United States Office of Office of Solid EPA/540/S-96/500

Environmental Protection Research and Waste and December 1995

Agency Development Emergency
Response

Engineering Forum Issue

DETERMINATION OF BACKGROUND
CONCENTRATIONS OF INORGANICS IN
SOILS AND SEDIMENTS AT HAZARDOUS
WASTE SITES
R. P. Breckenridge1 and A. B. Crockett1

INTRODUCTION

The National Engineering Forum is a technical guidance and direction in the

group of U.S. Environmental Protection development of this Issue paper.
Agency (EPA) professionals representing
This paper was prepared by R. P.
EPA Regional Offices, committed to the
Breckenridge and A. B. Crockett. Support
identification and resolution of engineering
for this project was provided by the National
issues affecting the remediation of
Exposure Research Laboratory’s
Superfund sites. The forum has identified
Characterization Research Division with the
the need to provide remedial project
assistance of the Superfund Technical
managers (RPMs) and other state or private
Support Project’s Technology Support
personnel working with hazardous waste
Center for Monitoring and Site
sites a thought-provoking, technical-issue
Characterization. For further information,
paper on how to determine background
contact Ken Brown, Technology Support
concentrations of inorganics in soils and
Center Director, at (702) 798-2270, or R. P.
sediments at hazardous waste sites. Mr.
Breckenridge at (208) 526-0757, U.S.
Frank Vavra and Mr. Bob Stamnes,
Department of Energy, Idaho National
Engineering Forum members, provided
Engineering Laboratory.

1
U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.

Technology Support Center for Technology Innovation Office

Monitoring and Site Characterization, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Characterization Research Division U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D., Director

Printed on Recycled Paper

764asb95
PURPOSE AND SCOPE address agency policy-related decisions on how to use
background data to achieve cleanup levels or achieve
The purpose of this paper is to provide RPMs and
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
others investigating hazardous waste sites a summary
(ARARs). Technical issues discussed here include
of the technical issues that need to be considered when
selection of background sampling locations,
determining if a site (i.e., hazardous waste site/area of
considerations in the selection of sampling
concern) has elevated levels of inorganics relative to
procedures, and statistical analyses for determining
the local background concentrations. This issue paper
whether contaminant levels are significantly different
is narrowly focused and is for educational use only
on a potential waste site and a background site. How
by project managers. It is not meant to be a formal
to statistically define background for purposes of
guidance document or "cookbook" on determination
remediating a hazardous waste site to background
of background concentrations of inorganics at
levels is not addressed.
hazardous waste sites. This issue paper provides the
investigator with information needed to determine This paper focuses on inorganics and, in particular,
whether activities conducted at a site have resulted in metals. Radionuclides are not specifically addressed;
elevated concentrations of inorganic contaminants in however, metals with radioactive isotopes (e.g.,
soils or sediments compared with naturally occurring cobalt-60) that may be encountered at hazardous
and off-site anthropogenic concentrations of the same waste sites are included. This paper does not
contaminant. specifically address background concentrations of
organics at a site, but the approach would be very
The first portion of this paper provides a definition
similar in many respects (except for partitioning), and
for and discusses factors that influence background
some unique aspects regarding organics are noted.
concentrations. The second portion is separated into
Part A, "Comparing the Concentrations of Inorganics Statistics play a major role in establishing
in Soils and Sediments at Hazardous Waste versus background concentration levels, and methods vary
Background Sites," and Part B, "Guidance for widely in their degree of complexity. No specific
Addressing High Background Concentrations of recommendations regarding statistical techniques are
Inorganics at CERCLA (Comprehensive provided because they could be misused or have
Environmental Response, Compensation, and policy implications. However, some general guidance
Liability Act) Sites." Part A is a modification of the is presented to acquaint the reader with issues that
State of Michigan guidance on conducting soil should be discussed with a statistician early in the
surveys (Michigan 1991a, 1991b) and discusses design of a study. Statistics should be used
issues that need to be considered by investigators throughout the development of a sampling plan in the
attempting to establish background concentrations for same manner as quality assurance. Sampling
hazardous waste sites. It can be used to provide objectives, design, data analysis, and reporting can all
potentially responsible parties a summary of issues be influenced by statistical considerations.
they need to consider when determining whether a
To provide recommendations that can be used at a
hazardous waste site has elevated concentrations of
variety of sites, information was gleaned from several
inorganics compared to a background site. Part B
different approaches to the background issue. The
presents a summary of a draft issue paper titled,
approach employed by the State of Michigan
"Options for Addressing High Background Levels of
(Michigan 1990, 1991b) provides one of the most
Hazardous Substances at CERCLA Sites" (EPA
straightforward and scientifically sound strategies
1992a) and includes updated information and
that, in combination with EPA documents (EPA
approaches.
1989a, 1989b) and scientific literature (Underwood
This paper addresses technical issues for scientists 1970; Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1984), form the
and engineers faced with how to determine basis for this issue paper. This paper discusses the
background concentrations. It is not intended to generic issues from various strategies that should be

2
considered when addressing the background issue. refers to areas in which the concentrations of
However, information presented here may need to be chemicals have not been elevated by site activities. In
modified to meet site-specific soil and sediment or the sediment literature, terms such as "background
data-quality objective concerns. sediment" (in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)— 40 CFR 131.35-91) and "reference
sediment" (ASTM 1990) are used in similar manners
STATEMENT OF ISSUE and are often interchangeable.
Hazardous waste sites may pose a threat to human To minimize confusion, the term "background
health and the environment when toxic substances concentration" is defined in this document as the
have been released. The hazardous substances at a concentration of inorganics found in soils or
site may originate from either "on-site" (i.e., resulting sediments surrounding a waste site, but which are
from releases attributable to site-specific activities) or not influenced by site activities or releases. A
"off-site" (i.e., resulting from sources not on-site). "background site" should be a site that is geologically
These "off-site" substances may result either from similar and has similar biological, physical, and
natural sources (e.g., erosion of naturally occurring chemical characteristics (e.g., particle size, percent
mineral deposits) or anthropogenic sources (e.g., organic carbon, pH) as the contaminated site (ASTM
widespread lead contamination from auto-mobile 1990) but also should be upstream, upgradient, or
exhaust in urban areas) (EPA 1992a). To determine upwind of the site. Samples taken from a site to
the appropriate action to take at a hazard-ous waste determine background concentrations will be referred
site, EPA must distinguish between substances to as background samples.
directly attributable to the hazardous waste site (i.e.,
Almost anyone involved with hazardous waste site
"site" contaminants) and those attributable to
evaluations will at some time be involved in
"natural background" concentrations.
determining background concentrations of inorganics
Definitions at a site. There are two issues to be considered when
addressing background. The first is whether the site
Soils and sediments for this issue paper are defined
and local area have a high natural variability in
as all mineral and naturally occurring organic material
concentrations of inorganics. The second is to
located at a site and will mostly be related to the
differentiate between natural and anthropogenic
material <2 mm in size because it is usually the finer
sources at a site with high background concentrations
material that has a greater affinity for inorganic
(e.g., lead in soil due to automobile emissions). The
contaminants. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
broad range in concentrations of naturally occurring
and the International Soil Science Society use the 2-
inorganics may lead to the erroneous conclusion that
mm breakpoint to differentiate between soils or
an area has been contaminated with inorganics.
sediment (consisting of sands, silts, and clays) and
Establishment of background concentrations based on
gravel (Breckenridge et al. 1991; Lewis et al. 1991).
adequate site-specific sampling data and comparison
When establishing background concentration levels,
to normal background ranges for a specific area and
it is usually more cost effective to focus on the finer
land use can help resolve the confusion.
materials; however, some bias is introduced. Large
particles can be rinsed and the rinsate analyzed if EPA in its Risk Assessment Guidance for Super-
necessary. Soils and sediments are heterogeneous and fund: Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual
contain a wide range of sizes from fine clays to larger (Part A) (often referred to as RAGS) (EPA 1989c)
gravel and coarse fragments (Soil Science Society of discusses two categories of background:
America 1978).
In the soils literature, the term "background" usually

3
1. Naturally occurring--substances present in the cancer risk or to a safe hazard index. However, many
environment in forms that have not been influenced states have developed statutes (ARARs) that require
by human activity. more stringent cleanup levels than risk-based levels
and sometimes require cleanup to natural background
2. Anthropogenic--natural and man-made sub-
concentrations.
stances present in the environment as a result of
human activities not specifically related to the It is often best to compare mean concentrations
CERCLA site. between groups of similar samples from the
hazardous waste and background sites. Mean values
Figure 1 shows the relationship between the on-
can be developed for a soil series or an operable unit.
site-related and off-site-related "populations" of
The operable unit is usually the smallest area that
substances that contribute to concentrations at a site.
would be considered under a remediation plan (e.g.,
In some locations, the background concentrations
10 m × 10 m if a bulldozer is used to remove the top
resulting from naturally occurring or anthropogenic
6 inches of soil). However, there may be cases when
sources may exceed contaminant-specific standards
it is important to know if a single sample has a high
promulgated to protect human health (EPA 1992a).
probability of exceeding background. In this case, the
The background concentration defined in this
single value can be compared to the background
document includes both the naturally occurring and
maximum limit (mean background concentration plus
local/regional anthropogenic contributions (see
three standard deviations), which is discussed later.
Figure 1).
Background Concentration
Background concentrations are needed when
deciding whether a site is contaminated. Knowledge Numerous natural and anthropogenic sources
of background concentrations helps address issues influence background concentrations and need to be
such as (a) the effects of past land use practices on accounted for during an initial hazardous waste site
levels of inorganics in soil and sediment, and investigation. Proper accounting of these sources is
(b) establishing lower limits when conducting risk important when establishing cleanup standards and
assessments for soil and sediment contamination. are critical if discussions about ARARs develop.
Figure 2 illustrates a process for determining It is not feasible to establish a single universal
whether contaminant concentrations in soil and background concentration for soils or sediments; it is
sediments at a hazardous waste site are elevated more useful to discuss the range of background
relative to background concentrations. concentrations for a contaminant. Single values are
hard to establish because concentrations vary
Determining the effect of past land use practices
depending on how physical, chemical, and biological
on levels of inorganics in soils and sediments is an
processes, and anthropogenic contributions have
important initial step towards quantifying the
affected parent geological material at a site. If a site
potential threat to human health and the environment.
has various soil or sediment textures (e.g., sands,
Information obtained from this step can provide the
loams), a range in inorganic concentrations should be
first indication that background concentrations may
developed for different soil series or textural
be elevated. Preliminary site investigations should be
groupings. Thus, physical and chemical parameters
carefully planned so that high-quality data can be
need to be identified when investigating a site to
gathered to gain an understanding of the nature and
ensure that soils or sediments with similar parameters
degree of threat posed by a site and to determine
are compared. This is important because there are
whether immediate response is required.
often different soil types at a site, and sediments differ
Usually, remedial action is taken only on sites that depending on where (e.g., in a pool or main channel)
exceed a 10-4 incremental cancer risk or exceed a and when samples are collected. The following
hazard index of 1.0 for systemic effects. Superfund parameters should be similar when
cleanups are generally conducted to 10-6 incremental

4
 ON-SITE

ON-SITE

CONCENTRATION BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS

Total = FROM +
On-site SITE-RELATED ANTHROPOGENIC NATURALLY
SOURCES OCCURRING
Concentrations ACTIVITIES
SOURCES
(Local, Regional
or Global)

BACKGROUND OFF-SITE
AREA BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS

= ANTHROPOGENIC NATURALLY
SOURCES
Background OCCURRING
(Local, Regional
SOURCES
Concentrations or Global)

Figure 1. Relationship between on- and off-site concentration groupings when defining background concentrations
for hazardous waste sites.

comparing paired hazardous waste site samples to C sample design

background samples:
C depth of sampling
C pH/Eh
C sampling equipment and compositing regime (if
C salinity applicable)
C cation exchange capacity (CEC) C number of samples
C percent organic carbon C digestion/analytical method
C particle size and distribution C acid volatile sulfide concentrations (sediment)
C thickness of horizon (soil) C simultaneously extracted metal concentrations
(for determining sediment toxicity)
C soil type, structure (soil)

5
6

Figure 2. Process for determining if contaminant concentrations at a hazardous waste site are above background concentrations in soil and sediments.
 At times some of these soil parameters such as Contributions to Background Concentrations
percent organic carbon, pH and salinity may be
Table 1 presents concentration ranges and mean
altered by hazardous waste site activities. These
values of inorganics in selected surface soils of the
changes in soil chemistry could falsely imply that the
United States. Most of this contribution is due to
hazardous waste site and background site
natural and regional/global anthropogenic sources.
soil/sediment matrices are totally very comparable.
The soil types presented are general, but cover many
For example, if oil were released at a hazardous waste
of the major categories found in the United States.
site where mercury is of a concern, the percent organic
There is one omission from the table and that is for
carbon values could be much higher than at the
cadmium, since cadmium mobility is strongly
background site. This could lead to an incorrect
dependent on soil pH and percent organic carbon.
conclusion that the sites are not similar for
The mean global content of cadmium in soils is
comparison of inorganic concentrations.
between 0.07 and 1.1 ppm (ppm-dry weight - mg/kg
Many of these soil parameters can be obtained by for SI units); for the United States, values range from
contacting the local Natural Resources Conservation 0.41 to 0.57 ppm, but values of up to 1.5 ppm have
Service (NRCS) Office and requesting a soil survey been documented in some forest soils (Kabata-
report for the county (usually free of charge) where Pendias and Pendias 1984). In all cases, the higher
the site is located. Most soils on private lands in the cadmium values reflect anthropogenic contributions
U.S. have been mapped by the NRCS. By using a soil (from local and regional sources) to topsoils.Table 2
survey report, the field personnel can evaluate how the provides average, range, and no-effect levels for
soils were originally classified and gain access to selected inorganics in sediment and soils that can be
average values for the soil series located at the site.
used to compare to background concen-trations for a
By consulting with a soil scientist and comparing
site. The no-effect levels are the metal concentrations
current site soils to those previously mapped, an
assessment can be made of the amount of change and in sediment that have a low proba-bility of causing a
disturbance that has occurred to the soil profile. measurable impact on benthic populations. The
Aerial photographs used to map soils are also helpful control values for soils and sedi-ments approximate
in evaluating past land use, locating stream channels, the average concentrations of metals contributed by
determining parent material for sediment loading, and natural and anthropogenic (local and global) values
determining site factors that affect movement of (Lee et al. 1989; EPA 1992b). These values should
contaminants (e.g.,low percolation rate). More detail not be used as back-ground concentrations but can be
on how and why to characterize soils at hazardous used to guide investigators in determining whether
waste sites can be found in a companion issue paper elevated levels of contaminants may be present at a
(Breckenridge et al. 1991). hazardous waste site.
A special case occurs for hazardous waste sites Local Anthropogenic Sources that Influence
that contain fill. "Fill areas" may be present around Background Concentrations
construction or disposal areas and should be sus-
pected if the site is located in areas frequently in- Note: Some of the activities discussed here may
undated with water.Sites where dredge material (e.g., not be waste handling or disposal activities; however,
sediments from shipping areas) is suspected to have they could qualify as releases under Superfund (e.g.,
been used as fill should be given additional attention mining activities may result in releases that can be
because the dredge material may have elevated levels addressed under Superfund).
of contaminants. A soil scientist can usually identify Numerous local anthropogenic activities can
fill locations and areas disturbed by construction contribute to the inorganic concentrations at a
because of the disturbed nature of the soil profile. hazardous waste site yet are not directly related to site
activities. Local soils and sediments may be
contaminated by ore deposits or mining, by
Natural and Regional Anthropogenic

7
 TABLE 1. CONCENTRATION OF INORGANICS IN SURFACE SOILS OF THE U.S. [IN PPM-DRY WEIGHT, DW), EQUIVALENT TO
mg/kg-dw] (SOURCE: KABATA-PENDIAS AND PENDIAS 1984).

Elements

As Ba Co Cr Cu Hg

Soil Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean

Sandy soils and lithosols on sandstones <0.1–30.0 5.1 20–1500 400 0.4–20 3.5 3–200 40 1–70 14 <0.01–0.54 0.08

Light loamy soils 0.4–31.0 7.3 70–1000 555 3–30 7.5 10–100 55 3–70 25 0.01–0.60 0.07

Loess and soils on silt deposits 1.9–16.0 6.6 200–1500 675 3–30 11.0 10–100 55 7–100 25 0.01–0.38 0.08

Clay and clay loamy soils 1.7–27.0 7.7 150–1500 535 3–30 8.0 20–100 55 7–70 29 0.01–0.90 0.13

Alluvial soils 2.1–22.0 8.2 200–1500 660 3–20 9.0 15–100 55 5–50 27 0.02–0.15 0.05

Soils over granites and gneisses 0.7–15.0 3.6 300–1500 785 3–15 6.0 10–100 45 7–70 24 0.01–0.14 0.06

Soils over volcanic rocks 2.1–11.0 5.9 500–1500 770 5–50 17.0 20–700 85 10–150 41 0.01–0.18 0.05
8

Soils over limestones and calcareous rocks 1.5–21.0 7.8 150–1500 520 3–20 9.5 5–150 50 7–70 21 0.01–0.50 0.08

Soils on glacial till and drift 2.1–12.0 6.7 300–1500 765 5–15 7.5 30–150 80 15–50 21(a) 0.02–0.36 0.07

Light desert soils 1.2–18.0 6.4 300–2000 835 3–20 10.0 10–200 60 5–100 24 0.02–0.32 0.06(a)

Silty prairie soils 2.0–12.0 5.6 200–1500 765 3–15 7.5 20–100 50 10–50 20(a) 0.02–0.06 0.04(a)

Chernozems and dark prairie soils 1.9–23.0 8.8 100–1000 595 3–15 7.5 15–150 55 10–70 27 0.02–0.53 0.10

Organic light soils <0.1–48.0 5.0 10–700 265 3–10 6.0 1–100 20 1–100 15 0.01–4.60 0.28

Forest soils 1.5–16.0 6.5 150–2000 505 5–20 10.0 15–150 55 7–150 17(a) 0.02–0.14 0.06(a)

Various soils <1.0–93.2 7.0 70–3000 560 3–50 10.5 7–1500 50 3–300 26 0.02–1.50 0.17
 TABLE 1. (CONTINUED)

Elements

Mn Ni Pb Se Sr Zn

Soil Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean

Sandy soils and lithosols on sandstones 7–2000 345 <5–70 13.0 <10–70 17 0.005–3.5 0.5(a) 5–1000 125 <5–164 40.0

Light loamy soils 50–1000 480 5–200 22.0 <10–50 20 0.02–1.2 0.33(a) 10–500 175 20–118 55.0

Loess and soils on silt deposits 50–1500 525 5–30 17.0 10–30 19 0.02–0.7 0.26(a) 20–1000 305 20–109 58.5

Clay and clay loamy soils 50–2000 580 5–50 20.5 10–70 22 <0.1–1.9 0.5 15–300 120 20–220 67.0

Alluvial soils 150–1500 405 7–50 19.0 10–30 18 <0.1–2.0 0.5 50–700 295 20–108 58.5

Soils over granites and gneisses 150–1000 540 <5–50 18.5 10–50 21 <0.1–1.2 0.4 50–1000 420 30–125 73.5

Soils over volcanic rocks 300–3000 840 7–150 30.0 10–70 20 0.1–0.5 0.2 50–1000 445 30–116 78.5
9

Soils over limestones and calcareous rocks 70–2000 470 <5–70 18.0 10–50 22 0.1–1.4 0.19(a) 15–1000 195 10–106 50.0

Soils on glacial till and drift 200–700 475 10–30 18.0 10–30 17(a) 0.2–0.8 0.4 100–300 190 47–131 64.0(a)

Light desert soils 150–1000 360 7–150 22.0 10–70 23 <0.1–1.1 0.5 70–2000 490 25–150 52.5

Silty prairie soils 200–1000 430 <5–50 16.0 10–30 21(a) <0.1–1.0 0.3 70–500 215 30–88 54.3(a)

Chernozems and dark prairie soils 100–2000 600 7–70 19.5 10–70 19 <0.1–1.2 0.4 70–500 170 20–246 83.5

Organic light soils 7–1500 260 5–50 12.0 10–50 24 <0.1–1.5 0.3 5–300 110 <5–108 34.0

Forest soils 150–1500 645 7–100 22.0 10–50 20(a) <0.1–1.6 0.4 20–500 150 25–155 45.7(a)

Various soils 20–3000 490 <5–150 18.5 <10–70 26 <0.1–4.0 0.31 7–1000 200 13–300 73.5

a. Data for whole soil profile.

 TABLE 2. AVERAGE RANGE AND LOW- TO NO-EFFECT LEVELS OF SELECTED INORGANICS
IN SEDIMENTS AND SOILS (mg/kg UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED).
Media and source Ag As Ba Cd Cr Cu Fe% Hg Mn Ni Pb Zn
SEDIMENTSa,b
Non-polluted, Great Lakes — <3 <20 — <25 <25 <1.7 <1.0 <300 <20 <40 <90
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1977)
No effect level (Persaud et al. 1989) b — 4.0 — 0.6 22 15 2.0 0.1 400 15 23 65
0.5 8 — 1.0 33 28 — 0.1 — — 21 68
Effects range low, marine sediments (Long 1.0 8.2 — 1.2 81 34 — 0.15 — 20.9 46.7 150
et al. 1995)b
No adverse biological effects, marine 6.1 57 5.1 260 390 — 0.41 — — 450 410
sediments (WDOE 1991) b
Control sediments, Southern California 0.06–2.0 3–15 — 0.001–2 6.5–40 2.8–30 — <1.0 — <20.0 <10.0 <70.0
(Lee et al. 1989)a
Control sediments, Puget Sound (Lee et al. 1.2 3–15 — 3.1–18.3 20.9 10–50 — 0.02–0.12 — 13.0 8 —
1989)a
Control sediments, Yaquina Bay 0.55 — — 0.47 19.3 6.3 — — — 14.5 5.5 26.3
(Lee et al. 1989)a
No effect threshold, freshwater sediments b — 3.0 — 0.2 55 28 — 0.05 — 35 23 100
(Environment Canada 1992)
Lowest effect level, freshwater sediments 0.5 6 — 0.6 26 16 — 0.2 460 16 31 120
(Persaud et al. 1992)
Threshold effect levels for freshwater — 5.9 — 0.596 37.3 35.7 — 0.174 — 18.0 35.0 123.1
10

sediments (Environment Canada 1994)

Threshold effect levels for marine 0.73 7.24 — 0.676 52.3 18.7 — 0.13 — 15.9 30.2 124
sediments (Environment Canada 1994)
Effects range low, freshwater (Ingersoll et — 13 — 0.70 39 41 20 — 730 24 55 110
al. 1995)
SOILS (control values)a
Average and common range in natural 0.05 5 430 0.06 100 30 — 0.11 600 40 10 50
soils (summarized in Shields 1988) 0.01–5 0.1–40 100–3500 0.01–7 5–3000 2–100 — 0.01–0.8 100–4000 5–1000 2–200 10–300
Average concentration in earth's crust — 0.5 500 0.1–0.2 100–300 70 5 0.5 850 180 20 200
(Merck 1989)
Average concentration in earth's crust 0.07 1.8 425 0.2 100 55 5.63 0.08 950 75 12.5 70
(CRC 1992)
Relative abundance in soils 0.05 6.0 — 0.35 70 34 4.0 — 1000 50 35 90
(Martin and Whitfield 1983)
a. Control values approximate natural background.
b. No-effect refers to no measurable impact to benthic organisms when exposed to sediments with stated levels of metals.
agricultural application of pesticides or sewage photographs for hazardous waste site assessment.
sludge, and by emissions from motor vehicles. In Information on soil surveys, aerial photographs, and
urban areas, sites may become contaminated by air other sources that may be useful for identifying soil
emissions from home heating, automobiles, and types and land use in the United States is presented in
industry. Table 3 provides ranges of contaminant Table 5.
levels in surface soils from some local anthropogenic
Several large projects have been conducted to
sources of inorganics that could contribute to
address the issue of characterizing background soil
background concentrations at or near a hazardous
concentrations. For example, the Oak Ridge
waste site. Table 4 provides a review of some of the
Reservation (a U.S. Department of Energy facility)
more common agricultural sources of inorganics
conducted a background soil characterization project
associated with practices such as sludge, pesticides,
to establish a database, to recommend how to use the
and fertilizer applications.
data for contaminated site assessments, and to provide
These tables identify elements that could be estimates of the potential health and environmental
associated with different land uses at or around a risks associated with the background level
hazardous waste site. For example, if the site is concentrations of potentially hazardous constituents
located in an area with high agricultural chemical (see Table 5, ORNL 1993). This source provides a
usage, elevated background concentrations of arsenic, detailed approach for those faced with conducting a
bromine, lead, vanadium, and zinc could be expected. detailed background investigation.
To determine what background concen- trations might
Approach for Establishment of Background
be without the agricultural contribution, the
Reference Values
investigator needs to rely on some investigative skills.
These skills are detailed in Part A of this document. The approaches described in this document, for
the most part, combine discussion of issues generic to
Accessing Data and Methods for Establishing
soils and sediments. However, when warranted,
Background Concentrations
attributes unique to the two different media are
The previous discussion presented information on discussed in separate sections. One such section
ranges of background concentrations that could be discusses sediments that require sampling through
expected for inorganics of greatest concern at overlying water.
hazardous waste sites. Additional information
sources that should be consultedinclude soil scientists
from the NRCS and county extension agents who may PART A
have conducted soil surveys that describe the natural
COMPARING THE CONCENTRATIONS OF
soils' physical, chemical, and biological status.
INORGANICS IN SOILS AND SEDIMENTS
However, many of these surveys were conducted for
AT HAZARDOUS WASTE VERSUS
purposes such as mineral development, farming, and
BACKGROUND SITES
soil conservation; the data focus on properties of
soils. The NRCS maintains the SOILS-5 data base
The objective of Part A is to determine whether
that provides attributes of soils (e.g., texture, pH,
hazardous waste site-related activities have caused an
CEC, salinity, clay content) that can be accessed at
increase in the levels of inorganic contaminants in
the local NRCS Office or through the NRCS Office of
soils and sediments compared to background
Technology, Cartography and Geographic
concentrations.
Information System Division at (202) 447-5421.
Many data sets are available on World Wide Web SOILS
(WWW). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Step 1— Evaluation of Land Use History and
Global Land Information (GLI) system is another
Existing Data
source for most land-based data and can be located on
WWW at http:// edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/glis/glis.html . Purpose: This effort is designed to identify land
The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation use history both on and near the hazardous waste site
Service can also be a good source of aerial (i.e., within the air and watershed connected to

11
TABLE 3. INORGANIC CONTAMINATION OF SURFACE SOILS, AVERAGE VALUES
FROM VARIOUS ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES IN THE UNITED STATES
(PPM-DW)a (SOURCE: KABATA-PENDIAS AND PENDIAS 1984).
Element Site and pollution source Mean or range of content
Arsenic (As) Metal-processing industry 10-380
Application of arsenal pesticides 31-625
Cadmium (Cd) Metal-processing industry 26–160
Urban garden 0.02–13.6
Vicinity of highways 1–10
Cobalt (Co) Mining or ore deposit 13–85
Metal-processing industry 42–154
Roadside or airport area 7.9
Copper (Cu) Urban gardens, orchards, and parks 3-140
Sludged farmland 90
Lead (Pb) Metal processing industry 500–6,500
Urban garden and urban vicinity 218–10,900
Roadside soil 960–7,000
Non-ferric metal mining 15–13,000
Mercury (Hg) Hg mining or ore deposit 0.1–40
Urban garden, orchard, and parks 0.6
Zinc (Zn) Non-ferric metal mining 500-53,000
Metal processing industry 155-12,400
Urban gardens and orchards 20-1,200
a. Equivalent to mg/kg-DW.

or in proximity to the site) to determine what hazardous waste site and the site is located in a
contribution the anthropogenic activities from heavily industrialized area, there is high potential that
previous land use at or near the hazardous waste site metals like mercury, lead, and cadmium may be
have had on background concentrations. present and elevated in soils and sediment from off-
site contributions. An initial evaluation of on-site
Approach: Early in a hazardous waste site
data should be sensitive to the issue of elevated
investigation, site history should be determined by
background so that off-site contributions can be
examining available records and by interviewing
properly accounted for.
personnel familiar with the site. This information can
Another advantage of evaluating existing
be used to assess the types of contaminants associated
hazardous waste site data is to determine if pre-site
with past operations that may be of concern and may
operation values are available for inorganics in
be compared to Appendix IX, Superfund and Priority
sediments or soil. These data can be obtained from
Pollutant Compounds, lists which identify the
site records or other existing sources discussed later
inorganic contaminants of concern. Evaluation of site
in this paper. NRCS soil surveys should be checked
history can provide important data when determining
both for aerial photographs that show previous land
those compounds for which background
use on or near the site and for average physical and
concentrations need to be established. For example,
chemical properties for soils at and around the
if releases of cadmium and lead are suspected at a

12
 hazardous waste site. Local county agricultural

TABLE 4. AGRICULTURAL SOURCES OF INORGANIC CONTAMINATION IN SOILS (PPM DW) a

(KABATA-PENDIAS AND PENDIAS 1984).
Element Sewage sludges Phosphate fertilizers Limestones Nitrogen fertilizers Manure Pesticides (%)
As 2–26 2–1,200 0.1–24.0 2.2–120 3–25 22–60
B 15–1,000 5–115 10 – 0.3–0.6 –
Ba 150–4,000 200 120–250 – 270 –
Be 4–13 – 1 – – –
Br 20–165 3–5 – 185–716 16–41 20–85
Cd 2–1,500 0.1–170 0.04–0.1 0.05–8.5 0.3–0.8 –
Ce 20 20 12 – – –
Co 2–260 1–12 0.4–3.0 5.4–12 0.3–24 –
Cr 20–40,600 66–245 10–15 3.2–19 5.2–55 –
Cu 50–3,300 1–300 2–125 <1–15 2–60 12–50
F 2–740 8,500–38,000 300 – 7 18–45
Ge 1–10 – 0.2 – 19 –
Hg 0.1–55 0.01–1.2 0.05 0.3–2.9 0.09–0.2 0.8–42
In – – – – 1.4 –
13

Mn 60–3,900 40–2,000 40–1,200 – 30–550 –

Mo 1–40 0.1–60 0.1–15 1–7 0.05–3 –
Ni 16–5,300 7–38 10–20 7–34 7.8–30 –
Pb 50–3,000 7–225 20–1,250 2–27 6.6–15 60
Rb 4–95 5 3 – 0.06 –
Sc 0.5–7 7–36 1 – 5 –
Se 2–9 0.5–25 0.08–0.1 – 2.4 –
Sn 40–700 3–19 0.5–4.0 1.4–16.0 3.8 –
Sr 40–360 25–500 610 – 80 –
Te – 20–23 – – 0.2 –
U – 30–300 – – – –
V 20–400 2–1,600 20 – – 45
Zn 700–49,000 50–1,450 10–450 1–42 15–250 1.3–25
Zr 5–90 50 20 – 5.5 –
a. Equivalent to mg/kg-DW.
 TABLE 5. SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR IDENTIFYING SOIL TYPES, LAND USE,
AND DETERMINING BACKGROUND LEVELS OF INORGANICS IN SOILS
AND SOME SEDIMENTS IN THE U.S.

Supporting background
Source information Locations Contact point

Bureau of Land Provides data on areas in the country Mostly BLM Service Center
Management— BLM that have naturally occurring substances western U.S. Denver Federal Center
that pose a hazard to humans or the Lakewood, CO 80225
environment. (303) 236-0142

National Park Service Inventory and monitoring of trace levels Nationwide Local NPS Headquarters
(NPS) of inorganics in soils in natural areas.

U.S. Geological Several reports on the concentration of Nationwide Water Resources Information Center:
Survey inorganics in the environment; (703) 648-6818

Background geochemistry of some Nationwide National Technical Information Service

rocks, soils, plant, and vegetables in the (NTIS)
conterminous U.S. "Geological U.S. Department of Communication:
Survey," professional paper 574-F, (703) 487-4650
1975— Summary of determination
between natural and anthropogenic
contributions— shows natural values
vary widely and are highly site specific
and regionally dependant.

An accounting of pesticides in soils and Midwest NTIS

ground water in the Iowa River Basin,
1985-88 (IA 86-055).

U.S. Geological Aerial photographs of sites. Nationwide USGS, Salt Lake City ESIC
Survey 8105 Federal Bldg.
125 South State St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84138-1177
(801) 524-5652/Fax: (801) 524-6500

USDA-Agricultural Aerial photographs of current and Nationwide ASCS/SCS

Stabilization and previous land use and soils types Aerial Photography Field Office,
Conservation Service including erosion potential. P.O. Box 30010
(ASCS/SCS) Salt Lake City, UT 84130-0010
(801) 975-3503/Fax: (801) 975-3532

National Ocean Coastal and Geodetic Surveys including Coastal areas National Ocean Service
Service (NOS) aerial photographs. Coast and Geodetic Survey Support
Sec. N/CG236
SSMC#3, Rm. 5212
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301) 713-2692/Fax: (301) 713-0445

14
 TABLE 5. (CONTINUED)
Supporting background
Source information Locations Contact point

National Archives Series of infrared Landsat photographs Nationwide NARA/NASC

Research Administra- for mid-1970s by state. National Air Survey
tion/National Air 4321 Baltimore Ave.
Survey Bladensburg, MD 20710
(NARA/NASC) (301) 927-7180/Fax: (301) 927-5013

U.S. Forest Service Often have data on trace elements as Nationwide Nearest FS experiment station
(FS) part of soils inventory and monitoring
program.

U.S. Department of Collects and publishes data on trace Nationwide Nearest DOE office, Environmental
Energy (DOE) metals and radionuclide concentrations Monitoring Division
around DOE facilities and for reference
sites.

Oak Ridge National The background soil characterization Local - D.R. Watkins
Laboratory project provides background levels of Roane Oak Ridge Reservation
selected metals, organic compounds, and County, TN Environmental Restoration Div.
radionuclides in soils from P.O. Box 2003
uncontaminated sites at the Oak Ridge Approach Oak Ridge, TN 37831-7298
Reservation. Also a good approach for useful (615) 576-9931
evaluating background for use in nationwide See ref. ORNL 1993.
baseline risk assessments

National Climatic Data Provide data on wind roses and climate Nationwide User Service Branch
Center parameters for most areas of the Asheville, NC
country. (704) 259-0682

EPA Most complete source of data that Nationwide EPA/540/1-86/061 (EPA 1986)
includes EPA and other Agency
information on Hazard ID, Dose-
Response, and Risk Characterization.

STORET (physical and chemical EPA Office of Water and Hazardous

parameters in soils and sediments). Material
(202) 382-7220
Commercial product— more user friendly,
EarthInfo: (303) 938-1788

Journal Articles Can provide local, regional, or national Local to Selected references: (1) Metals in
background concentration values. Can National Determining Natural Background
be accessed via literature searches, but Concentrations in Mineralized Areas, 1992
usually need to be searched by element (Runnells et al. 1992), and (2) Sediment
or media. Quality and Aquatic Life Assessment
(Adams et al 1992).

15
agents and state, county, and federal environmental availabl e. One option is for those areas where the
quality officials are also sources of information on sites' soil and sediment matrix and distribution of
local emissions or previous sampling data that may be suspected contaminants appear to be homo-geneous.
used to establish background concentrations. EPA or Establishing a consistent grid (i.e., systematic
state regulators of chemical storage, use, and emission sampling grid) across the entire site and sampling at
data bases of local industries may be a good source of set locations should provide a reasonable
chemicals used or stored in the local area. EPA's characterization of the contamination values across
STORET data base should be checked the site. A second option may apply if certain parts of
a site are suspected of being contaminated due to
Step 2— Establishment of Data Quality
historical use. In this case, bias sampling or
Objectives
intensifying the grid in highly suspected areas could
Purpose: The purpose of Step 2 is to establish be considered. This approach maximizes the
data quality objectives (DQOs) (EPA 1993) for the possibility of determining whether contaminant
decision-making process. concentrations at a site are above background and
minimizes the risk of not taking action at a hazardous
Approach: The DQO process is described in
waste site.
"Standard Practice for Generation of Environmental
Data Related to Waste Management Activities: There is a wealth of guidance on soil sampling.
Development of Data Quality Objectives" (ASTM One document that is useful because of its coverage
1995) and is summarized in a companion issue paper of soil sampling methods and design for reducing
titled, "Characterizing Soils for Hazardous Waste Site various sources of sampling error is titled,
Assessments" (Breckenridge et al. 1991). The "Preparation of Soil Sampling Protocols: Sampling
companion issue paper explains how to classify soils Techniques and Strategies" (EPA 1992c). This
when faced with different classification systems and document also provides information for those
what soils data need to be considered when uncertain about sampling design options and
establishing DQOs. EPA's external working draft, composite collection techniques.
"Guidance for Data Quality Assessment" (EPA
The following discussion points should be
1995), is helpful in discussing the role of statistics in
considered when selecting and designing the sampling
the DQO process. This document has a companion
plan.
PC-based software program to help support the
document. Since this is designed as a "living Point A— For a given site, there may be several
document," contact the Quality Assurance Division areas of concern based on known or suspected past
[Fax number (202) 260-4346] in the Office of site activities. Once these areas are identified, a
Research and Development (401 M Street, S.W., sampli ng plan can be developed. Historical data
Washington, D.C. 20460) to obtain the latest version. should be identified and evaluated early in the process
to determine their use in identifying areas of concern
Step 3— Determining Sample Location and
or if the entire site needs to be sampled. Historical
Numbers to Collect
and land use information identified from Step 1 plays
Purpose: The purpose is to design a statistically a key role in determining the degree of bias in the
valid approach that yields representative samples samplin g plan. Factors such as location of tanks,
from areas of concern and from background areas and piping, staging areas, disposal ponds, and drainage
to factor judgement (bias sampling) into selecting areas (e.g., sumps) should be considered when
sampling locations to maximize the possibility of designing a sampling plan. Several soil properties or
detecting elevated levels of contaminants on-site. processes that govern the mobility of contaminants
can also bias sample location:
Approach: There are a number of options in
sampling design that determine where to collect Soil pH: A quick check using a field test kit can
samples from a hazardous waste site to compare identify if the pH of the soil is in a range to mobilize
against a background site. The investigator needs to contaminants. In acid soils (pH <6.5), inorganics
discuss the DQOs with a statistician to select the such as zinc, manganese, copper, iron, cobalt, and
appropriate design. Numerous design options are boron are easily leached. However, if soil pH is

16
above 7.0, these inorganics form stable compounds. of the solid soil phase to exchange cations is one of
Other inorganics, such as molybdenum and selenium, the most important soil properties governing
are mobilized in alkaline soils, whereas in acid soil s movement of inorganics in soils. In general, the CEC
they become almost insoluble. Thus, pH and is related to the surface area of the soils and sediments
contaminants of concern need to be factored into the (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1984). Soils and
selection of sampling depth in soils. sediments that have larger surface areas (e.g., clays)
have a greater CEC, while those with smaller surface
Soil Texture: Most soils are a combination of the
areas (e.g., sands) have a lower CEC.
following grain sizes:
Transport: The transport of dissolved or
Medium to large grain size material has moderate
colloidal inorganics takes place through the soil
to high porosity (15 to 40 percent) and low capacity
solution (diffusion) and with the moving soil solution
for adsorbing inorganics. These soils have low
(leaching) (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1984).
capacity to hold contaminants in the grain interstices
Investigators should be aware that in cool, humid
due to low cation exchange capacity and low capillary
climates, inorganics generally leach downward
action. Investigators should look for surface staining
through the profile; in warm, dry climates and hot,
and consider sampling at deeper depths.
humid areas, the movement is often upward.
Fine sands to silt materials have a stronger However, specific soil properties, mainly the soil's
capillary action, and silts are capable of sorbing CEC and moisture availability, control the rate of
inorganics. Special attention should be given to migration of inorganics in a soil profile.
sampling at the interface between fine material layers
Point B— A grid system can be used to establish
and larger grains, or where fine sand lenses are mixed
the locations to be sampled. A grid will also help
in clay soils (these often form conduits for
define the total population from which a subset may
contaminant movement).
be selected using a statistical approach (e.g.,
Clays are fine particles and possess a net negative systematic random, random, or stratified random) to
charge, and most have high cation exchange identify the specific sample population. If the site has
capacities. This may cause heavy metal cations (e.g., excavations or steep depressions, sample points along
Cr+6, Cd+2, Pb+2) to adsorb to the clay surface. Clays both sidewalls and the base of any excavations should
also form large cracks and fractures due to be included in the grid. If samples are collected from
shrink/swell and freeze/thaw effects. Investigators excavations, similar soils (i.e., same depth, type, and
should look at the profile in clay soils to determine if horizon) should be sampled from the background site
inorganics (e.g., iron and manganese) have oxidized for evaluation. However, soils are heterogenous and
or been reduced in fractures causing a color change spatial patterns do exist. Some soil types exhibit
(e.g., under oxidation, iron changes to a spatial correlations that should be considered by the
red/yellow/brownish color compared to the natural project's statistician. The area represented by each
blue/gray color). The sample design should consider grid point should be proportional to the size of the
these factors by collecting samples from fractures and area for equal weighting and be equal to or greater
especially from areas that show signs of oxidation. than the operable unit (discussed earlier). One of the
following equations may be used to determine grid
Soil Organic Carbon Content: Organic carbon
intervals for three different size categories (Michigan
content plays a key role in the sorption of
1991b):
contaminants. Special attention should be given to
sampl ing layers that have excessive organic carbon Small site
A/B
(e.g., darker soils, upper soil layers, peat). ' GI
2 (0 to 0.25 (1)
acre)

Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC): The ability

17
 Medium site (2) Intensified grid
A/B <--------->
' GI (0.25 to 3
4 acre) C C C C C C C u C u C C
uuuu
C C C C C C C u C u C C
Large site (3)
AB uuuu
' GI
GL (>3.0 acre) C C C C C C C u C u C C
uuuu
C C C C C C C C C C
where:
(0,0) C C C C C C C C C
GI = grid interval
A = area to be gridded (in square feet)
GL = length (or longest side) of area to be Point D— Several options exist for collecting
gridded. samples: (a) collect a sample at all (or a minimum of
four) grid points as discussed under Point B, (b) use
For example, for a 1.5-acre site (the longest side the systematic random sampling approach referenced
being 280 feet), and given that 1 acre = 43,560 square in SW-846, Third Edition, Section 9.1.1.3.3, or
feet, substituting values in Equation (2) above, we (c) use a stratified random design with an intensified
have: grid for suspected problem areas. The selected
number of sample locations are determined by
sampling objectives, number of analytes to be
65,340 / 3.14
' 36 feet between grid points evaluated per sample, the analytical techniques to be
4
used, and budget constraints.

Grid systems are useful but have limitations. An Point E— The determination of depth sampling
option is to select a sampling area that is equal to an increments are dependent on DQOs and the capacity
operable unit (i.e., the size of the smallest remedial of different soil layers to hold (sorb) metals.
action unit) and divide the site into equal units. Recommended depth sampling increments are for the
following: clay and organic soils on-site, 0.25 to 0.5
Samples can then be collected, following a statistical
feet or by major horizon; silts and loams, 1.0 to
design that represents the unit.
2.5-foot intervals or by master horizons; and sands,
Point C— After the grid point interval is 1.0 to 5.0 feet. The selection of depth sampling
determined, a scaled grid overlay can be made and increments also depends on the suspected amount of
superimposed on a map of both the hazardous waste contamination released, mobility of contaminant,
and background sites. Some specified point (e.g., the amount of water or liquid available for transport (e.g.,
southwest corner) should be designated as the (0,0) ponding), and funding. Samples collected from
specified depths can be either single or in multiple
coordinate. The grid can then be oriented to
replicates, depending on the statistical method used
maximize sampling coverage. Some grid orientation
for background data comparison (see Step 5). At
may be necessary for unusually shaped areas. Also, locations where soil type is the same, compositing can
the site can be subdivided with different calculated be considered to save costs and more precisely
grid intervals so that proportional sampling can be estimate the mean value. However, compositing may
intensified for suspect areas, such as sumps or sinks be a concern if the data are used for future
or low-lying drainage areas where contaminants have enforcement purposes.
a higher probability of concentrating. The following
is an example of a grid: Point F— For a background site, a minimum of
four samples collected from the same soil type are
needed to establish "background" concentration for a
soil type (Michigan 1991a). These sample numbers
will help account for natural constituent occurrences
and inherent variability (i.e., range) within each

18
distinctive soil type. When determining if consideration must be given to the mobility of the
contaminants have moved into a profile (i.e., by contaminant and texture of the soil.
depth), samples should be taken at comparable depths
Step 4— Sample Collection, Preservation,
from similar soil types for both the background site
Handling, Analysis, and Data Reporting
and the hazardous waste site. If site environmental
conditions have resulted in leaching of contaminants Purpose: The purpose is to ensure that all samples
into the soil profile, the major soil horizons (i.e., O, A, are handled in a manner that protects their integrity
and B) for a soil type may need to be sampled at both and are analyzed using comparable, standard
the contaminated and background site. If the site is methods.
sampled by major horizon, a minimum of four
Approach: The following is the recommended
samples should be collected from each horizon) (see
approach:
Figure 3). Sample size (e.g., weight) at all locations
at the hazardous waste and background sites should 1. All sample collection, preservation, preparation,
be the same. handling, and analytical methods should follow
standard methods [e.g., U.S. EPA SW-846, "Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods" (EPA 1986)]. It is
GROUND SURFACE important that all samples are handled using
1st major horizon— Brown 4 samples comparable methods when preparing for and during
medium-coarse SAND analysis. For example, using different digestion
methods can change results significantly.
2nd major horizon— Lt. brown 4 samples 2. For inorganics, it is recommended to use a total
silty fine SAND metals procedure with results reported in mg/kg (or
3rd major horizon— Gray silty 4 samples percent for iron) on a dry weight basis. This
CLAY w/trace of fine-medium minimizes additional sources of variation, since these
sand constituents are often naturally occurring. To assess
Figure 3. Approach for sampling sites where compar-
the bioavailability of metals in anoxic sediments, acid
ison is needed between major soil horizons volatile sulfide and simultaneously extracted metals
or layers within a soil type. should be determined (Di Toro et al. 1990, 1992).
Step 5— Statistical Comparison of Hazardous
Point G— Background samples should be taken Waste and Background Sites
from areas unaffected by site activities. If similar
soils cannot be found in areas unaffected by site Purpose: The objective is to determine if
activities, possible locations for determining back- concentrations of inorganics from a hazardous waste
ground are areas on-site, such as under stationary site are elevated compared to those from a back-
objects like storage sheds or porches, large flagstones, ground site.
and old trees. Approach: The following discussion outlines some
basic statistical concepts in the context of background
Point H— Wind rose data can be used to identify
data evaluation. A general statistics textbook such as
background sample locations in the predominant
Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollutio n
upwind direction from the hazardous waste site.
Monitoring (Gilbert 1987) should be consulted for
Wind rose data usually provide monthly averages
additional detail. Also, the following list of published
(based on hourly observations) on the percentage of
statistical guidance may be useful (Figure 4). There
time the wind blew from the 16 compass points or
are numerous statistical approaches that are
was calm. Wind rose data can be obtained for the
applicable when collecting, assessing, and analyzing
area from the local weather station or the National
background data. The approaches presented here
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
have been adopted by the State of Michigan
Generally, if airborne deposition is the primary (Michigan 1990, 1991b) and modified based on the
method of contaminant release from sites in arid authors' experience. They are readily understandable
environments, the investigator should focus on and easy to use. However, it is recommended that
sampling the soils near the surface. However, investigators consult a statistician to assist in the
design or review of a sampling plan prior to collecting

19
samples. all data to determine if the data meet the assumption
of normality. If the data are not normally distributed,
1. Careful consideration must be given to the
log or other types of transformations should be
selection of a statistical procedure based on site-
conducted to approximate normality prior to using the
specific factors. These include the size of the
data sets in statistical comparisons, such as t-tests or
background data base and the number of samples
analysis of variance procedures (ANOVA).
available for comparison, variability of soil type, and
coefficient of variation of data. The following are If the data cannot be normalized, additional
some statistical methods that can be used if data attention needs to be given to selecting appropriate
from the site follow a normal distribution. Some statistical tests, and the situation needs to be
environmental sample sets are normally distributed. discussed with a statistician. Special statistical
However, the majority of environmental contamin- consideration may be warranted if samples are
ation data sets are not normally distributed. Some of composited and the data are needed to support
the more commonly used tests of normality are regulatory requirements discussed in Part B.
presented in Table 6. Tests should be conducted on

Statistical Methods Guidancea

Basic
Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring , Van Nostrand Reinhold Company (Gilbert 1987).
Guidance for Data Quality Assessment (EPA 1995).
Soils Sampling Quality Assurance Guide (EPA 1989d).
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA (EPA 1988).
EPA's Guidance Manual: Bedded Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests, pp. 82-91 (Lee et al. 1989).
Statistical Guidance for Ecology Site Managers , Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE 1992).
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) , pp. 4-5 to 4-10
(EPA 1989c).
Advanced
Estimation of Background Levels of Contaminants (Singh and Singh 1993).
Statistical Analysis of Ground-Water Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities (EPA 1992d).
Background and Cleanup Standards
Methods for Evaluating the Attainment of Cleanup Standards, Volume 1: Soils and Solid Media (EPA 1989b)
(detailed statistical discussion).

a
If time and resources are limited, Gilbert (1987), Hardin and Gilbert (1993), and EPA (1995) provide some of the
most relevant statistical information.
Figure 4. Statistical Methods Guidance.

20
 TABLE 6. TESTS FOR EVALUATING NORMALITY OF DATA SETS, SOURCE: EPA (1995).
Testa Sample Size (N) Notes on Use Reference
Shapiro Wilk W Test # 50 Highly recommended Gilbert (1987)
EPA (1992c)
Filiben's Statistic # 100 Highly recommended EPA (1995)
Studentized Range Test # 1000 Highly recommended EPA (1995)
Lilliefors Kolmogorov- > 50 Useful when tables for other tests Madansky (1988)
Smirnoff Test are not available
Coefficients of Skewness > 50 Useful for large sample sizes EPA (1995)
and Kurtosis Tests
Geary's Tests > 50 Useful when tables for other tests EPA (1995)
are not available.
Coefficient of Variation Test # 50 Use only to discard assumption of EPA (1995)
normality quickly.
Chi-Square Test Largeb Useful for group data and when the Introductory Statistics
comparison distribution is known. Books
a
By order of Recommendation.
b
The necessary sample size depends on the number of groups formed when implementing this test
Each group should contain at least five observations.

When comparing a contaminated site with a "upper limit"for delineating significan t

background site, a null hypothesis should be concentrations, such as:
developed. For example, a null hypothesis could be:
1) Calculate the background mean (0 b) by dividing
There is no difference between the mea n
the sum of the total background readings by the total
contaminant concentration of the hazardous waste
number of background readings for each element of
site and background site. The alternate hypothesis
concern:
would be: The mean concentration for th e
contaminated site is different from that of th e
background site. If parametric statistics are used for x1 % x2 % . . . x n
this assessment, such as a t-test or ANOVA, the data xb '
n
can be normalized to selected parameters (e.g.,
organic carbon, particle size). Many parametric and 2
2) Calculate the background variance (Sb ) by taking
non-parametric statistical procedures exist to compare
the sum of the squares of the difference between each
a background site with one or more hazardous waste
reading and the mean, and dividing by the degrees of
sites. A variety of such procedures are reviewed ni
freedom (the total number of background samples
Lee et al. (1989), EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance
minus one):
for Superfund, Volume 1 (EPA 1989c), and EPA's
Guidance for Data Quality Assessment (EPA 1995). 2 (x1 & x b)2 % (x2 & x b)2 % . . . (xn & x b)2
The latter source provides examples and a discussion Sb '
n&1
of most of the tests needed to conduct comparisons
between data sets. 3) Calculate the background standard deviation (Sb)
by taking the square root of the variance:
a. Empirical Rule. (Note: Many of the following
calculations can be performed using calculators that
2
are preprogrammed.) Use mean (0b) and variance Sb ' Sb
2
( Sb ) of background concentrations to establish an
4) T h e

21
Coefficient of Variation Test (CV) where CV = Sb / x b off point (Barnett and Lewis (1994), Table XIII, p.
is used to evaluate data distribution. The background 485) for % = 0.05 is 1.46. Since the calculated value
data should have a CV of less than 0.5 for sandy soils, of the test statistic (1.36) is less than the theoretical
less than 0.75 for finer soils, or an explanation cut-off point (1.46), the 56 mg/kg sample is not an
accounting for higher CV values. The maximum outlier.
recommended CV is 1.00. If the data distribution
Background concentrations should be determined
exceeds a CV of 1.00, then a thorough evaluation
for major soil types at the hazardous waste site. If
should be made to account for this variability (e.g.,
this is not feasible, then a mean background
laboratory QA/QC, soil classification, sampl e
concentration should be determined on the soil type at
location, outlier classification, and sample location),
the hazardous waste and background sites with the
and the outlier data addressed (see EPA 1989c).
lower absorption capacity (usually the sandiest soil)
Additional samples may need to be analyzed to ensure
and those with the higher absorption capacity (usually
that a sufficient data base population (n) is achieved.
silts and clays). The finer-texture soils (silts and
There are several classical procedures (Gilbert clays) will usually sorb the most contaminants and
1987; EPA 1995) and robust outlier tests (Singh and provide a good value for comparison. If the mean
Nocerino 1994) available in the statistical literature. concentration from the fine textured soils from the
Consult Outliers in Statistical Data by Barnett and hazardous waste site is above similar values for the
Lewis (1994) for a full account of this issue. Outliers background site, there is a high probability that the
often distort statistical estimation, and resulting site is contaminated.
inferences and can lead to incorrect conclusions. The
Once a mean background concentration is
solution is to consult a statistician who understands
established, similar statistical tests should b e
outliers and knows how to use robust procedures ot
conducted on the data from the hazardous waste site.
identify multiple outliers.
After the data sets have met the assumptions for
If an outlier is found, an option is to take a normality or have been corrected (see Figure 2), then
substi tute sample, have it analyzed, and repeat the statistical comparisons can be made between the site
statistical process. (To avoid costly delays, it is and background data sets.
recommended to collect extra samples for laboratory
b. t-Test. Any t-test should be discussed with a
analysis.)
statistician prior to use since there are a number of
For example, four background samples are collected variations and assumptions that can apply. The
from a site for lead analysis. The lead values from the Gosset Student T-test has good application when
laboratory analysis were 56, 25, 18, and 35 mg/kg. comparing background sites to potentially
The investigator wants to examine the data set to contaminated sites (Michigan 1991a).
determine if the 56-mg/kg sample is an outlier. The
c. Cochran's Approximation to the Behrens-Fisher
summary statistics for these samples are:
Student's t-test. This test is also available for
56 % 25 % 18 % 35
xb (mean) ' ' 33.5 evaluating background variance versus exceedances
4
(i.e., contamination) as referenced in 40 CFR
2
Sb (variance) ' { (56 & 33.5)2 % (25 & 33.5)2 % (18 & 33.5)2 Part 264, Appendix IV. Note that this statistical
821 comparison method does require that two or more
% (35 & 33.5)2 } /3 ' ' 273.67
3 discrete samples be taken at each sampling location.
Sb (standard deviation) ' Sb2 ' 273.67 ' 16.5 d. In some cases, it may be of interest to establish an
upper limit of background for the site. This would be
Sb 16.5
CV (coefficient of variation) ' ' ' 0.49 useful if the investigator wanted to compare single
x 33.5 values for a soil type from the hazardous waste site
The test for a single outlier in a normal sample with the background population for a similar soil.
with the population mean and variance unknown The mean background concentration (x b ) plus three
(Barnett and Lewis 1994, p. 218-222) is appropriate standard deviations (3Sb ) comprises a reasonable
for the above identified sample. The test statistic is: maximum allowable or upper limit.
Xmax & x 56&33.5 2. Procedures for non-detect values. If more than 50
' ' 1.36 T h e percent of the background analytical values are below
s 16.5
theoretical cut- the detection limit (DL), either of the following

22
procedures could be used with any of the preceding whether useful background sediment concentration
statistical methods:
a. For any <DL in a data set, alternate "0" and the
data are available. Samples may have been collected
detection limit (DL); this will result in a net value of
at the same site prior to the contaminated source, or
half the detection limit, with a variance, or use b. For
data may have been collected at sites upstream by the
example:
state, EPA, USGS, or permittees and may be
Actual Value Substitute Value documented in STORET (Bolton et al. 1985) (also
see Table 5) or the developing National Sediment
<DL DL
Inventory (EPA 1994a).
<DL 0
The use of existing background site data for
<DL DL comparison with on-site data is valuable. However,
it is critical to determine whether both sets of data are
<DL 0
comparable. Questions that need to be addressed are:
Note: This process assumes that values below
the DL are normally distributed in a regulatory
1. Were comparable analytical methods used for
context; this may not be determined to be
both on-site and background site samples (e.g., acid-
conservative enough. For regulatory cases, a more
extractable metals or total digestion methods)?
robust estimation of mean and variance with lowest
DL values should be used. The restricted maximum 2. Are the total organic carbon (for organic
likelihood (RMLD) method (Perrson and Rootzen contaminants) and particle size (for metals and
1977, Haas and Scheff 1990) is relatively simple and inorganics) data for both sites available and similar?
provides a good robust estimate.
3. Is the background site acceptably representative
If data are not normally distributed, which is of the chemical contamination levels immediately
often the case for environmental data [see Ott (1990) upcurrent of the hazardous waste site?
and McBean and Rovers (1992) for discussions of
4. Were similar sample collection methods used
why environmental measurements follow a lognormal
[different sampling devices can produce greatly
pattern], an alternative approach like the one
different results (Baudo 1990)]?
discussed in EPA (1989e) or EPA (1995) could be
used if data are lognormally distributed. 5. Were the depths of sampling similar (e.g., top 10
cm of sediment)?
b. The Continuity Correction procedure with the t-
test (EPA 1983). If the background data are non- 6. How long ago were the background sediments
detect (<DL), then the value can be determined to be collected compared to the contaminated site
0.25 × DL (consultation with a statistician is recom- sediments?
mended to explain and perform the t-test with
7. Are contaminant levels expressed on the same
Continuity Correction). Other tests such as the
basis (wet or dry weight)?
Wilcoxon rank sum test [see Gilbert (1987),
pp. 247-249] can be used to test for a shift in location 8. If data on acid volatile sulfides (AVS) and
between two independent populations even with non- simultaneous extracted metals were collected, were
detect values. There are also numerous other both data sets collected during the same season of the
approaches/methods for handling non-detection limits year (AVS affects the biological availability of some
that could be considered but need to be discussed with metals in anoxic sediments)?
a statistician.
9. Is the quality of the data acceptable?
The levels of metals in sediments are strongly
SEDIMENT related to total organic carbon and sediment particle
size, while organic contaminants in sediments are
Step 1— Collection of Available Data for Use as
related primarily to total organic carbon. The higher
Background Reference Sediment
the level of organic carbon in a sediment, the greater
Prior to implementing a sampling and analysi s the potential concentration of non-ionic organic
project, an effort should be made to determine contaminants. For metals, the finer the particle size

23
and the higher the organic carbon, the greater the concentrations in pore water are low.
potential for accumulating metals. Toxic effects are
While bulk sediment contamination levels do not
less likely as the organic carbon content increases for
correlate well with toxic effects, a number of
a given non-ionic organic contaminant level. For
statistically based, sediment-quality indices have been
metals, toxic potential is reduced as particle size
developed. If resources are limited, and useful
decreases or organic carbon increases. If the particle
background site data do not exist, concentrations at
size or organic carbon content of the background and
the contaminated site can be compared with metal
contaminated site sediments differ significantly, it is
concentrations in bulk sediment known to have a low
not appropriate to directly compare contaminant
probability of causing adverse impacts on benthic
residue levels without normalizing the data. Some
organisms. Several "no-effect" levels are presented in
organic contaminants can be normalized to organic
Table 2. NOAA developed effects-based guidelines
carbon by dividing by the fraction of organic carbon
including no-effects, possible effects, and probable-
(Adams et al. 1992); the same approach has been
effects levels (Long and Morgan 1990) based on
used for divalent cationic metals— lead, nickel,
National Status and Trends Program data, and
copper, cadmium, and zinc. Metals data can be
MacDonald (1992) used the same approach with
normalized to acid volatile sulfide levels (Di Toro
additional data to develop similar marine guidelines.
et al. 1990, 1992), a key element such as aluminum
The guidance for marine sediments was further
(Schropp and Windom 1988; Daskalakis and
updated by Long et al. (1995). The most recent
O'Conner 1995), or particle size (NOAA 1988). EPA
guidance on metals is presented in Interim Sediment
is also refining its equilibrium partitioning approach,
Quality Assessment Values (Environment Canada
which could be used to normalize contaminant levels
1994), in which NOAA National Status and Trends
among different sediments (Adams et al. 1992; EPA
Program data and spiked-sediment toxicity tests were
1992b). Further discussion of these procedures is
used to develop threshold effects values for fresh and
beyond the scope of this paper, and expert assistance
marine waters, presented in Table 2. If the
should be obtained.
contaminated site levels are below the no-effects
Step 2— Comparison of On-site Data to Sediment levels, further investigation may not be required even
Quality Criteria if the site has been contaminated. If the no-observed-
effects levels are exceeded, further investigation may
Simply comparing the level of metals in bulk
be justified. Bulk sediment guidelines have also been
sediments, deposited under similar conditions,
developed by EPA Region V (U.S. Army Corps of
upstream and downstream from a suspected facility
Engineers 1977) for classifying sediments of Great
can provide an indication that a facility may have
Lakes harbors. The Ontario Ministry of Environment
contaminated the downstream site. These data,
(Persaud et al. 1989) and other guidelines are
however, provide no indication of bioavailability that
summarized in EPA's Guidance Manual: Bedded
may justify remediation. Indeed, bulk sediment
Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests (Lee et al. 1989).
contamination is only poorly correlated with adverse
In addition, these and other guidelines have been
impacts. For metals, the key parameter in
reviewed and summarized by Giesy and Hoke (1990).
determining toxicity is the pore water concentration of
a metal. In situations where no background site data In areas where an entire watershed has been
exist, yet contaminated site data do, it may be useful impacted, such as from mining activities, it may not
to compare sediment contamination levels to various be possible to select a suitable background site. In
sediment quality criteria. such situations, historical data (Runnells et al. 1992)
or archived samples may be the best source of data.
EPA is developing sediment quality criteria for
Another approach would be to sample surficial
metals, but the factors determining bioavailability are
sediments and compare them to deeper
complex, and an approach has yet to be selected
uncontaminated sediments (those laid down prior to
(Ankley et al. 1994). Research has shown that in
the watershed being impacted).
anaerobic sediments, toxic impacts due to cadmium,
copper, lead, nickel, and zinc are not present when the No specific rules can be provided regarding the
sum of the molar concentrations of these metals use of existing background reference data for
divided by the AVS concentration is less than one sediments or soils. Judgement should be made with
(Di Toro et al. 1990, 1992). Essentially, when excess full knowledge of the specific objectives of the
sulfide is present, the metals are complexed and metal investigation, data limitations, and qualifications and

24
with the help of appropriate experts (e.g., chemists, another facility previously operating at the hazardous
waste site. Knowledge of a suspected contaminated
source’s effluent, the processes generating the
hydrologists, statisticians, benthic ecologists, and effluent, and historical stream flow information can be
sampling experts). helpful to link the suspected source and the
contaminated site's metal concentration. Since it is
Step 3— Selection of Sites for Collection of
difficult to establish a background reference site after
Background Sediment
a major flood event has occurred, previous data or
The ideal background site data for comparison deep sediments may be the best source for
with contaminated site data are obtained from background reference data.
samples:
For estuarine and marine sites, selection of a
1. Collected immediately upcurrent of the simila r but unimpacted background site also can be
contaminated site in an area not impacted by the difficult. The process may involve the use of
suspected contaminant source. hydrologic models to simulate tides and currents to
avoid areas impacted by the contaminated plume. It
2. Collected at the same time the contaminated
may be necessary to select distant background sites
sediment is sampled.
when currents are highly variable. The same
3. Having very similar particle size and organic considerations need to be addressed in lakes with
carbon content. wind-driven currents. When questions arise about site
selection, it is best to consult with an expert who is
4. Collected using identical sampling equipment.
familiar with the hydrology of the area.
5. Collected using the same statistically base d
When it is not possible to obtain background
sampling design (i.e., numbers and configuration) and
sediment with the same particle size and organic
compositing handling procedures (if any).
carbon content, normalization procedures, discussed
6. Analyzed using identical analytical methods. previously, should be considered. While it is beyond
the scope of this document to recommend specific
When comparing data sets, it is important that
sampling and assessment methods, excellent
everything about the sampling and analytical
comprehensive references for such information are
procedures for the background and contaminated site
Procedures for the Assessment of Contaminate d
sediments be as similar as practical. If both fine and
Sediment Problems in the Great Lakes (IJC 1988),
coarse sediments are available for sampling at the
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated
contaminated site and the background site, the finer
Sediments (ARCS) Program, Assessment Guidance
sediments are preferred because they have a greater
Document (EPA 1994b), and Manual of Aquatic
affinity for metals.
Sediment Sampling (Mudroch and Azcue 1995).
The ideal situation is seldom achieved, and Additionally, EPA's Office of Science and
compromises may have to be made. For streams, it Technology within the Office of Water is developing
may be practical to sample directly opposite from the a methods manual that will cover all aspects of
contaminant or contaminant source or even sediment monitoring, from sample collection to
downstream as long as the background site is not analytical methods to assessment techniques (EPA
impacted by the plume of concern. Contaminated and 1994c).
background site sediment characteristics will be most
alike where the currents are similar, with fines being
deposited in areas of low currents and coarser material PART B
being associated with faster currents. A significant
APPROACHES FOR DETERMINING
complication of sampling streams is the potential for
BACKGROUND LEVELS OF INORGANICS
severe erosion, which may remove massive amounts
THAT CAN BE COMPARED WITH
of sediments during flood conditions. Thus, even the
CONCENTRATIONS OF INORGANICS AT
contamination observed in the sediments directly
CERCLA SITES
downstream of a point source may not be attributable
to the existing source. The surface sediments after a Part B was developed to address issues that need
flood may represent contamination deposited from to be considered when the establishment of
upstream sources or historical contamination from background under CERCLA is required. Part B also

25
provides a summary of technical issues rather than an
in-depth statistical evaluation of the topic. Those
Step 3— Determine Potential Magnitude of a
needing an in-depth level of statistical evaluation
Problem by Combining Information from Steps
should seek the expertise of a statistician and may
1 and 2
benefit from a paper that addresses estimation of
background concentrations of contaminants, for Purpose: Combining information on past land
example Singh and Singh (1993) or Hardin and use and site operations with data from local, regional,
Gilbert (1993). and global contributions can help alert investigators
that the issue of background concentration might
Step 1— Conduct On- and Off-site
require more attention when developing a sampling
Reconnaissance as Preliminary Assessment
and analysis plan during the remedial investigation
Phase of CERCLA
(RI) process.
Purpose: The initial reconnaissance is
Approach: Information sources other than
performed to identify concerns associated with on-site
chemical analysis (e.g., information or data obtained
or off-site activities that may have resulted in
from other sources or Steps 1 and 2) may be used for
contributing to enhanced inorganic background
characterizing the background concentrations for a
concentrations.
site. A multi-tiered approach is often helpful to lump
Approach: See Step 1 under Part A (a similar background concentrations, such as:
approach should be considered).
1. Global contributions— mostly atmospheric
Step 2— Collect Preliminary Information and contributions from wet and dry deposition.
Samples About Background Levels of Concern
2. Regional contributions— influence of geological
Purpose: During the preliminary assessment/site formations (e.g., increased selenium in western
investigation (PA/SI) stage, existing soil and sediment regions).
analytical data for contaminated sites and background
3. Local contributions— contributions due to land
sites can provide initial information to identify
use (e.g., high arsenic, lead, andmercury values due to
problems that might be encountered with establishing
pesticide use in fruit production), local air emission
background values.
sources, and nearly all industrial activities.
Approach: The PA/SI stage is not designed to
Step 4— Establish a Clear Statement of the
evaluate all concerns at the site. However, an initial
Problems at the Site and Develop RI Sampling
site visit can be advantageous to evaluate site con-
Strategy
dition, assess analytical data, or collect samples of
equal number (i.e., number from contaminated site = Purpose: The RI process is the time to conduct
number from background site) from media that have detailed measurements of background concentrations
similar physical (e.g., texture) and chemical (e.g., pH, at CERCLA sites. Section 300.430(b)(8) of the
percent organic carbon, CEC) properties. During the National Contingency Plan requires that a sampling
SI phase, sufficient information is needed to support and analysis plan (SAP) be developed during the
the hazard ranking score (HRS) to identify if a scoping phase of the RI process.
contaminated site should be nominated for inclusion
Approach: A number of EPA guidance docu-
to the National Priority List (NPL) due to high threat
ments discuss the need to characterize background
to humans or the environment (HRS scores $28.5 are
concentrations as part of the SAP formulation step.
usually nominated for inclusion to the NPL). The SI
For example, according to the Guidance for Data
stage may present the first opportunity to actually
Useability in Risk Assessment (Data Useability
measure background con-centrations for assessing if
Guidance) (EPA 1989a), the SAP should be
observed releases have occurred. Section G of the
developed to resolve four fundamental risk assess-
preambl e to the HRS final rule (55 FR 5/546) on
ment decisions, one of which is to determine "whether
"Observed Releases" states that an observed release
site concentrations are sufficiently different from
is established when a sample measurement that equals
background." Similarly, the Guidance for
or exceeds the sample quantitation limit is at least
Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility
three times the background level (EPA 1992a, p. 2-3).
Studies under CERCLA (RI/FS Guidance) (EPA
1988) states that when determining the nature and

26
extent of contamination at a site, background analysis strategies are developed. This will guide the
sampling should be conducted to help identify the number and location of samples.
respective areas of both site-related contamination
and the background concentrations.
Approach: Determining the level of precision
Step 4a— Confidence Interval Determination
early in the development of a SAP will minimize
Purpose: The purpose is to develop confidence many future problems. Two types of statistical errors
intervals for determining mean metals values and are encountered when testing hypotheses about
problem statements for a contaminated site. differences between on-site and off-site
concentrations. The following definitions are true
Approach: Literature sources such as those
only if the null hypothesis (a) is used, but not with (b).
presented in Table 5 can be useful to determine if a
site has a potential contamination problem. However, 1. Type I error (") (false positive): "Rejecting the
literature values should be used only to support or null hypothesis when it is true." Because of the
help evaluate data from contaminated and background uncertainty related to sampling variability, an
site samples. Site variability must be accounted for individual could falsely conclude that the site-related
when conducting a characterization. Some sites have contaminant concentration is greater than background
fai rly homogenous soils, sediments, and areas concentration when it actually is not. In this case, the
impacted by emissions. More often, a site has a high null hypothesis is rejected, and the site-related
degree of variability, and the problem statement and concentration is considered to be statistically different
SAP need to reflect this. For many sites, a 95 percent from the background concentration.
confidence interval of the mean metals concentrations
2. Type II error ($) (false negative): "Accepting
would be reasonable (i.e., if the mean for lead is 20
the null hypothesis when it is false." Alternatively, an
ppm-dry weight ±4, the 95 percent confident
individual might accept the null hypothesis that the
background value would be between 16 and 24 ppm-
contaminated site-related concentration is less than or
dry weight). However, if the site is complex due to
equal to background concentration when it actually is
different soils/sediments and areas of concern, a 90
not. In this case, the null hypothesis is accepted and
percent confidence interval may be more acceptable
the site-related concentration is considered to be no
due to an increased number of samples and cost.
different from the background concentration.
Once a confidence interval is developed, a problem
statement for the site can be formulated to guide A decision based on a Type I error could result
further effort. An example of a problem statement in unnecessary remediation, while a Type II error
could be: "Are on-site concentrations of mercury, could result in the failure to clean up the contaminated
lead, arsenic, and zinc statistically different from off- site when remediation is necessary. The Greek letter
site background concentrations?" alpha (") is used to represent the probability of a false
positive, and beta ($) is used to represent the
Step 4b— Develop Hypotheses for Testing
probability of a false negative decision.
Purpose: EPA's RAGS "provides guidance on
Precision associated with hypothesis testing is
developing hypotheses to frame a problem in a
defined by the parameters of confidence level and
manner that can be tested."
power. These are defined in EPA (1992a) and EPA
Approach: There are two types of hypothesis (1989a) as:
most often used: null hypothesis (a) — the site-related
1. Confidence level (100 percent - ")— One
concentration is less than or equal to the background
hundred percent minus the confidence level is the
concentration, and null hypothesis (b) — the site-
percent probability of concluding that the
related contaminant concentration is greater than or
contaminated site-related concentration is greater than
equal to the background concentration. Additional
background when it is not (Type I error or "false
guidance on selecting hypotheses is presented in the
positive"). As the confidence level is lowered (or
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I
alternatively, as " is increased), the likelihood of
(EPA 1989c).
committing a Type I error increases.
Step 4c— Determine Level of Precision
Purpose: RI/FS guidance is that the level of
precision be determined before sampling and

27
2. Power (100 percent - $)— One hundred percent contaminated site and background values requires
minus the power is the percent probability of knowledge about how theinorganics of concern move
concluding that the site-related concentration is less in the environment, site variability, and level of
than or equal to background when it is not (Type I precision. The environmental scientist should initially
error or "false negative"). As the power is lowered (or seek the support and guidance of scientists and a
alternatively, as $ is increased), the likelihood of statistician familiar with the issues. A SAP can then
committing a Type II error increases. be devised to evaluate questions about background
where off-site concentrations are elevated due to off-
Although a range of values can be selected for
site anthropogenic contributions. Guidance for
these two parameters, as the demand for precision
reaching decisions in these cases can be obtained from
increases, the number of samples and cost will
the Draft Issue Paper (EPA 1992a).
generally also increase. The Data Useability
Guidance states that for risk assessment purposes, the
minimum recommended performance measures are:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Confidence, 80 percent (" = 20 percent) and Power,
90 percent ($ = 10 percent). These values can be The issue of establishing background concen-
interpreted to mean the following: trations for inorganic metals for comparison to levels
at a potentially contaminated site can be complicated
1. Confidence level = 80 percent— In 80 out of 100
by natural and anthropogenic contributions to total
cases, contaminated site-related concentrations would
background concentrations. The issues presented in
be correctly identified as being no different
this paper are designed to provide investigators with
(statistically) from background concentrations, while
sufficient knowledge to assess whether concentrations
in 20 out of 100 cases, site-related concentrations
of inorganics at a hazardous waste site are statistically
could be incorrectly identified as being greater than
above background concentrations. There are also
background concentrations.
discussions on how to approach background
2. Power = 90 percent— In 90 out of 100 cases, determinations at a hazardous waste site if there is a
site-related contaminants would be correctly identified high potential for regulatory enforcement action.
as being greater than background concentrations,
There are a wide variety of methods that are
while in 10 out of 100 cases, site-related
availa ble in the literature and in various EPA
concentrations would be incorrectly identified as
documents for evaluating background. Each method
being less than or equal to background concentrations.
is slightly different, but there are a number of
If the site situation requires a higher level of common issues that are presented in this paper. The
precision to reduce the probability of committing a most important factor to consider when determining
Type I or II error, it can only be accomplished by background concentrations is to ensure that the
increasing the number of samples and overall cost physi cal, chemical, and biological aspects of the
[see guidance in EPA (1995)]. These decisions need media to be sampled at both the contaminated site and
to be made on a site-specific basis and are primarily the background site are as similar as possible. There
related to remediation and risk reduction goals. are references and data included in this paper that
provide average concentrations and reference values
Step 5— Develop a Sampling Approach That Will
for selected soils and sediments in the United States.
Answer the Problem Statement and Meet the
Most of the values in the literature are for
Established Level of Precision
concentrations that include natural and global
Purpose: The environmental scientist can anthropogenic contributions. These should be
develop a range of costs and options for different considered but should not take theplace of conducting
ranges of probability values of committing either a a thorough site-specific investigation to determine the
Type I or II error. The guidance developed in Step 1 previous land use both on and in the vicinity of the
of conducting a preliminary background evaluation hazardous waste site to determine local anthropogenic
can be expanded, with the assistance of a statistician, contributions. The time spent using well-documented
to determine the number of samples, location of investigative skills to identify unaffected background
samples, and statistical test to employ. sites that are similar geologically to the contaminated
site will be of great value when establishing
Approach: Developing a full-scale SAP directed
background concentrations. This paper presents the
at determining if there is a difference between
issues that are important to consider when comparing

28
if inorganics at a hazardous waste site are statistically 29(2):470-477.
different from those found at a background site areas.
Di Toro, D. M., J. H. Mahony, D. J. Hansen, K.
J. Scott, M. B. Hicks, S. M. Mayr, and M. Redmond.
1990. Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: The role of
REFERENCES
acid volatile sulfides. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
Adams, W. J., R. A. Kimerle, and J. W. Barnett, 9:1487-1502.
Jr. 1992. Sediment quality and aquatic life
Di Toro, D. M., J. D. Mahony, D. J. Hansen, K.
assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26(10):1864-
J. Scott, A. R. Carlson, and G. T. Ankley. 1992. Acid
1875.
volatile sulfide predicts the acute toxicity of cadmium
Ankley, G. T., D. M. Di Toro, D. J. Hansen, J. and nickel in sediments. Environ. Sci. Technol.
D. Mahony, W. J. Berry, R. C. Swartz, and R. A. 26(1):96-101.
Hoke. 1994. Assessing potential bioavailability o f
Environment Canada. 1992. Criteres
metals in sediments: A proposed approach. Environ.
Intermimaires pour l'Evaluation de la Quality des
Manag. 18(3):331-33.
Sediments du Saint-Laurent. Environment Canada et
ASTM. 1990. Standard guide for collection, Ministere de l'Environnement du Quebec.
storage, characterization and manipulation of
Environment Canada. 1994. Interim Sediment
sediments for toxicological testing. Amer. Soc. Test.
Quality Assessment Values, Manuscript Report No.
Mat. ASTM Designation E1391, Philadelphia, PA.
ECD. Ecosystem Conservation Directorate,
ASTM. 1995. Standard practice for generation Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
of environmental data related to waste management
EPA. 1983. Geo-Tran, Inc., Draft RCRA
activities: Development of data quality objectives.
Permit Writer’s Manual, Ground-Water Protection,
Amer. Soc. Test. Mat. ASTM D-5792, Philadelphia,
40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F, submitter October 4,
PA.
1983 to the U.S. EPA, sec. 6.3.1, “Basis Statistical
Barnett, V. and T. Lewis. 1994. Outliers in Procedure” pp. 138-146 and section 6.3.2
Statistical Data. John Wiley, NY. “Alternative to the Basic Statistical Procedures”, p.
146.
Baudo, R. 1990. Sediment sampling, mapping,
and data analysis. Sediments: Chemistry and Toxicity EPA. 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
of In-Place Pollutants. R. Baudo, J. P. Giesy, and H. Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA SW-846.
Muntau (eds.). Lewis Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S.
MI, 405 pp. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
November 1986.
Bolton, S. H., R. J. Breteler, B. W. Vigon, J. A.
Scanlon, and S. L. Clark. 1985. National Perspective EPA. 1988, Guidance for Conducting Remedial
on Sediment Quality, EPA Contract #68-01-6986. Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
Office of Water Quality Regulations and Standards, CERCLA: Interim Final, EPA/540/G-89/004. Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S.
D.C. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Breckenridge, R. P., J. R. Williams, and J. F. EPA. 1989a. Guidance for Data Useability in
Keck. 1991. Characterizing Soils for Hazardous Risk Assessment, Interim Final, EPA/540/G-90/008.
Waste Site Assessments, EPA/540/4-91/003. Office U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
of Research and Development, Office of Solid Waste D.C., October 1990, p. 53.
and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental
EPA. 1989b. Methods for Evaluating the
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Attainment of Cleanup Standards, Volume 1: Soils
CRC. 1992. CRC Handbook of Physics and and Solid Media, EPA 230/2-89-042. U.S.
Chemistry, 73rd Edition, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Raton, FL.
EPA. 1989c. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Daskalakis, K. P. and T. P. O'Conner. 1995. Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation
Normalization and elemental sediment contamination Manual (Part A), EPA/540/1-89/002. U.S.
in the coastal United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,

29
December 1989, pp. 4-5. EPA. 1994c. EPA's Contaminated Sediment
Management Strategy, EPA 823-R-94-001. Office of
EPA. 1989d. Soil Sampling Quality Assurance
Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Guide, EPA/600/8-89/046. Environmental
Washington, D.C., 130 pp.
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV,
December 1989. EPA. 1995. Guidance for Data Quality
Assessment, External Working Draft, EPA QA/G-9,
EPA. 1989e. Statistical analysis of ground-water
U.S. EPA Quality Assurance Management Staff,
monitoring data at RCRA facilities: Interim final
Washington, D.C., March 17, 1995.
guidance, EPA/530-SW-89-026 or NTIS: PB89-151-
047. Giesy, J. P. and R. A. Hoke. 1990. Freshwater
sediment quality criteria: Toxicity bioassessment,
EPA. 1992a. Options for Addressing High
Sediments: Chemistry and Toxicity of In-Place
Background Levels of Hazardous Substances at
Pollutants. R. Baudo, J. P. Giesy, and H. Muntau
CERCLA Sites, draft issue paper. Policy and Analysis
(eds.). Lewis Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, 405 pp.
Staff, Office of Program Management, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. Gilbe rt, R. O. 1987. Statistical Methods for
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Environmental Pollution Monitoring. Van Nostrand
June 1, 1992. Reinhold Company, NY.
EPA. 1992b. Sediment Classification Methods Haas, C. H. and P. A. Scheff. 1990. Estimation
Compendium, EPA 823-R-92-006. U.S. of averages in truncated samples. Environ. Sci.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Technol. 24:912-919.
EPA. 1992c. Preparation of Soil Sampling Hardin, J. W. and R. O. Gilbert. 1993.
Protocols: Sampling Techniques and Strategies, EPA Comparing Statistical Tests for Detecting Soil
600-R-92-128. U.S. Environmental Protection Contamination Greater than Background, PNL-8989.
Agency, Washington, D.C. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA.
EPA. 1992d. Statistical analysis of ground- IJC. 1988. Procedures for the Assessment of
water monitoring data at RCRA facilities: Addendum Contaminated Sediment Problems in the Great Lakes.
to interim final guidance, EPA/530-R-93-003 . Sediment Subcommittee and its Assessment Work
Distributed as "Statistical Training Course Materials" Group Report to the International Joint Commission,
from RCRA. Great Lakes Regional Office, Windsor, Ontario, 140
pp.
EPA. 1993. Guidance for Planning for Data
Collection in Support of Environmental Decision Ingersoll, C. G., P. S. Haverland, E. L. Brunson,
Making Using the Data Quality Objectives Process, T. J. Canfield, F. J. Dwyer, C. E. Henke, N. E.
EPA QA/G-4. Quality Assurance Management Staff, Kemble, D. R. Mount, and R. G. Fox. 1995 draft.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, Calculation and evaluation of sediment effect
D.C. concentrations for the amphipod, Hyalella azteca and
the midge, Chrionomus riparius , submitted to J. of
EPA. 1994a. Framework for theDevelopment of
Great Lakes Research.
the National Sediment Inventory,EPA 823-R-94-003.
Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Kabata-Pendias, A. and H. Pendias. 1984. Trace
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Elements in Soils and Plants. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL.

Lee, H., B. L. Boese, J. Pelletier, M. Winsor, D.

EPA. 1994b. Assessment and Remediation of
T. Specht, and R. C. Randall. 1989. Guidance
Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program,
Manual: Bedded Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests.
Assessment Guidance Document, EPA 905-B94-002,
EPA/600/x89/302, ERLN-N111. Bioaccumulation
Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S.
Team, Pacific Ecosystems Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL, 247
Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, OR.
pp.

30
 Lewis, T. E., A. B. Crockett, R. L. Siegrist, and Technical Support Unit, Michigan Department of
K. Zarrabi. 1991. Soil Sampling and Analysis fo r Natural Resources, Lansing, MI.
Volatile Organic Compounds, EPA/540/4-91/001.
Mudroch, A. and J. M. Azcue. 1995. Manual of
Office of Research and Development, Office of Solid
Aquatic Sediment Sampling, Lewis Publishers, Boca
Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental
Raton, FL.
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., February.
NOAA. 1988. A Summary of Selected Data on
Long, E. R. and L. G. Morgan. 1990. The
Chemical Contaminants in Sediments Collected
Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-sorbed
during 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987, Progress Report
Contaminants Tested in the National Status and
for Marine Environmental Quality, NOAA Tech-nical
Trends Program, NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS OMA
Memorandum NOS OMA 4. NS&T Program,
62. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Rockville, MD, 15 pp. + appendices.
Administration, Seattle, WA, 175 pp.
ORNL. 1993. Final Report on the Background
Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith, and
Soil Characterization Project at the Oak Ridge
F. D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological
Reservation, Oak Ridge, TN, DOE/OR/01-1175/V1-
effects within ranges of chemical concentration in
3, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental
marine and estuarine sediments. Environ. Manag.
Restoration Division, Oak Ridge, TN.
19:81-87.
Ott. 1990. A physical explanation of the
MacDonald, D. D. 1992. Development of an
lognormality of pollutant concentrations. J. Air Waste
Integrated Approach to the Assessment of Sediment
Manag. Assoc. 40:1378-83.
Quality in Florida. Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, MacDonald Perrson and Rootzen. 1977. Simple and highly
Environmental Services, Ltd., Ladysmith, British efficient estimators for a Type I censored normal
Columbia, 114 pp. sample. Biometrika 64:123-128.
Madansky, A. 1988. Prescriptions for Working Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton.
Statisticians, Springer-Verlag, NY. 1989. Development of Provincial Sediment Quality
Guidelines. Ontario Ministry of the Environment,
Martin, J. M. and M. Whitfield. 1983. The
Water Resources Branch, Aquatic Biology Section,
significance of the river inputs to the ocean, Trace
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 19 pp.
Metals in Seawater. C. S. Wong, E. Boyle, K. W.
Bruland, J. D. Burton, and E. D. Goldberg (eds.). Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton.
Plenum Press, NY. 1992. Guidelines for the Protection and Management
of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario. Ontario
McBean, E. A. and F. A. Rovers. 1992.
Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario,
Estimation of the probability of exceedance of
Canada.
contaminant concentrations. Ground Water
Monitoring Review, Fall. Runnells, D. D., T. A. Shepherd, and E. E.
Angino. 1992. Metals in water, determining natural
Merck. 1989. Merck Index - An Encyclopedia of
background concentrations in mineralized areas.
Chemicals, Drugs and Biologicals, 11th Edition.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 26(12):2316-2323.
Merck and Company, Rahway, NJ.
Schropp, S. J. and H. L. Windom. 1988. A
Michigan. 1990. MDNR Verification of Soil
Guide to the Interpretation of Metal Concentrations
Remediation Document. Environmental Response
on Estuarine Sediments. Florida Department of
Division, Department of Natural Resources, Lansing,
Environmental Regulation, Coastal Zone Manage-
MI.
ment Section, Tallahassee, FL, 53 pp.
Michigan. 1991a. Background Soil Survey -
Shields, E. J. 1988. Pollution Control Engineers
Condensed Version. Waste Management Division,
Handbook, Cahners Publishing Company, Des
Geotechnical Sampling and Support Unit, Technical
Plaines, IL.
Support Unit, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, P.O. Box 30241, Lansing, MI. Singh, A. and A. K. Singh. 1993. Estimation of
background levels of contaminants, presented at the
Michigan. 1991b. MDNR Cleanup Verification
Joint Statistical Meeting of the American Statistical
Guidance Document. Waste Management Division,

31
Association, Biometric Society - EWAR and WNAR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. Ecological
and Institute for Math Statistics, San Francisco, CA, Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged or Fill
August 8-12, 1993; also Mathematical Geology, Vol. Material into Navigable Water, Interim Guidance for
26, pp. 361-388 1994. Implementation of Section 404(b) (1) of Public Law
92-500 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Singh, A., and J. M. Nocerino. 1994. Robust
Amendments of 1972), Misc. Paper D 76-17. U.S.
procedures for the identification of multiple outliers,
Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Handbook on Chemometrics in Environmental
Station, Vicksburg, MS: 1-EZ.
Chemistry-Statistical Methods, Volume 2, Part G.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. Washington State Department of Ecology
(WDOE). 1991. Sediment Management Standards,
Soil Science Society of America (SSSA). 1978.
Chapter-204. WAC, Olympia, WA.
Glossary of Soil Science Terms. Madison, WI,
January 1978. Washington State Department of Ecology
(WDOE). 1992. Statistical Guidance for Ecology Site
Managers. Toxics Cleanup Program, Olympia, WA,
Underwood, E. E. 1970. Quantitative August 1992.
Stereology, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company ,
Reading, MA.

32