the “Select Constituent of Concern” dialog.
Figure 15: Select COC Dialog Box
More information regarding the chemical database can be found in the section "Customizing the
Chemical Database" below.
2) Representative COC Concentrations
If forward-mode baseline risks are to be calculated, representative concentrations of each COC

in the applicable source media (i.e., groundwater and/or soil) must be entered in this section of
the “Source Media COCs” input screen.

INPUT SCREENS
If backward-mode cleanup levels are being calculated, representative source concentrations are
not required. However, if representative source concentrations are entered, the RBCA Tool Kit
will identify exceedances of applicable cleanup levels and calculate the constituent reduction
factor (CRF) needed to meet the cleanup goals. The CRF corresponds to the number of times
the representative source zone concentration exceeds the applicable cleanup level.
Representative source concentrations may be entered directly into white input cells, or
alternatively, the “Calculate” button may be selected to access an internal statistical calculation
tool for use in deriving representative concentration values from available site data. When
“Calculate” is clicked, the corresponding white input cells convert to black calculation cells.
Then the user must click “Enter Site Data” to proceed to either the groundwater or soil source
zone concentration calculator. These input screens are described below. The “Notes” column
adjacent to each COC concentration column is provided for the user to enter any notes or
comments about the COC or concentrations, if desired.
Source Zone Concentration Calculators
The user has the option to calculate mean, maximum, or upper confidence limit (UCL) values for
data sets of up to 50 analytical measurements from each source medium. The Source Zone
Concentration Calculators for soil and groundwater are accessed by selecting “Calculate” from
the pull-down list or clicking the respective “Enter Site Data” buttons on the Source Media COCs
input screen. On these screens, analytical data from the site are entered in the white cells at
the right-hand side of the screen (see Figure 16). To the left, statistics of the sample population
are tabulated for review by the user. The user may specify whether arithmetic or geometric
means values are to be used, and which percentile shall be used for UCL calculation. The
estimated distribution of data is determined by the coefficient of variation test on the data and
log-transformed data. The user must select which statistic (maximum, mean, or UCL) is most
representative of the source zone concentrations by using the "Select Representative Set"
button. The currently selected dataset will be highlighted, and these values will then be
automatically entered into the Representative COC concentration table.
Figure 16: Soil Source Zone Concentration Calculator
The general equation for calculating the upper confidence limit is:
UCL = mean + (standard deviation * t statistic)

INPUT SCREENS
3) Raoult’s Law Option
The models used in the RBCA Tool Kit assume two-phase (i.e., between soil and water) or
three-phase (i.e., among soil, water, and vapor) equilibrium partitioning relationships, and
neglect the presence of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs). In general, neglecting the
presence of the NAPL phase as a fourth partitioning medium is a conservative measure, which
results in lower risk-based cleanup values for the affected soil or groundwater. If NAPL
materials are known or suspected to be present in the source media, the RBCA Tool Kit
provides an option to apply Raoult’s Law to correct for the competing effects of multiple
constituents, and prevent the overestimation of individual constituent solubilities and vapor
pressures. This option scales the solubility and vapor pressure of each COC by its respective
mole fraction in the source material. Input cells for entering constituent mole fractions in the
source material are activated by checking the box labeled “Apply Raoult’s Law” on the Source
Media Constituents of Concern screen (see Figure 14). For sites where no NAPL is detected or
suspected, Raoult’s Law does not apply.
Note that selecting the Raoult’s Law option does not affect baseline risk or cleanup level
calculations, but rather, only affects the maximum reported value of cleanup levels on the
Cleanup Level output screens. On these screens, cleanup levels for indirect exposure
pathways (e.g., for volatilization or leaching pathways, where the exposure medium is different
than the source medium) which exceed effective saturation limits in the source medium are
reported as “>” with either the effective constituent solubility for groundwater or the residual
saturation concentration (Csat) for soil. In practical terms, this result means that the
concentration of that constituent in the specified source medium cannot reach levels that would
pose a risk in excess of the specified target risk limits in the corresponding exposure medium.
pressing Ctrl+P.
CHEMICAL / TOXICITY DATABASE
The RBCA Tool Kit for Chemical Releases program folder contains a file named
“UserChemTox.xls”. This file contains the database used by the RBCA Tool Kit for all chemical-
specific parameters used for the risk evaluation and/or fate and transport modeling calculations.
Each field in the chemical/toxicity database is described in detail in Appendix E. Parameter
values for over 650 chemicals, included by default in the database, are provided for the
convenience of the user, based on published references cited for each parameter. References
can be viewed by clicking the “References” button. Parameter values and references can be
modified and supplemented by the user as necessary or desired, including the addition of new
chemicals to the database, as described in further detail below. For some COCs, the user may
need to complete certain parameter values, which by default are blank in the database, in order
to complete the desired risk and/or fate and transport modeling calculations. As described on

INPUT SCREENS
page 55, flags are used to indicate results for which any missing chemical or toxicological
parameters are required in order for the calculations to be completed.
The database may be opened separately or from within the RBCA Tool Kit by pressing the
"Chemical Toxicity Database" button located on the Main Screen. Once opened, the chemical
database shows a single table with all of the chemical-specific values used by the RBCA Tool
Kit (see Figure 17).
Figure 17: Chemical Toxicity Database
1) Editing Parameter Values
Users may edit the values for chemicals in the database by directly changing the values in the
database. Values that are different from the values in the master database of the Tool Kit will
change color to yellow, and the chemical name will switch to yellow. New chemicals added to
the database or existing chemicals altered in the database from the original values are identified
with an asterisk (*) on both the Select COC dialog box and the Source Media COCs input
screen. The chemicals with altered or new chemical data will also be flagged on the output
pages.
From within the database, users can edit the values by clicking on the "Lock/Unlock" button to
open the database for edits. From there, the user can directly edit all of the values in the
database.
Values may be entered directly in the white input cells (or yellow if the value has been
previously changed). Dropdown boxes are used to select codes for reference
citations. Reference citations for chemical data are reported on several printed output sheets,
so the user may wish to cite references for user-customized values. References for the built-in
values are already included in the built-in chemical database. These sources may provide
values for additional chemicals. The citation corresponding to each reference code may be
viewed by clicking “References.” Additional references and codes entered by the user can also
be stored in the custom chemical database.

INPUT SCREENS
2) Selecting Applicable Toxicity Parameters
Default toxicity parameters have been included in the database from recognized sources in the
United States, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, where a specific reference for each
toxicity value is cited within the database. The toxicity parameters provided for each country
correspond to values commonly used or accepted for human health risk assessments for sites
located within in each respective country. By default, the database is configured to use U.S.
toxicity parameters only; however, the use may select any order of preference for using the
country-specific toxicity parameter lists using the dropdown boxes labeled “First Choice,”
“Second Choice” and “Third Choice” located at the top of the Effective Toxicity Parameters
columns.
3) Saving the User-Specified Chemical Database
If the RBCA Tool Kit is open, custom values will be saved when the user locks and closes the
database using the “Save/Close DB” button. If the database is edited outside of the Tool Kit, the
user will have to save the spreadsheet manually, by using the Excel Save function (Ctrl+S), or
when the database editing is complete by clicking the "Save/Close DB" button. References may
be added to the Tool Kit through the References button.
The following buttons are available on the Chemical Toxicity Database screen:
• Save/Close DB: Saves all the changes and hides the database from view while using the
RBCA Tool Kit. When modifying the database outside the Tool Kit, it will also close the
database.
• Print DB: Prints the entire database. Please be aware that the database is over 130 pages
long.
• Sort by Name: Sorts the database by constituent name.
• Sort by CAS: Sorts the database by Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number.
• References: View and edit the references used in the database.
• Reset Values: Return the chemical data for any value, chemical, or the entire database
back to the original values.
• Add Chem: Adds a new row to edit in the database.
• Remove Chem: Deletes the current selected row (be careful when using this option, as it
cannot be undone).
• Lock/Unlock: Allows the database to be written, or locked to prevent accidental editing of

the chemical database. By default, the database is locked. The current writing status is

INPUT SCREENS
indicated at the upper left hand corner of the database, between the buttons and the
constituent list.
5) Managing Multiple Toxicity Databases
The RBCA Tool Kit allows the user to maintain and switch between multiple databases, which
may be desirable if, for example, risk evaluations are to be performed under different regulatory
programs requiring the use of distinct chemical-specific input parameters.
The “current” chemical database within the RBCA Tool Kit refers to the database stored in the
file named UserChemTox.xls located in the RBCA Tool Kit program folder. The Chemical
Database management dialog box (see Figure 18) can be used to save and manage alternative
versions of the database file and is accessible from within the Select Constituent of Concern
dialog (at the bottom, click "Change Database"). This dialog box will show the chemicals in the
current database, flagging chemicals with customized data with an asterisk (*).
To help the user distinguish between databases, identifying information such as name and date
for any database file may be entered at the top of the Chem/Tox database.
Figure 18: Chemical Database Management Dialog
TRANSPORT MODELING OPTIONS
This screen as shown on Figure 19 is accessed by clicking “Transport Models” on the Main
Screen. On this screen, the user is given options for selecting appropriate models for the
transport of COCs from one medium to another (e.g., soil to air, soil to groundwater, and
groundwater to air) or to off-site receptors (via transport in air or groundwater). The availability
of various transport modeling options depends on the exposure pathway selection and whether
off-site receptors were identified. The model equations referenced in the following subsections
are presented in Appendix B.

INPUT SCREENS
Figure 19: Transport Modeling Options Screen
1) Vertical Transport in the Surface Soil Column
a) Outdoor Air Volatilization Factors
The outdoor air volatilization factor (VF) for a given COC is defined as the predicted ambient
outdoor air concentration resulting from soil or groundwater volatilization divided by the source
media (soil or groundwater) concentration. This is the assumed steady-state ratio between: i)
the ambient air concentration and ii) the affected soil or groundwater concentration in the source
zone, which will be used to calculate risks and back-calculate cleanup levels for the source
zone. The user must select among the following options for deriving outdoor air volatilization
factors:
Surface Soil Volatilization Only: Allows the user to select between the USEPA Q/C model (US
EPA, 1996; Eqns. CM-1a/b and CM-2a) and the ASTM surface soil volatilization model (ASTM,
2000; Eqns. CM-1c/d and CM-2b) for all soils, both surface and subsurface. This option is
intended for cases in which the very conservative subsurface soil volatilization model predicts
(incorrectly) that the volatilization from subsurface soils exceeds that from surface soils. Under
this option, the Johnson-Ettinger volatilization model is used to predict volatilization from
groundwater (Eqn. CM-5).
Combination Surface Soil/Johnson-Ettinger Models: Uses two distinct soil volatilization models
(ASTM, 2000) for surface vs. subsurface soils. For this option, the user must specify the
thickness of the surface soil zone. For the surface soils, the user can select between the
USEPA Q/C model (US EPA, 1996; Eqns. CM-1a/b and CM-2a) and the ASTM surface soil
volatilization model (ASTM, 2000; Eqns. CM-1c/d and CM-2b). For subsurface soils (at depth
greater than the surface soil thickness) the Johnson-Ettinger volatilization model is applied
(ASTM, 2000; Eqn. CM-3). The Johnson-Ettinger volatilization model is also used to predict
volatilization from groundwater (ASTM, 2000; Eqn. CM-5).

INPUT SCREENS
Note: In some cases the volatilization factor predicted by the subsurface soil model may exceed that
predicted by the surface soil model, which would result in lower cleanup levels for subsurface soils than
for surface soils. In such instances, “Surface Soil Volatilization Only” may be a more suitable modeling
option.
User-Specified VF from Other Model: For this option, the user can specify outdoor air
volatilization factors to use for soil and/or groundwater instead of using the equations provided
in the Tool Kit. This option may be desired for a Tier 3 analysis or for use of a Tier 1 or 2 model
approved by an applicable technical guideline or regulatory authority but not included in the Tool
Kit. For this purpose, these values can be obtained from an appropriate model or site
measurement and entered directly into the RBCA Tool Kit using this option.
b) Indoor Air Volatilization Factors
The indoor air volatilization factor (VF) for a given COC is defined as the predicted indoor air
concentration resulting from soil or groundwater volatilization divided by the source media (soil
or groundwater) concentration. This is the assumed steady-state ratio between: i) the indoor air
concentration and ii) the affected soil or groundwater concentration in the source zone, which
will be used to calculate risks and back-calculate cleanup levels for the source zone. The user
must select among the following options for deriving indoor air volatilization factors:
Johnson-Ettinger Model: Uses the Johnson-Ettinger volatilization model for soils and/or
groundwater (ASTM, 2000; Eqns. CM-4 and CM-6a).
Johnson-Ettinger Model/Mass Flux Model: Uses the Johnson-Ettinger volatilization model for
soils (ASTM, 2000; Eqn. CM-4) and the Mass Flux model for groundwater (McHugh et al, 2003;
Eqn. CM-6b).
User-Specified VF from Other Model: For this option, the user must specify indoor air
volatilization factors to use for soil and/or groundwater instead of using the equations provided
in the Tool Kit. This option may be desired for a Tier 3 analysis or for use of a Tier 1 or 2 model
approved by an applicable technical guideline or regulatory authority but not included in the Tool
Kit. For this purpose, these values can be obtained from an appropriate model or site
c) Soil-to-Groundwater Leaching Factor
The soil-to-groundwater leaching factor (LF) for a given COC is defined as the predicted
groundwater concentration resulting from steady-state soil leachate impacts divided by the
source zone soil concentration. This is the assumed steady-state ratio between: i) the chemical
concentrations in the underlying leachate-groundwater mixing zone and ii) the affected soil
concentration in the overlying source zone, which will be used to calculate risks and back-
calculate cleanup levels for the source zone. The user must select among the following options
for deriving soil-to-groundwater leachate factors:
ASTM Model: Uses the ASTM soil leachate model (ASTM, 2000; Eqns. CM-7, CM-8 and CM-
10). This model assumes that leachate from affected soils mixes with the underlying
groundwater flow system directly beneath the affected soils.
Soil Attenuation Model (SAM): When the ASTM leachate model is selected, the option to “Apply
Soil Attenuation Model (SAM)” becomes available. SAM is an adjustment to the ASTM leachate

INPUT SCREENS
model which accounts for attenuation of COC concentrations due to sorption to clean
intervening soils between the soil source zone and the groundwater (Connor et al., 1997; Eqn.
CM-9). This adjustment will be important if the depth to groundwater significantly exceeds the
current thickness of the affected soil zone (i.e., in cases of deep groundwater beneath shallow
affected soils). When the SAM option is checked, a first-order decay option also becomes
available to allow for additional attenuation of leachate concentrations due to
biodegradation. The first-order decay option requires the user to specify first-order decay rates
or half-life values for each COC.
Note: First-order decay rates should be based on site-specific field data; however, default literature
values are provided in the RBCA Tool Kit for informational purposes and may be used for preliminary
analyses. Note that the use of literature values does not necessarily ensure that the modeling results are
conservative.
User-Specified LF from Other Model: For this option, the user may specify the soil-to-
groundwater leaching factors for each constituent of concern instead of using the equations
provided in the Tool Kit. This option may be desired for a Tier 3 analysis or for use of a Tier 1 or
2 model approved by an applicable technical guideline or regulatory authority but not included in
the Tool Kit. For this purpose, these values can be obtained from an appropriate model or site
d) Modeling Options
Two additional options for cross-media transport calculations are available:
Disable Mass Balance Limit for Soil Volatilization: This option allows the user to disable the
mass balance constraints for soil volatilization models (VFss, VFsamb and VFsesp; Eqns. CM-1 and
CM-3 and CM-4), if so desired, whereby soil volatilization factors will be based on flux-based
calculations alone. Whereas the equations in ASTM Standard E-2081 correctly include mass
balance constraints on soil volatilization factors to prevent the gross over prediction of sustained
volatilization rates, it is recommended that the user select this option only when consideration of
mass balance limitations is not permitted under local requirements.
Apply Dual Equilibrium Desorption Model: This option can be employed to account for the long-
term effect of biphasic desorption of contaminants from aquifer solids, as would apply to
leaching or volatilization models, as described by Chen et al. (2004). This modeling option is
described in further detail in Appendix B (see Eqns. CM-13).
2) Lateral Air Dispersion Factor
The lateral air dispersion factor (ADF) is the steady-state ratio of: i) off-site ambient air
concentrations to ii) on-site ambient air concentrations due to dispersion during airborne
transport from the source area to off-site inhalation receptor locations. The user must select
either the 3-D Gaussian dispersion model (Eqn. LT-2) or enter lateral air dispersion factors
obtained from another appropriate model. If the 3-D Gaussian dispersion option is selected, the
ADF for each off-site receptor is calculated as a function of distance from the source.

INPUT SCREENS
3) Groundwater Dilution Attenuation Factor
The groundwater dilution attenuation factor (DAF) for a given COC is defined as the ratio of: i)
the constituent concentration in groundwater at the source zone to ii) the predicted
concentration in groundwater at the specified receptor location, under steady-state flow
conditions. The user must select among the following options for deriving the groundwater DAF
values:
Domenico Model with Dispersion Only (No Biodegradation): Uses the steady-state Domenico
analytical solute transport model to account for dispersion between the groundwater source
zone and off-site receptor locations in an infinitely thick aquifer (Eqn. LT-1a with λ = 0 for all
COCs).
Domenico Model with First-Order Decay: Uses the steady-state Domenico analytical solute
transport model to account for dispersion between the groundwater source zone and off-site
receptor locations in an infinitely thick aquifer and accounts for biodegradation effects as a first-
order decay process (Eqn. LT-1a). This option requires the user to specify first-order decay
rates or half-life values for each COC.
Note: The user should exercise care in selecting and/or comparing first-order decay rates. The Domenico
model implemented in the RBCA Tool Kit assumes degradation is proportional to “total concentration”
(i.e., both concentrations dissolved in groundwater and sorbed to soil; to model biodegradation in the
dissolved-phase only the “total concentration” half-life for each constituent should be multiplied by its
corresponding retardation factor). First-order decay rates should be based on site-specific field data;
however, default literature values are provided in the RBCA Tool Kit for informational purposes and may
be used for preliminary analyses. The use of literature values does not necessarily ensure that the
modeling results are conservative.
Modified Domenico Equation using Electron Acceptor Superposition: Uses the steady-state
Domenico analytical solute transport model to account for dispersion of both COCs and electron
acceptors between the groundwater source zone and off-site receptor locations in an infinitely
thick aquifer (Eqn. LT-1b). Biodegradation is modeled using electron acceptor superposition, the
method employed in the BIOSCREEN model (Newell et al., 1996). This option requires the user
either to specify the biodegradation capacity of the groundwater flow system or to enter site-
specific concentrations of electron acceptors and metabolic byproducts (see Figure 20).
Note: Modeling biodegradation via electron acceptor superposition depends on COC-specific utilization
factors based on the stoichiometry of the biodegradation reactions. The RBCA Tool Kit includes these
factors for the BTEX compounds. The user should exercise care in selecting appropriate utilization
factors when applying this method for other compounds. This option is not appropriate for modeling the
degradation of chlorinated compounds. See Appendix B for more information on this option.

INPUT SCREENS
Figure 20: Biodegradation Capacity Calculator
DAF Values from Other Model or Site Data: Under this option, the user may either specify
DAFs obtained from another appropriate model or estimate DAF values directly from site data
using an internal Empirical DAF Estimator. To estimate DAF values, the user may enter site
analytical data from up to 10 points along the plume centerline downgradient of the source
zone. This option may be desired for a Tier 2 or Tier 3 model not included in the RBCA Tool Kit
or for use of a site-specific measurement of the DAF value based on actual groundwater
monitoring data. For this purpose, these values can be obtained from an appropriate model or
from site measurement (e.g., using the Empirical DAF Estimator or other method) and entered
directly into the RBCA Tool Kit using this option.
4) Chemical Decay and Source Depletion
If Source Depletion is selected on the main screen, this section becomes active. The purpose of
the source depletion algorithm is to allow adjustment of cleanup levels on the basis of a source
that is being reduced by either natural or engineered source removal mechanisms (e.g., natural
attenuation or enhanced bioremediation).
Decay Rates: In this section, the user enters the half life value for each of the COCs.
Source Mass: In this section, the user enters the initial source mass present at the site.
pressing Ctrl+P.

INPUT SCREENS
SITE-SPECIFIC SOIL PARAMETERS
This screen is accessed by clicking “Soil Parameters” on the Main Screen. On this screen, the
user provides the necessary site-specific parameters regarding physical soil properties as
shown on Figure 21. The parameters on this screen are used in the soil-to-groundwater
leaching and soil-to-air volatilization models. See Appendix B for more detailed information on
specific input parameters.
Figure 21: Site-Specific Soil Parameters Screen
1) Soil Source Zone Characteristics
In this section, the user enters the dimensions of the source zone of affected soil within the soil
stratum extending from ground surface to the top of the uppermost water-bearing unit.
a) Hydrogeology
Depth to Water-Bearing Unit: The distance from the ground surface to the groundwater-bearing
unit. In the case of an unconfined aquifer, this corresponds to the depth to water in a monitoring
well. For a confined (or “artesian”) aquifer, however, the “depth to the water-bearing unit” is the
depth to the top of the geologic unit that produces water, rather than the potentiometric surface
measured in monitoring wells and located above the stratigraphic top of this unit.
Capillary Zone Thickness: The distance above the saturated zone where water can rise up due
to capillary action.
Soil Column Thickness: The distance from the ground surface to the top of the capillary zone.

INPUT SCREENS
b) Affected Soil Zone
Depth to Top of Affected Soils: The distance from the ground surface to the upper limit of soils
affected by the COCs. For soils affected at ground surface, this distance is zero.
Depth to Base of Affected Soils: The distance from the ground surface to the lower limit (or
base) of soils affected by the COCs.
Affected Soil Area: The lateral extent of affected soil.
Length of affected soil parallel to assumed wind direction: The length of the affected soil area
parallel to wind direction is used to define the dimensions of and concentrations in the air mixing
zone.
Length of affected soil parallel to assumed GW flow direction: The length of the affected soil
area parallel to groundwater flow direction is used to define the dimensions of and
concentrations in the leachate-groundwater mixing zone underlying an affected soil area from
which COCs may leach into groundwater.
2) Surface Soil Column
a) Surface Soil Column
Predominant USCS or CLEA Soil Type: In this section, the user may select the predominant
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) soil type of the surface soil column in order to use
default soil properties for the particular soil type (Connor et al., 1997). To use the default soil
parameters provided in Appendix X3 of ASTM E-2081, choose “ASTM default” from the soil
selection drop-down box. The default parameter values for the selected soil type are displayed
in the black calculation cells. In addition, three defaults have been added for UK users, which
correspond to the default soil properties adopted by the CLEA model. Alternatively, these cells
may be converted to white input cells by clicking “Enter Directly”, allowing the user to enter site-
specific values directly.
Total Porosity: The ratio of the pore volume occupied by either water or vapor to the total
volume of a representative sample of the soil.
Dry Bulk Density: Dry mass of the soil divided by its bulk volume.
Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity: Saturated water permeability of the surface soil zone in the
vertical direction.
Vapor Permeability: Permeability of the surface soil zone for vapor migration.
Capillary Zone Thickness: The distance above the underlying saturated groundwater-bearing
unit that water can rise up in the overlying unsaturated soil column due to capillary action.
For the vadose zone (the unsaturated region above the groundwater level) and the capillary
fringe (the soil area above the saturated zone where water can rise up due to capillary action),
the user must provide the following additional data:

INPUT SCREENS
Volumetric water content: The fractional amount of water in the soil by volume
Volumetric air content: The fractional amount of air in the soil by volume.
b) Net Rainfall Infiltration
Net Rainfall Infiltration: In this section, the user may enter a net infiltration estimate directly, or
estimate the infiltration as a function of mean annual precipitation and the predominant USCS
soil type (Connor et al., 1997). Note that the option for estimating net infiltration from
precipitation is not available if soil properties are entered directly.
c) Partitioning Parameters
Fraction of organic carbon – entire soil column: Mass fraction of organic carbon in unsaturated
zone soils, used for leaching and volatilization models.
Fraction of organic carbon – root zone: Mass fraction of organic carbon in surface soils in the
root zone, used for vegetable uptake model.
Soil/Water pH: Used to calculate pH-dependent soil-water partitioning relationships for some
metals in soils (see Chemical database).
the RBCA Tool Kit. Units may be changed at any time with all affected values changing to
reflect the newly selected set.
• Use/Set Default Values: Resets applicable input cells to conservative default values.
pressing Ctrl+P.
SITE-SPECIFIC GROUNDWATER PARAMETERS

This screen is accessed by clicking “GW Parameters” on the Main Screen. On this screen, as
shown on Figure 22, the user must provide site-specific parameters regarding physical
characteristics and transport properties of the water-bearing unit. The parameters on this screen
are used in the soil-to-groundwater leaching and groundwater transport models. See Appendix
B for more detailed information on specific input parameters.

INPUT SCREENS
Figure 22: Site-Specific Groundwater Parameters Screen
1) Water-Bearing Unit
Enter the hydrogeologic and sorption properties of the affected water-bearing unit.
Groundwater Darcy velocity and seepage velocity values may be either entered directly or
calculated by toggling the “Enter Directly/Calculate” button.
Groundwater Darcy Velocity: The total volumetric discharge of groundwater per unit area,
defined as the product of the hydraulic conductivity and the hydraulic gradient.
Groundwater Seepage Velocity: The average linear flow velocity calculated by dividing the
Darcy velocity by porosity.
Hydraulic Conductivity: A measure of the saturated water permeability of the soils within a
water-bearing unit.
Hydraulic Gradient: A measure of slope of the water table or piezometric surface within the
water-bearing unit in the horizontal dimension. Hydraulic gradients can have significant
seasonal variations.
Effective Porosity: The ratio of the volume of interconnected pores or fractures within which
water can circulate to the total volume of a representative sample of the soil in the water-bearing
unit.
Fraction Organic Carbon: Mass fraction of organic carbon in soil in the water-bearing unit.
Groundwater pH: Used to calculate pH-dependent soil-water partitioning relationships for some
metals (see Chemical database).

INPUT SCREENS
2) Groundwater Source Zone
Enter the physical dimensions of the groundwater source zone. The term “source zone” refers to
the zone of affected groundwater for which COC concentrations will be used to evaluate
baseline risks at the POE and/or for which cleanup levels will be derived. Typically, the
groundwater source zone should comprise of the “core” of the plume where peak COC
concentrations are observed (See Appendix B, Figure B.3)
Groundwater Plume Width at Source: The width of the groundwater source area perpendicular
(i.e., transverse) to the groundwater flow direction. This value is used as the source width for
the Domenico groundwater transport model as well as the width of affected groundwater parallel
to wind direction for groundwater volatilization to outdoor air.
Plume (Mixing Zone) Thickness at Source: The vertical thickness of the groundwater source
area, or the vertical thickness over which infiltrating leachate is assumed to mix with lateral
groundwater within the water-bearing unit directly beneath the soil source zone.
Saturated Thickness: The vertical extent of the water-bearing unit.
Length of the Source Zone: For purposes of estimating the groundwater mixing zone thickness
for leaching calculations, this value is assumed to equal the width of affected soil parallel to
groundwater flow.
3) Groundwater Dispersion
In this section, the user must either specify dispersivity values or calculate values based on the
distance from the source to each receptor. Dispersivity refers to the additional spreading of the
constituent that occurs within the groundwater, as the affected groundwater moves along with
the bulk groundwater flow (i.e., advection), due to the combined effects of physical dispersion
and chemical diffusion. When dispersivity values are to be calculated, the user may select
between the default calculation method employed in ASTM E-1739 (2002) or the Xu and
Eckstein (1995) dispersivity model. The “Enter Directly/Calculate” button toggles between direct
entry and calculation options.
Distance to GW Receptors: See the Exposure Pathway Identification section of this manual.
Longitudinal Dispersivity: Spreading of a plume in the direction of groundwater flow caused by

heterogeneities in the porous medium.
Transverse Dispersivity: Spreading of a plume perpendicular (transverse) to the direction of

groundwater flow caused by heterogeneities in the porous medium.
Vertical Dispersivity: Spreading of a plume in the vertical direction (downward) caused by

4) Groundwater Discharge to Surface Water
If a surface water receptor is selected, the user must specify: i) the physical dimensions of the
plume at the location where groundwater discharge to surface water occurs; and ii) the
volumetric rate of surface water flow past this discharge point. The calculated dilution factor

INPUT SCREENS
represents the steady-state ratio of: i) the predicted or measured concentration of a chemical in
groundwater adjacent to a surface water body to ii) the resulting concentration in the surface
water within the groundwater-surface water mixing zone. In other words, this factor accounts for
dilution of chemical constituents as the affected groundwater discharge to and mixes with a
receiving surface water body. The box model used for the dilution factor is illustrated in
Appendix B (see Fig B.2, Eqn. CM-12).
Distance to GW/SW Discharge Point: See the Exposure Pathway Identification section of this
manual.
Plume Width at GW/SW Discharge: The horizontal width of the plume area at the point of
discharge to the surface water body.
Plume Thickness at GW/SW Discharge: The vertical thickness of the plume area at the point of
discharge to the surface water body. Only that portion of the plume thickness that enters the
surface water body should be used in this calculation. In some cases, all or some of the plume
may pass beneath the surface water body without discharging, depending on site-specific
conditions.
Surface Water Flow Rate at GW/SW Discharge: The volumetric flow rate in the surface water
body at the location where groundwater enters the surface water body.
pressing Ctrl+P.
SITE-SPECIFIC AIR PARAMETERS
This screen, as shown on Figure 23, is accessed by clicking “Air Parameters” on the Main
Screen. On this screen, the user provides site-specific parameters used for calculation of COC
concentrations in outdoor and indoor air resulting from soil-to-air and/or groundwater-to-air
volatilization. See Appendix B for more detailed information on specific input parameters. This
section can be skipped if the user specifies volatilization factors manually as described in the
Transport Modeling Options section.

INPUT SCREENS
Figure 23: Site-Specific Air Parameters Screen
1) Outdoor Air Pathway
Air dispersivity values may be either entered directly, or calculated, with this option toggled by
the “Enter Directly/Calculate” button. If the “Calculate” option is selected, dispersivity values are
estimated as a function of the distance from the source to each receptor according to the EPA
(1988a) method assuming “slightly unstable” (class C) air conditions.
Enter the physical properties and dimensions of the air source zone. The equations that use
these values are described in more detail in Appendix B.
a) Dispersion in Air
Distance to Offsite Air Receptor: See the Exposure Pathway Identification section of this
manual.
Horizontal Dispersivity: The longitudinal spread of a plume in the direction parallel to the
direction of air flow.
Vertical Dispersivity: The transverse spread of a plume perpendicular to the direction of air flow.
b) Air Source Zone
Air Mixing Zone Height: The height of the atmospheric boundary layer near the ground surface
into which the COC uniformly mixes.
Ambient Air Velocity Mixing Zone: Lateral wind speed in the mixing zone.

INPUT SCREENS
c) Particulate Emissions
Areal Particulate Emission Flux: The mass flux rate of particles at the ground surface.
Fraction Vegetative Cover: The fraction of the ground surface that is covered by vegetation.
Mean annual air velocity at 7m: Lateral wind speed at 7 m height (see US EPA, 1996).
Equivalent 7m Air Velocity Threshold: The relative velocity below which particle suspension is
not possible for a given set of conditions (see US EPA, 1996).
2) Indoor Air Pathway
Enter the physical properties and dimensions of the residential or commercial building
considered for the indoor air inhalation pathways.
If the Johnson/Ettinger model is selected, the following parameters must be entered by the user.
The Johnson/Ettinger model is described in detail in Appendix B.
Building Volume/Area Ratio: The interior volume of the enclosed structure divided by the
combined floor and wall area (e.g., in a basement) through which vapors are assumed to
migrate.
Foundation Area: Total combined floor and wall area through which vapors are assumed to
migrate.
Foundation Perimeter: Total length of floor/wall and wall/wall connections adjacent to the area
through which vapors are assumed to migrate.
Building Air Exchange Rate: The rate at which outside air replaces indoor air in a given space.
Depth to Bottom of Foundation Slab: The vertical distance in the soil from the bottom of the
basement floor slab to the outside ground surface.
Convective Air Flow Through Cracks: The flow rate of air through the basement slab.
Foundation Thickness: The enclosed-space foundation or wall thickness.
Foundation Crack Fraction: The fractional amount of cracks and openings in the foundation.
Volumetric Water Content of Cracks: The fractional amount of water in the soil-filled cracks.
Volumetric Air Content of Cracks: The fractional amount of air in the soil-filled cracks.
Indoor/Outdoor Differential Pressure: Air pressure differential between the indoor and outdoor
air (positive value only) indicating convective air flow towards the interior space.
The following values will be required if the Mass Flux/ Johnson and Ettinger model is selected in
the Transport Models section (see the Mass Flux section of this manual).

INPUT SCREENS
Building Volume: The interior volume of the enclosed structure.
Building Width Perpendicular to GW Flow: The linear distance of the building perpendicular to
the general direction of groundwater flow.
Building Length Parallel to GW Flow: The linear distance of the building parallel to the general
direction of groundwater flow.
Saturated Soil Zone Porosity: The ratio of the pore volume where the water can circulate to the
total volume of a representative sample of the medium in the region below the water table that is
saturated with water.
Vertical Dispersivity: The spread of a groundwater plume in the vertical direction caused by
Groundwater Seepage Velocity: The volumetric flow rate per unit area of void space in a porous
medium. The average linear velocity is calculated by dividing the Darcy velocity by porosity.

pressing Ctrl+P.

OUTPUT SCREENS
EXPOSURE PATHWAY FLOWCHART
The Exposure Pathway Flowchart provides a simple graphical display of the user-specified
exposure pathways (see Figure 24). The flowchart depicts all selected source media, transport
mechanisms, exposure media, and receptors. This allows the user to visually verify the problem
setup for the RBCA evaluation, and, if necessary, revise the exposure pathway selections.
Figure 24: Exposure Pathway Flowchart
Commands and Options
pressing Ctrl+P.
CHEMICAL DATA FOR SELECTED COCS
This output screen (Figure 25) presents all chemical and toxicological data used by the RBCA
Tool Kit (including user-customized data, if specified) for the selected COCs. Chemicals with a
user-customized entry are highlighted, and the specific entry that differs from the entry in the
default chemical database is also highlighted. The highlight color indicates the type of change
that was made:
• Yellow Data: Yellow highlights indicate that the value for the chemical parameter differs
from the value in the default chemical toxicity database.

OUTPUT SCREENS
• Orange Data: Orange highlights indicate that the value differs from both the default
chemical toxicity database as well as the currently loaded user database. This can occur
when the user opens a saved data file that was made in an alternate database. It would be
advisable to add the custom values and chemicals to the user chemical database, so that it
can be available for future modeling. If updated values are available in the loaded toxicity
database, the Resolve Row and Resolve All buttons allow the user to bring the database
values into the project.
Figure 25: Chemical Data for COCs
• View References: Goes to the reference table.
• Resolve Row: Sets the chemical data in the selected row to match the data currently in the
toxicity database.
• Resolve All: Sets the chemical data for all COCs in the project to match the data currently
in the toxicity database.
pressing Ctrl+P.
INPUT PARAMETER SUMMARY
This output screen presents a summary of all input parameters used in the RBCA evaluation
(see Figure 26).

OUTPUT SCREENS
Figure 26: Input Parameter Summary

pressing Ctrl+P.
USER-SPECIFIED COC DATA
As shown on Figure 27, these output screens summarize the user-specified COC data that were
entered for source zone characterization (e.g., representative concentrations or mole fractions)
or transport modeling (e.g., volatilization factors, leaching factors, or groundwater dilution
attenuation factors).
Figure 27: Review Chemical Specific Input
The datasets available for viewing from this dialog include:
• COC Source Concentrations: These values are entered in the Source Media COC page. If
a calculated value is used, those values are shown here.

OUTPUT SCREENS
• Soils Concentration Statistics: These values are entered when calculated values are
selected for the soil source zone in the Source Media COC page.
• Groundwater Concentration Statistics: These values are entered when calculated values
are selected for the groundwater source zone in the Source Media COC page.
• Constituent Mole Fractions: These values are entered in the Source Media COC page if
Raoult's law is selected.
• Constituent Half Lives: These values are entered within the Transport Modeling Options
section if first order decay is chosen for Soil to Groundwater Leaching, Groundwater
Dilution, or Source Depletion.
• Aquatic Life Protection Criteria: These values are entered in the Exposure Pathway
Identification page if specific water quality criteria are selected.
• Outdoor Air: These values are entered in the Transport Modeling Options section if the
user-specified volatilization factor (VF) option is selected for outdoor air.
• Indoor Air: These values are entered in the Transport Modeling Options section if the user-
specified VF option is selected for indoor air.
• Soil Leaching Factors: These values are entered in the Transport Modeling Options
section if the user-specified leaching factor (LF) option is selected.
• Groundwater Dilution Attenuation Factors: These values are entered in the Transport
Modeling Options section if the user-specified dilution attenuation factor (DAF) option is
selected.
• Groundwater to Indoor Air Dilution Attenuation Factors: These values are entered in
the Transport Modeling Options section if the user-specified DAF option is selected.
TRANSIENT DOMENICO ANALYSIS
For off-site groundwater receptors located along the centerline of groundwater flow from the
groundwater source zone, the user may employ the software features described in this section.
These features are not available for groundwater receptors located off of the centerline.
1) Domenico Modeling Summary (All COCs)
For groundwater exposure pathways, this output screen summarizes the steady-state COC
concentrations predicted to occur at each specified point of exposure (POE), the applicable
COC exposure limits for each POE, and the time (if any) at which these exposure limits are
predicted to be exceeded for the site-specific conditions input by the user.
2) Transient Analysis Worksheet (Single COC)
This interactive output screen (see Figure 28) allows the user to evaluate transient groundwater
modeling results for any single COC. Transient analyses allow the user to assess not only if an
exposure limit might be exceeded, but when such an exceedance might occur. This information

OUTPUT SCREENS
can be useful for a risk management decision. For example, if safe exposure levels are
predicted to be exceeded at an actual receptor in the near future, an immediate engineered
remedy may be required. However, if no such impact is anticipated for many years, time may
be available to evaluate an alternative remedial approach. The Transient Analysis Worksheet
may also serve to establish concentration limits for alternate points of compliance or aid in the
design of groundwater monitoring systems.
Figure 28: Transient Domenico Analysis Worksheet
This screen displays two graphs depicting groundwater concentrations: i) versus distance from
the source, for a specified time; and ii) versus time for a specified distance from the source.
Unlike the input screens, user input cells on this interactive output screen are colored gray,
whereas white cells are locked. The user may specify a given time and distance for the graphs,
the minimum and maximum extents of the x-axes, and the type of scale (linear or logarithmic)
on the y-axes. The COC to be plotted is selected from the drop-down box. The user also
selects the applicable source medium (groundwater or soil) from the adjacent option buttons.
Adjacent to the table of values for the upper graph (concentration vs. distance) are the predicted
COC concentrations for both off-site POEs and the POE exposure limits. Adjacent to the table
of values for the lower graph (concentration vs. time) are the predicted times to reach COC
concentration limits at both off-site POEs. A value reported as “NA” means that the COC is
predicted to never exceed the exposure limit for that POE.

OUTPUT SCREENS
BASELINE RISKS
When all of the necessary information has been supplied to the model, the buttons on the left
hand size of Part 4 of the Main screen will turn green, and the buttons for Baseline Risks and
Cleanup Levels will activate. When the Baseline Risks button is clicked, the menu shown in
Figure 29 will appear, allowing the user to view the calculated baseline risk values. From this
screen, the user can choose to view the values either by the individual pathway, or a summary
of all the pathways.
Figure 29: Baseline Risks
1) Risks by Individual Pathway
These screens present the average daily intake and baseline risk calculations for each
complete exposure pathway (outdoor air, indoor air, soil, groundwater, and surface water) and
the associated receptors (on-site, off-site1, off-site2).
Each section will tabulate the following:
• Source Medium: The source medium is the value supplied by the user in the Constituents
of Concern page.
• NAF Value: The natural attenuation factor for transport of COCs from one medium to
another.
• Exposure Medium: Concentration in the exposure medium, as calculated by dividing the

Source Medium concentration by the NAF value. For soil pathways, there is no NAF, and
the exposure medium concentration is the same concentration as the source medium.
• Exposure Multiplier:
a) Groundwater: Calculated by the equation (Ingestion Rate x Exposure Frequency x

Exposure Duration) / (Body Weight x Averaging Time).
b) Surface Water: Calculated by the equations

Swimming-
((Ingestion Rate x Exposure Time) + (Skin Surface Area x Dermal Absorption Factor)) x
Number of Events x Exposure Duration) / (Body weight x Averaging time)

OUTPUT SCREENS
Fish ingestion-
((Ingestion Rate x Fish Intake x Bioconcentration Factor x Exposure Duration) / (Body
weight x Averaging time)
c/d) Outdoor and Indoor Air: Calculated by the equation

(Exposure frequency x Exposure duration) / (Averaging time x 365 days)
e) Soil: The exposure multiplier is a combined multiplier for the ingestion/dermal contact
and vegetable consumption pathways.
• Average Daily Intake Rate/Average Inhalation Exposure Concentration: Calculated by

multiplying the Exposure Medium by Exposure Multiplier.
• Is Carcinogenic: The carcinogenicity of the chemical, as specified in the Chemical Toxicity

Database.
• Reference Dose (soil/gw/sw): The oral and dermal reference doses for the chemical, as
specified in the Chemical Toxicity Database.
• Slope Factor (soil/gw/sw): The oral and dermal slope factors for the chemical, as
specified in the Chemical Toxicity Database.
• Inhalation Reference Concentration (air pathways): The inhalation reference

concentration for the chemical, as specified in the Chemical Toxicity Database.
• Inhalation Unit Risk Factor (air pathways): For carcinogens, the unit risk factor for the
chemical, as specified in the Chemical Toxicity Database.
• Intake Rates:
a) Groundwater
• Maximum Pathway Intake: The maximum Average Daily Intake rate for Soils Leaching
to Groundwater Ingestion and Groundwater Ingestion.
b) Surface Water
• Maximum Pathway Intake: Taking the maximum of the Average Daily Intake rate for
the Soils Leaching to Groundwater/Discharge to Surface Water/Dermal Contact and
Ingestion Via Swimming, Soils Leaching to Groundwater/Discharge to Surface
Water/Fish Consumption, and Soils Leaching to Groundwater/Discharge to Surface
Water/Fish Consumption pathways.
c/d) Outdoor and Indoor Air

• Total Pathway Exposure: Sum of the average inhalation exposure concentrations for
the surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater vapor inhalation concentrations.
e) Soil
• Total Carcinogenic Intake Rate: Combined intake rate for ingestion/dermal contact and
vegetable consumption, for carcinogens.

OUTPUT SCREENS
• Total Toxicant Intake Rate: Combined intake rate for ingestion/dermal contact and
vegetable consumption, for systemic toxicants.
• Individual COC Risk:
a) Groundwater: Calculated by multiplying the maximum carcinogenic intake rate by the

oral slope factor.
b) Surface Water: Calculated by multiplying the maximum intake rate by the slope factor,
then adding the risks for dermal and oral exposure.
c/d) Outdoor and Indoor Air: Calculated by multiplying the maximum carcinogenic
exposure by the unit risk factor.
e) Soil: Calculated by multiplying the total carcinogenic intake rate by the slope factor.
• Hazard Quotient:
a) Groundwater: Calculated by multiplying the maximum toxicant intake rate by the oral
reference dose.
b) Surface Water: Calculated by dividing the maximum toxicant intake rate by the
reference, then adding the quotients for dermal and oral exposure.
c/d) Outdoor and Indoor Air: Calculated by dividing the total toxicant exposure by the
inhalation reference concentration.
e) Soil: Calculated by dividing the total toxicant intake rate by the reference dose.
2) Risks by All Pathways

This screen presents a summary table of baseline risk values for all applicable pathways. Pathways for
which target risk limits are predicted to be exceeded are indicated by a solid red box.
Figure 30: Baseline Risk Summary

OUTPUT SCREENS
CLEANUP LEVELS
When all of the necessary information has been supplied to the model, the buttons on the left
hand side of Part 4 of the Main screen will turn green, and the buttons for Baseline Risks and
Cleanup levels will activate. When the Cleanup levels button is clicked, the menu shown in
Figure 31 will appear, allowing the user to view the calculated cleanup level values. From this
screen, the user can choose to view the cleanup levels by source medium (Groundwater, Soils,
Subsurface Soils), by chemical (Modeling Results Summary by COC), or to view SSTLs based
on cumulative risk effects (Cumulative Risk Worksheet).
Figure 31: Cleanup Levels
1) Individual Constituents by Affected Media (All COCs)
These screens are accessed by selecting the media of interest (groundwater, soils, or
subsurface soils). The output screen presents a summary of calculated cleanup levels for all
COCs for the medium of interest.
Figure 32: Cleanup Levels by Medium
Mixture-specific cleanup levels for TPH, if applicable, are displayed at the bottom of the COC list
in all the pathway cleanup level output pages. The procedure for calculating mixture-specific
cleanup levels for TPH is described in detail in Appendix C.

OUTPUT SCREENS
2) Modeling Results Summary by Individual COC
For each individual COC, this screen (see Figure 33) presents a summary of cleanup level
values and all chemical and toxicological parameters and natural attenuation factors used for
their derivation. The COC to be evaluated is selected in the drop-down box. All variable names
and reference codes are defined on a notes page accessible by pressing the “Display
Definitions” and “Display References” buttons at the bottom of the screen. Applicable media
cleanup levels are identified by values displayed in bold italics.
Figure 33: Modeling Results Summary by Individual COC
3) Cumulative Risk Worksheet
In order to compute cleanup levels based on cumulative risk effects, this screen (see Figure 34)
provides an interactive calculator for adjusting individual constituent target levels to meet
cumulative risk goals. The Cumulative Risk Worksheet only applies if the affected soil or
groundwater zone must be remediated to meet a cumulative risk limit, i.e., an upperbound
carcinogenic risk or hazard index for the combined effects of multiple constituents. The
worksheet lists all COCs and displays individual and cumulative risk values for each applicable
exposure medium and receptor. If the applicable cumulative risk limit is exceeded for a given
exposure medium (indicated by a solid red box next to a risk value that exceeds the target), the
user may adjust the constituent reduction factors (CRFs, i.e., the representative COC
concentration divided by the applicable target concentration) until the desired cumulative risk
level is achieved. Unlike the input screens, user input cells on this interactive output screen are
colored gray, whereas white cells are locked. The worksheet allows the user to adjust all or

OUTPUT SCREENS
some constituent levels by selectively modifying individual CRF values and automatically
recalculating the cumulative risk numbers.
To use the Cumulative Risk Worksheet, the user must: i) identify which pathways exceed the
established risk goals; and ii) determine appropriate CRFs for soil and groundwater necessary
to achieve the established target risks for those pathways. As a starting point, individual
constituent target concentrations and CRF values computed by the RBCA Tool Kit may be
automatically copied to the Cumulative Risk Worksheet from the SSTL output tables by
selecting “Paste CRF Values.” The cumulative risks corresponding to those target
concentrations will then be displayed for each exposure medium. Cumulative risk or hazard
index values exceeding the relevant target cumulative risk limit (specified on the “Exposure
Factors and Target Risk Limits” input screen) are highlighted by a solid red box, as are
individual constituent risk and hazard quotient values which exceed the individual risk limits.
Figure 34: Cumulative Risk Worksheet
If none of the individual constituent or cumulative risk limits are exceeded, then the exercise is
complete and the individual constituent target concentrations represent the applicable cleanup
levels. However, if an individual or cumulative risk exceeds the applicable limit, the individual
constituent concentration limits must be adjusted downward and the risks recalculated until all
risk goals are achieved for all exposure media. This adjustment can be completed in a step-
wise process by first modifying the CRF values for all or some COCs in the CRF input columns
for soil and groundwater; and then clicking the “Calculate” button to recalculate the risk values.
Increasing a CRF value for a constituent will lower the target concentration for that constituent
and reduce the associated baseline risk. Conversely, reducing a CRF value will increase both
the target concentration and the total risk. CRF values for each constituent can be individually
increased or decreased, and the calculation process repeated in an iterative manner as needed
to meet the specified risk goals. The resultant target concentrations for each calculation trial
are displayed next to the CRF input columns. Once all individual and cumulative risk totals are
in compliance with the applicable limits, the target concentrations displayed on the worksheet
will represent the applicable media cleanup levels.
The optimal result of the worksheet exercise will be a set of COC concentration limits that: i)
comply with both the cumulative and individual risk limits and ii) minimize CRF values.

COMPUTER TROUBLESHOOTING TIPS
INSTALLATION AND STARTUP
1) How do I install or reinstall the RBCA Tool Kit?
Reinstalling may sometimes be necessary. To reinstall:
1. You may first wish to save your toxicity database (UserChemTox.xls) to another folder,
in order to preserve your user-defined settings.
2. You can then uninstall the RBCA Tool Kit using the uninstall routine that is installed with
the program in the Windows start menu, or delete all of the RBCA Tool Kit program files
(there are seven).
3. Reinstall from the original media.
4. After reinstalling, you can replace the newly installed UserChemTox.xls in the RBCA
Tool Kit program folder with any previously saved version, making sure to keep the
same name, “UserChemTox.xls.”
5. After reinstalling, you will have to go through the authentication process again, so be
sure to have your registration number ready.
2) How do I get a security code when the "Get Security Code On-line" button is
grayed out?
This occurs when the user's computer is either not connected to the Internet, or is otherwise
blocked by a firewall or proxy server from connecting to the security code server.
You may get a security code online at www.gsi-net.com or by calling GSI for assistance at (+1)
713-522-6300 during regular business hours.
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
The RBCA Tool Kit has been successfully run in several international versions, but GSI does
not guarantee full compatibility across all versions.
SOFTWARE REVISIONS AND UPDATES
GSI occasionally releases updates to our software products. Announcements, patches, and
updates may be found on the GSI website at www.gsi-net.com in the “Software” section. The
version of the RBCA Tool Kit that accompanies this manual is: RBCA Tool Kit for Chemical
Releases: Version 2.0 (December 2007).
USING THE RBCA TOOL KIT
1) Why do my Forward and Backward Calculations Yield Different Results?
When performing a RBCA assessment, comparing the results for the backward calculation (risk-
based cleanup levels) to the results for the forward calculation (risk levels) does not always

yield the same result for a site. In other words, comparing calculated risk levels to user-
specified target risks may indicate that risk levels are acceptable at a site; however,
concentrations detected at the site may exceed risk-based screening levels (e.g., RBSLs)
generated using the same target risks, or vice versa. When reading the following, please keep
in mind that forward-mode calculations include the transient Domenico analysis worksheets and
cumulative risk calculation sheet, and backward-mode calculations include the TPH calculation
worksheets.
In general, the two modes use the same models and input parameters, but in certain cases, the
results will not always be identical because the two modes use different assumptions. The
primary reasons the two methods may not always give the same results are listed below:
• Backward-mode calculations sometimes include non-risk-based criteria, such as MCLs for

water or TWA values for air, as alternate criteria to the risk-based values.
• Backward-mode calculations screen out results that exceed solubility or soil residual
concentrations for indirect pathways. Target values calculated above these levels are
flagged by the software as ">", and either the aqueous solubility or soil saturation limit,
depending on whether a groundwater or soil concentration is being reported. Forward-mode
calculations do not screen for these values, which may result in inappropriately large risk
values.
• Backward-mode calculations for the surface soil pathway will combine intakes due to
ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of volatiles and particulates. Forward mode
calculations do not combine these intakes.
These inconsistencies result from standard practices within the technical community that differ
between the two methods. As with any model, the user is advised to review the underlying
assumptions and determine whether they are appropriate for conditions at the site being
modeled.
2) What do the flags in the results mean?
Users of the RBCA Tool Kit may see flags instead of numeric values in the results sheets. Many
of these flags (e.g., NoMCL, Tox?, Veg?, No Z) give the user an indication of why a result
cannot be calculated. The most common reason for a flag is that a piece of data for a selected
chemical is not available in the current toxicity database, such as toxicity data. In order to
remove the flag, the user must supply the missing data in the toxicity database. See page 25 for
information on modifying the Chemical Toxicity Database.

Other data flags in the RBCA Tool Kit are:
Flag Explanation
NA The NA value indicates that this pathway was not selected
NC The NC value indicates that there is a parameter missing, and so the
value was not calculated. The most common cause of this error is
missing toxicity values for one of the chemicals of concern.
> This flag indicates that the risk-based cleanup level exceeds the
aqueous solubility or soil saturation limit for that particular chemical in
the media of interest (water or soil). This suggests that the chemical
will pose no risk for the corresponding exposure pathway. However,
when this flag is shown, other issues such as the presence of non-
aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) or aesthetic concerns may still need to
be addressed in accordance with local requirements.
#### The cell format is not compatible with the value, (e.g., the number is
too big to fit into the window). Because the worksheets in the RBCA
Tool Kit are locked, the column width or font size cannot be changed
using Excel commands. However, to correct the problem, the font size
for any cell may be changed as follows: select the cell, press
Ctrl+Shift+F on the keyboard, and enter the desired font size. The font
size may be adjusted downward until the contents of the cell can be
read.
3) How do I modify the Air Inhalation Rates?
The input cells for air inhalation rates have been removed since version 1.1 because those
parameters are not used in any calculations. Users of version 1.0a may observe that air
pathway risks or cleanup levels did not change when varying the inhalation rates.
In the RBCA Tool Kit for Chemical Releases, the air inhalation pathway calculations are based
on reference concentrations, as opposed to reference doses for non-carcinogens, and unit risk
factors, as opposed to slope factors for carcinogens (please see the air pathway equations in
Appendix A of the software manual). These are the inhalation toxicity parameters actually
measured for each COC in toxicological studies and reported by EPA in IRIS, HEAST, etc.
These values are independent of inhalation rates and body weight. Converting reference
concentrations to reference doses or unit risk factors to slope factors requires assumptions
regarding inhalation rates and body weight (typically the RME values). Thus, whenever you see
an inhalation reference dose or slope factor, implicit assumptions regarding inhalation rates and
body weight have already been made in order to calculate that value.
Although the calculations in the RBCA Tool Kit make no assumption with regard to inhalation
rates, in essence you can account for varying assumed rates by scaling the exposure duration
or exposure frequency parameters by the corresponding factors. For example, if you wanted to
assume an inhalation rate of 15 m3/day, as opposed to a 20 m3/day RME value, you could scale
the default exposure frequency of 350 days/yr to (350*15/20)=262.5 days/yr to account for an
equivalent reduction in inhalation exposure, based on the measured reference concentration or
unit risk factor.

APPENDIX A: RISK-BASED SITE EVALUATION PROCESS
Overview of Risk Management Steps
Effective risk management at chemical release sites involves: i) identification of applicable risk
factors on a site-specific basis; and ii) development and implementation of appropriate
protective measures in the timeframe necessary to prevent unsafe conditions. Key elements of
the risk-based site evaluation process include:
• Exposure Pathway Screening: Identify potential mechanisms for exposure of human or

ecological receptors on a site-specific basis.
• Risk-Based Cleanup Objectives: For each complete exposure pathway, evaluate the
potential for exposure in excess of safe levels based on a tiered evaluation of soil and
groundwater cleanup limits.
• Remedy Selection: Develop a risk-based exposure control strategy based on the nature
and timing of the potential impact.
• Compliance Monitoring: If needed, conduct final compliance monitoring to confirm

satisfactory remedy completion prior to formal site closure.
Further discussion of these process steps and relevant risk-based modeling tools is provided
below.
Exposure Pathway Screening
The risk-based evaluation addresses the potential for constituent transport from the affected
media source zone to a point of contact with a human or ecological receptor via various
exposure pathways. For most remediation sites, the primary exposure pathways of human
health concern are: i) groundwater ingestion, ii) soil-to-groundwater release, and iii) soil
ingestion, vapor inhalation, and dermal contact. Additional exposure pathways may apply based
on site conditions and land use (e.g., surface water impacts, ecological exposures). To pose a
risk, three components of each exposure pathway must be present: an affected source medium,
a mechanism for constituent transport, and a receptor. In practical terms, if one or more
component is missing, the pathway is not complete and further evaluation is not needed. For
example, for a stable or diminishing groundwater plume, no potential exists for impacts on water
supply wells located outside the current plume area. Therefore, that pathway need not be
considered further. Pathways determined to be potentially complete should be retained for site-
specific evaluation.
Applicable Data Evaluation Tools: The RBCA Tool Kit is organized to facilitate pathway
screening via the "Exposure Pathway Identification" input screen. The user identifies affected
source media and actual and/or potential receptors from among a matrix of possible options.
(see Figure A.1) Based on these selections, the complete exposure pathways may be viewed
on the Exposure Flowchart output screen. In addition, ASTM standard E-1943, "Standard Guide
for Remediation by Natural Attenuation (RNA)," outlines practical data evaluation methods for
analysis of groundwater plume stability, including historical data plots, estimation of bulk
attenuation rates, and modeling methods.
RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES A-1

Figure A.1: Conceptual Exposure Flowchart
Risk-Based Cleanup Objectives
The RBCA process employs a tiered approach to derivation of risk-based soil and groundwater
cleanup goals, with each tier serving to refine the risk analysis based upon additional site data
and more sophisticated fate and transport modeling methods. For example, Tiers 1 and 2 of the
site evaluation process are amenable to the use of simple analytical models to estimate risk-
based concentration limits, while more complex and costly numerical modeling methods are
reserved for Tier 3 evaluations. In each case, risk-based concentration limits are derived for
relevant exposure pathways, receptors, and constituents of concern (COCs) and compared to
measured source media concentrations. Source media exceeding these target levels will require
either further investigation or remedial action in the timeframe necessary to control exposure.
Summary information regarding principal calculation steps is provided below.
1) Media-Specific Cleanup Levels
For a given exposure pathway and COC, the risk-based cleanup level represents a
concentration in the affected source medium (soil or groundwater) that is protective of a human
or ecological receptor located at a relevant point of exposure (POE). For example, for the
human health soil-to-air exposure pathway, the cleanup level is the mean concentration in the
affected surface soil zone that will prevent unsafe human exposures via soil vapor or particulate
releases to air. The ASTM RBCA Standard and other regulatory programs distinguish between
two types of risk-based cleanup levels: i) the Risk-Based Screening Level (RBSL), a generic
target level utilized under Tier 1, and ii) a Site-Specific Target Level (SSTL), a site-specific

target level utilized under Tier 2 or Tier 3. Under the RBCA process, Tier 1 RBSLs are based on
an assumed exposure in the immediate proximity to the source. If source media COC
concentrations exceed Tier 1 RBSLs, the relevant exposure pathways and COCs may be
further evaluated under Tier 2 or Tier 3 to calculate SSTLs. These SSTLs would address actual
site-specific exposure conditions and situations where the POE may be located at some
distance away from the source. For each complete exposure pathway, cleanup levels for the
source medium can be back-calculated from safe exposure levels at the POE using the
following general expressions:
Tier 1: RBSL = RBEL x NAFCM
Tier 2: SSTL = RBSL x NAFLT
where:
RBEL = Risk-based exposure limit for direct intake of exposure medium (e.g., air concentration
limit for inhalation).
NAFCM = Natural attenuation factor defining natural reduction in constituent concentrations
during cross-media (CM) transport (e.g., soil to air volatilization).
NAFLT = Natural attenuation factor defining natural reduction in constituent concentrations
during lateral transport (LT) (e.g., via dispersion during lateral migration in air).
RBSL or SSTL values must be developed for each complete exposure pathway and COC. For
exposure pathways with multiple POEs (e.g., ambient vapor inhalation by on-site worker and by
off-site resident), separate SSTLs must be developed for each POE using the appropriate RBEL
value. In general, the RBEL value does not vary among Tiers 1, 2, and 3. Rather, the cleanup
standard value is refined at each successive tier by improving the NAF estimations, based upon
more complete site information and more sophisticated data evaluation and/or modeling
methods. Determination of applicable RBEL and NAF values is addressed below.
2) Risk-Based Exposure Limits
The RBEL represents the constituent concentration exposed to the receptor that does not
exceed target risk limits, based on applicable regulatory criteria. The RBEL applies at the POE,
i.e., the likely point of constituent intake or contact by a human or ecological receptor. For each
complete exposure pathway and COC, the applicable RBEL must be matched to each relevant
POE based on the type of exposure medium (air, water, soil) and the type of receptor (resident,
commercial/industrial worker, etc.). For certain exposure media, human health-based exposure
limits are specified under applicable regulations, such as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
for drinking water ingestion or Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for industrial air exposure. In
the absence of such standards, human health RBELs can be derived for each constituent and
exposure medium (air, water, soil) using the following general expressions:
TR
Carcinogens: RBEL =
E ⋅ SF
THQ ⋅ RfD
Non-Carcinogens: RBEL =
E

where:
E= effective exposure rate for specified pathway, based on applicable exposure factors
(e.g., daily intake rate in mg/day per kg body weight),
TR = target risk limit for carcinogenic effects of individual constituents (dimensionless),
SF = slope factor for carcinogenic effects of COC (mg/kg-day)-1,
THQ = target hazard quotient for non-carcinogenic effects of individual constituents
(dimensionless), and
RfD = reference dose for non-carcinogenic effect of COC (mg/kg-day).
Applicable target risk limits (TR, THQ) for health protection can be matched to levels specified
by the environmental regulatory authority. Toxicological parameters for each COC can be
determined from published references, such as the U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS). Exposure rates correspond to the chronic rate of contact or intake of the affected
exposure medium (air, water, soil) by the receptor under anticipated land use conditions. As a
conservative measure, these rates can be estimated based on standard exposure factors
published by the regulatory authority or other source (e.g., American Industrial Health Council)
for the anticipated land use at the site (e.g., residential, commercial, etc.).
Quantitative measures for derivation of RBELs for ecological receptors are not well defined.
However, if the pathway screening evaluation indicates a reasonable potential for ecological
exposure (e.g., surface water/aquatic species), applicable RBELs may be based on published
standards or ecological screening criteria (e.g., surface water quality standards for aquatic life
protection, ecological screening limits for terrestrial species, etc.). The U.S. EPA and state
environmental agencies maintain databases of ecological screening levels for various types of
receptors. However, given the highly conservative nature of these concentration limits, use of
these values as ecological RBELs is appropriate only for preliminary screening-level
evaluations.
3) Applicable Exposure Factors
For each complete pathway, exposure factors must be defined characterizing the potential
duration, frequency, and rate of contact of the receptor with affected media at the POE.
Depending upon the degree of conservatism desired, exposure activities can be characterized
on the basis of either: i) the most likely exposure (MLE) factors, representing average exposure
rates, or ii) reasonable maximum exposure (RME) factors, corresponding to the highest rate of
exposure that could reasonably be expected to occur (i.e., upper 95% value). Example RME
and MLE exposure factors for various exposure pathways, under both residential and non-
residential land use scenarios, are provided on Table A.1.
To select appropriate exposure factors, the user must first define the type of receptor
anticipated under current and future land use (i.e., residential vs. commercial/industrial) and
then evaluate the applicability of the standard factors to site-specific conditions. The likelihood
that such exposure will occur and the degree of conservatism desired should be considered in
selecting among MLE and RME values. A Tier 2 evaluation may use both MLE and RME
values, in order to estimate the potential range of risks associated with exposure to the site.
Modification of these standard values may be justified under certain conditions (e.g., frequency
of dermal contact with soils in cold weather climates). For detailed information regarding
derivation and application of these exposure factors, see U.S. EPA (1997; 1992a; 1991a) and
American Industrial Health Council (1994).

Table A.1: Example Exposure Factors for Tier 1 and Tier 2 Evaluations
Surface Soil Soil Exposure Rate
Contact Exposure Exposure Body
Exposure Contact Adherence Adherence (E)
Rate Frequency Duration Weight
Pathway Area Factor Factor Non-
(CR) (EF) (ED) (BW) Equation Carcinogens
(SA) (AF) (DA) Carcinogens
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
Ingestion 1.4 350 0.019 L/kg
MLE: 8 years 70 kg ----- ----- ----- 0.0022 L/kg Day
of L/day days/yr (CR)(EF)(ED) Day
potable 350 (BW)(AT) 0.027 L/kg
water RME: 2 L/day 30 years 70 kg ----- ----- ----- 0.0012 L/kg Day
days/yr Day
25 350 0.34 mg/kg
Ingestion MLE: 8 years 70 kg ----- ----- ----- 0.039 mg/kg Day
mg/day days/yr (CR)(EF)(ED) Day
of soil
(BW)(AT)
and dust RME: 100 350
30 years 70 kg ----- ----- ----- 0.59 mg/kg Day
1.4 mg/kg
mg/day days/yr Day
350
Inhalation MLE: ----- 8 years ----- ----- ----- ----- 40 days/yr 350 days/yr
days/yr (EF)(ED)
of
350 (AT)
volatiles RME: ----- 30 years ----- ----- ----- ----- 150 days/yr 350 days/yr
days/yr
Organics:
5000 0.2 mg/cm2 0.04* 0.063 mg/kg
MLE: ----- 40 days/yr 9 years 70 kg 0.008 mg/kg day **
cm2 day Metals: day **
Dermal
0.001* (CR)(EF)(ED)
contact
Organics: (BW)(AT)
with soils
350 5800 1.0 mg/cm2 0.04* 3.2 mg/kg
RME: ----- 30 years 70 kg 1.4 mg/kg day **
days/yr cm2 day Metals: day **
0.001*
COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL LAND USE
Ingestion 250 0.0098 L/kg
MLE: 1 L/day 4 years 70 kg ----- ----- ----- 0.00056 L/kg Day
of days/yr (CR)(EF)(ED) Day
potable 250 (BW)(AT) 0.0098 L/kg
water RME: 1 L/day days/yr 25 years 70 kg ----- ----- ----- 0.0035 L/kg Day
Day
50 250 0.49 mg/kg
Ingestion MLE: 4 years 70 kg ----- ----- ----- 0.028 mg/kg Day
mg/day days/yr (CR)(EF)(ED) Day
of soil
50 250 (BW)(AT) 0.49 mg/kg
and dust RME: 25 years 70 kg ----- ----- ----- 0.17 mg/kg Day
mg/day days/yr Day
250
Inhalation MLE: ----- 4 years ----- ----- ----- ----- 14 days/yr 250 days/yr
days/yr (EF)(ED)
of
250 (AT)
volatiles RME: ----- 25 years ----- ----- ----- ----- 89 days/yr 250 days/yr
days/yr
Organics:
5000 0.2 mg/cm2 0.04* 0.0036 mg/kg day 0.063 mg/kg
MLE: ----- 40 days/yr 4 years 70 kg
cm2 day Metals: ** day **
Dermal
0.001* (CR)(EF)(ED)
contact
Organics: (BW)(AT)
with soils
250 5800 1.0 mg/cm2 0.04* 2.3 mg/kg
RME: ----- 25 years 70 kg 1.4 mg/kg day **
days/yr cm2 day Metals: day **
0.001*
Notes:
1) Exposure factors shown above are matched to published U.S. EPA guidelines, when available (U.S. EPA, 1997, 1992a, 1991a). If
no EPA value available, other peer-reviewed reference applied (American Industrial Health Council, 1994)
2) MLE = Most Likely Exposure; corresponding to mean exposure rate for exposed population (American Industrial Health Council,
1994; U.S. EPA, 1992a)
3) RME = Reasonable Maximum Exposure; corresponding to upper 95% exposure rate for exposed population (American Industrial
Health Council, 1994; U.S. EPA, 1997, 1992a, 1991a)
4) AT = Averaging Time. For carcinogens, AT = 70 years x 365 days/ yr. For non-carcinogens AT = ED x 365 days/yr
5) * = Default value. Use chemical-specific data if available. Values shown represent mid- to upper-range values per U.S. EPA, 1992b;
Howard et al., 1991
6) ** = Calculations of dermal contact with soils and sediments are based on organic default values. Contact rates for soil ingestion
and dermal contact shown above are based upon adult receptor.
The risk models used in the RBCA process are based on the assumption that cancer risk is
proportional to total life-time exposure. In addition, the exposure duration is usually assumed to
be many years (e.g., a default value of 25 to 30 years). As a result, the most sensitive
population to carcinogens is often children who mature to adults over the assumed exposure
duration. Risk-based calculations for exposure of these populations to carcinogens can be
performed using age-adjusted exposure factors for three age-groups: Children (e.g., baby to 6
years), Adolescents (e.g., ages 6-18 years), and Adults (e.g., ages 18 and over). Thus, age-

adjusted exposure factors are simply weighted averages of the exposure factors for children
and adults and are calculated based on separate exposure factors for each age group. For any
particular pathway for which age adjustment is selected, the effective exposure rate can be
expressed as age-adjusted “effective” contact rates, which is used in place of the adult contact
rate in conjunction with other adult exposure parameters, in accordance with the following
general formula:
BWadult ⎡ CRchild EFchild EDchild CRadolescent EFadolescent EDadolescent CRadult EFadult ( EDadult − EDadolescent − EDchild ) ⎤
eff
CRadult = ⎢ + + ⎥
EFadult EDadult ⎣ BWchild BWadolescent BWadult ⎦
Age-adjusted exposure factors are typically not used to calculate the exposure rates for non-
carcinogens because toxicity for non-carcinogens is not dependent on exposure duration.
4) Natural Attenuation Factor
For each complete exposure pathway, the NAF represents the cumulative effect of various
partitioning, dilution, and attenuation factors acting to reduce constituent concentrations during
transport from source to receptor (see Figure A.2). These NAF components may involve both
cross-media transfer factors (NAFCM, such as soil-to-air volatilization or soil-to-groundwater
leaching) and lateral transport factors (NAFLT, such as air dispersion or groundwater advection-
dispersion; see Appendix B). For exposure pathways with multiple POEs, separate NAFLT
values must be derived for each POE location (e.g., ambient vapor inhalation by on-site worker
and off-site resident; or groundwater ingestion at both hypothetical and actual wells). For a
given site and exposure pathway, the NAF value may vary among evaluation of Tiers 1, 2, and
3, based on the use of improved site data and evaluation methods.
For each complete exposure pathway and COC, the applicable NAF values can be derived
based on either: i) the actual measured concentration ratio between the source medium and the
POE, or ii) fate-and-transport modeling analyses that predict this concentration ratio. For the
purposes of simplicity and accuracy, direct field measurements represent the preferred method
of NAF estimation, whenever feasible. However, due to temporal variability and sampling
difficulties, some of these factors can prove difficult to quantify via direct field measurements
(e.g., soil volatilization or leaching factors). In such cases, modeling analyses, based on
appropriate site-specific data and conservative assumptions, provide a convenient method of
estimation.
NAFLT for groundwater may be referred to as a groundwater dilution attenuation factor (DAF).
DAFs are amenable to direct measurement via wells spaced along the centerline of the plume.
In all cases, time-series groundwater monitoring data should be evaluated to establish the
stability condition of the affected groundwater plume. Stable or diminishing plumes pose no risk
to downgradient receptors located outside the plume area (i.e., DAF = infinite). Consequently,
groundwater modeling analyses are necessary only for plumes for which available data either
are insufficient to establish the stability condition or indicate an expanding plume.
Various models are available to derive site-specific NAF values, ranging from simple analytical
equations with limited data requirements (e.g., Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluation) to complex
numerical models requiring three-dimensional data resolution (e.g., Tier 3 evaluation). The
appropriate evaluation tier and modeling tool will depend on the adequacy of the available data,
the relative complexity of the site, the acceptable degree of conservatism, and the anticipated
cost of the remedial action.

SOIL - TO -AIR EXPOSURE : Vapor/Dust Inhalation
SOIL - TO -AIR EXPOSURE : Vapor/Dust Inhalation
SOIL - TO - GROUNDWATER EXPOSURE : Leaching/Ingestion
Figure A.2: Back-Calculation of SSTL Values for Soil and Groundwater (continued)

(continued)
NOTES:
SSTL= Site-Specific Target Level; i.e., allowable COC COC = Constituent of Concern
concentration in source medium GW = Groundwater
RBEL = Risk-Based Exposure Limit, i.e., allowable COC POC = Point of Compliance
concentration in exposure medium at point of POE = Point of Exposure
exposure.
Natural Attenuation Factors:
NAF = Natural Attenuation Factor
VFss = Volatilization factor for surface soils (mg/m3-air) / (mg/kg-soil)
PEF = Particulate Emission Factor for surface soils (g/cm2-s)
ADF = Air Dispersion Factor (mg/m3 - air at POC_/ (mg/m3 at POE)
DAF = Groundwater Dilution-Attenuation Factor (mg/L - GW at POC)/ (mg/L - GW at POE)
WDF = Well Dilution Factor (mg/L - well discharge)/(mg/L - plume edge)
LDF = Leachate - Groundwater Dilution Factor (cm3/yr - GW)/ (cm3/yr-Leachate)
KSW = Soil- Water Partition Factor (mg/L- water)/ (mg/kg-soil)
Figure A.2: Back-Calculation of SSTL Values for Soil and Groundwater
5) Actual vs. Potential POEs
In development of SSTL values, careful distinction should be made between actual POEs, that
correspond to existing conditions (e.g., current site users, existing water supply well), and
potential POEs that represent possible future conditions (e.g., future users, hypothetical water
supply well). Engineered remedies may be needed for protection of actual receptors, whereas,
for potential receptors, sufficient time may be available for use of natural attenuation remedies.
To accommodate this remedy selection strategy, each SSTL should be characterized as to the
potential vs. actual nature of the exposure condition. For example, for surface soil exposure
pathways, unpaved affected soil may pose a current exposure to on-site workers or residents,
whereas soils beneath existing pavement represent a potential future exposure in the event the
pavement is removed.
For the groundwater ingestion pathway, it is advisable to derive separate SSTL values both for
a potential POE and an actual POE location as shown on Figure A.3. For some regulatory
programs, the location of the hypothetical groundwater ingestion POE may be pre-established
(e.g., defined in policy or regulation as the nearest downgradient off-site property line).
However, to support a remedy selection, a second SSTL can be derived based on the nearest
actual downgradient water supply well location. Note, however, that such modeling analyses of
POEs located outside the current plume area are appropriate only for plumes for which
available data indicate an expanding plume or are insufficient to establish the plume stability
condition.
6) Risk Reduction Requirements
The SSTL represents an action level for affected media in the source zone. Source media
containing COC concentrations in excess of applicable SSTLs will require further assessment or
remediation to control exposure via the relevant exposure pathway(s). If the SSTLs were
estimated on the basis of limited site-specific data or highly conservative assumptions, the
appropriate response may be further site assessment and re-evaluation of the target levels. For
those pathways for which the results of the site-specific evaluation are reliable, appropriate
remedies and exposure control measures must be selected and implemented, as discussed in
the section on Remedy Selection below.

Key Point:
POE = Point of Exposure
To define appropriate response actions, derive cleanup levels to protect
POC = Point of Compliance
both the nearest potential well location and the nearest actual well
SSTL = Site-Specific Target Level
location.
Figure A.3: SSTL Analyses for Both Potential and Actual Receptors
Applicable Data Evaluation Tools: Derivation of SSTL values involves calculation of NAF
values for each complete exposure pathway and relevant constituents of concern. Analytical
models which can be used for estimation of steady-state NAF values for various air, soil, and
groundwater exposure pathways under Tiers 1 and 2 are incorporated in the RBCA Tool Kit. As
noted above, it is advisable to evaluate SSTLs for both actual and potential POE locations in
order to support remedy selection. In addition to steady-state models, the Transient Domenico
Worksheet can be used to provide important information regarding the timing and duration of
potential groundwater impacts (see Figure 28 in the RBCA Tool Kit manual).
Remedy Selection
For each exposure pathway determined to pose a health/environmental concern, a cost-

effective remedy must be selected and implemented to achieve necessary risk reduction in the
appropriate timeframe. This step of the site evaluation process involves development of an
overall exposure control strategy and selection of optimal remediation technologies to
implement the control strategy.
The goal of risk-based site management is to minimize risk by preventing exposure to harmful
levels of site constituents. Risk reduction can be achieved by addressing any component of the
exposure pathway, such as: i) removing or treating the source, ii) interrupting contaminant
transport mechanisms, or iii) controlling activities at the point of exposure. The remedial action
plan may consist of one or more exposure control strategies, including:
• Removal/Treatment: Removal or treatment of affected source media (i.e., affected soils,

groundwater, etc.) to reduce COC concentrations to levels less than or equal to applicable
SSTLs (e.g., via excavation, soil venting, pump-and-treat, etc.).

• Containment Measures: Long-term engineering controls to prevent migration of harmful

concentrations of COCs from the source to the POE (e.g., surface cover/capping, barrier
walls, soil stabilization, hydraulic containment, etc.).
• Natural Attenuation Monitoring: Periodic sampling and analysis to confirm stabilization or

reduction of affected media concentrations via natural attenuation processes.
• Institutional Controls: Legal or administrative measures to control the nature and

frequency of human activity at the POE (e.g., deed notice, alternative water supply, etc.).
The appropriate exposure control strategy for a given site will depend on the nature of the risk
reduction requirements. For example, as shown on Figure A.4, engineered remedies (such as
removal/ treatment or containment strategies) are appropriate for responding to current or
anticipated impacts on actual receptors. If risk reduction is required only for protection of
potential future receptors (e.g., hypothetical water well users), groundwater remediation by
natural attenuation may be employed to confirm plume stabilization or reduction. No response
action is required if constituent concentrations do not exceed SSTL values for either actual or
potential receptors. The estimated time to impact determined in the risk-based site evaluation is
also a key consideration in the remedy selection process. For example, if source media
concentrations presently exceed an applicable SSTL value but the corresponding RBEL is not
likely to be exceeded at the POE for an extended time period, additional time may be available
for re-evaluation of potential exposure conditions based on a site-specific monitoring program.
Figure A.4: Potential Risk-Based Remedy Selection Criteria
Compliance Monitoring Program Design
Under many regulatory programs, a final compliance monitoring period is required to confirm
satisfactory completion of the remedy. Compliance monitoring (or verification sampling) typically
involves sampling of one or more locations on an established schedule to identify either i) an
exceedance of an applicable concentration limit or ii) a change of condition (e.g., change of land
use, failure of engineering control) that might invalidate the basis for the remedy selection. If,
RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES A - 10

upon completion of the monitoring period, compliance with applicable concentration limits is
demonstrated, no further action is required.
Applicable Data Evaluation Tools: To confirm compliance with applicable cleanup levels,
compliance monitoring action levels for the groundwater exposure pathway can be derived
using the same models used for SSTL calculation. Under this approach, groundwater
compliance monitoring locations are selected between the source location (point of compliance)
and the point of exposure (POE). By adjusting the distance variable on the Transient Domenico
Worksheet in the RBCA Tool Kit (see Figure 28), the NAF value can be calculated for
constituent transport from each monitoring point to the POE. The action level can be calculated
as the arithmetic product of the NAF times the applicable RBEL for each constituent. If action
levels are exceeded during the compliance monitoring period, further evaluation may be
required to ensure adequate protection of downgradient receptors.
Model Selection Guidelines
Under the risk-based site evaluation process outlined above, fate-and-transport models are
used to derive SSTL values based on estimation of the pathway-specific natural attenuation
factor (NAF). Whenever feasible, direct field measurements represent the preferred method of
NAF estimation. However, if the exposure pathway is not amenable to direct NAF measurement
(e.g., volatilization factors, leachate factors, etc.) or if time-series analyses show the
contaminant zone to be expanding over time, modeling analyses, based on appropriate site-
specific data and conservative assumptions, can provide a convenient method of estimating
future exposure levels.
The "best" model for a given site will be the simplest model providing a reliable and reasonably
conservative prediction of potential exposure. Under the ASTM RBCA process, relatively simple
analytical modeling tools are applied under Tiers 1 and 2, followed by more sophisticated
modeling methods, if warranted, under Tier 3. The choice between simple and complex
modeling methods should be dictated by the adequacy of the site data and the relative degree
of error likely to be introduced by the model itself. In addition, the cost of upgrading to a more
complex Tier 3 site evaluation must be warranted by the potential reduction in site remediation
costs or the complex nature of the anticipated exposure condition. General guidelines for
application of various types of fate-and-transport models under Tiers 1, 2, and 3 are
summarized below.
1) Model Dimensions
For each of the exposure pathways addressed in the RBCA standard, fate-and transport models
are available to estimate NAF values based on a one-, two-, or three-dimensional analysis of
contaminant transport. In reality, all contaminant transport occurs in three dimensions; however,
one-dimensional (1-D) or two-dimensional (2-D) modeling tools may be employed for the
purpose of conservatism and simplicity. One-dimensional models, which ignore lateral and
vertical dispersion effects, may significantly overestimate exposure levels and underestimate
the pathway NAF. For this purpose, 2-D fate-and-transport models are commonly employed for
Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses, as presented in Appendix X3 of the ASTM Standard Guide for RBCA
(E 2081, 2000), and included in the RBCA Tool Kit. Three-dimensional transport models may
provide a more accurate and less conservative NAF estimate under a Tier 3 evaluation, but
must be supported by three-dimensional characterization of key transport parameters (e.g.,
hydraulic conductivity, etc.). While three-dimensional models are not included in the RBCA Tool

Kit, NAF values calculated by these models may be entered directly into the software in order to
calculate baseline risks and cleanup levels.
2) Steady-State vs. Transient Analyses
Steady-state fate-and-transport models, which assume a constant source concentration and

constant flow conditions over time, provide a conservative (lower bound) NAF estimate
corresponding to maximum chronic exposure conditions. In reality, following termination of the
release, source concentrations in soil and groundwater are likely to diminish over time, resulting
in time-variable exposure concentrations at the POE. For the purposes of simplicity and
conservatism, steady-state, constant-source models, providing a lower bound NAF value, are
commonly employed under Tiers 1 and 2. However, to support risk management decisions,
these constant-source models can be run in a transient mode to predict the time to impact, i.e.,
the time required for the exposure concentration to exceed the RBEL at the POE. Under Tier 3,
fully transient models, simulating both time-variable source concentrations and transport
phenomena, can be used to characterize both the timing and duration of the RBEL exceedance.
Again, these more sophisticated Tier 3 analyses should be based on sufficient site-specific data
to support reliable modeling results.
3) Probabilistic vs. Deterministic Models
Under Tiers 1 and 2, exposure concentrations and NAF values are characterized on the basis of
deterministic models which provide a unique output value for each unique set of input values.
Uncertainty in the modeling analysis is addressed by means of a sensitivity study, i.e., by
varying key input values to evaluate their potential impact on the model output. Under Tier 3,
probabilistic modeling may be employed as a more sophisticated approach to management of
model uncertainty. In probabilistic modeling, for each key input parameter, the user provides a
probability distribution corresponding to the range and type of distribution observed for the
parameter at the site. The model then completes the fate-and-transport calculation for the full
range of these input values, effectively conducting multiple random model sensitivity studies.
The model result is not a unique value but a probability distribution defining the possible range
of results (e.g., exposure concentration, NAF value) for the specified site conditions. The
probabilistic analysis provides the user with relatively sophisticated information regarding
possible exposure conditions (e.g., for a given SSTL value, what is the probability that the RBEL
will be exceeded at any future time?) However, to support reliable results, this Tier 3 modeling
method will typically require significant additional site characterization data relative to Tier 1 or
Tier 2 deterministic analyses.
RBCA Tool Kit for Chemical Releases
The RBCA Tool Kit has been developed expressly for use with the Tier 1 and Tier 2 site
evaluation procedures outlined in the ASTM Standard Guide for RBCA (E 2081, 2000). Based
upon site-specific data supplied by the user, the RBCA Tool Kit combines fate-and-transport
modeling and risk characterization functions to compute: exposure concentrations, average
daily intake, baseline risk levels, and risk-based media cleanup levels. Key features of the
RBCA Tool Kit relevant to SSTL calculations and risk-based remedy selection are outlined
below.

Model Calculation Functions
Using a system of analytical models linked to internal libraries of standard exposure factors and
chemical/toxicological data for over 600 compounds, the RBCA Tool Kit can calculate either
baseline risk levels or cleanup levels for each complete exposure pathway identified by the
user. Key calculation steps are as follows:
Exposure Concentrations: Based on representative concentrations of constituents of concern

(COCs) present in the affected source media, maximum steady-state concentrations likely to
occur at the point of exposure (POE) are calculated using the steady-state analytical fate-and-
transport models identified in Appendix X3 of ASTM E 2081-00. To perform these calculations,
the system evaluates cross-media partitioning (e.g., volatilization from soil to air) and lateral
transport from the source to the POE (e.g., contaminant transport via air or groundwater flow).
The source media and optional exposure pathways included in the software are as follows:
SOURCE MEDIA EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Surface Soils Inhalation of Vapor and Particulates
Dermal Contact with Soil
Ingestion of Soil and Dust
Ingestion of Vegetables Grown in Soil (Residential land-use only)
Leaching to Groundwater
Subsurface Soils Inhalation of Vapor
Leaching to Groundwater
Groundwater Ingestion of Potable Water
Inhalation of Vapor
Discharge to Surface Water
– Ingestion/Dermal Contact via Swimming
– Ingestion via Fish Consumption
– Aquatic Life Protection
Average Daily Intake: Based upon the exposure factors selected by the user, the average daily
chemical intake for each receptor along each selected pathway is calculated in accordance with
USEPA guidelines (see Connor et al., 1998). These values are used in baseline risk
calculations for each complete pathway.
Baseline Risk Characterization: Human health risks associated with exposure to COCs are
calculated by the software on the basis of average daily intake rates and the corresponding
toxicological parameters for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects. For each complete
pathway, the system output provides both individual and additive constituent results for
carcinogens and non-carcinogens.
Media Cleanup Values: The RBCA Tool Kit has the ability to i) compare the site data to Tier 1
Risk-Based Screening Levels (RBSLs), computed using the default parameter values as listed
in ASTM E 2081-00, or ii) calculate Tier 2 Site-Specific Target Levels (SSTLs) based on user-
supplied site information. For each source medium (i.e., affected soil and groundwater), the
software reports target concentrations for all complete pathways and identifies the applicable
(i.e., minimum) value for source remediation. The equations used by the RBCA Tool Kit to
calculate RBSLs and SSTLs are presented in Table A.2.

Table A.2: RBSL and SSTL Equations Used in the RBCA Tool Kit
GROUNDWATER EXPOSURE PATHWAY
Groundwater Ingestion
TR ⋅ BW ⋅ ATC ⋅ 365days / yr
Carcinogens: RBSLGW =
SFo ⋅ EF ⋅ ED ⋅ IRw SSTLGW = RBSLGW . DAF
THQ ⋅ RfDo ⋅ BW ⋅ ATn ⋅ 365days / yr
Non-Carc.: RBSLGW =
EF ⋅ ED ⋅ IRw
Soil Leaching to Groundwater Æ Groundwater Ingestion
TR ⋅ BW ⋅ ATC ⋅ 365days / yr
Carcinogens: RBSLS =
SFo ⋅ EF ⋅ ED ⋅ IRw ⋅ LF SSTLS = RBSLS . DAF
THQ ⋅ RfDo ⋅ BW ⋅ ATn ⋅ 365days / yr
Non-Carc.: RBSLS =
EF ⋅ ED ⋅ IRw ⋅ LF
SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY
Surface Soil Combined Exposure
−1
⎡ 1 1 1 1* ⎤ SSTLSS = RBSLSS
RBSL SS = ⎢ ss + ss + ss + ss ⎥
⎣⎢ RBSL Ingest RBSLDermal RBSL Inhal RBSLVeg ⎦⎥ (No lateral transport;
receptor at source)
*Vegetable ingestion applies to residential receptors only.
This term equals zero for any non-residential receptor.
Surface Soil Ingestion
TR ⋅ BW ⋅ ATC ⋅ 365 days / yr

Carcinogens: ss RBSL Ingest =
SFo ⋅ EF ⋅ ED ⋅ IRs ⋅ RBAF ⋅10−6 kg / mg
THQ ⋅ RfDo ⋅ BW ⋅ ATn ⋅ 365 days / yr

Non-Carcinogens: ss
RBSL Ingest =
EF ⋅ ED ⋅ IRs ⋅ RBAF ⋅10−6 kg / mg
Dermal Contact with Surface Soils
Carcinogens: ss
RBSLDermal =
SFo ⋅ EF ⋅ ED ⋅ SA ⋅ M ⋅ RAFd ⋅10−6 kg / mg

Non-Carcinogens: ss
RBSLDermal =
EF ⋅ ED ⋅ SA ⋅ M ⋅ RAFd ⋅10−6 kg / mg
RAFd = ABSd / ABSGI
(continued)

Table A.2: RBSL and SSTL Equations Used in the RBCA Tool Kit (continued)
SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY
Outdoor Inhalation of Vapors and Particulates from Surface Soils
TR ⋅ ATC ⋅ 365 days / yr
Carcinogens: ss
RBSLInhal =
EF ⋅ ED ⋅ URF ⋅1000 μ g / mg ⋅ (VFss + PEF )
THQ ⋅ RfC ⋅ ATn
Non-Carcinogens: ss
RBSLInhal =
EF ⋅ ED ⋅ (VFss + PEF )
Consumption of Vegetables Grown in Surface Soils (Residential Land Use Only)
−1
ss
⎡ RCF ⋅ VGbg LCF ⋅ VGabg ⎤
Organic COCs*: RBSLVeg = K sw ⋅ ⎢ + ⎥
⎣⎢ RBELBgVeg RBELAbgVeg ⎥⎦
RCF = 10[(0.77 log Kow ) −1.52] + 0.82
⎛ ⎞
( )
⎡ −0.434( log K −1.78) 2 / 2.44 ⎤
LCF = ⎜ 0.784 ⋅ 10⎣⎢
ow
⎦⎥ ⎟ × 0.82 + 10 ⎣⎡0.95log Kow − 2.05⎦⎤
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
* For organic COCs vegetable ingestion applies only to those COCs for which
Kow > log Kow,min and H < Hmax, where these limits are defined by the user.
−1
ss
⎡ BrAbg Br Bg ⎤
Inorganic COCs: RBSLVeg =⎢ + ⎥
⎢⎣ RBELAbgVeg RBELBgVeg ⎥⎦

Carcinogens: RBELAbgVeg =
SFo ⋅ EF ⋅ ED ⋅ IRabg

RBELBgVeg =
SFo ⋅ EF ⋅ ED ⋅ IRbg

Non-Carcinogens: RBELAbgVeg =
EF ⋅ ED ⋅ IRabg
RBELBgVeg =
EF ⋅ ED ⋅ IRbg
(continued)

OUTDOOR AIR EXPOSURE PATHWAY
Subsurface Soil Volatilization Æ Ambient Air
Carcinogens : RBSLS =
EF ⋅ ED ⋅ URF ⋅1000 μ g / mg ⋅ VFsamb SSTLS = RBSLS . ADF
THQ ⋅ RfC ⋅ ATn ⋅ 365 days / yr
Non-Carcinogens: RBSLS =
EF ⋅ ED ⋅ VFsamb
Groundwater Volatilization Æ Ambient Air
Carcinogens : RBSLGW =
EF ⋅ ED ⋅ URF ⋅1000μ g / mg ⋅ VFwamb SSTLGW = RBSLGW . ADF
THQ ⋅ RfC ⋅ ATn ⋅ 365 days / yr
Non-Carcinogens: RBSLGW =
EF ⋅ ED ⋅ VFwamb
INDOOR AIR EXPOSURE PATHWAY
Subsurface Soil Volatilization Æ Enclosed Space
Carcinogens : RBSLS =
EF ⋅ ED ⋅ URF ⋅1000 μ g / mg ⋅ VFsesp SSTLGW = RBSLGW
(No lateral transport;
THQ ⋅ RfC ⋅ ATn ⋅ 365 days / yr receptor at source.)
Non-Carcinogens: RBSLS =
EF ⋅ ED ⋅ VFsesp
Groundwater Volatilization Æ Enclosed Space
Carcinogens: RBSLGW =
EF ⋅ ED ⋅ URF ⋅1000 μ g / mg ⋅ VFwesp SSTLGW = RBSLGW
(No lateral transport;
THQ ⋅ RfC ⋅ ATn ⋅ 365 days / yr receptor at source.)
Non-Carcinogens: RBSLGW =
EF ⋅ ED ⋅ VFwesp
SURFACE WATER EXPOSURE PATHWAY

Groundwater Discharge to Surface Water → Swimming and Fish Consumption
Carc.: TR ⋅ BW ⋅ ATC ⋅ 365 days / yr ⋅ DAF ⋅ DFgw − sw

SSTLGW =
RBSL not ED ⋅ ⎡⎣( SFo ⋅ EV ⋅ ET ⋅ IRsw ) + ( SFd ⋅ EV ⋅ SAsw ⋅ Z ) + ( SFo ⋅ IR fish ⋅ FI fish ⋅ BCF ) ⎤⎦
applicable.
(Receptor located THQ ⋅ BW ⋅ ATn ⋅ 365 days / yr ⋅ DAF ⋅ DFgw− sw
away from source.) Non-Carc.: SSTLGW =
⎡⎛ EV ⋅ ET ⋅ IRsw ⎞ ⎛ EV ⋅ SAsw ⋅ Z ⎞ ⎛ IR fish ⋅ FI fish ⋅ BCF ⎞ ⎤
ED ⋅ ⎢⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟⎥
⎣⎝ RfDo ⎠ ⎝ RfDd ⎠ ⎝ RfDo ⎠⎦
Soil Leaching to Groundwater → Groundwater Discharge to Surface Water→ Swimming and Fish
Consumption
Carc: TR ⋅ BW ⋅ ATC ⋅ 365 days / yr ⋅ DAF ⋅ DFgw− sw
SSTLS =
RBSL not ED ⋅ ⎡⎣( SFo ⋅ EV ⋅ ET ⋅ IRsw ) + ( SFd ⋅ EV ⋅ SAsw ⋅ Z ) + ( SFo ⋅ IR fish ⋅ FI fish ⋅ BCF ) ⎤⎦ ⋅ LF
applicable.
(Receptor located THQ ⋅ BW ⋅ ATn ⋅ 365 days / yr ⋅ DAF ⋅ DFgw − sw
away from source.)
Non-Carc.: SSTLS =
⎡⎛ EV ⋅ ET ⋅ IRsw ⎞ ⎛ EV ⋅ SAsw ⋅ Z ⎞ ⎛ IR fish ⋅ FI fish ⋅ BCF ⎞ ⎤
ED ⋅ ⎢⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟+⎜ ⎟ ⎥ ⋅ LF
⎣⎝ RfDo ⎠ ⎝ RfDd ⎠ ⎝ RfDo ⎠⎦
(continued)

SURFACE WATER EXPOSURE PATHWAY
Groundwater Discharge to Surface Water → Aquatic Life Protection
RBSL not
applicable. Carcinogens: SSTLGW = AQL ⋅ DAF ⋅ DFgw − sw
(Receptor located Non-Carcinogens: SSTLGW = AQL ⋅ DAF ⋅ DFgw − sw
away from source.)
Soil Leaching to Groundwater Æ Groundwater Discharge to Surface Water Æ Aquatic Life
Protection
RBSL not AQL ⋅ DAF ⋅ DFgw − sw
applicable. Carcinogens: SSTLS =
LF
(Receptor located
away from source.) AQL ⋅ DAF ⋅ DFgw − sw
Non-Carcinogens: SSTLS =
LF
PARAMETER DEFINITIONS
ABSd Dermal absorption factor (unitless) RAFd Relative absorption factor for soil dermal contact
(unitless)
ABSGI Gastrointestinal absorption factor (unitless) RBAF Relative bioavailability factor (unitless)
ADF Lateral air dispersion factor (unitless) RBEL Risk-based exposure limit for exposure medium.
AF Soil-to-skin adherence factor (mg/cm2-d) RBSLgw Risk-based screening level for groundwater (mg/L)
AQL Aquatic protection criteria (mg/L) RBSLs Risk-based screening level for soil (mg/kg)
ATC Averaging time - carcinogens (yr) RBSLss Risk-based screening level for surface soil (mg/kg)
ATn Averaging time -non-carcinogens (yr) RCF Ratio of concentration in roots to concentration in
soil pore water (mg/kg-veg) / (mg/L-water)
BCF Bioconcentration factor (mg/kg-fish)/(mg/L-water RfC Reference concentration (mg/m3)
BrAbg Soil-to-above-ground biotransfer factor (kg-soil/kg- RfDd Chronic dermal reference dose (mg/kg/d)
dry plant tissue)
BrBg Soil-to-below-ground biotransfer factor (kg-soil/kg- RfDo Chronic oral reference dose (mg/kg/d)
dry plant tissue)
BW Body weight (kg) SA Skin surface area for soil dermal contact (cm2)
DAF Lateral groundwater dilution-attenuation factor SAsw Skin surface area for swimming dermal contact
(unitless) (cm2)
DF gw- Groundwater to surface water dilution factor SFd Dermal slope factor (mg/kg/day)-1
sw (unitless)
ED Exposure duration (yr) SFo Oral slope factor (mg/kg/day)-1
EF Exposure frequency (d/yr) SSTLgw Site-specific target level for groundwater (mg/L)
ET Exposure time (hr/event) SSTLs Site-specific target level for soil (mg/kg)
EV Event frequency (events/yr) SSTLss Site-specific target level for surface soil (mg/kg)
FIfish Fraction of ingested fish from affected surface water THQ Target Hazard Quotient
(unitless)
IRabg Above-ground vegetable ingestion rate TR Target Risk
IRbg Below-ground vegetable ingestion rate URF Unit Risk factor (mg/m3)-1
IRfish Rate of fish consumption (kg/yr) VFsamb Subsurface soil to ambient air volatilization factor
(mg/m3-air) / (mg/kg-soil)
IRs Soil Ingestion rate (kg/day) VFsesp Subsurface soil to enclosed space volatilization
factor (mg/m3-air) / (mg/kg-soil)
IRsw Water Ingestion rate while swimming (L/hr) VFss Surface soil to ambient air volatilization factor
(mg/m3-air) / (mg/kg-soil)
IRw Water Ingestion rate while swimming (L/hr) Water VFwamb GW to ambient air volatilization factor (mg/m3-air) /
Ingestion rate while swimming (L/hr) (mg/L-water)
Ksw Soil leachate partition factor (mg/L-water) / (mg/kg- VFwesp GW to enclosed space volatilization factor (mg/m3-
soil) air) / (mg/L-water)
LCF Leaf Concentration Factor (mg/kg-veg)/(mg/L-water) VGabg Above-ground vegetable correction factor (unitless)
LF Soil-to-GW leaching factor (mg/L-water)/(mg/kg-soil) VGbg Below-ground vegetable correction factor (unitless)
M Soil to skin adherence factor (mg/cm2/day)Soil-to- Z Water to skin dermal absorption factor (cm/event)
GW leaching factor (mg/L-water)/(mg/kg-soil)
PEF Particulate emission factor (mg/m3-air) / (mg/kg-soil)

Risk-Based Decision Support Features
The RBCA Tool Kit includes several features designed to support key steps of the risk-based
site evaluation process, including the following:
Step-by-Step Evaluation Process: From the Main Screen of the graphical user interface, the
user is guided through all the necessary steps for completing the Tier 1 or Tier 2 evaluation
process. On subsequent screens the interface leads the user through exposure pathway
identification, model selection, site-specific parameter input, and output review. All output
screens may be printed in a report-quality format.
Analysis of Actual and Potential POEs: Multiple off-site exposure points are allowed for the
groundwater and outdoor air pathways. This enables the user to evaluate risks at both actual
(e.g., an actual nearby well) and potential (e.g., a hypothetical well at the property boundary)
POEs. Whether site risks affect an actual or potential POE adds a qualitative dimension to the
risk calculations which may be an important factor in remedy selection at some sites.
Transient Groundwater Modeling Analyses: An optional Transient Domenico Worksheet is

provided to allow the user to estimate the time required for site constituents to impact off-site
groundwater POEs (see Figure 28 in the RBCA Tool Kit manual). Groundwater risk levels and
cleanup levels calculated by the software are based on steady-state concentrations. However,
the time to reach steady-state concentrations at off-site POEs may be very long for some
constituents. Thus, the time required to exceed a concentration limit at a POE may be an
important factor in remedy selection as near-term impacts may require a significantly different
response than longer-term impacts (e.g., an engineered response vs. natural attenuation).
Summary
The RBCA Tool Kit for Chemical Releases provides a system of simple analytical fate-and-
transport models that can be used for comprehensive risk-based evaluation of potential soil, air,
groundwater, and surface water exposure pathways. However, as with all predictive modeling
efforts, reliable results require proper characterization of site-specific input parameters. In all
cases, model predictions must be shown to be consistent with the actual constituent
distributions observed at the site. Use of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 calculation methods outlined in
the ASTM RBCA Standard Guide for RBCA (E 2081, 2000) and incorporated in the RBCA Tool
Kit can significantly reduce the time and effort required for evaluation of risk reduction
requirements and selection of appropriate exposure control methods. However, proper scientific
and/or engineering expertise is required both for characterization of input parameters and
assessment of model results.

APPENDIX B: FATE AND TRANSPORT MODELING METHODS
The RBCA Tool Kit contains a series of fate and transport models for predicting the
concentration of chemicals of concern (COC) at points of exposure (POE) located downwind or
downgradient of source areas for air or groundwater exposure pathways, respectively. Under
Tiers 1 and 2, relatively simple analytical models are to be employed for these calculations. The
RBCA Tool Kit is consistent with Appendix X3 of ASTM E-2081, although selected algorithms
and default parameters have been added to reflect advances in evaluation methods.
The idealized schematic shown on Figure B.1 illustrates the steps included in the RBCA Tool Kit
for predicting transport of contaminants from the source zone to the POE for air and
groundwater exposure pathways. Each element in Figure B.1 represents a step-specific
attenuation factor, corresponding to either a cross-media transfer factor (CM) or a lateral
transport factor (LT).
As described in Appendix A, natural attenuation factors (NAFs) correspond to either cross-

media transfer or lateral transport of COCs from the source area to the POE. The effective NAF
value for each COC on each pathway is calculated as the arithmetic product of the various
attenuation factors occurring along the flow path from source to receptor. These steady state
NAF values are then used for calculation of baseline risks and back-calculation of Site-Specific
Target Levels (SSTLs). Please note that fate and transport modeling is not required for direct
exposure pathways, such as soil ingestion, dermal contact, or ingestion of vegetables grown in
soil. For these pathways, the source and exposure concentrations are equal (i.e., NAF = 1).
Analytical models used for conservative estimation of each transport factor are described below.
RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES B-1

Figure B.1: NAF Calculation Schematic for Indirect Exposure Pathways
Cross-Media Transfer Factors
Exposure pathways involving transport of COCs from one medium to another (e.g., soil-to-air,
soil-to-groundwater) require estimation of the corresponding cross-media transfer factor.
Various analytical expressions are available for estimating soil-to-air volatilization factors as a
function of site soil characteristics and the physical/chemical properties of volatile organic
COCs. Leaching factors for organic and inorganic constituent releases from soil to groundwater
can be similarly estimated as a function of COC characteristics, soil conditions, and annual
rainfall infiltration. Cross-media transfer equations incorporated in the RBCA Tool Kit are
presented in Figure B.2. Detailed discussion of each of these cross-media factors is provided
below.

Surface Soil Volatilization Factor (VFss)
USEPA Q/C Model:

CM-1a:
⎡ ( mg / m3 − air ) ⎤ 2ρs Dseff H
VFss ⎢ ⎥= × 104
ws s s (
⎢⎣ ( mg / kg − soil ) ⎥⎦ (Q / C ) πτ θ + k ρ + H θ
as )
or CM-1b:
⎡ ( mg / m 3 − air ) ⎤ ρs d
VFss ⎢ ⎥= × 10 4
⎢⎣ ( mg / kg − soil ) ⎥⎦ (Q / C )τ
whichever is less
ASTM Model:
CM-1c:
⎡ ( mg / m3 − air ) ⎤ 2W ρ Dseff H
VFss ⎢ ⎥= s
× 103
⎣⎢ (
mg / kg − soil ) ⎥ U air δ air
⎦ πτ θ ( ws + ks ρs + Hθas )
or CM-1d:
⎡ ( mg / m 3 − air ) ⎤ W ρs d
VFss ⎢ ⎥= × 103
⎢⎣ ( mg / kg − soil ) ⎥⎦ U air δ airτ
whichever is less
Soil Particulate Emission Factor (PEF)
USEPA Q/C Model:

CM-2a:
3
⎛U ⎞
(1 − V )⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟ F ( x )
(
⎡ mg / m − air ⎤
3
) ⎝ Ut ⎠ × 10 −5
PEF ⎢ ⎥=
⎣ (mg / kg − soil )⎦ Q /C
ASTM Model:
CM-2b
PEF ⎢
(
⎡ mg / m 3 − air ⎤
⎥=
) PeW
× 10 3
⎣⎢ (mg / kg − soil ) ⎦⎥ U air δ air
Subsurface Soil Volatilization Factor (VFsamb)
CM-3a:
VFsamb ⎢
(
⎡ mg / m 3 − air ⎤ )⎥=
Hρ s
× 10 3
⎣⎢ (mg / kg − soil ) ⎦⎥ [θ ws
⎡ U air δ air Ls ⎤
+ k s ρ s + Hθ as ]⎢1 + ⎥
⎢⎣ Dseff W ⎥⎦
or CM-3b:
VFsamb ⎢
(
⎡ mg / m 3 − air ⎤
⎥=
)
Wρ s d s
× 10 3
⎣⎢ (mg / kg − soil ) ⎦⎥ U air δ air τ
whichever is less
Figure B.2: Cross-Media Transfer Factors in the RBCA Tool Kit (continued)

continued
Subsurface Soil to Enclosed Space Volatilization Factor (VFsesp)
CM-4a:
For Qs = 0 :
Hρ s ⎡ Dseff / Ls ⎤
(
⎡ mg / m 3 − air ⎤ ) [θ ws + k s ρ s + Hθ as ] ⎢⎣⎢ ER LB ⎦⎥
⎥
VFsesp ⎢ ⎥= x103
⎣⎢ (mg / kg − soil ) ⎦⎥ ⎡ D eff / Ls ⎤ ⎡ D eff / Ls ⎤
⎥ + ⎢ eff s ⎥
1+ ⎢ s
⎣⎢ ER L (
B ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ Dcrack / Lcrack ⋅ η ⎦⎥ )
For Qs > 0 :
Hρ s ⎡ Dseff / Ls ⎤ ξ
( ) [θ ws + k s ρ s + Hθ as ] ⎢⎣⎢ ER LB ⎥⎦⎥
e
⎡ mg / m 3 − air ⎤
VFsesp ⎢ ⎥= x103
⎣⎢ (mg / kg − soil ) ⎦⎥ eξ + ⎡ Ds / Ls ⎤ + ⎡ Ds / Ls ⎤ eξ − 1 [ ]
eff eff
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ ER LB ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ (Qs / Ab ) ⎦⎥
or CM-4b:
⎡ ( mg / m3 − air ) ⎤ ρd
VFsesp ⎢ ⎥ = s s × 103
⎢⎣ ( mg / kg − soil ) ⎥⎦ LB ERτ
whichever is less
Groundwater Volatilization Factor (VFwamb)
CM-5:
VF ⎢
(
⎡ mg / m 3 − air ⎤
⎥ =
) Η
x 10 3
⎢⎣ (mg/L − H 2 O ) ⎥⎦
wamb
⎡U δ air L GW ⎤
1+ ⎢ air
eff ⎥
⎣⎢ D ws W ⎦⎥

continued
Groundwater to Enclosed Space Volatilization Factor (VFwesp)
Johnson-Ettinger Model:
CM-6a:
For Qs = 0 :
⎡ D eff / LGW ⎤
H ⎢ ws ⎥
⎡ ( mg / m3 − air ) ⎤
VFwesp ⎢ ⎥= ⎣ ER LB ⎦ × 103
⎢⎣ ( mg / L − H 2 O ) ⎥⎦ ⎡ D / LGW ⎤ ⎡ Dws / LGW
eff eff ⎤
1 + ⎢ ws ⎥ + ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ER LB ⎦ ⎣⎢ ( Dcrack / Lcrack ) ⋅η ⎦⎥
eff
For Q s > 0 :
⎡ D eff / LGW ⎤ ξ
H ⎢ ws ⎥e
⎡ ( mg / m 3 − air ) ⎤
VFwesp ⎢ ⎥= ⎣ ER L B ⎦ × 10 3
⎢⎣ ( mg / L − H 2 0 ) ⎥⎦ ⎡ D / LGW ⎤ ⎡ D ws / LGW ⎤ ξ
eff eff
e ξ + ⎢ ws ⎥+⎢ ⎥ ⎣⎡ e − 1⎦⎤
⎣ ER LB ⎦ ⎣ Q s / Ab ⎦
Mass Flux Model:

CM-6b:
D a Lv
⎡ ( mg / m 3 − air ) ⎤ 2 wn
VFwesp ⎢ ⎥= π
⎣⎢ (
mg / L − H 2 0 ) ⎥ BV ⋅ ER
⎦
Soil to Groundwater Leaching Factor (LF)
CM-7:
⎡ ( mg / L − H 2O ) ⎤ K sw ⋅ SAM
LF ⎢ ⎥=
⎢⎣ ( mg / kg − soil ) ⎥⎦ LDF
Soil-Water Partition Factor:

CM-8:
⎡ (mg / L − H 2O ) ⎤ ρs
K sw ⎢ ⎥=
⎣ (mg/kg − soil ) ⎦ θ ws + k s ρ s + Hθ as
Soil Attenuation Model Factor (Optional):

CM-9:
SAM [dimensionless] =
L1
L2
Leachate Dilution Factor

CM-10:
Vgwδ gw
LDF [dimensionless] = 1 +
I ⋅W
Mixing Zone Thickness Estimation (Optional)
CM-11:
⎧ ⎡ ⎛ − I ⋅W ⎞ ⎤ ⎫⎪
⎪
δ gw = min ⎨b,0.10583 ⋅ W + b ⎢1 + exp ⎜ ⎟⎥
⎪⎩ ⎢ ⎜ Vgw ⋅ b ⎟ ⎥ ⎬⎪
⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎦ ⎭

continued
Groundwater to Surface Water Dilution Factor (DFgwsw)
CM-12:
⎡ Q sw ⎤ −1
DFgwsw = ⎢1 + ⎥
⎢ V gwδ swW gwsw ⎥
⎣ ⎦
Soil-Water Sorption/Desorption
Linear Sorption/Desorption: Dual-Equilibrium Desorption (option for organics only):

CM-13:
Organics: k s = koc f oc
2 nd
koc focCs2,max
nd
Inorganics: k s = kd k DED = koc f oc +
s Cs2,max
nd 2 nd
+ koc f ocCL
= foc ⋅ ( kowCsol )
0.534
Cs2,max
nd
2 nd
koc = 105.92
Effective Diffusion Coefficients

Effective diffusivity in vadose zone soils: Effective diffusivity through foundation cracks:
⎡ cm 2 ⎤ 3.33 ⎡ wat
air θ as
3.33 ⎤
⎤ ⎡θ ws ⎡ cm 2 ⎤ ⎡ D wat ⎤ ⎡θ wcrack
3.33 ⎤
air θ acrack
D 3.33
Dseff ⎢ ⎥=D +⎢ ⎥⎢ 2 ⎥ eff
Dcrack ⎢ ⎥=D +⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ s ⎥⎦ θ T2 ⎢⎣ H ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ θ T ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ s ⎦⎥ θT2
⎣⎢ H ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ θ T
2
⎦⎥
Effective diffusivity above the water table: Effective diffusivity in the capillary zone:
−1
⎡ cm2 ⎤ ⎤ ⎡ h ⎡ 2⎤
eff cm air θ acap
3.33 ⎡ D wat ⎤ ⎡θ wcap
3.33 ⎤
c + hv
⎥ = (hc + hv )⎢ eff
⎥ ⎢ ⎥=D + ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
eff
Dws ⎢ Dcap
θT2 ⎣⎢ H ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ θT ⎥⎦
2
⎢⎣ s ⎥⎦ ⎥ ⎢ Dcap Dseff ⎣⎢ s ⎦⎥
⎦ ⎣
Convective Air Flow Through Foundation Cracks
2π Δp kv X crack
Qs / Ab Qs =
ξ=
(Deff
crack )
/ Lcrack ⋅ η
⎡2 Z
⎣ Ab
X
η
⎤
μ air ln ⎢ crack crack ⎥
⎦

continued
Definitions for Cross-Media Transfer Equations
2
Ab Area of building foundation (m ) Qsw Surface water flow rate at groundwater-to-surface
b Aquifer saturated thickness (m) water discharge (cm3/s)
BV Building volume (m3) Uair Wind speed above ground surface in ambient
CL Concentration of contaminant in leachate (mg/L) mixing zone (m/s)
Csol Aqueous Solubility (mg/L) Vgw Groundwater Darcy velocity (cm/day)
Da Apparent diffusion coefficient (m2/day) v Groundwater seepage velocity
Dair Diffusion coefficient in air (cm2/s) (cm/day)
Dwat W Width of source area parallel to groundwater flow
Diffusion coefficient in water (cm2/s)
direction (m)
ds Thickness of affected subsurface soils (m)
w Building width perpendicular to GW flow (m)
ER Enclosed-space air exchange rate (l/s) Wgwsw Width of groundwater-to-surface water discharge
• Residential land use (m)
• Commercial land use Xcrack Enclosed space foundation perimeter (cm)
foc Fraction of organic carbon in soil • Residential land use
(g-C/g-soil) • Commercial land use
H Henry’s law constant (cm3-H2O)/(cm3-air) Zcrack Depth to base of enclosed space foundation (m)
hc Thickness of capillary fringe (cm) δsw thickness of affected groundwater to surface
hv Thickness of vadose zone (m) water discharge (m)
I Infiltration rate of water through soil (cm/year) Δp Differential indoor/outdoor air pressure (g/cm-s2)
kd Soil / water distribution coefficient • Residential land use
( = Koc * foc, cm3/g) • Commercial land use
Kow Octanol/Water Partitioning Coefficient δair Ambient air mixing zone height (m)
koc Carbon-water sorption coefficient (g-H2O/g-C) δgw Groundwater mixing zone thickness (cm)
ks Soil-water sorption coefficient = foc * koc (g-H2O/g- η Areal fraction of cracks in foundations/walls (cm2-
soil) cracks/cm2-total area)
Ksw Soil- Water Partition Factor (mg/L- water)/ (mg/kg- Volumetric air content in capillary fringe soils
θacap
soil)
Kv Soil vapor permeability (m2) (cm3-air/cm3-soil)
θacrack Volumetric air content in foundation/wall cracks
LB Enclosed space volume/infiltration area ratio (m)
• Residential land use (cm3-air/cm3 total volume)
• Commercial land use θas Volumetric air content in vadose zone soils (cm3-
Lcrack Enclosed space foundation or wall thickness (m) air/cm3-soil)
LGW Depth to groundwater = hcap + hv (m) θT Total soil porosity (cm3-pore-space/ cm3-soil)
Ls Depth to subsurface soil sources (m) θwcap Volumetric water content in capillary fringe soils
L Building length parallel to (cm3-H2O/cm3-soil)
GW flow [m]
θwcrack Volumetric water content in foundation/wall
L1 Thickness of affected soils (m)
cracks (cm3-H2O)/cm3 total volume)
L2 Distance from top of affected soils to top of water-
bearing unit = LGW - Ls (m) θws Volumetric water content in vadose zone soils
n Porosity of saturated aquifer (cm3-H2O/cm3-soil)
[unitless] ρ Soil bulk density (kg-soil/L-soil)
s
Pe Particulate emission rate (g/cm2-s) τ Averaging time for vapor flux (yr)
CS = Chemical-specific value. SS = Soil Type/Site Specific
Figure B.2: Cross-Media Transfer Factors in the RBCA Tool Kit
VFss: Surface Soil Volatilization Factor (Equation CM-1)
The surface volatilization factor is the steady-state ratio of the predicted concentration of an
organic constituent in the ambient air breathing zone to the source concentration in the surface
soil. The surface volatilization factor incorporates two cross-media transfer elements: i) organic
vapor flux from the surface soil mass to ground surface, and ii) mixing of soil vapors in the
ambient air breathing zone directly over the affected surface soil. For each site, the applicable
VFss value corresponds to the lesser result of two calculation methods (flux-based vs. mass
balance limited; corresponding to Eqns. CM-1a/c and CM-1b/d on Figure B.2). Equations CM-1a
and CM-1c typically control for low-volatility compounds, as they assume there is an infinite
source of chemical in the surface soils and uses a volatilization rate based primarily on chemical
properties. Equations CM-1b/d, which typically control for volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
are based on a mass balance approach. In these equations, a finite amount of chemical is
assumed to be present in the surface soil (based on the representative COC concentration),
volatilizing at a constant rate over the duration of the exposure period (e.g., 25-30 years). Both
expressions account for the dilution of chemicals in ambient air above the source zone due to
mixing with ambient air moving across the site. A simple box model is used for this dilution

calculation. The length of the mixing zone is set equal to the lateral dimension of the exposed
affected surface soil area parallel to the assumed wind direction.
Key assumptions used in this model and their effect on the SSTL calculations are as follows:
KEY ASSUMPTIONS: VFss EFFECT ON CLEANUP LEVEL

• Uniform COC Concentrations: Constituent -----
levels uniformly distributed in soil and constant
over exposure period.
• No COC Decay: No biodegradation or other loss
mechanism in soil or vapor phase.
• Finite Source Term: Source term mass adjusted -----
for constant volatilization over exposure period.
PEF: Soil Particulate Emission Factor (Equation CM-2)
The Particulate Emission Factor (PEF) is the steady-state ratio of the predicted concentration of
chemicals in particulates in the ambient air breathing zone to the source concentration of
chemical in the surface soil. The factor incorporates two cross-media transfer elements: i) the
release rate of soil particulates (dust) from the ground surface and ii) mixing of particulates in
the ambient air breathing zone directly over the affected surface soil. The particulate release
rate is commonly matched to a conservative default value of 6.9 x 10-14 g/cm2-sec
(approximately 0.2 lbs/acre-year), unless a more appropriate site-specific estimate is available.
(If the site is paved, the particulate release rate and resultant PEF value for the covered soil
area will be zero.) Particulates are assumed to be diluted by lateral air flow directly over the
source zone. For this purpose, a simple box model is employed. The length of the mixing zone
is assumed to be equal to the lateral dimension of the exposed affected surface soil area
parallel to the assumed wind direction.
Key assumptions incorporated in this model and their effects on the SSTL calculation are as
follows:
KEY ASSUMPTIONS: PEF EFFECT ON CLEANUP LEVEL

• Uniform COC Concentrations: Constituent levels -----
are uniformly distributed in soil and remain constant
over exposure period.
mechanism in the soil or vapor phase.
• Default Emission Rate: Conservative particulate
emission rate.
VFsamb: Subsurface Soil Volatilization Factor (Equation CM-3)
The subsurface soil volatilization factor is comparable to the surface volatilization equation,
except that the algorithm has been adjusted to account for vapor flux from greater soil depths.
The volatilization factor accounts for two cross-media transfer elements: i) organic vapor flux
from the subsurface affected soil mass to ground surface and ii) mixing of soil vapors in the
ambient air breathing zone directly over the affected soil zone. As with the surface soil
volatilization factor, VFss, the applicable subsurface soil volatilization factor, VFsamb, corresponds
to the lesser result of two calculation methods (termed CM-3a and CM-3b on Figure B.2).
Equation CM-3a, which corresponds to the expression given in Appendix X3 of ASTM E2081-

00, assumes a constant source mass in the subsurface and can severely over-predict the soil
vapor flux rate. To correct for this problem, Equation CM-3b, which accounts for a mass balance
of the volatilized source mass over the exposure period (similar to Equation CM-1b), has been
incorporated in the RBCA Tool Kit. With either equation (CM-3a or CM 3-b), dilution of soil
vapors in the ambient air breathing zone is estimated using the same box model described for
Equation CM-1.
follows:
KEY ASSUMPTIONS: VFsamb EFFECT ON CLEANUP LEVEL

are uniformly distributed in soil and remain constant
over the exposure period.
• Finite Source Term: Source term mass is -----
adjusted for constant volatilization over exposure
period.
VFsesp: Subsurface Soil-to-Enclosed-Space Volatilization Factor (Equation CM-4)
This factor is the steady-state ratio of the predicted concentration of a chemical constituent in
indoor air to the concentration in underlying subsurface soils. Again, two expressions may be
evaluated: i) Equation CM-4a, which assumes an infinite source mass, and is the same form as
Equation CM-3a with a term added to represent diffusion through cracks in the foundation of the
building, and ii) Equation CM-4b which accounts for a finite source mass volatilizing at a
constant rate over the exposure period. Whenever the mass balance is used, the applicable
VFsesp value corresponds to the lesser of these two expressions. The soil-to-enclosed-space
volatilization factor incorporates two cross-media transfer elements: i) organic vapor flux from
the underlying soil mass through the building floor, and ii) mixing of soil vapors with indoor air.
Tier 1 default assumptions in the software include: i) a 1% open crack space in the foundation
allowing vapors to diffuse into the building, and ii) a building air exchange rate of 20 exchanges
per day (commercial) or 12 exchanges per day (residential). When used with these default
values, the equation yields very conservative results and can represent the controlling pathway
for SSTL calculations for many sites. In such cases, users are advised to conduct direct air or
soil vapor measurements prior to proceeding with remedial measures for this pathway.

KEY ASSUMPTIONS: VFsesp EFFECT ON CLEANUP LEVEL

are uniformly distributed in soil, and remain
constant over the exposure period.
• Finite Source Term: Source term mass is -----
adjusted for constant volatilization over the
exposure period.
• Default Building Parameters: Conservative
default values for foundation crack area and air
exchange rate.
VFwamb: Groundwater Volatilization Factor (Equation CM-5)
The groundwater volatilization factor is the steady-state ratio of the predicted concentration of a
chemical constituent in ambient air to the source concentration in underlying affected
groundwater. Vapor flux rates from groundwater to soil vapor and thence from soil vapor to
ground surface are generally lower than those associated with direct volatilization from affected
soils. Consequently, this groundwater-to-ambient-air volatilization factor is typically not
significant in comparison to soil volatilization factors (i.e., Equations CM-1 or CM-3). This factor
accounts for i) steady-state partitioning of dissolved organic constituents from groundwater to
the soil vapor phase, ii) soil vapor flux rates to ground surface, and iii) mixing of soil vapors in
the ambient air breathing zone directly over the plume. Dilution of vapors in the breathing zone
is estimated using a box model, as described for Equation CM-1 above.
follows:
KEY ASSUMPTIONS: VFwamb EFFECT ON CLEANUP LEVEL

• Vapor Equilibrium: Soil vapor concentrations
reach immediate equilibrium with the groundwater
source.
mechanism in the groundwater or vapor phase.
• Infinite Source: COC mass in source term is
constant over time.
VFwesp: Groundwater to Enclosed Space Volatilization Factor (Equation CM-6)
Johnson-Ettinger Model
This factor is the steady-state ratio of the predicted concentration of a chemical constituent in
indoor air to the source concentration in the underlying affected groundwater. The algorithm is
equivalent to Equation CM-5, modified to address vapor diffusion through a building floor and
enclosed space accumulation. Tier 1 default values are the same as those specified for
Equation CM-4 and as noted previously, can provide a relatively conservative (upper-range)
estimate of indoor vapor concentrations. If this pathway produces the controlling (minimum)
RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES B - 10

RBSL or SSTL value for a given site, the user is advised to conduct direct air or soil vapor
measurements to evaluate the actual need for remedial measures.
Mass Flux Model

The mass flux model evaluates indoor air exposures associated with contaminant volatilization
from groundwater beneath occupied structures (McHugh, et. al. 2003). In this model, the mass
balance between the groundwater and vapor phases are evaluated in the calculation of
groundwater concentration screening levels. This model assumes:
• Henry's Law equilibrium between the groundwater and the gas phase;
• The unsaturated zone or the building foundation has no affect on the vapor transport, and
no mass is lost in the unsaturated zone, or around the outside of the building;
• Vertical mass flux through the groundwater under the building is the only factor limiting
transport from the groundwater to indoor air; and,
• There is complete mixing of vapor flux into the building with the clean air exchange into the
building.
KEY ASSUMPTIONS: VFwesp EFFECT ON CLEANUP LEVEL

• Vapor Equilibrium: Soil vapor concentrations
reach immediate equilibrium with the groundwater
source.
mechanism in the groundwater or vapor phase.
• Infinite Source: COC mass in source term
remains constant over time.
• Default Building Factors: Conservative default
values for foundation crack area and air exchange
rate.
LF: Soil to Groundwater Leaching Factor (Equation CM-7)
The soil to groundwater leaching factor is the steady-state ratio of the predicted concentration of
a chemical constituent in groundwater to the source concentration in overlying affected soil.
This factor can be calculated as the ratio of field-measured groundwater and soil concentrations
or otherwise can be calculated as a function of the soil leachate partition factor, optional Soil
Attenuation Model factor and leachate dilution factor described below.
Ksw: Soil Leachate Partition Factor (Equation CM-8)
The soil leachate partition factor is the steady-state ratio between the concentration of an
organic constituent in soil pore water and the source concentration on the affected soil mass.
This factor is used to represent the release of soil constituents to leachate percolating through
the affected soil zone.

Key assumptions used in this equation and their effect on the SSTL calculations are as follows:
KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Ksw EFFECT ON CLEANUP LEVEL

• Leachate Equilibrium: Leachate concentrations
reach immediate equilibrium with the affected soil
source.
mechanism in the soil or leachate.
• Infinite Source: The COC mass in the soil
SAM: Optional Soil Attenuation Model (SAM) Factor (Equation CM-9)
An optional factor based on the Soil Attenuation Model (SAM) may be applied to incorporate
depth effects by accounting for the sorption of constituents from the leachate onto clean soils
underlying the affected soil zone (see Connor et al., 1997). The presence of clean intervening
soils reduces constituent concentrations ultimately delivered to the underlying groundwater. In
deeper groundwater systems, wherein a significant thickness of unaffected soils underlies the
affected soil zone, neglecting the sorptive capacity of the intervening soils can prove overly
conservative. Note that SAM corresponds to movement of dissolved constituents through
porous media and does not apply to cases involving downward migration of mobile NAPL
materials.
KEY ASSUMPTIONS: SAM EFFECT ON CLEANUP LEVEL

mechanism in the soil or leachate.
• Infinite Source: The COC mass in the soil
LDF: Leachate-Groundwater Dilution Factor (Equation CM-10)
The LDF factor accounts for dilution of chemical constituents as leachate from the overlying
affected soil zone mixes with groundwater in the underlying water-bearing unit. As indicated on
Figure B.1, the leachate dilution factor (LDF) divided by the soil-leachate partition factor (Ksw)
represents the steady-state ratio between the concentration of a constituent in the groundwater
zone and the source concentration in the overlying affected soil. To estimate the leachate
dilution factor, a simple box model is used to estimate dilution within a mixing zone in the water-
bearing unit directly beneath the affected soil mass (see Equation CM-10, Figure B.2). The
leachate volume entering the water-bearing unit is represented by the deep infiltration term, I,
which typically falls in the range of 0.5% - 5% of annual site precipitation. For the Tier 1 RBSL
calculation, a conservative default infiltration value of 30 cm/year is used, consistent with the
example provided in ASTM E2081-00, Appendix X3. For many sites, this default value
(equivalent to an annual rainfall rate of over 200 in/year) may significantly overestimate actual
leachate rates.

KEY ASSUMPTIONS: LDF EFFECT ON CLEANUP LEVEL

• Rainfall Infiltration: Deep percolation through the
affected soil is assumed to reach the water-bearing
unit regardless of the soil thickness or permeability.
mechanism in the groundwater zone.
• Default Dilution Parameters: Conservative
default value for the infiltration rate.
DFgwsw: Groundwater to Surface Water Dilution Factor (Equation CM-12)
This factor represents the steady-state ratio of the predicted or measured concentration of a
chemical in groundwater adjacent to a surface water body to the resulting concentration in a
surface water mixing zone following discharge. In other words, this factor accounts for dilution
of chemical constituents as affected groundwater discharge mixes with a receiving surface
water body.
The surface water dilution factor is a box model to describe the effect of a groundwater plume
entering a surface water body. The model assumes thorough mixing in the affected water body,
and may not be applicable to a quiescent body of water, such as a wetland or pond, where
concentration gradients can exist in the water column. For site-specific dilution calculations,
7Q2 low flows should typically be considered for the surface water mixing zone.
KEY ASSUMPTIONS: DFgwsw EFFECT ON CLEANUP LEVEL

• Lower-Bound Surface Water Flow: 7Q2 flow
represents minimum 7-day average flow over 2-
year recurrence interval.
Soil-Water Sorption/Desorption
The soil-water sorption coefficient (ks) is used to calculate the leaching and volatilization factors.
(see Equations CM-1c, CM-3, CM-4, and CM-7). By default, linear sorption is applied.
Users may choose to apply the Dual-Equilibrium Desorption (DED) model. This model was
developed to describe and estimate the long-term effect of biphasic desorption of contaminants
from aquifer solids (Chen, et. al 2004). Observed biphasic behavior of sorption and desorption
is described in terms of two compartments. The ‘fast’ compartment exhibits linear desorption
and does not saturate with increasing dissolved concentrations. The ‘slow’ compartment
exhibits desorption hysteresis, and becomes saturated with sorbed mass.
When applied, the DED modifies the soil-water sorption coefficient (ks) for organic chemicals
only. Inorganics continue to use the linear model.

Lateral Transport Factors
During lateral transport within air or groundwater, COC concentrations in the flow stream will be
diminished due to mixing and attenuation effects (see Figure B.1). Site-specific attenuation
factors characterizing COC mass dilution or loss during lateral transport can be estimated using
the air dispersion and groundwater transport models provided in the RBCA Tool Kit. Equations
for the steady-state analytical transport models incorporated in the RBCA Tool Kit are shown on
Figure B.3. The user must provide information regarding COC properties and transport
parameters (flow velocities, dispersion coefficients, retardation factors, decay factors, etc.), as
required for the selected contaminant transport model. Calculation procedures for lateral air
dispersion and groundwater dilution attenuation factors are described below.
SELECTION OF GROUNDWATER MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS

For use of Domenico groundwater solute transport model, select source term location, dimensions, and concentration
as follows:
1) Groundwater Source Term Location
The source term corresponds to a vertical source plane, normal to the direction of groundwater flow, located at
the downgradient limit of the area serving as the principal source of constituent release to groundwater (e.g.,
affected unsaturated zone soils, NAPL plume, spill area, etc.). If the point of maximum plume concentration is
significantly displaced from the initial suspected point of release, this plume "core" should be used as the source
point for the groundwater ingestion pathway. However, the downgradient edge of the affected soil zone should
be retained as the source location for the soil-to-groundwater leaching pathway. Distances to downgradient
points of exposure (POEs) should then be measured from the applicable source location along the principal
direction of groundwater flow.
2) Groundwater Source Term Width, SW

The width of the source term should be matched to the following dimensions:
i) for groundwater ingestion, the measured groundwater plume width, as defined by RBSL, perpendicular to
the principal direction of groundwater flow at the designated source term location.
ii) for soil-to-groundwater impacts, the maximum width of the affected soil zone (as defined by RBSL),
perpendicular to the principal groundwater flow direction.
3) Groundwater Source Term Thickness, Sd

The thickness of the source term should be determined by one of the following methods:
i) measure the vertical extent of the affected groundwater plume at the designated source term location,
based on the depth-specific groundwater sampling and testing; or
ii) for an unconfined water-bearing unit, estimate mixing zone depth at the source location based on the
observed magnitude of water table fluctuation.
4) Groundwater Source Term Concentration, Csi

To calculate baseline risk levels, the user must also provide a groundwater source concentration Csi for each
constituent of concern (COC). The vertical plane source acts as a constant source term, applying these input
concentrations to all groundwater flowing through the source location. For input to the Domenico model, the
source concentration of each COC may be matched to the average concentration (i.e., either the mean or the
95% UCL) measured across the plume width at the source location.
Figure B.3: Definition of Domenico Model Source Term

1) DAF: Lateral Groundwater Dilution Attenuation Factor (Equation LT-1)
To account for attenuation of affected groundwater concentrations between the source and
POE, the Domenico analytical solute transport model has been incorporated into the RBCA Tool
Kit. This model uses a partially or completely penetrating vertical plane source, perpendicular to
groundwater flow, to simulate the release of constituents from the mixing zone to the migrating
groundwater (see Figure B.3). Within the groundwater flow regime, the model accounts for the
effects of advection, dispersion, sorption, and biodegradation. Given a representative source
zone concentration for each COC, the model can predict steady-state plume concentrations at
any point (x, y, z) in the downgradient flow system. In the RBCA Tool Kit, the model is set to
predict centerline plume concentrations at any downgradient distance x, based on 1-D advective
flow and 3-D dispersion. The receptor well is assumed to be located on the plume centerline,
directly downgradient of the source zone at a location specified by the user. Source
concentrations and critical flow parameters must be provided by the user. Guidelines for
selection of key input parameters are outlined below.
a) Groundwater Source Term: The Domenico model represents the groundwater source
term as a vertical plane source, perpendicular to groundwater flow, releasing dissolved
constituents into groundwater passing through the plane. In the RBCA Tool Kit, the source
plane dimensions are matched to the source width and thickness specified by the user. The
user should provide source dimensions equivalent to the measured thickness and
transverse width of the groundwater plume at the source point (area of maximum plume
concentration). The source is assumed to be constant, with source zone concentrations set
equal to the representative COC concentrations supplied by the user. Representative
source concentrations must be provided for each COC. These values should correspond to
the maximum COC concentrations measured at the plume "core" unless sufficient data are
available to describe a representative maximum based on statistical estimates. If non-
aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) are present, maximum COC solubility limits in groundwater
can be corrected for mixture effects by using Raoult's Law. For this purpose, the user must
provide data regarding the mole fractions of principal non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL)
constituents.
b) Flow and Mixing Parameters: The degree of contaminant mixing predicted by the model
will be a function of the dispersion coefficients, hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic flow
gradient, and effective soil porosity specified by the user. Hydraulic conductivity and flow
gradient should be matched directly to site measurements. In many cases, the effective soil
porosity of the water-bearing unit can be reasonably estimated based on soil type using
published references. Typical default values are provided in the software. Selection of
dispersion coefficients can prove problematic, given the impracticability of direct site
measurements. Two dispersivity relationships are incorporated in the RBCA Tool Kit: i) the
method employed in ASTM E-1739 (1995) and, ii) the Xu and Eckstein (1995) dispersivity
model. These relationships allow the user to estimate dispersion coefficients based on the
distance from the source to the receptor.
c) Retardation Factors: The rate of plume migration can be reduced due to constituent
sorption to the solid matrix of the water-bearing unit. The user is referred to standard
hydrogeologic texts regarding calculation of retardation factors for both inorganic and
organic plume constituents. The RBCA Tool Kit calculates a retardation factor for each COC
using information on the organic carbon partition coefficient (koc) of the constituent and the
fraction of organic carbon (foc) of the soil matrix. Sorption can significantly affect the NAF

calculation if first order decay conditions are assumed to apply. However, the retardation
factor will not affect model results under steady state conditions.
d) First-Order Decay Parameters: Under steady-state conditions, hydrolysis and

biodegradation represent the principal mechanisms of organic contaminant mass reduction
during groundwater plume transport within the subsurface. Many groundwater transport
models account for these attenuation phenomena by means of a first-order decay function
within the advection-dispersion equation. In the RBCA Tool Kit, the user may elect to use a
version of the Domenico solute transport model incorporating first-order decay (see
Equation LT-1a on Figure B.4). Considerable care must be exercised in the selection of a
first-order decay coefficient for each COC in order to avoid significantly over-predicting or
under-predicting actual biodecay rates. An optional method for preliminary selection of
decay coefficients is as follows:
Literature Values: Various published references are available regarding decay half-life
values for hydrolysis and biodegradation. The chemical/toxicological database in the RBCA
Tool Kit includes minimum published decay rate coefficients (representing maximum decay
half-lives) for each chemical, and the user may select to use these or enter other values.
These first-order decay coefficients are provided for informational purposes and may be
used for preliminary analyses. Note, however, that the use of minimum published decay
rates will not necessarily ensure conservative results (i.e., predict worst-case exposure
concentrations and more stringent cleanup levels).
e) Electron-Limited Biodegradation Rates: As an alternative to a first-order decay function,

the user may select a groundwater contaminant transport model incorporating a direct
simulation of in-situ biodegradation processes. To account for stoichiometric constraints,
such models commonly simulate solute transport of both organic and electron acceptors
with an instantaneous reaction assumption. Given proper characterization of background
concentrations of key electron acceptors, source zone COC concentrations, and
groundwater flow parameters, these models can generally be relied upon to estimate
biodegradation effects on organic plume concentrations at the POE, without the difficulty
associated with selection of a site-specific, first-order decay rate. Note, however, that this
method is not valid for modeling the sequential degradation of chlorinated compounds.
For this purpose, the RBCA Tool Kit includes a version of the Domenico solute transport
model incorporating an electron acceptor superposition algorithm (see Equation LT-1b of
Figure B.4), as employed in the BIOSCREEN model (Newell et al, 1996). Based on the
biodegradation capacity of electron acceptors present in the groundwater system, this
algorithm will correct the non-decayed groundwater plume concentrations predicted by the
Domenico model for the effects of organic constituent biodegradation. This calculation
procedure is illustrated in Figure B.5 and discussed in further detail below.

Equation LT- 1: Lateral Groundwater Dilution Attenuation Factor

LT-1a: Solute Transport with First-Order Decay:
C( x , y , z )i ⎪⎧ 1 ⎛ x ⎡ 4λiα x Ri ⎤ ⎞⎫⎪⎧⎪ ⎜⎛ y + S w / 2 ⎞⎟ ⎛ y − S / 2 ⎞ ⎫⎧ ⎛ z + S ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎪⎪ ⎜ ⎛ z − S ⎞⎫⎪
= ⎨ exp⎜ ⎢1 − 1 + ⎥ ⎟⎬⎨erf ⎜
d ⎟ ⎜ d ⎟
⎟ − erf ⎜⎜ 2 α x ⎟⎟⎬⎨erf ⎜ 2 α x ⎟ − erf ⎜ 2 α x ⎟⎬
w
⎜ 2α x ⎢⎣ ν ⎥⎦ ⎟⎠⎪⎭⎪ ⎜⎝ 2 α y x ⎟⎠ ⎠⎪⎭⎪⎩ ⎝ z ⎠⎪
C si ⎪⎩ 4 z ⎠
⎝ ⎩ ⎝ y ⎝ ⎭
K ⋅i ks ρs
where: ν= and Ri = 1 +
θe θe
LT-1b: Solute Transport with Biodegradation by Electron-

Acceptor Superposition Method:
⎧ ⎛
where:
y + S w / 2 ⎞⎟ ⎛ y − S / 2 ⎞ ⎫⎧ ⎛ z + S ⎞ ⎛ z−S ⎞⎫⎪
⎧1 ⎫⎪ ⎟ ⎪⎪erf ⎜
C ( x , y , z )i = ⎨ (C si + BC i )⎬⎨erf ⎜⎜ − erf ⎜⎜ w
⎬⎨
d ⎟
− erf ⎜ d ⎟⎬ − BC
⎭⎪ ⎜ 2 α y x ⎟⎟ ⎜ 2 α y x ⎟⎟ ⎪⎪ ⎜⎝ 2 α z x ⎟⎠ ⎜2 α x ⎟⎪ i
⎩4 ⎝ ⎠⎭
⎩ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎭⎩ z
C si C( ea )n
BCi = BCT × and BCT = Σ
∑ C si UFn
Note: DAF = Csi /C(x,y,z)i
Equation LT-2: Lateral Air Dispersion Factor
⎛ ⎞⎛ )2 ⎞⎟ ⎞⎟
⎟ ⎜ exp ⎜ − (z air − δ air )2 ⎞⎟ + exp ⎛⎜ − (z air
C ( x )i ⎛⎜ ⎞ 2 ⎛ + δ air
=
Q ⎟ exp ⎜ − y air
C si ⎜ 2π U air σ y σ z ⎟ ⎜ 2σ 2 ⎟⎜ ⎜ 2σ z2 ⎟ ⎜ 2σ 2 ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ y ⎠⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ z ⎠⎠
U air ⋅ δ air ⋅ A
where: Q=
L
Definitions for Lateral Transport Equations

Tier 1 Default Tier 1 Default
C(x)i Concentration of constituent i at distance x - ν Groundwater seepage velocity (cm/day) 18
downstream of source (mg/L) or (mg/m3)
Csi Concentration of constituent i in Source Zone - K Hydraulic conductivity (cm/day) 685
(mg/L) or (mg/m3)
BCi Biodegradation capacity available for - Ri Constituent retardation factor -
constituent i
BCT Total biodegradation capacity of all electron - i Hydraulic gradient (cm/cm) 0.01
acceptors in groundwater
C(ea)n Concentration of electron acceptor n in - Sw Source width (m) 45
groundwater
ks Soil-water sorption coefficient = foc * koc (g- CS δair Ambient air mixing zone height (m) 2
H2O/g-soil)
UFn Utilization factor for electron acceptor n (i.e., - ρs Soil bulk density (g-soil/cm3-soil) 1.7
mass ratio of electron acceptor to hydrocarbon
consumed in biodegradation reaction)
y Lateral distance from centre of source (cm) - Uair Wind Speed (m/sec) 2.25
z Vertical distance below top of source (cm) - σy Transverse air dispersion coefficient (cm) -
αx Longitudinal groundwater dispersivity (cm) - σz Vertical air dispersion coefficient (cm) -
αy Transverse groundwater dispersivity (cm) - yair Lateral distance from source zone (cm) -
αz Vertical groundwater dispersivity (cm) - zair Height of breathing zone (assumed equal to δair) -
(m)
θe Effective soil porosity 0.3 A Cross-sectional area of air emissions source (m2) 2025
8
λi First-order degradation rate (day-1) for CS L Length of air emissions source parallel to wind 45
constituent i direction (m)
Figure B.4: Lateral Transport Equations in the RBCA Tool Kit

Figure B.5: Electron Acceptor Superposition Method
Based on the stoichiometric equation for the biodegradation reaction, a utilization factor,
representing the ratio of electron acceptor mass to hydrocarbon mass consumed during
biodegradation, can be defined for each electron acceptor. Utilization factors for the principal
electron acceptors relating to the degradation of BTEX present in shallow groundwater systems,
as reported in the research literature, are summarized on Table B.1.
Table B.1: Utilization Factors for Selected Electron Acceptors

Electron Acceptor Utilization Factor (gm/gm)
Oxygen 3.14
Nitrate 4.9
Ferrous Iron (for Ferric Iron) 21.8
Sulfate 4.6
Methane (for carbon dioxide) 0.78
Note: "Electron Acceptor" refers to actual electron acceptor or surrogate by-products.
Utilization Factor represents the mass ratio of electron acceptor to BTEX quantity
consumed (gm/gm) in biodegradation reaction within groundwater. The values listed in
this table are for BTEX compounds only. Care should be exercised in selecting
appropriate utilization factors for other non-chlorinated hydrocarbons.
Given these values, the potential BTEX mass removal or biodegradation capacity (BCn) of a
given electron acceptor n can then be estimated as the concentration of that electron acceptor
(C(ea)n) in the groundwater divided by its utilization factor (UFn). The total biodegradation
capacity of the groundwater mass mixing with the BTEX plume is the sum of the individual
capacities for each of the principal electron acceptors (i.e., BCT = ∑BCn for n = oxygen, nitrate,
iron, sulfate, etc.) Note that, in this process, electron acceptors are defined as three easily
measured electron acceptors (dissolved oxygen, nitrate, and sulfate) and surrogate by-products
for two other difficult-to-quantify electron acceptors (ferrous iron instead of ferric iron and
methane instead of carbon dioxide). The concentrations of the actual electron acceptors are
measured in background wells, while the concentrations of the by-products are measured in the
source zone. For this calculation, using the background concentration of each electron acceptor
(oxygen, nitrate, and sulfate) from outside the plume will provide an upper bound estimate of
BCT. For a lower bound estimate, the calculation may be based upon the difference in the
electron acceptor concentrations (oxygen, nitrate, sulfate) measured inside and outside the

plume area (i.e., C(ea)n-outside minus C(ea)n-inside) thereby accounting for non-utilization of
the electron acceptor mass.
The total biodegradation capacity of the groundwater mass must be distributed among the
various organic constituents present in the dissolved contaminant plume. Compared to the rate
of plume transport, biodegradation reactions occur relatively instantaneously upon mixing of a
readily degradable organic plume (e.g., monoaromatic hydrocarbons) with the background
electron acceptor mass. Given the relatively uniform rate of biodecay of the organic compounds
typically present in petroleum hydrocarbon products, the portion of the total biodegradation
capacity available for removal of each constituent i (BCi) can be estimated based on the mass
percentage of each constituent in the plume (i.e., BCi =BCT * Csj/Csi, where Csi = source
concentration of constituent i). This assumption will prove reasonable for mixtures of all-readily
degradable compounds, due to relatively uniform biokinetic rates within these groups. However,
within mixed degradable and non-degradable constituent plumes (e.g., benzene with
dichloroethane), the readily degradable compounds will actually consume a disproportionate
share of the biodegradation capacity.
If the user elects to use the electron acceptor superposition option, the RBCA Tool Kit will: i)
estimate the total biodegradation capacity (BCT) of the groundwater mass based on the electron
acceptor concentration provided by the user; ii) allocate an available biodegradation capacity
(BCi) to each of the various dissolved organic constituents based on the concentration data
provided by the user; and iii) correct the steady state plume concentrations predicted by the
Domenico solute transport model for the effects of biodegradation using Equation LT-1b (see
Figure B.4).
Key assumptions used in the groundwater solute transport model and their effect on the SSTL
calculations are as follows:
KEY ASSUMPTIONS: LATERAL

GROUNDWATER DAF EFFECT ON CLEANUP LEVEL
• Infinite Source: Groundwater source term is
constant over time with no depletion.
• Vertical Dispersion: Vertical dispersion assumed to
be one-directional (downward)
• Infinite Aquifer Thickness: Boundary effects on
vertical dispersion neglected.
• Dispersion Coefficient: Fixed proportions assumed -----
among longitudinal, transverse, and vertical
dispersion coefficients.
• Receptor Location: Downgradient receptor well
assumed to be on plume centerline.
• Biodegradation Rate: First-order of decay rate may
be specified by user per site data.
2) ADF: Lateral Air Dispersion Factor (Equation LT-2)
The RBCA Tool Kit includes a 3-dimensional Gaussian dispersion model to account for
transport of airborne contaminants from the source area to a downwind POE (see Equation LT-
2 on Figure B.4). The model incorporates two conservative assumptions: i) a source zone height
equivalent to the breathing zone and ii) a receptor located directly downwind of the source at all

times. As indicated on Figure B.1, an effective pathway NAF value is calculated as the steady-
state ratio between the ambient organic vapor or particulate concentration at the downwind POE
and the source concentration in the on-site affected soil zone. The model requires input data for
the affected soil zone dimensions and concentrations, wind speed, and horizontal and vertical
air dispersion coefficients to compute the resulting COC concentrations in ambient air at the
POE. Guidelines for estimating key input parameters are provided below:
a) Air Source Term: In the RBCA Tool Kit, the source term for the air dispersion model is
matched to the ambient air vapor concentrations determined in accordance with the soil-to-
air cross-media transfer equations CM-1, CM-2, and CM-3 shown on Figure B.2.
Specifically, the source concentration for off-site vapor transport is equivalent to the vapor
concentration exiting the box model for the surface soil and subsurface soil volatilization
algorithms (see Figure B.2). The model assumes the source zone to be a point source
(located in the center of the affected soil area) with the same mass flux as the entire
affected soil zone. The off-site receptor is assumed to be located directly downwind of the
source point for the full duration of the exposure period. To define the source term, the user
must provide the same soil information as required for the volatilization factors (i.e., affected
soil zone concentrations, dimensions, etc.).
Please note that for receptors located directly over or adjacent to the affected soil zone (i.e.,
inside the “mixing zone” for Equations CM-1, CM-2, or CM-3), the Gaussian dispersion
model is not needed and can be shut off by entering a value of zero for the distance from
the source to the off-site receptor in the RBCA Tool Kit.
b) Wind Speed: Wind speed should be matched to the average annual wind speed through
the mixing zone. The model assumes the wind direction to be in a straight line from the
source to the specified POE at all times for the full duration of the exposure period. In the
RBCA Tool Kit, a default wind speed value of 225 cm/sec
(~ 5 mph) is assumed unless the user enters a site-specific value.
c) Air Dispersion Coefficients: Estimating dispersion coefficients requires knowledge of the

atmospheric stability class and the distance between the source and POE. Stability is an
indicator of atmospheric turbulence and, at any one time, depends upon: i) static stability
(the change of temperature with height), ii) thermal turbulence (caused by ground heating),
and iii) mechanical turbulence (a function of wind speed and roughness). The Pasquill-
Gifford system for stability classification is summarized on Figure B.6. Corresponding
horizontal and vertical dispersion coefficients for each class are provided on Figure B.7.
Stability Class A, which represents extremely unstable air with a high potential for mixing,
occurs under low wind conditions and high levels of incoming solar radiation. At the other
extreme, Stability Classes E and F represent stable atmospheric conditions, with a lower
potential for mixing, and occur with higher wind speeds and greater cloud cover (see
DeVaull et al., 1994).
Figure B.6: Stability Classification for Air Transport Modeling (DeVaull et al., 1994)

Figure B.7: Dispersion Coefficients for Air Stability Classifications (EPA, 1998a)
The stability class for a given site can vary with rapidly changing weather conditions. Long-
term weather patterns can be characterized on the basis of STability ARray (STAR)
summaries comprised of joint frequency distributions of stability class, wind direction, and
wind speed, which are available from the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North
Carolina. Comprehensive atmospheric dispersion models, such as the Industrial Source
Complex Long-Term (ISCLT) model, can directly incorporate STAR data to predict
constituent dispersion in any direction from the source area. However, due to the complexity
and expense of this modeling effort, use of models such as the ISCLT would normally
correspond to a Tier 3 evaluation under the RBCA process.
To facilitate a Tier 2 evaluation of downwind receptor impacts, the RBCA Tool Kit employs a
simple Gaussian dispersion model to predict maximum exposure concentrations at the POE
under steady-state conditions, incorporating the conservative receptor assumptions noted
above. A reasonable estimate of downwind COC concentrations can be obtained by
assuming wind turbulence consistent with Stability Class C for the full exposure period. For
most locations, Stability Class C (slightly unstable) is representative of average annual
conditions over time and can be used to estimate typical dispersion coefficients. Note that
even when these average dispersion coefficients are employed, the exposure
concentrations predicted by the RBCA Tool Kit model are likely to be conservative, given
that the POE is assumed to be located directly downwind of the source zone at all times
during the exposure period.
Key assumptions incorporated in this model and their affect on the SSTL calculation are as
follows:
KEY ASSUMPTIONS: LATERAL AIR DISPERSION EFFECT ON CLEANUP LEVEL

FACTOR
• Source Term: Vapor source concentration based on
steady-state, soil-to-air cross-media equations.
• Default Stability Class: Default dispersion -----
coefficients matched to Class C stability classification
(slightly unstable).
• Receptor Location: Receptor assumed to be located
directly downwind of source zone at all times during
exposure period.

APPENDIX C: MIXTURE-SPECIFIC SSTLs FOR TPH
As described in Appendix A, a site-specific target level (SSTL) represents the concentration in
the affected source medium (soil or groundwater) that is protective of a human or ecological
receptor located at a relevant point of exposure (POE) for a given exposure pathway and
chemical of concern (COC). For sites affected by releases of hydrocarbon mixtures, SSTLs are
routinely established for key constituents such as BTEX, etc. However, due to limitations in
analytical methods, chemical/physical property information, and financial resources, it is
impractical to specifically analyze and calculate SSTLs for each individual constituent within
such mixtures. Therefore, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) may often be identified as a
COC for such sites. Because TPH composition varies widely from source area to source area
depending on the type and age of the release, mixture-specific SSTLs must be determined on a
case by case basis.
Development of clean-up levels for TPH has been considered problematic due to the
overwhelming number of COCs comprising petroleum hydrocarbon products, the insufficient
toxicity and chemical/physical property information for all potential COCs, and the variability in
the composition of petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures. To address these issues, a process to
develop clean-up levels for TPH mixtures has been established by the Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group (1998). Under this process, the COCs in TPH mixtures
are grouped into seven aliphatic boiling point range fractions and seven aromatic boiling point
range fractions of petroleum hydrocarbons. Clean-up levels are derived for each boiling point
range by using surrogate toxicity factors and surrogate chemical/physical properties that
represent the toxicity and mobility of the hydrocarbon compounds comprising that boiling point
range. By following this procedure, each fraction is essentially treated as an individual COC.
Once a clean-up level is established for each of the fractions comprising the TPH mixture, a
clean-up level is then established for the TPH mixture itself by taking the inverse weighted
average of the individual clean-up levels determined for each fraction. The clean-up level for
each TPH fraction is weighted according to the mass fraction of each specific boiling point
range in the TPH mixture, as follows.
HI
Soil Direct Contact Pathway: SSTLTPH =
∑ MFi SSTLi
⎛ ⎛ MFi × SSTLTPH ⎞ ⎛ Csati ⎞⎞
Other (Indirect) Exposure Pathways: HI = ∑ Minimum ⎜⎜ ⎜ ⎟,⎜ ⎟ ⎟⎟
⎝⎝ SSTLi ⎠ ⎝ SSTLi ⎠⎠
Solved iteratively for SSTLTPH
where SSTLTPH = Clean-up level for the TPH mixture.

HI = Cumulative hazard Index for total TPH
MFi = Mass fraction of each boiling point range fraction.
SSTLi = Clean-up level for each boiling point range fraction.
Csati = Saturated soil concentration for each boiling point range fraction.
The evaluation and use of SSTLs for TPH requires site-specific data relating to total TPH
concentrations and mixture-specific TPH composition, based on the analysis of individual TPH
boiling point range fractions (described above). The TPH Criteria Working Group has, to date,
not developed or specified the use of any particular laboratory analytical methods for obtaining
these data. However, the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has developed
RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES C-1

APPENDIX C: MIXTURE-SPECIFIC SSTLs FOR TPH
laboratory methods for this purpose. TCEQ Method 1005 has been devised for analysis of total
TPH in soil and groundwater samples, the results of which can be directly compared with total
TPH SSTLs, calculated as described above. TCEQ Method 1006 has been devised for
fractionation analysis of the individual TPH fractions in soil and groundwater, which allows
determination of the fraction-specific mass fractions required for the calculation of the total TPH
SSTL. Detailed information on these laboratory methods can be obtained from the TCEQ
website at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/analysis.html.
RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES C-2

APPENDIX D: SOURCE DEPLETION ALGORITHM
The RBCA Tool Kit includes a source depletion algorithm which allows for the adjustment of
SSTLs to account for changes in source mass over time. By default, the RBCA Tool Kit for
Chemical Releases treats constituent sources as having infinite mass. However, in reality all
sources contain a finite constituent mass; and therefore, the constituent release from a finite
source will decrease over time. As a result, the constituent concentration at any point of
exposure (POE) will also eventually decrease over time. For some sites, this decrease in
constituent concentration can be modeled as a first order decay. The source depletion
algorithm applies user-specified values for source mass and source dimensions. The algorithm
also applies user-specified or default values for biodegradation rates for individual constituents
to determine a first order decay constant for the decrease in source mass based on the rates of
volatilization, dissolution or leaching, and biodegradation.
When the source depletion algorithm is selected, a separate first order decay constant is
calculated for each constituent of concern (COC) in each source area (soil and groundwater).
This first order decay constant accounts for the decrease in source mass due to volatilization,
dissolution or leaching, and biodegradation (see Figure D.1) and is calculated from user-
specified values for source mass and source dimensions, and user-specified or default values
for biodegradation rates of individual COCs. Note that when default half-lives are applied, the
user should verify that site conditions do not prevent or severely restrict biodegradation. These
first order decay rates are then applied to model source COC concentration over time. The
decrease in COC concentration at the points of exposure (POEs) over time is assumed to be
proportional to the predicted decrease in source COC concentration. Thus, for exposures which
occur in the future, SSTLs calculated using the standard RBCA process (which assumes all
exposures occur at current COC concentrations) can be adjusted to account for the decrease in
future COC concentrations. Two methods are provided to adjust the SSTLs: i) Adjustment for
Future Exposures and ii) Adjustment for Average Exposure Concentration. As shown in Figure
D.1, SSTLs for non-carcinogens can only be adjusted using Method 1, whereas SSTLs for
carcinogens can be adjusted using Method 1 and/or Method 2.
Note: The equilibrium partitioning relationships used in the source decay model are based on
the assumption that NAPL is not present in the source area. Use of the source depletion
algorithm at sites which contain NAPL will result in non-conservative SSTL values.
RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES D-1

Unsaturated Zone Source Depletion Model

Pathways for Source Depletion
(x × y) 2(x × z) 2(y × z) ⎤
Fv = De × Csg × ⎡ + +
⎣ L L+z L+ z ⎦
Fi = I × (x × y) × Cpw
L
Fμ = μs × mi
Source Mass Balance
dmi
− = Fv + F i + Fμ
dt
ms, i = Ct × ρ × (x × y × z ) (relates mass to concentration)
Integrated Source Depletion Equation

Ct ( t) = Ct(0) × e− γ st
(First order expression for source depletion; γ includes volatilization,
biodegradation and leaching.)
Saturated Zone Source Depletion Model
Pathways for Source Depletion
Fd = vgw × (z × y) × Cgw , i
Fμ = vgw × (z × y) × Ceeq, i
Source Mass Balance

dmi
− = Fd + Fμ
dt
mgw , i = Cgw , i A (relates mass to concentration)
Integrated Source Depletion Equation
−γ gwt
Cgw (t) = Cgw(0) × e
(First order expression for source depletion;
γ includes biodegradation and dissolution.)
Definitions for Source Depletion Models

Fd = Source mass loss from dissolution ρ = Soil bulk density (kg/L)
Fi = Source mass loss from infiltration / leaching I = Infiltration rate through soil (cm/yr)
Fµ = Source mass loss from biodegradation μs = Unsaturated zone biodegradation rate (yr-1)
Fv = Source mass loss from volatilization / diffusion vgw = Groundwater Darcy flow velocity (m/yr)
x = Source length (m) Cgw,i = Constituent concentration in groundwater (mg/L)
y = Source width (m) Ceeq,i = Constituent biodegradation capacity (mg/L)
z = Source thickness (m) γs = First order unsaturated source decay const. (yr-1)
L = Depth to top of affected soils (m)
γgw = First order saturated source decay const. (yr-1)
mi = Source mass for a single constituent, i (kg)
t = Time (yr)
De = Effective diffusivity (cm2/s)
= Proportionality constant (= (1 + Kd) x (source volume)
Csg,i = Constituent concentration in soil gas (mg/L) under equilibrium if NAPL is absent; value calculated
Cpw,i = Constituent concentration in pore water (mg/L) by model)
Ct,i = Total constituent concentration in soil (mg/kg)
Figure D.1: First Order Decay Adjustments to SSTLs
Method 1 Adjustment for Future Exposures
SSTLs for all constituents can be adjusted to account for the decrease in exposure
concentration for exposures which occur at some time in the future (see Figure D.1). When the

user chooses to apply the source depletion algorithm, a value for “time to future exposure” must
be entered. The default value for this parameter is zero (i.e., assuming potential for exposure
currently exists).
When the source depletion algorithm is selected, SSTLs for all constituents can be adjusted to
account for the decrease in exposure concentration for exposures which occur at some time in
the future (see Figure D.1). For example, if site controls will be established to prevent
exposures for a period of ten years, the user can enter time to future exposure of ten years, and
SSTLs will be adjusted to reflect predicted exposure concentrations at that time. Thus, the
SSTLs will be values which, if achieved today, would be protective for exposures which begin at
the specified future time.
Method 2 Adjustment for Average Exposure Concentration
For carcinogenic constituents, the risk associated with the exposure is assumed to be
proportional to the average exposure concentration. Thus, when the source depletion algorithm
is activated, the SSTLs for carcinogens are adjusted to account for the difference between the
initial exposure concentration and the average exposure concentration. If a value has been
entered for time to future exposure, the initial exposure concentration is taken to be the
concentration at that time (see Figure D.1). For non-carcinogens, risk is assumed to be a
function of maximum exposure concentration; therefore, SSTLs for non-carcinogens are not
adjusted to account for average exposure concentration.
Derivation of Equations for Decay of Unsaturated Source
Decay of each constituent is modeled independently.
Basic Terms
mi = initial mass of constituent for constituent i (mg)
For the unsaturated source, mass flux from the source can occur through volatilization/diffusion,
infiltration/leaching, and biodegradation.
Fv = Mass flux by volatilization / diffusion (mg/s)

Fi = Mass flux by infiltration / leaching (mg/s)
Fµ = Mass flux by biodegradation (mg/s)
x = source length (cm)

y = source width (cm)
z = source thickness (cm)
(See Figure D.1)

Fluxes
Volatilization / diffusion
Fv = De * Csg * [(x * y) /L + 2 * (x * z) /(L + z) + 2 * (y * z) /(L + z)] (U-1)
where:
De = effective air diffusivity (cm2/s)

Csg = soil gas concentration (mg/cm3)
L = soil path length; distance from top of source to ground surface (cm)
Infiltration / leaching
Fi = I * (x * y) * Cpw (U-2)
where:
I = infiltration rate (cm/s)

Cpw = soil pore water concentration (mg/cm3)
Biodegradation
Fµ = µ * mi (U-3)
where:
µ = the natural biodegradation rate in the unsaturated zone (s-1)
Mass Balance
Change in mass with time is the sum of the mass fluxes:
-dmi/dt = Fv + Fi + Fµ (U-4)
Substituting Eqns. U-1, U-2, and U-3 into U-4 yields:
-dmi/dt = De * [(x * y) * Csg/L + 2 * (x * z) * Csg/(L + z) + 2 * (y * z) *

Csg/(L + z)] + I * (x * y) * Cpw + µ * mi (U-5)
Because Cpw and Csg are functions of mass, the differential equation is converted to an
expression of total concentration to allow easy integration.
Mass to Concentration Conversion
mi = CT * ρ * (x * y * z) (U-6)
CT = Cs + Cpw * θw / r + Csg * θa /ρ (U-7)
Cs = CT / (1 + (θw / ρ * Kd) + (θa * H / ρ * Kd)) (U-8)

Cpw = Cs / Kd (U-9)
Csg = Cpw * H (U-10)
where:
CT = total constituent concentration (mg/g soil)

Cs = sorbed phase concentration (mg/g soil)
Cpw = soil pore water concentration (mg/cm3)
Csg = soil gas concentration (mg/cm3)
ρ = soil bulk density (g/cm3)
θw = water content (cm3/cm3)
θa = air content (cm3/cm3)
Kd = Soil / water distribution coefficient ( = Koc * foc, cm3/g)
H = Henry’s Law constant (unitless)
Substituting Equations U-6, U-8, U-9, and U-10 into U-5 yields:
-dCT/dt = CT * {[(De * H) / (z * L * Kd) * (1 / (ρ + (θw / Kd) + (θa * H / Kd)))]

+ [(2 * De * H) / (y * (L + z) * Kd) * (1 / (r + (qw / Kd) + (qa * H / Kd)))]
+ [(2 * De * H) / (x * (L + z) * Kd) * (1 / (r + (qw / Kd) + (qa * H / Kd)))]
+ [(I / (z * Kd)) * (1 / (ρ + (θw / Kd) + (θa * H / Kd)))] + µ} (U-11)
or:
-dCT/dt = CT * γ (U-12)
where:
γ = [(De * H) / (z * L * Kd) * (1 / (ρ + (θw / Kd) + (θa * H / Kd)))] + (U-13)

[(2 * De * H) / (y * (L + z) * Kd) * (1 / (ρ + (θw / Kd) + (θa * H / Kd)))] +
[(2 * De * H) / (x * (L + z) * Kd) * (1 / (ρ + (θw / Kd) + (θa * H / Kd)))] +
[(I / (z * Kd)) * (1 / (ρ + (θw / Kd) + (θa * H / Kd)))] + µ
Integration
CT(t) = CT(0) * e-γt (U-14)
where:
CT(t) = Soil source concentration at time t (mg/g)

CT(0) = Soil source concentration at time 0 (mg/g)
SSTL Adjustment Factor: Future Exposures
AFF = CT(0) / CT(t1) = 1 / e-γ(t1) (U-15)
where:

AFF = The SSTL adjustment factor for exposures which occur at a given time in the future
(t1)
SSTL Adjustment Factor: Average Exposures
Cav * (t2 - t1) = (CT(t1) / γ) * (1- e-γ (t2 - t1)) (U-16)
AFav = CT(t1) / Cav = ((t2 - t1) * γ) / (1- e-γ (t2 - t1)) (U-17)
where:
Cav = The average groundwater concentration over the time period t2 - t1
AFav = The SSTL adjustment factor for average exposure concentration over a given
exposure duration (t2 - t1)
Model Parameters Entered by User or Based on Literature Values
Parameter Source
Initial source mass of constituent (mi) Estimated by user from site data
Source dimensions: length (x), width (y), and Site measurements / estimates
thickness (z)
Effective diffusivity (De) Chemical parameter / soil data
Diffusion length (L) Site measurements / estimates
Infiltration rate (I) Site estimate / literature value
Unsaturated zone biodegradation rate (μ) Site estimate / literature value
Soil bulk density (ρ) Estimated by soil type
Unsaturated zone water content (θw) Estimated by soil type
Unsaturated zone air content (θa) Estimated by soil type
Soil / water distribution coefficient (Kd) Chemical parameter / soil data
Henry’s law constant (H) Chemical parameter
Summary of Calculated Model Parameters
Mass flux by volatilization / diffusion (Fv)

Mass flux by infiltration / leaching (Fi)
Mass flux by biodegradation (Fμ)
Constituent concentration in the soil gas (Csg)
Constituent concentration in the pore water (Cpw)
Constituent concentration sorbed to the soil (Cs)
Total constituent concentration (CT)
First order decay constant for source mass (γ)
SSTL adjustment factor: Future exposure (FF)
SSTL adjustment factor: Average exposure concentration (Fav)

Derivation of Equations for Decay of Saturated Source
Basic Terms
mi = initial mass of constituent for constituent i (mg)

Fd = Mass flux by dissolution into the groundwater (mg/s)
Fµ = Mass flux by biodegradation (mg/s)
x = source length parallel to groundwater flow (cm)
y = source width perpendicular to groundwater flow (cm)
z = source thickness from water table to base of affected groundwater (cm)
(see Figure D.1)
Fluxes
Dissolution
Fd = v * (z * y) * Cgw, i (S-1)
where:
v = Darcy flow velocity (cm/s)

Cgw, i = dissolved concentration in the groundwater (mg/cm3; user specified)
Biodegradation
Fµ = v * (z * y) * Ceeq, i (S-2)
where:
Ceeq, i = constituent biodegradation capacity of electron acceptors dissolved in the groundwater

apportioned to constituent i (mg/cm3)
Mass Balance
Change in mass with time is the sum of the mass fluxes
-dmi/dt = Fd + Fµ (S-3)
-dmi/dt = v * (z * y) * (Cgw, i + Ceeq, i) (S-4)
Mass to Concentration Conversion
For the saturated zone, although the initial values for mi, Cgw, i, and Ceeq, i are user specified or
based on literature values, Cgw, i, and Ceeq, i are assumed to be proportional to mi over time, thus
proportionality constants are calculated by the software for Cgw, i, and Ceeq, i.
Cgw, i = A * mi (S-5)
Ceeq, i = B * mi (S-6)
mi = Cgw, i / A (S-7)

A = Calculated proportionality constant for dissolution (1/cm3)

B = Calculated proportionality constant for biodegradation (1/cm3)
Note: Parameters A and B are calculated by the software based on user specified values for mi and Cgw, i or Ceeq, i
Substitution of Eqns. S-5, S-6, and S-7 into S-4 yields:
-dmi/dt = v * (z * y) * (A + B) * mi (S-8)
-dCgw, i/dt = v * (z * y) * (A + B) * Cgw, i (S-9)
or
-dCgw, i/dt = Cgw, i * γ (S-10)
where:
ϒ = v * (z * y) * (A + B) (S-11)
Integration
Cgw(t) = Cgw(0) * e-γt (S-12)
where:
Cgw(t) = Groundwater concentration at time t1 (mg/cm3)

Cgw(0) = Groundwater concentration at time 0 (mg/cm3)
SSTL Adjustment Factor: Future Exposure
AFF = Cgw(0) / Cgw(t1) = 1 / e-γ (t1) (S-13)
where:
AFF = The SSTL adjustment factor for exposures which occur at a given time in the future (t1)
SSTL Adjustment Factor: Average Exposure Concentration
Cav * (t2 - t1) = (Cgw(t1) / γ) * (1- e-γ (t2 - t1)) (S-14)
AFav = Cgw(t1) / Cav = ((t2 - t1) * γ) / (1- e-γ (t2 - t1)) (S-15)
where:
Cav = The average groundwater concentration over the time period t2 - t1

AFav = The SSTL adjustment factor for average exposure concentration over a given exposure
duration (t2 - t1)

Model Parameters Entered by User or Based on Literature Values
Parameter Source
Initial source mass of constituent (mi) Estimated by user from site data
Source dimensions: length (x), width (y), Site measurements / estimates
and thickness (z)
Darcy groundwater flow velocity (v) Site measurements / estimates
Constituent concentration in the Site measurements / estimates
groundwater (Cgw, i)
Concentration of electron acceptors in the Site measurements / literature
groundwater
Fraction of biodegradation capacity to be Estimated by user from site data
assigned to constituent
Summary of Calculated Model Parameters
Mass flux by dissolution (Fd)

Mass flux by biodegradation (Fμ)
Biodegradation capacity for constituent (Ceeq, i)
Proportionality constant for dissolution (A)
Proportionality constant for biodegradation (B)
First order decay constant for source mass (γ)
SSTL adjustment factor: Future exposure (FF)
SSTL adjustment factor: Average exposure concentration (Fav)

APPENDIX E: FIELDS IN TOXICITY DATABASE
Table E.1: Chemical Toxicity Database Fields
Physical Parameters
Chemical Name The common name for the constituent of concern. Please note that a chemical may
have multiple common names. The user is advised to also review Chemical Abstracts
Service (CAS) numbers to identify the specific chemical of interest.
CAS The Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry Number uniquely identifies each
chemical substance by assigning a specific number to each chemical, and is used to
identify chemicals that may have multiple names (e.g., Trichloroethene and
Trichloroethylene).
Type Constituents contained in the RBCA Tool Kit chemical database have been sorted into
the following general categories:
• O Organic
• I Inorganic
• M Metal
• OB Organic Base
• OA Organic Acid
• OT (Organic) Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Molecular Weight The sum of the atomic weights of all the atoms in a molecule.
Aqueous Solubility The maximum concentration that a pure compound can achieve in water at equilibrium
(ASTM E-2081).
Vapor Pressure A measure of the partial pressure of the vapor phase of a compound at equilibrium
with its pure condensed phase (liquid or solid). Reflects the tendency of a compound
to flee the condensed phase and enter the gaseous phase, and is temperature
dependent (ASTM E-2081).
Henry's Law The ratio of the partial pressure of a compound in air to its concentration in water in
Constant equilibrium (ASTM E-2081).
Log Koc/ Kd The log of the Water/Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient. The organic carbon
partition coefficient is a measure of the tendency of a chemical to partition between
organic carbon in soil or sediment and water.
Log Kow The log of the Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient. The octanol-water partition
coefficient is a dimensionless constant which reflects the tendency of a chemical to
partition between an organic phase (octanol) and water. It is a measure of a
compound’s hydrophobicity. (ASTM E-2081)
Diffusion A factor of proportionality representing the amount of substance diffusing across a unit
Coefficients area through a unit concentration gradient in unit time.
Miscellaneous Parameters
Analytical The lowest concentration of a substance that can be detected within a specified
Detection Limits confidence limit using the accepted analytical detection methods for that constituent.
First-Order Decay The first order decay rate is the inverse of half life, which is the amount of time
(Half Life) required to convert 50% of the reactants to products.
Soil-to-Plant A measure of the tendency for a chemical to accumulate in plant tissues. The ratio of
Biotransfer the concentration of a substance in a living organism (mg/kg) to the concentration of
Factors that substance in the surrounding environment (mg/l for aquatic systems).
Relative This term accounts for the difference between the conditions under which the toxicity
Bioavailability criterion were derived in the laboratory and the site conditions being studied.
Factor
Bioconcentration A measure of the tendency for a chemical to accumulate. The ratio of the
Factor (BCF) concentration of a substance in a living organism (mg/kg) to the concentration of that
substance in the surrounding environment (mg/l for aquatic systems). The BCF is the
concentration of a chemical in one or more tissues of the organism divided by the
average exposure concentration the organism received.
(continued)
RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES E-1

Table E.1: Chemical Toxicity Database Fields (continued)

Dermal Exposure Parameters
Dermal Relative The relative absorption factor is the fraction of the dose that is dermally absorbed from
Absorption Factor the medium of interest (water, food, soil), expressed as a fraction (maximum 1.0).
Dermal The rate at which a chemical permeates through the skin, expressed in units of
Permeability length/time.
Coefficient
Lag Time for The time from the initial exposure of a chemical to the skin to the appearance of the
Dermal Exposure chemical or its metabolites in the general circulation.
Critical Exposure The time from the initial exposure of a chemical to the skin for absorption to reach a
Time steady-state rate.
Relative A unitless number expressing the difference in the dermal contribution to dose from the
Contribution of total dose.
Dermal
Permeability
Coefficient
Absorption A dimensionless number that indicates the fraction of a substance that permeates
Fraction through the skin.
Regulatory Parameters
Maximum The maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water which is delivered to any
Contaminant Level user of a public water system.
Secondary The maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water which is delivered to the free
Maximum flowing outlet of the ultimate user of a public water system. Secondary MCLs apply to
Contaminant Level public water systems and in the judgment of the USEPA are requisite to protect the
public welfare.
Time-Weighted The average exposure to a contaminant or condition (such as noise) over the course of
Average a period such as an 8-hour day or 40-hour week, below which a worker may be
Workplace Criteria exposed without adverse effect.
Surface Water Elements of state water quality standards expressed as constituent concentrations,
Quality Criteria levels, or narrative statements representing a quality of water that supports a particular
use.
• Aquatic Life Protection: Regulatory limit for surface water defined for the
protection of aquatic life.
• Human Health Protection: Regulatory limit for surface water defined for the
protection of human health.
Effective Toxicity Parameters
For the effective toxicity parameters, values have been included from three separate resources, and users have the option
of using these parameters in their calculations. US values were compiled from various established sources, referred to in
the database. Values from the Netherlands originated from "Technical evaluation of the Intervention Values for
Soil/Sediment and Groundwater, Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu. RIVM report 711701 023. February 2001."
Values from CLEA(UK) originated from the Science Report Series for Soil Guideline Values. Department for Environment,
Food, and Rural Affairs. Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Astec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, UK.
Oral Reference An estimate of a daily oral exposure for an acute duration (24 hours or less) to the
Dose human population (including susceptible subgroups) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of adverse health effects over a lifetime. It is derived from a BMDL, a
NOAEL, a LOAEL, or another suitable point of departure, with uncertainty/variability
factors applied to reflect limitations of the data used.
Dermal Reference An estimate of a daily oral exposure for an acute duration (24 hours or less) to the
Dose human population (including susceptible subgroups) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of adverse health effects over a lifetime. It is derived from a BMDL, a
NOAEL, a LOAEL, or another suitable point of departure, with uncertainty/variability
factors applied to reflect limitations of the data used.
(continued)

Table E.1: Chemical Toxicity Database Fields (continued)

Inhalation An estimate of a continuous inhalation exposure for an acute duration (24 hours or
Reference less) to the human population (including susceptible subgroups) that is likely to be
Concentration without an appreciable risk of adverse health effects over a lifetime. It is derived from a
BMCL, a NOAEL, a LOAEL, or another suitable point of departure, with
uncertainty/variability factors applied to reflect limitations of the data used.
Oral Equivalent Plausible, upper bound estimate of the probability of a response-per-unit intake of a
Slope Factor material of concern over a lifetime. The slope factor is used to estimate an upper-
bound probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of a lifetime of
exposure to a particular level of a potential carcinogen (ORNL 2001).
Dermal Equivalent Plausible, upper bound estimate of the probability of a response-per-unit intake of a
Slope Factor material of concern over a lifetime. The slope factor is used to estimate an upper-
bound probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of a lifetime of
exposure to a particular level of a potential carcinogen (ORNL 2001).
Inhalation The estimated probability of a person contracting cancer as a result of constant
Equivalent Unit exposure to an ambient concentration of one microgram per cubic meter of a
Risk Factor substance over a 70 year lifetime.
Is Constituent If database value is “TRUE”, the constituent is identified as a suspected or recognized
Carcinogenic carcinogen, based on evidence from human and animal studies

APPENDIX F: REFERENCES
RISK-BASED CORRECTIVE ACTION

American Society for Testing and Materials, 2004, “Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action,”
ASTM E-2081-00, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 2002, “Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action
Applied at Petroleum Release Sites,” ASTM E-1739-95, Philadelphia, PA.
Connor, J.A., J. P. Nevin, M. Malander, C. Stanley, and G. DeVaull, 1995a, Tier 2 Guidance Manual for
Risk-Based Corrective Action, Groundwater Services, Inc., Houston, Texas.
Connor, J.A., J. P. Nevin, R. T. Fisher, R. L. Bowers, and C. J. Newell, 1995b, RBCA Tool Kit and
Modeling Guidelines Version 1.0, Groundwater Services, Inc., Houston, Texas.
DeVaull, G. E., R. A. Ettinger, E. Hansen, R. McDonald, C. Stanley, P. Johnson, J. Connor, and P. Nevin,
1995, Tier 1 Guidance Manual for Risk-Based Corrective Action and Overview of the Process,
Shell Oil Company, Houston, TX.
Johnson, P. C., G. E. DeVaull, R. A. Ettinger, R. L. MacDonald, C. Stanley, T. Westby, and J. Connor,
July 1993, “Risk-Based Corrective Action: Tier 1 Guidance Manual,” Shell Oil Company,
Houston, TX.
Stanley, C. C., P. C. Johnson, et al., 1993, “Worksheets and Users Manual for An Exposure/Risk-Based
Corrective Action Approach for Underground Storage Tank Sites,” Shell Oil Company, Houston,
TX.
Stanley, C. C., P. C. Johnson, et al., 1992, “An Exposure/Risk-Based Corrective Action Approach for
Underground Storage Tank Sites,” Shell Oil Company, Houston, TX.
RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

American Industrial Health Council, 1994, Exposure Factors Sourcebook.
Environment Agency of England and Wales, 2002. Assessment of Risks to Human Health from Land
Contamination: An Overview of the Development of Soil Guideline Values and Related Research,
Contaminated Land Report (CLR) R&D Publication Series (publications CLR-7, CLR-8, CLR-9
and CLR-10 and associated TOX and SGV documents), Environment Agency, Bristol, England.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/P-95/002F.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996, Technical Background Document for Soil Screening
Guidance, Review Draft, EPA/540/R-94/106.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993a, Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/R-
93/187A, NTIS No.PB94-174778.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992a, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and
Applications, Interim Report, EPA/600/8-91/011B.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992b, Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the
Concentration Term, Publication 9285.7-08, NTIS No. PB92-963373.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I,
Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance: Standard Default Exposure Factors,
Interim Final, OSWER Directive 9285.6-03, NTIS No. PB91-921314.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991b, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I,
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B: Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation
Goals, EPA/540/R-92/003, NTIS No. PB92-963333.
RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES F-1

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I,
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A, EPA/540/1-89/002, NTIS No. PB90-155581.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989b, Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites: A Field
and Laboratory Reference, EPA/600/3-89/013, NTIS No. PB89-205967.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989c, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II,
Environmental Evaluation Manual, Interim Final, EPA/540/1-89/001, NTIS No. PB90-155599.
MODELING PROCEDURES
American Petroleum Institute, 1996, Estimation of Infiltration and Recharge for Environmental Site
Assessment, Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc., API Publication 4643.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1998a, Standard Provisional Guide for Risk-Based
Corrective Action, ASTM PS-104, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1998b, Standard Guide for Remediation by Natural
Attenuation (RNA), ASTM E-1943, Philadelphia, PA.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1995, Emergency Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective
Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites, ASTM E-1739, Philadelphia, PA.
Bedient, P. B., H. S. Rifai, and C. J. Newell, 1994, Groundwater Contamination: Transport and
Remediation, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Chen, W., Lakshmanan, K., Kan, A.T., Tomson, M.B., A Program for Evaluating Dual-Equilibrium
Desorption Effects on Remediation, Ground Water, 42(4)., p. 620-624.
Connor, J. A., R. L. Bowers, S. M. Paquette and C. J. Newell, 1997, Soil Attenuation Model for Derivation
of Risk-Based Soil Remediation Standards, Proceedings of NGWA Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Conference, Houston, TX.
Connor, J. A., C. J. Newell, J. P. Nevin, and H. S. Rifai, 1994, Guidelines for Use of Groundwater
Spreadsheet Models in Risk-Based Corrective Action Design, Proceedings of NGWA Petroleum
Hydrocarbons Conference, Houston, TX.
Cowherd, C., G. E. Muleski, P. J. Englehart, and D. A. Gillette, 1985, Rapid Assessment of Exposure to
Particulate Emissions from Surface Contamination Sites, Midwest Research Institute, NTIS No.
PB85-192219.
DeVaull, G. E., J. A. King, R. L. Lantzy, and D. J. Fontaine, 1994, An Atmospheric Dispersion Primer:
Accidental Releases of Gases, Vapors, Liquids, and Aerosols to the Environment, American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, p.22.
Domenico, P. A. and G. A. Robbins, 1985, A New Method of Contaminant Plume Analysis, Ground
Water, 23(4), p. 476-485.
Domenico, P. A., 1987, An Analytical Model for Multidimensional Transport of a Decaying Contaminant
Species, J.Hydrol., Vol.91, p. 49-58.
Domenico, P. A. and F. W. Schwartz, 1990, Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology, John Wiley & Sons,
New York,NY.
Johnson, P. C. and R. A. Ettinger, 1991, Heuristic Model for Predicting the Intrusion Rate of Contaminant
Vapors into Buildings, Environmental Science and Technology,Vol. 25, p. 1445-1452.
Johnson, P. C., M. B.Hertz, and D. L. Byers, September25 -28, 1989, Estimates for Hydrocarbon Vapor
Emissions Resulting from Service Station Remediations and Buried Gasoline-Contaminated
Soils, Paper presented at The Fourth National Conference on Petroleum Contaminated Soils,
University of Massachusetts at Amherst, MA.

McCallister, P. M. and C. Y. Chiang, 1994, A Practical Approach to Evaluating Natural Attenuation of

Contaminants in Ground Water, Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Spring 1994.
McHugh, T.E., Connor, J.A., Ahmad, F., and Newell, C.J., A Groundwater Mass Flux Model for
Groundwater to Indoor Air Vapor Intrusion, In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation, Proceedings of
the Seventh International In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation Symposium, ISBN 1-57477-139-6,
2003.
Nevin, J. P., C. J. Newell, J. A. Connor, T. E. McHugh, N. J. Novick, 1998, Practical Methods for
Demonstration of Groundwater Remediation by Natural Attenuation (RNA), Proceedings of
NGWA Petroleum Hydrocarbon Conference, Houston, Texas.
Newell, C. J., J. A. Winters, H. S. Rifai, R. N., Miller, J. Gonzales, and T. H. Wiedemeier, November 1995,
Modeling Intrinsic Remediation With Multiple Electron Acceptors: Results From Seven Sites,
Proceedings of NGWA Petroleum Hydrocarbons Conference, Houston, Texas.
Newell, C. J., R. K. McLeod, and J. R. Gonzales, 1996. BIOSCREEN Natural Attenuation Decision
Support System User’s Manual, Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE), Brooks
AFB, Texas.
Wiedemeier, T. H., J. T. Wilson, D. H. Kampbell, R. N. Miller, and J. E. Hansen, April 1995, Technical
Protocol for Implementing Intrinsic Remediation with Long-term Monitoring for Natural
Attenuation of Fuel Contamination Dissolved in Groundwater, Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence, San Antonio, Texas.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988a, Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality
Impact of Stationary Sources, EPA-450/4-88-010, NTIS No. PB89-159396.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, Industrial Source Complex (ISC) Dispersion Model User’s
Guide, second edition, EPA-450/4-88-002a.
DATA EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Gilbert, R. O., 1987, Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.
Singh, Ashok. K., Anita Singh, and M. Engelhardt, 1997. “The Lognormal Distribution in Environmental
Applications,” U.S. EPA Technology Support Center Issue, OSWER, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Volume II Field
Manual, Update II, EPA-SW-846.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992c, “Statistical Analysis of Ground-Water Monitoring Data at
RCRA Facilities, Draft Addendum to Interim Final Guidance,” EPA 530/R-93/003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989d, “Statistical Analysis of Ground Water Monitoring Data at
RCRA Facilities-Interim Final Guidance,” EPA/530-SW-89-026, NTIS No. PB89-151047.
PARAMETER ESTIMATION
Brooks, R. H., and A. T. Corey, 1964, Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media, Hydro. Pap. 3, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins.
Burdine, N. T., 1953, Relative Permeability Calculations from Pore-Size Data, Trans A.I.M.E. 198, p. 71-
77.
Carsel, R. F., and R. S. Parrish, 1988, Developing Joint Probability Distributions of Soil Water Retention
Characteristics, Water Resources Research, 24(5), p. 755-769.

Connor, J. A., C. J. Newell, and M. W. Malander, 1998, Parameter Estimation Guidelines for Risk-Based
Corrective Action (RBCA) Modeling, Proceedings of NGWA Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Conference, Houston, TX.
Gelhar, L W., C. Welty, and K. R. Rehfeldt, 1992, A Critical Review of Data on Field-scale Dispersion in
Aquifers, Water Resources Research, 28(7), p. 1955-1974.
Maidment, D. R., ed., 1993, Handbook of Hydrology, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, New York.
Newell, C. J., J. Gonzales, and R. McLeod, 1997. BIOSCREEN Natural Attenuation Decision Support
System, Version 1.4 Revisions, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Subsurface
Modeling Support, Ada, OK.
Rawls, W. J., and D. L. Brakensiek, 1985, Prediction of Soil Water Properties for Hydrologic Modeling, in
Proceedings of ASCE Symposium on Watershed Management, New York, p. 293-299.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background
Document, EPA/540/R-95/128.
Xu, M. and Y. Eckstein, 1995, Use of Weighted Least-Squares Method in Evaluation of the Relationship
Between Dispersivity and Scale, Journal of Ground Water, 33(6), p. 905-908.
CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Howard, P. H., R. S. Boethling, W. F. Jarvis, W. M. Meylan, and E. M. Michalenko, 1991, Handbook of
Environmental Degradation Rates, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI.
Howard, P. H., 1989, Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic Chemicals, Lewis
Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI.
Lewis, R. J., 1992, Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Eighth Edition, Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, New York, NY.
Lyman, W. J., W. F. Reehl, and R. H. Rosenblatt, 1990, Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation
Methods, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.
Mackay, D., W. Y. Shiu, and K. C. Ma, 1992, Illustrated Handbook of Physical-Chemical Properties and
Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI.
Montgomery, J. H., and L. M. Welkom, 1990, Groundwater Chemicals Desk Reference, Lewis Publishers,
Inc., Chelsea,MI.
TPH Criteria Working Group, 1997, A Risk-Based Approach for the Management of Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons in Soil, Volume 5, Human Health Risk-Based Evaluation of Petroleum
Contaminated Sites: Implementation of the Working Group Approach, Amherst Scientific
Publishers, New York.
Verschueren, K., 1983, Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals, Second Edition, Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY.
Yaws, C. L., 1992, Thermodynamic and Physical Property Data, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX.
REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES
Calabrese, E. J., and P. T. Kostecki, 1989, Petroleum Contaminated Soils, Volume 2, Lewis Publishers,
Inc., Chelsea, MI.
Environmental Law Institute, 1987, “Compendium of Costs of Remedial Technologies at Hazardous
Waste Sites”, U.S. EPA Contract 68-03-3113, EPA/600/2-87/087.
Fiorenza, S., K. L. Duston, and C. H. Ward, 1991, “Decision Making–Is Bioremediation a Viable Option?”
Symposium Proceedings, Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center, p. 178-190.

McCoy, D. E., ed., “Remediation Technology Comparison Compiled by EPA and Air Force,” The
Hazardous Waste Consultant, 12(2), March-April 1994, p. 1.1-1.11.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995, “How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for
Underground Storage Tanks: A Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers,” U.S. Printing
Office, Stock No. 055-000-00479-0.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993b, “Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide,” EPA/542/B-93/005, NTIS No. PB93-218212.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988b, “Cleanup of Releases from Petroleum USTs: Selected
Technologies,” Office of Underground Storage Tanks, EPA/530/UST-88/001.


RBCA - Manual - 2018

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

RBCA - Manual - 2018

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

VERSION 2

Risk-Based Corrective Action Tool Kit

John A. Connor, Richard L. Bowers, Thomas E. McHugh, and AnnMarie H. Spexet

GSI Environmental Inc.

Produced in the United States of America.

This manual and the associated software product

Groundwater Services, Inc.

Section Page No.

RBCA TOOL KIT QUICK START ...................................................................................................... 3

RBCA TOOL KIT STEP-BY-STEP..................................................................................................... 7

MAIN SCREEN ................................................................................................................................... 9

INPUT SCREENS ............................................................................................................................. 14

OUTPUT SCREENS ......................................................................................................................... 42

COMPUTER TROUBLESHOOTING TIPS....................................................................................... 53

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES i

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES ii

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES iii

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES iv

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES v

The RBCA Tool Kit software is specifically designed to

Chemical/Toxicological Database: Integrated toxicological and chemical parameter library

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES 1

customizable by the user, including import/export features for management of multiple

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES 2

Figure 1: Setup Screen

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES 3

Figure 2: Excel Macro Settings

Figure 3: Excel Macro Security Settings

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES 4

1. The first time the RBCA Tool Kit is opened,

Figure 4: Registration Page

Enter the security code in the space provided

Figure 5: Security Code

Figure 6: Registration On-Line

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES 5

DATA INPUT AND OUTPUT

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES 6

2) Exposure Pathways: Click “Exposure Pathways” to identify all complete exposure

6) Groundwater Parameters: Enter applicable site-specific groundwater parameters,

How do I calculate site-specific cleanup levels?

2) Exposure Pathways: Click “Exposure Pathways” to identify all complete exposure

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES 7

6) Groundwater Parameters: Enter applicable site-specific groundwater parameters,

To obtain a conservative estimate of when constituent concentrations in groundwater at a

1) Site-Specific Parameters: Complete steps 1 through 6 for a Tier 2 evaluation of Baseline

How do I prepare documentation for a RBCA evaluation

To generate output text documenting your RBCA evaluation for

1) Site-Specific Parameters: Complete steps 1 through 8 for

2) Main Screen: Click, “Print Report” and select the desired

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES 8

Figure 8: Main Screen

2) Which Type of RBCA Analysis?

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES 9

Figure 9: Screen Navigation Chart

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES 10

Figure 10: Forward and Backward Calculation Modes

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES 11

4) RBCA Evaluation Process

a) Prepare Input Data

5) Commands and Options

RBCA TOOL KIT FOR CHEMICAL RELEASES 12

• Set Units: See Figure 11. Allows the

• Chemical Toxicity Database: Displays the