1. TABLE OF CONTENTS
      2. SECTION II: ACT 2 REMEDIATION PROCESS
      3. A. Applying Land Recycling Remediation Standards to Your Property
      4. 1. Classifying your Site and Considering Options for Remediation
      5. a) Background Standard
      6. b) Statewide Health Standard
      7. c) Site-specific Standard
      8. d) Combination of Standards
      9. e) Special Industrial Areas
      10. 2. Immediate Response
      11. 3. Notice Requirements and Procedures
      12. a) Notice of Intent to Remediate
      13. b) Notice of Proposal for Nonuse Aquifer Determination
      14. c) Public Involvement Plan
      15. d) Remediation Report Notification Requirements
      16. i) Background and Statewide Health Standards
      17. ii) Site-specific Standard
      18. iii) Special Industrial Areas
      19. e) Fees
      20. 4. Site Characterization
      21. Importance of Site Characterization Step
      22. b) Scope of Characterization
      23. i) Soils
      24. Figure II-1
      25. Site Characterization Decision Tree
      26. ii) Groundwater
      27. iii) Sediment
      28. iv) Conceptual Site Model Including Soil and Groundwater
      29. v) Conceptual Site Model Example
      30. Figure II-2
      31. Graphic Example of Conceptual Site Model
      32. Figure II-3
      33. Flow Chart Example of Conceptual Site Model
      34. c) Applying Site Characterization to an Act 2 NIR – Example
      35. Figure II-4
      36. Site Characterization of Soil Contamination
      37. Figure II-5
      38. Site Characterization of Groundwater Contamination
      39. No Off-Property Groundwater Concentrations > MSC
      40. Figure II-6
      41. Site Characterization of Groundwater Contamination
      42. Under Statewide Health Standard
      43. B. Remediation Standards
      44. 1. Background Standard
      45. a) Introduction
      46. b) Process Checklist for the Background Standard
      47. c) Point of Compliance (POC) for the Background Standard
      48. d) Establishing Background Concentration(s)
      49. Figure II-7
      50. Point of Compliance for the Background Standard
      51. Figure II-8
      52. Point of Compliance for the Background Standard
      53. Off-Property Migration with an Upgradient Groundwater Source Area Release
      54. Figure II-9A and 9B
      55. Areawide Contamination Scenarios
      56. i) Background from a Known Upgradient Release of a Regulated
      57. Substance
      58. (a) Groundwater
      59. (b) Soil
      60. ii) Background from Naturally Occurring or Area-wide Contamination
      61. (a) Groundwater
      62. (b) Soil
      63. (c) Historic Fill
      64. e) Final Report Requirements for the Background Standard
      65. Figure II-10
      66. Background Standard Attainment with Areawide Fill
      67. i) Summary
      68. ii) Site Description
      69. Site Characterization
      70. Table II-1
      71. Suggested Outline for a Final Report under the Background Standard
      72. I. Final Report Summary
      73. II. Site Description
      74. III. Site Characterization
      75. IV. Background Standard
      76. V. Remediation
      77. VI. Attainment
      78. VII. Fate and Transport Analysis
      79. VIII. Postremediation Care Plan
      80. IX. References
      81. X. Attachments
      82. XI. Signatures
      83. iv) Background Standard
      84. v) Remediation
      85. vi) Attainment
      86. (a) Soil Background Standards
      87. (b) Groundwater Background Standards
      88. vii) Fate and Transport Analysis
      89. viii) Postremediation Care Plan (if applicable)
      90. ix) References
      91. x) Attachments
      92. xi) Signatures
      93. 2. Statewide Health Standard
      94. a) Introduction
      95. b) Process Checklist for Remediations Under the Statewide Health Standard
      96. c) Selection of MSCs
      97. i) Determining Groundwater MSCs
      98. ii) Determining Soil MSCs
      99. Figure II-11
      100. (a) Choosing the Soil-To-Groundwater Numeric Value
      101. (b) Considering Direct Contact Value in Relation to the Soil-to-
      102. Groundwater Value and Soil Depth
      103. (c) Selecting Applicable MSCs – Example
      104. Figure II-12
      105. Application of the MSC Selection Process
      106. Groundwater MSC:
      107. Soil MSC:
      108. d) Nonuse Aquifer Determinations
      109. i) General
      110. ii) Request Initiated by a Remediator as Part of an NIR
      111. iii) Nonuse Aquifer Conditions to be Met in the Area of Geographic
      112. Interest
      113. iv) Request for Certification of a Nonuse Aquifer Area Initiated by a
      114. Local Government
      115. v) Example
      116. e) Ecological Screening
      117. Figure II-13
      118. Nonuse Aquifer Screening Area (Parallel Flow)
      119. Figure II-14
      120. Nonuse Aquifer Screening Area (Convergent Flow)
      121. Figure II-15
      122. Nonuse Aquifer Screening Area (Divergent Flow)
      123. Figure II-16
      124. Ecological Screening Decision Tree
      125. i) Step 1: Presence of Light Petroleum Product Constituents
      126. ii) Step 2: Site Size
      127. iii) Step 3: Obvious Pathway Elimination
      128. iv) Step 4: Presence of Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern
      129. v) Step 5: Preliminary Onsite Evaluation
      130. Table II-2
      131. Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern
      132. Step 6: Detailed Onsite Evaluation and Identification of Species and
      133. Habitats of Concern
      134. vii) Step 7: Identification of Completed Exposure Pathways
      135. viii) Step 8: Attainment of Standard and Mitigative Measures
      136. ix) Step 9: Final Report - No Further Ecological Evaluation Required
      137. f) Final Report Requirements for the Statewide Health Standard
      138. Table II-3
      139. Suggested Outline for a Final Report under the Statewide Health Standard
      140. I. Final Report Summary
      141. II. Site Description
      142. III. Site Characterization
      143. IV. Statewide Health Standard
      144. V. Ecological Screening
      145. VI. Remediation
      146. VII. Attainment
      147. VIII. Fate and Transport Analysis
      148. IX. Postremediation Care Plan
      149. X. References
      150. XI. Attachments
      151. XII. Signatures
      152. i) Summary
      153. ii) Site Description
      154. iii) Site Characterization
      155. iv) Selection of the Applicable Statewide Health Standard
      156. Ecological Screening
      157. vi) Remediation
      158. vii) Attainment
      159. (a) Point of Compliance
      160. (b) Statistical Tests
      161. viii) Fate and Transport Analysis
      162. ix) Postremediation Care Plan (if applicable)
      163. x) References
      164. xi) Attachments
      165. xii) Signatures
      166. g) References
      167. 3. Site-Specific Standard
      168. a) Introduction
      169. Figure II-17
      170. Site-Specific Assessment Decision Tree
      171. b) Process Checklist for the Site-Specific Standard
      172. c) Site Investigation
      173. i) Site Characterization
      174. ii) Pathway Identification (§ 250.404 of the Regulations)
      175. (a) Groundwater
      176. (b) Soil
      177. (c) Cases Where No Complete Current or Future Exposure
      178. Pathway Exists
      179. (d) Cases Where Institutional or Engineering Controls Are
      180. Needed To Eliminate Pathways
      181. d) Risk Assessment and Development of Site-Specific Standards (§ 250.402)
      182. Table II-4
      183. List of Ecological Risk Assessment Guidances
      184. e) Cleanup Plan
      185. f) Remediation and Demonstration of Attainment
      186. g) General Report Guidelines for the Site-Specific Standard
      187. i) Remedial Investigation Report (25 Pa. Code § 250.408)
      188. ii) Cleanup Plan (25 Pa. Code § 250.410)
      189. iii) Final Report (25 Pa. Code § 250.411)
      190. iv) Combined Remedial Investigation Report/Final Report
      191. v) Risk Assessment Report (25 Pa. Code § 250.409)
      192. h) Detailed Report Requirements for the Site-Specific Standard
      193. i) Summary (RIR, FR, RIR/FR)
      194. ii) Introduction (CP, RA)
      195. iii) Site Description (RIR, RIR/FR)
      196. iv) Site Characterization (RIR, RIR/FR, RA)
      197. v) Source and Identification of Constituents of Concern (Part of
      198. Characterization)
      199. vi) Nature and Extent of Contamination (Part of Characterization)
      200. vii) Other Information Required Under the Site-Specific Standard (RIR,
      201. RIR/FR)
      202. viii) List of Contacts (ALL)
      203. ix) Remedial Alternative (CP)
      204. x) Treatability studies (CP)
      205. xi) Design plans and Specifications (CP)
      206. xii) Remediation (FR)
      207. xiii) Attainment (FR)
      208. xiv) Fate and Transport Analysis (RIR, FR, RIR/FR, RA)
      209. xv) Conclusions and Recommendations (RIR, RIR/FR)
      210. xvi) Postremediation care plan (if applicable) and other postremedial
      211. obligations (such as monitoring or institutional controls) (CP, FR,RIR/FR)
      212. Cooperation or Agreement of Third Party (CP)
      213. xviii) Public comments (ALL)
      214. xix) References (ALL)
      215. xx) Attachments (ALL)
      216. xxi) Signatures: (ALL)
      217. TABLE II-5
      218. I. Summary
      219. II. Site Description
      220. III. Site Characterization
      221. IV. Fate and Transport Analysis
      222. V. Other Information Required under the Site-Specific Standard.
      223. VI. Conclusions and Recommendations
      224. References
      225. VIII. Attachments
      226. IX. Public Comments
      227. X. Signatures
      228. TABLE II-6
      229. Suggested Outline for a Cleanup Plan under the Site-Specific Standard
      230. I. Introduction
      231. II. List of Contacts
      232. III. Site Maps
      233. IV. Remedial Alternative
      234. V. Treatability Studies
      235. VI. Design Plans and Specifications
      236. VII. Postremediation Care Plan
      237. VIII. Cooperation or Agreement of Third Party
      238. IX. Public Comments
      239. X. Signatures
      240. TABLE II-7
      241. Suggested Outline for a Final Report under the Site-Specific Standard
      242. I. Summary
      243. II. Remediation
      244. III. Attainment
      245. IV. Fate and Transport Analysis
      246. V. Postremediation Care Plan (if applicable)
      247. VI. References
      248. VII. Attachments
      249. VIII. Public Comments
      250. IX. Signatures
      251. TABLE II-8
      252. Specific Standard When No Current and Future Complete Exposure Pathways Exist
      253. I. Final Report Summary
      254. II. Site Description
      255. III. Site Characterization
      256. IV. Fate and Transport Analysis
      257. V. Other Information Required under the Site-Specific Standard
      258. VI. Conclusions and Recommendations
      259. VII. Postremediation Care Plan (if applicable)
      260. VIII. References
      261. IX. Attachments
      262. X. Public Comments
      263. XI. Signatures
      264. TABLE II-9
      265. Suggested Outline for a Risk Assessment Report under the Site-Specific Standard
      266. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
      267. PART 1 – Human Health Risk Assessment
      268. I. Introduction
      269. II. Site Characterization
      270. III. Exposure Assessment
      271. IV. Toxicity Assessment
      272. V. Risk Characterization
      273. VI. References
      274. PART 2 – Ecological Risk Assessment
      275. Public Comments
      276. Signatures
      277. 4. Special Industrial Areas
      278. a) Introduction
      279. b) Eligibility Determination
      280. c) Process Checklist for Special Industrial Areas
      281. d) Aspects of Special Industrial Areas
      282. i) Immediate, Direct or Imminent Threats to Human Health and the
      283. Environment
      284. ii) Consideration of Chronic Exposure in Evaluation of the Reuse of a
      285. Special Industrial Area
      286. iii) Contaminant Migration Off-Property
      287. iv) Contamination Identified Subsequent to Remediation and Agreement
      288. Conditions
      289. v) Storage Tank Closure and Corrective Action at Special Industrial
      290. Areas
      291. vi) Consent Orders and Agreements
      292. vii) Remediation
      293. viii) Environmental Covenant
      294. e) Work Plan for Baseline Remedial Investigation and Baseline Environmental
      295. Report
      296. i) Work Plan for Baseline Remedial Investigation
      297. ii) Baseline Environmental Report
      298. Attachments:

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION II: ACT 2 REMEDIATION PROCESS.......................................................................... II-1
A.
Applying Land Recycling Remediation Standards to Your Property..........................................II-1
1.
Classifying your Site and Considering Options for Remediation....................................II-1
a)
Background Standard...........................................................................................II-2
b)
Statewide Health Standard...................................................................................II-2
c)
Site-specific Standard ..........................................................................................II-2
d)
Combination of Standards....................................................................................II-2
e)
Special Industrial Areas .......................................................................................II-3
2.
Immediate Response ........................................................................................................II-3
3.
Notice Requirements and Procedures ..............................................................................II-4
a)
Notice of Intent to Remediate ..............................................................................II-4
b)
Notice of Proposal for Nonuse Aquifer Determination .......................................II-6
c)
Public Involvement Plan ......................................................................................II-6
d)
Remediation Report Notification Requirements..................................................II-7
i)
Background and Statewide Health Standards ..........................................II-7
ii)
Site-specific Standard ..............................................................................II-8
iii)
Special Industrial Areas ...........................................................................II-9
e)
Fees ......................................................................................................................II-9
4.
Site Characterization......................................................................................................II-10
a)
Importance of Site Characterization Step ..........................................................II-10
b)
Scope of Characterization ..................................................................................II-11
i)
Soils........................................................................................................II-11
ii)
Groundwater ..........................................................................................II-14
iii)
Sediment ................................................................................................II-15
iv)
Conceptual Site Model Including Soil and Groundwater ......................II-15
v)
Conceptual Site Model Example ...........................................................II-16
c)
Applying Site Characterization to an Act 2 NIR – Example.............................II-19
B.
Remediation Standards ..............................................................................................................II-25
1.
Background Standard.....................................................................................................II-25
a)
Introduction........................................................................................................II-25
b)
Process Checklist for the Background Standard ................................................II-26
c)
Point of Compliance (POC) for the Background Standard................................II-27
d)
Establishing Background Concentration(s) .......................................................II-28
i)
Background from a Known Upgradient Release of a
Regulated Substance ..............................................................................II-33
(a)
Groundwater ..............................................................................II-33
(b)
Soil .............................................................................................II-33
ii)
Background from Naturally Occurring or Area-wide
Contamination........................................................................................II-34
(a)
Groundwater ..............................................................................II-34
(b)
Soil .............................................................................................II-34
(c)
Historic Fill ................................................................................II-35
e)
Final Report Requirements for the Background Standard.................................II-35
i)
Summary................................................................................................II-37
ii)
Site Description......................................................................................II-37
iii)
Site Characterization..............................................................................II-37

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-ii
iv)
Background Standard.............................................................................II-41
v)
Remediation ...........................................................................................II-42
vi)
Attainment..............................................................................................II-42
(a)
Soil Background Standards........................................................II-43
(b)
Groundwater Background Standards .........................................II-43
vii)
Fate and Transport Analysis ..................................................................II-44
viii)
Postremediation Care Plan (if applicable) .............................................II-45
ix)
References..............................................................................................II-46
x)
Attachments ...........................................................................................II-46
xi)
Signatures...............................................................................................II-47
2.
Statewide Health Standard.............................................................................................II-47
a)
Introduction........................................................................................................II-47
b)
Process Checklist for Remediations Under the Statewide Health
Standard .............................................................................................................II-47
c)
Selection of MSCs .............................................................................................II-49
i)
Determining Groundwater MSCs ..........................................................II-49
ii)
Determining Soil MSCs.........................................................................II-49
(a)
Choosing the Soil-To-Groundwater Numeric Value .................II-51
(b)
Considering Direct Contact Value in Relation to the
Soil-to-Groundwater Value and Soil Depth...............................II-52
(c)
Selecting Applicable MSCs – Example.....................................II-52
d)
Nonuse Aquifer Determinations ........................................................................II-58
i)
General...................................................................................................II-58
ii)
Request Initiated by a Remediator as Part of an NIR ............................II-59
iii)
Nonuse Aquifer Conditions to be Met in the Area of
Geographic Interest................................................................................II-59
iv)
Request for Certification of a Nonuse Aquifer Area
Initiated by a Local Government ...........................................................II-61
v)
Example .................................................................................................II-61
e)
Ecological Screening .........................................................................................II-61
i)
Step 1: Presence of Light Petroleum Product Constituents ..................II-67
ii)
Step 2: Site Size ....................................................................................II-67
iii)
Step 3: Obvious Pathway Elimination ..................................................II-68
iv)
Step 4: Presence of Constituents of Potential Ecological
Concern ..................................................................................................II-68
v)
Step 5: Preliminary Onsite Evaluation..................................................II-69
vi)
Step 6: Detailed Onsite Evaluation and Identification of
Species and Habitats of Concern ...........................................................II-71
vii)
Step 7: Identification of Completed Exposure Pathways .....................II-74
viii)
Step 8: Attainment of Standard and Mitigative Measures ....................II-74
ix)
Step 9: Final Report - No Further Ecological Evaluation
Required.................................................................................................II-75
f)
Final Report Requirements for the Statewide Health Standard .........................II-76
i)
Summary................................................................................................II-79
ii)
Site Description......................................................................................II-79
iii)
Site Characterization..............................................................................II-79
iv)
Selection of the Applicable Statewide Health Standard ........................II-81
v)
Ecological Screening .............................................................................II-82
vi)
Remediation ...........................................................................................II-82

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-iii
vii)
Attainment..............................................................................................II-83
(a)
Point of Compliance ..................................................................II-84
(b)
Statistical Tests ..........................................................................II-85
viii)
Fate and Transport Analysis ..................................................................II-88
ix)
Postremediation Care Plan (if applicable) .............................................II-89
x)
References..............................................................................................II-90
xi)
Attachments ...........................................................................................II-90
xii)
Signatures...............................................................................................II-91
g)
References..........................................................................................................II-91
3.
Site-Specific Standard....................................................................................................II-92
a)
Introduction........................................................................................................II-92
b)
Process Checklist for the Site-Specific Standard...............................................II-95
c)
Site Investigation ...............................................................................................II-97
i)
Site Characterization..............................................................................II-97
ii)
Pathway Identification (§ 250.404 of the Regulations) .......................II-100
(a)
Groundwater ............................................................................II-101
(b)
Soil ...........................................................................................II-102
(c)
Cases Where No Complete Current or Future
Exposure Pathway Exists.........................................................II-102
(d)
Cases Where Institutional or Engineering Controls
Are Needed To Eliminate Pathways ........................................II-103
d)
Risk Assessment and Development of Site-Specific Standards
(§ 250.402).......................................................................................................II-103
e)
Cleanup Plan ....................................................................................................II-108
f)
Remediation and Demonstration of Attainment ..............................................II-110
g)
General Report Guidelines for the Site-Specific Standard ..............................II-111
i)
Remedial Investigation Report (§ 250.408 of the
Regulations) .........................................................................................II-112
ii)
Cleanup Plan (§ 250.410 of the Regulations) ......................................II-112
iii)
Final Report (§ 250.411 of the Regulations) .......................................II-112
iv)
Combined Remedial Investigation Report/Final Report......................II-112
v)
Risk Assessment Report (§ 250.409 of the regulations)......................II-112
h)
Detailed Report Requirements for the Site-Specific Standard ........................II-113
i)
Summary (RIR, FR, RIR/FR) ..............................................................II-113
ii)
Introduction (CP, RA)..........................................................................II-113
iii)
Site Description (RIR, RIR/FR)...........................................................II-113
iv)
Site Characterization (RIR, RIR/FR, RA) ...........................................II-113
v)
Source and Identification of Constituents of Concern (Part
of Characterization) .............................................................................II-114
vi)
Nature and Extent of Contamination (Part of
Characterization)..................................................................................II-114
vii)
Other Information Required Under the Site-Specific
Standard (RIR, RIR/FR) ......................................................................II-114
viii)
List of Contacts (ALL).........................................................................II-114
ix)
Remedial Alternative (CP)...................................................................II-115
x)
Treatability studies (CP) ......................................................................II-115
xi)
Design plans and Specifications (CP)..................................................II-115
xii)
Remediation (FR).................................................................................II-116
xiii)
Attainment (FR) ...................................................................................II-117

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-iv
xiv)
Fate and Transport Analysis (RIR, FR, RIR/FR, RA).........................II-119
xv)
Conclusions and Recommendations (RIR, RIR/FR) ...........................II-119
xvi)
Postremediation care plan (if applicable) and other
postremedial obligations (such as monitoring or
institutional controls) (CP, FR, RIR/FR) .............................................II-119
xvii)
Cooperation or Agreement of Third Party (CP) ..................................II-120
xviii) Public comments (ALL) ......................................................................II-120
xix)
References (ALL) ................................................................................II-120
xx)
Attachments (ALL)..............................................................................II-120
xxi)
Signatures: (ALL) ...............................................................................II-121
4.
Special Industrial Areas ...............................................................................................II-130
a)
Introduction......................................................................................................II-130
b)
Eligibility Determination .................................................................................II-130
c)
Process Checklist for Special Industrial Areas ................................................II-131
d)
Aspects of Special Industrial Areas .................................................................II-133
i)
Immediate, Direct or Imminent Threats to Human Health
and the Environment ............................................................................II-133
ii)
Consideration of Chronic Exposure in Evaluation of the
Reuse of a Special Industrial Area.......................................................II-134
iii)
Contaminant Migration Off-Property ..................................................II-135
iv)
Contamination Identified Subsequent to Remediation and
Agreement Conditions .........................................................................II-135
v)
Storage Tank Closure and Corrective Action at Special
Industrial Areas....................................................................................II-135
vi)
Consent Orders and Agreements .........................................................II-135
vii)
Remediation .........................................................................................II-136
viii)
Environmental Covenant .....................................................................II-136
e)
Work Plan for Baseline Remedial Investigation and Baseline
Environmental Report......................................................................................II-137
i)
Work Plan for Baseline Remedial Investigation..................................II-137
ii)
Baseline Environmental Report ...........................................................II-138

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-1
SECTION II: ACT 2 REMEDIATION PROCESS
A.
Applying Land Recycling Remediation Standards to Your Property
1.
Classifying your Site and Considering Options for Remediation
To select a standard for your site, a site assessment is needed to determine site conditions
that may require remediation of a release. Characterization of a release includes the
identification of specific contaminant concentrations throughout soil and groundwater
media, discharges to surface water and air, and any other conditions that may pose a risk
to human health and the environment associated with the release. The site
characterization may reveal that the remediator needs to interface with other
environmental laws and/or Act 2. Under Act 2, the appropriate standard or combination
of standards (i.e., background, Statewide health or site-specific) must be determined. The
Department will accept notices of intent to remediate (NIRs) for properties on which a
release of regulated substances can be documented, or for properties affected by off-
property releases of regulated substances for which the remediator is not responsible.
The background, Statewide health and site-specific standards may be used at any site.
Only certain sites qualify as Special Industrial Areas (SIA).
A person with a property with multiple distinct areas of contamination may submit an
NIR for a single area or for multiple individual areas. A distinct area of contamination
includes the volume of all media affected by the release causing the contamination. For
example, if soils were contaminated and that contamination migrated to groundwater,
both the contaminated soil and groundwater would be part of the distinct area of
contamination associated with the release.
In some cases, the Department may agree that characterizing all contaminated media as a
distinct area is not practical and may approve a site characterization limited to a single
medium. One example of this situation is when a remediator completes a soil media
cleanup and an associated groundwater cleanup will take a period of years before
attainment can be demonstrated. In this case, the remediator could receive approval of a
final report for soils alone (and the associated liability relief), and later when the
groundwater is remediated to a point where attainment can be demonstrated, the
remediator could submit a separate final report for the groundwater. A second example is
the case where a remediator may be approaching multiple areas of concern (AOCs) on
the property over a period of years such as multiple soil AOCs, and a groundwater unit
which is a combination of the effects of the various soil AOCs. Here the remediator
could submit NIRs/final reports for individual soil areas of concern and, at some time in
the future when the source areas (all the soil AOCs) have been remediated, submit an
NIR for the groundwater unit. The liability protection afforded under Chapter 5 of Act 2
is for contamination from a release identified in the approved final report. Therefore, the
more extensive and thorough site characterization is, the more extensive the liability
protection. This is true in terms of both size of area included as the site and in the listing
of regulated substances which are a part of the site. By example, the lower the censoring
level chosen in the site characterization, a larger area and more regulated substances
would likely be included in the site (see Section II.A.4 for an example of applying site
characterization to a site).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-2
The Department will specify details of the site in the final report approval letter and
attachments, which describe the extent of the liability protection provided under Act 2.
a)
Background Standard
A remediator cleaning up a site to the background standard must document that
the concentration of any regulated substances remaining are at a level not related
to any release of regulated substances at the site. Samples are required both in the
area shown to be contaminated by onsite releases (i.e., the site) and in an
appropriate background reference area to demonstrate attainment of the
background standard. This standard is useful in cases of releases migrating from
off-property, for widespread contamination, or naturally occurring conditions.
b)
Statewide Health Standard
Chapter 250 establishes Statewide health standards (SHS) for regulated
substances in each environmental medium. These standards are referred to as
medium-specific concentrations (MSCs), and they must be achieved to
demonstrate attainment of the SHS. In addition to demonstrating that a site has
attained MSCs based on human health, an ecological screen to demonstrate
protection of ecological receptors and a vapor intrusion analysis are part of the
SHS.
c)
Site-specific Standard
Cleanup levels may be developed which pertain specifically to the unique
exposure pathways at a site. This is a more detailed process, both technically and
administratively. The human and ecological receptors at the site need to be
addressed either through the elimination of the exposure pathways or a risk
assessment. A site-specific cleanup also provides an opportunity for public
participation.
d)
Combination of Standards
A cleanup may be performed by using any combination of the three standards.
The remediator may select any one or a combination of standards by regulated
substance, by medium of concern, or by distinct area of contamination (see
Section II.A.1). Combinations must satisfy all of the requirements of each
standard used. For example, in using any combination of standards which
includes the site-specific standard, the risk assessment should include only those
regulated substances for which site-specific numeric standards are being
developed, and for these substances, the cumulative risk requirements of
Section 304 of Act 2 (35 P.S. § 6026.304) must be met. Attainment of these site-
specific numeric standards must be demonstrated in the final report. In addition,
all of the requirements of the site-specific standard, including the reporting
requirements, apply. All regulated substances, media, or distinct areas of
contamination meeting another standard (e.g., the SHS) must meet the
requirements of that standard. Therefore, in addition to a combination of

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-3
numerical standards there will be combinations of requirements for reporting,
attainment tests, and points of compliance.
e)
Special Industrial Areas
A common misconception by users of the land recycling program (LRP) is that
there is a separate special industrial area SIA standard. This is not the case.
Attainment of one of the three available standards (background, Statewide health
or site-specific) can be demonstrated for properties being remediated as SIA sites.
However, the focus of the SIA requirements is on characterizing the
contamination within the property boundary and addressing immediate, direct or
imminent threats to human health and the environment.
The SIA designation was created by Act 2 to provide special remediation
requirements for a distinct set of properties that were used for industrial activity.
SIAs are properties where there is no financially viable responsible party, or
where the property is located within an enterprise zone (EZ). EZs are a certain
type of distressed property designated by the Department of Community and
Economic Development (DCED). Since DCED programs change over time, other
property designations may also qualify a property to be an SIA. Remediators are
encouraged to consult with DCED to verify that a specific property lies within an
established EZ.
The remediator and the reuser afforded these special requirements must
demonstrate that he/she did not cause or contribute to releases of regulated
substances at the property. The remediator must enter into a Consent Order and
Agreement (CO&A) with the Department in order to make use of the SIA
designation.
2.
Immediate Response
If an immediate hazard exists or is discovered at a site, prompt action is necessary to
abate the hazardous condition and prevent future or further release of regulated
substances. Leaking tanks or drums, conditions presenting a fire or explosion threat, or a
situation involving a threat to human health or the environment warrant a prompt
response. Act 2 does not prevent or impede an immediate response to such emergencies.
Section 307 of Act 2 (35 P.S. § 6026.307) provides that the provisions under Chapter 3 of
the statute, relating to remediation standards and review procedures including SIA
cleanups, shall not prevent or impede applicable emergency or interim responses. Final
remediation shall comply with that chapter, which will not be prejudiced by the
mitigation measures (emergency or interim response) undertaken to that. It is the
responsibility of the appropriate person to act in a timely manner to abate immediate
threats. The remediator still needs to follow the notification requirements of the Clean
Streams Law or Solid Waste Management Act. However, if the final report
demonstrating attainment of a standard is submitted within 90 days of the release, the
NIR is not required to be filed, and no public notice is required.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-4
3.
Notice Requirements and Procedures
a)
Notice of Intent to Remediate
Intent to perform a site remediation under the provisions of Act 2 requires
municipal, public, and Department notification. The formal process for
conducting remediation under Act 2 is initiated with submission of the NIR to the
Department. The NIR and instructions are available online at the Land Recycling
web page under “Forms and Lists.” Submission of the NIR will initiate the
notification procedures.
Act 2 provides that any person, firm, corporation, or other entity that proposes or
is required to respond to the release of a regulated substance at a site shall comply
with public notification requirements except for certain situations defined in
Act 2.
The NIR provides basic information on the applicant and the site. The NIR shall
include a brief description of the site, ownership information, a listing of the
contaminants involved and media affected, proposed remediation (if applicable),
and the proposed future use of the site. The NIR may address all of the affected
property or may only address those distinct areas of contamination which the
remediator chooses to address, which then become sites. Some site
characterization is recommended prior to submission of an NIR to obtain
sufficient site information to determine the scope of any site contamination and
select the remediation standard. Communication with DEP Regional Office staff
regarding procedures, assessment, and aspects of remediation is encouraged. The
following are the procedures for an NIR:
Municipal and public notification of the NIR is required before the NIR is
submitted to the Department. These notices are accomplished by:
?
Sending a copy of the NIR with an accompanying cover letter to
the municipality, or municipalities, where the site is located.
?
Publishing or arranging for the publication of a summary of the
NIR in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the site.
This summary should be a legal notice and developed following
the model format on the Land Recycling web page under “Forms
& Lists.”
At the same time as the submittal of the NIR to the Department, provide
the Department with reasonable proof of the public and municipal
notification of the NIR. An example of reasonable proof of municipal
notification is a copy of the letter mailed to the municipality with the
certified mail receipt card. A copy of the proposed text of the newspaper
notice and expected publication date is an example of proof of public
notification. Submit the NIR and reasonable proof of public and
municipal notification to the Department’s Environmental Cleanup and
Brownfields Program (ECB) office in the region where the site is located.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-5
Provide the name and address of a contact person to whom
correspondence or communication can be addressed. Provide a copy of
the NIR to the owner of the property if the NIR is being prepared and/or
submitted by someone other than the property owner. Liability protection
is provided to owners of a property. All owners of the properties affected
should be included if the area of contamination includes more than
one property.
A 30-day period following submission of the NIR indicating use of the
site-specific standard or the SIA process is required by Act 2. The
municipality can request to be involved in the development of remediation
and reuse plans for the site during this period. The applicant shall inform
the municipality of the 30-day comment period when submitting the NIR
and should inform the municipality of the provision of Act 2 for
requesting a public involvement plan. The newspaper notice shall also
provide a statement about the 30-day comment period and the right of a
municipality to request involvement in the development of the remediation
and reuse plan for the site. The municipality will have received notice
prior to publication. The remediator must implement a public
involvement plan if the municipality requests involvement in the
remediation. The publication date of the NIR notice in the newspaper
starts the 30-day comment period. If the model format previously
mentioned is used, it will ensure the 30-day comment period and public
involvement plan information have been provided. The DEP will not
accept reports until after the 30-day comment period. Comments received
from the public or a public involvement plan, along with the remediator’s
responses to the comments, must be submitted with the appropriate final
report. A public involvement plan is described below in Section II.A.3.c.
The municipal and public notification requirements of each standard used apply if
an NIR is submitted for a combination of standards.
Persons submitting an NIR for background, Statewide health, or a combination of
these standards, who later decide to pursue cleanup to a site-specific standard or
as an SIA, must re-notice the cleanup according to the appropriate notice
provisions.
The Department regional ECB office may acknowledge receipt of the NIR and
will publish acknowledgment of receipt of the NIR in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin
.
The Department may comment on an NIR if the form is incomplete. An
incomplete NIR may not have sufficient information to initiate the Act 2 process.
The Department has enforcement authority to require assessment and remediation
on sites for which a person does not voluntarily initiate a cleanup under Act 2.
Public notification of submission of the NIR to the Department, the municipality,
and the public via the newspaper notice, and publication in the
Pennsylvania
Bulletin
, are not required for background or Statewide health standard

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-6
remediations if the final report demonstrating attainment of the standard is
submitted within 90 days of the release.
b)
Notice of Proposal for Nonuse Aquifer Determination
Any time a person is proposing to the Department that a site be eligible for a
Nonuse Aquifer Determination, notice must be given to the associated
municipalities and local water suppliers servicing that area. The notice is similar
to that of an NIR in that it is a letter format and identifies the associated “who”
and “where” of the proposal. In addition, a copy of the proposal sent to the
Department for approval should be attached to these notice letters. Under general
conditions, the municipalities and community water suppliers will have 45 days to
review this material and, if desired, provide the Department with any information
relative to the nonuse aquifer determination requirements specified in 25 Pa.
Code § 250.303(c). These conditions will be those upon which the Department
will base its approval decision. In the specific case where a municipality has in
place an ordinance meeting the performance criteria of this Technical Guidance
Manual (TGM), Section III.E.3 (relating to institutional vs. engineering controls),
the 45-day review period may be waived.
c)
Public Involvement Plan
All remediators conducting cleanups are encouraged to develop programs with a
proactive approach to involving communities in their plans. Remediators
selecting the site-specific standard or pursuing remediation as an SIA must
provide an NIR to the Department and the municipality, and to the public via
notice in a newspaper serving the general area of the site. A 30-day comment
period is to be included as part of the initial notice to solicit comments on whether
the municipality wishes to be involved in the development of the cleanup and
reuse plans for the site. The remediator of the property shall prepare a public
involvement plan which meets the provisions of Section 304(o) of Act 2 if the
municipality requests involvement during the comment period (35 P.S.
§ 6026.304(o)). This plan shall propose measures to involve the public in the
development and review of the remedial investigation report, risk assessment
report, cleanup plan, and final report for site-specific standard remediations, and
the baseline remedial investigation for SIAs. Public involvement measures may
include:
Development of a proactive community information and consultation
program that includes doorstep notice of relevant activities.
Public meetings located within the county where the site is located.
Roundtable discussions.
Public access for document review and discussion, and designation of a
single contact person to address questions from the community. Such
access should be at locations adjacent to primary highways for the
convenience of the public wishing to review the material.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-7
Formation of a community-based group to solicit suggestions and
comments.
Where needed, retention of a qualified independent third party to facilitate
meetings and discussions and to perform mediation services.
The remediator can use these or other appropriate methods, such as a website or
social media, to ensure the community has ample notice of intended
remedial/reuse actions and the appropriate public concerns are properly
addressed. The reports and plans submitted to the Department must include the
comments received from the public and the municipality as well as responses to
those comments. The Department will consider the comments as part of its
review of the plans and reports.
d)
Remediation Report Notification Requirements
i)
Background and Statewide Health Standards
When a final report is submitted under the background and Statewide
health standards the remediator should provide two copies of the final
report to the Department’s ECB Program regional office where the site is
located. One should be a paper copy, and the other can be submitted in
another format (CD, flash drive, etc.). A complete submission consists of
the report, a Transmittal Sheet, a printout of the online final report
summary, the checklist (optional), and the appropriate fee. The
Transmittal Sheet and checklist are available on the Land Recycling
website under “Forms and Lists.” The name and address of a contact
person to whom correspondence or communication can be addressed shall
be provided. The Department will acknowledge receipt of the final report.
The remediator shall provide municipal and public notification that a final
report has been submitted when the final report is submitted to the
Department. This notification is accomplished by:
Sending a notice to the municipality that a final report has been
submitted to the Department (a model format for this notification is
available on the Land Recycling website under “Forms and
Lists.”).
Providing a notice of submission of the final report to a newspaper
of general circulation in the area of the site. This notice shall be a
legal notice and developed following the model format (available
on the website) or other appropriate format provided by the
newspaper and provide the required information.
Providing the Department with reasonable proof of the public and
municipal notification by submitting a copy of the proposed text of
the newspaper notice and the anticipated publication date or a
photocopy of the published notification showing the publication

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-8
date. Proof of municipal notification of submission of the final
report may be accomplished by submitting a copy of the certified
mail receipt and cover letter of the municipal notice to the
Department.
The Department has a 60-day review period for the final report and shall
notify the remediator of deficiencies. It is the intent of the Department to
notify the remediator of both approvals and deficiencies of the final report.
The final report shall be deemed approved if the Department does not
respond within 60 days.
Other reports that fall outside of the scope of the typical reporting
guidelines are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and timeframes for such
reviews will vary based on the complexity of the site.
The Department’s regional ECB office will publish acknowledgment of
receipt of the final report in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin
.
Public notification of submission of the final report to the Department, the
municipality, the public via the newspaper notice, and publication in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin
is not required for background or Statewide health
standard remediations if the final report demonstrating attainment of the
standard is submitted within 90 days of the release.
ii)
Site-specific Standard
Under the site-specific standard, when a remedial investigation report, risk
assessment report, cleanup plan, or a final report is submitted, the
remediator should provide two copies of the document to the
Department’s ECB Program Regional Office where the site is located.
One should be a paper copy, and the other can be submitted in another
format (CD, flash drive, etc.). A complete submission consists of the
document, a Transmittal Sheet, the checklist (optional) and the appropriate
fee(s). The Transmittal Sheet and checklist are available on the Land
Recycling website under “Forms and Lists.” In addition, the submission
of a final report should include a printout of the online final report
summary. The name and address of a contact person to whom
correspondence or communication can be addressed shall be provided.
The Department will acknowledge receipt of the submission. The
remediator shall provide municipal and public notification of the
submission when the plan and/or reports are submitted to the Department.
This notification is accomplished by:
Sending a notice by certified mail to the municipality that a
specific plan and/or report has been submitted to the Department (a
model format for this notification is available on the Land
Recycling website under “Forms and Lists.”).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-9
Providing a notice summarizing the findings and recommendations
of the plan or report, along with the comments and responses, to a
newspaper of general circulation in the area of the site. This notice
shall be a legal notice or other appropriate format provided by the
newspaper and provide the required information.
Providing the Department with reasonable proof of the public and
municipal notification by submitting a copy of the proposed text of
the newspaper notice and the anticipated publication date or a
photocopy of the published notification showing the publication
date. Proof of municipal notification of submission of the final
report may be accomplished by submitting a copy of the certified
mail receipt and cover letter of the municipal notice to the
Department.
Remedial investigation reports, cleanup plans, and risk assessment reports
may be submitted together or separately. It is recommended that the risk
assessment be submitted individually because risk assessment reports are
considered stand-alone reports with separate fees and are reviewed
independently of other reports.
The Department has a 90-day review period for the plan and/or report and
shall notify the remediator of deficiencies. It is the intent of the
Department to notify the remediator of both approvals and deficiencies of
the final report. The plan and/or report shall be deemed approved if the
Department does not respond within 90 days.
Other reports that fall outside the scope of the typical reporting guidelines
are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and timeframes for such reviews
will vary based on the complexity of the site.
iii)
Special Industrial Areas
Municipal and public notification is required for submission of an NIR to
the Department, but it is not required for submission of a baseline
environmental report.
e)
Fees
The Department is required to collect fees to cover some of the costs of the LRP.
Section 703 of Act 2 specifies the appropriate fees involved for submission of
plans and reports (35 P.S. § 6026.703). The regulations provide further
specification on fees (25 Pa. Code § 250.7).
A fee of $250 is required for the review of final reports for the background and
Statewide health standards, and $250 for each remedial investigation, risk
assessment report, and cleanup plan for the site-specific standard. A fee of $500
is required at the time of submission of the final report for site-specific standard
remediations. No fee is required for submission of the work plan or baseline

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-10
environmental report required for SIA remediation. It is important to note that
submitting a combination of reports under the site-specific standard requires a fee
for EACH report submitted. For example, if one report containing a remedial
investigation/risk assessment/cleanup plan for a site undergoing a site-specific
cleanup is submitted to the Department, then $750 is required to be submitted
with the report. A final report submitted under a combination of cleanup
standards should be accompanied with a fee representing the higher of the
two standards’ final report fee.
Resubmission of any of the above required plans and reports will require payment
of the above fee upon resubmission. The Department may disapprove a plan or
report that does not have the appropriate fee.
Checks are to be made payable to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
.
A
Transmittal Sheet for Plan/Report Submission
is available for remitting the
appropriate fee with the submittal and should be used with all plan/report
submissions to the Department. This form may be obtained from the LRP web
site under “Forms and Lists,” or a copy may be requested from the Department’s
Regional office where the site is located or from the Department’s Central office.
4.
Site Characterization
a)
Importance of Site Characterization Step
Site characterization under Act 2 is a description of contaminated media,
including geology and chemical and physical characteristics, that affect
movement of regulated substances in environmental media. Site characterization
is the process for determining the site under Act 2; i.e., the volume of
contaminated media resulting from an environmental release of regulated
substances within which attainment of one or a combination of standards will be
demonstrated. The site is, in turn, the basis for liability protection under Chapter
5 of Act 2 when the final report is approved. In brief, the liability protection is
only as good as the site characterization.
The site characterization activities conducted must result in a thorough
investigation which meets the requirements of Pa. Code § 250.204.
A complete
and accurate site characterization, including fate and transport analysis, and
its documentation in the final report is very important, as it is the basis for
making remediation decisions and is used later in identifying the appropriate
area for demonstrating attainment. Except for sites involving the excavation
option for petroleum-contaminated soil (See 25 Pa. Code § 250.707(b)(1)(iii)),
without a proper site characterization, attainment requirements cannot be
met and the final report will be disapproved by the Department.
A remediator must keep in mind the definition of a site under Act 2. As defined
in Act 2, a site is “[t]he extent of contamination originating within the property
boundaries and all areas in close proximity to the contamination necessary for the
implementation of remediation activities to be conducted under the act” (35 P.S.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-11
§ 6026.103). Thus, a site often does not coincide with a property. A site may
occupy several properties, and, conversely, a property may contain more than
one site. In this manual, whenever the term “site” is used in connection with the
LRP, it is used strictly in the sense as defined in Act 2.
DEP Regional Office staff are a valuable resource and want to assist as needed in
evaluating site characterization information. Although not required, working with
the Department can help to facilitate approval of the submitted reports.
Remediators should always feel free to contact the Department’s Regional ECB
Program staff when there are questions about site characterization requirements of
a property under the LRP.
b)
Scope of Characterization
The scope of the site characterization should be designed to help the remediator
select an appropriate remedy that will meet the attainment requirements of the
selected Act 2 standard. The requirements that a full site characterization must
meet are described in the regulations at 25 Pa. Code § 250.204. During this phase
of the application of Act 2, the remediator should evaluate other applicable
regulatory requirements (see Section V of this manual), since information
required by other programs may be best collected during the site characterization
phase. The reporting requirements for the selected standard (background,
Statewide health or site-specific in Act 2 and Chapter 250 of the regulations) must
be met by the person conducting the cleanup. Section II of this TGM describes in
detail the reporting requirements for each of the standards available under Act 2.
The procedures, documents, and required fees for each standard are summarized
in Section II.A.3 (Notice Requirements and Procedures).
Characterization of sites which may require remediation begins with an evaluation
of any existing historical information about the release that identifies specific
regulated substances. The data objectives of the site characterization will differ
somewhat depending on whether soil or groundwater is being investigated.
Depending on the size and complexity of the site, the investigation portion of the
site characterization is typically an iterative process which expands and builds as
the information is gathered (see Figure II-1).
i)
Soils
Soils must be characterized horizontally and vertically to concentrations
below the selected numeric standards, or to where it can be demonstrated
that the pathway elimination measure is adequate to protect human health
and the environment. This ensures that all soils containing regulated
substances at or above the selected numeric standards have been
adequately characterized to support a fate and transport analysis which
shows where the contamination is currently located and those areas to
which it is moving. The remediator determines the concentration level for
characterization beyond the minimal level stated above. The remediator
must state what factors were used in determining the level used to define
the site boundaries.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-12
A thorough site characterization for soil should be able to provide the
following information:
The types of regulated substances associated with a release that are
present, their concentrations, and the spatial variation in
concentration of the regulated substances both horizontally and
vertically.
The physical characteristics of the soil in which the regulated
substances associated with a release are present and through which
they may be moving. These include the soil type (texture), dry
bulk density, permeability, organic carbon content, porosity, and
moisture content. Documentation of these properties and any
significant variability over the site may be very important later in
developing a fate and transport analysis.
Soil characterization samples should be collected from the areas with
anticipated highest levels of contamination (i.e., biased sampling). This
sampling method identifies the areas of concern (AOC) and helps to
determine the applicability of any proposed remedial action or soil
handling and disposal requirements during remediation.
It is important to remember that liability relief is afforded by Act 2 only
for the distinct areas of contamination identified and evaluated in reports
submitted to and approved by the Department. This is explained in
Section 501(a) of Act 2. Thus, liability relief applies to specific releases
regardless of when the release occurred or when the data associated with
that release was collected. Liability relief is not provided for the entire
property unless the entire property is identified as the site. If an additional
release has occurred at the site, liability relief is not provided for that
release until an Act 2 standard is attained for contamination associated
with that specific release. Historical data (i.e., data more than two years
old) can be used during site characterization if there is no reasonable
expectation that the site conditions associated with the release being
investigated have changed (e.g., changes in property use resulting in
changes in exposure). Historical data should be provided in the final
report as required by 25 Pa. Code § 250.204(c).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-13
Figure II-1
Site Characterization Decision Tree

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-14
ii)
Groundwater
If groundwater is known to be impacted by a release based on knowledge
of the site or as a result of soil sampling, a similar process as that used for
soils to determine the extent of the release into groundwater may be
employed based on knowledge of the site, groundwater monitoring, and
fate and transport analysis. A common mistake is to take a limited set of
groundwater measurements from a single sampling event, and if the
concentrations are below the SHS, conclude that no further work is needed
to obtain Act 2 liability relief. This is not true. Proper characterization
requires more than one round of sampling [25 Pa. Code § 250.204(e)]. In
addition, attainment sampling and demonstration are required even if
characterization samples are below the SHS (25 Pa. Code § 250.704). For
further guidance, see Section III.B.
Where groundwater is a medium of concern, the following information at
a minimum should be provided by a thorough site characterization:
The direction of groundwater flow.
The hydraulic gradient.
The permeability of the aquifer material(s) through which the
groundwater moves.
The porosity of the aquifer.
The types of regulated substances present, their concentrations and
the spatial variation in concentration of the regulated substances
both horizontally and vertically.
This information is not only necessary to describe and evaluate conditions
at the site, but also is often vital to fate and transport analysis, especially
when it requires a quantitative approach.
Fate and transport analysis is part of site characterization as well as
demonstration of attainment and is required under all three Act 2
standards. Failure to have a fate and transport analysis in any final report
is reason for disapproval based on this deficiency. See Section III.A for
guidance for conducting fate and transport analyses. The usefulness of
historic groundwater data can be determined in a similar manner as with
soils. Historic groundwater monitoring data can be useful for establishing
trends. Remediators may use historic data for site characterization at sites
that are not reasonably expected to have changes in site conditions
associated with the release being investigated (e.g., natural attenuation).
Older groundwater data can be used to delineate contaminants from a
specific release provided the groundwater quality has remained consistent
and no product degradation has occurred. However, be careful not to use
groundwater data collected prior to remediation for attainment purposes.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-15
iii)
Sediment
Act 2 allows for liability relief to be granted for regulated substances in
sediment. Specifically, Section 302(b)(1) of Act 2 allows for
demonstration of attainment of media of concern which includes sediment.
A remediator may demonstrate attainment of the background standard as
described in Subchapter B of the Chapter 250 regulations, and in 25 Pa.
Code § 250.707(a). The point of compliance for sediment is not
specifically discussed in the regulations but remediators are generally
expected to demonstrate attainment throughout the area of the sediment
that has become contaminated due to releases on the property.
The LRP has not established numeric cleanup standards for sediments.
However, sediment is sometimes only a concern to ecological receptors in
which case remediators can address sediment under the SHS through the
application of the ecological screening process described in Pa. Code
§ 250.311. The numeric soil standards published in the regulations cannot
be used for sediments, as the exposure assumptions used to develop those
values are not applicable to sediments. For remediations under the site-
specific standard, the site-specific ecological risk assessment process
should be used to demonstrate attainment for sediment.
iv)
Conceptual Site Model Including Soil and Groundwater
A complete and comprehensive site characterization will enable the
development of a conceptual site model (CSM). The CSM is a
representation of the site environmental system and the processes that
control the transport and movement of regulated substances through the
environmental media and how they interact. The CSM assists in
organizing the site investigation by identifying uncertainties and data gaps
and focusing data collection efforts. Information from the CSM can also
be used in the development of a vapor intrusion analysis or a risk
assessment.
The CSM can be depicted in different ways such as written text, a graphic
illustration, or a flow chart. The investigation portion of the site
characterization is typically an iterative process which expands and builds
as information is gathered. Consequentially, the CSM is a dynamic tool to
be updated as new information becomes available during site
characterization.
The level of complexity of the CSM and the level of detail needed is
directly related to the level of complexity of the site, the selected
remediation standard and the applicable media of concern. Less complex
sites need only a basic CSM to illustrate contaminant migration pathways,
exposure mechanisms and potential receptors. More complicated sites
will most likely need a CSM with a higher level of detail to describe all

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-16
the different routes of exposure through multiple environmental media to
various potential receptors.
EPA, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and Interstate
Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) all provide additional guidance
that may be used when conducting the site characterization investigation
and developing the CSM. Appendix A, Groundwater Monitoring
Guidance, is also an appropriate source of information. Figures II-2 and
II-3 below provide examples of CSMs presented graphically and in a
tabular format.
v)
Conceptual Site Model Example
A release of 1,100 gallons of jet fuel to the ground surface at a regional
airport resulted from an overfill of an above ground storage tank. A total
of 2,500 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated. Confirmatory
soil samples were collected from the excavation pit and monitoring wells
were installed to delineate groundwater impacts. Soil and groundwater
samples revealed detections of benzene, ethylbenzene, cumene,
naphthalene, toluene, and xylenes. Nine groundwater sampling events
were performed over a three-year period. Groundwater monitoring results
indicated that the plume had stabilized and groundwater concentrations
had decreased below the SHS groundwater MSCs. However,
confirmatory soil samples showed that all of these constituents, except
ethylbenzene, were detected at concentrations below the SHS MSCs.
Therefore, all but ethylbenzene could be carried through the SHS process.
All soil and groundwater detections were compared to the SHS vapor
intrusion screening values to delineate a potential vapor intrusion source.
Since this was a petroleum release and concentrations exceeding the vapor
intrusion screening values were more than 30 horizontal feet from any
building and no future buildings were planned in this area, no additional
vapor intrusion analysis was needed (see Section IV for vapor intrusion
screening values and a discussion of the use of proximity distances).
An evaluation of potentially complete exposure pathways was performed
by going through the SHS ecological screen process described in 25 Pa.
Code § 250.311. Since jet fuel was the only substance released at the site,
it was determined that no additional ecological evaluation was needed for
the constituents being evaluated under the SHS (see Section II.B.2.e for
additional information on the SHS ecological screen process).
The ethylbenzene concentrations in soil that exceeded the MSC were the
only remaining issue, so the remediator decided that this contaminant
would be evaluated using the site-specific standard. The remediator
performed a full receptor evaluation in their CSM and identified airport
workers, construction workers, utility workers, and travelers all as
individual receptors with different exposure parameters.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-17
Figure II-2
Graphic Example of Conceptual Site Model

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-18
Figure II-3
Flow Chart Example of Conceptual Site Model

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-19
Although the ecological screen process under the SHS was performed for
the constituents being evaluated under the SHS, a site-specific ecological
risk assessment is still required for constituents being evaluated under the
site-specific standard (see Section III.I for additional information on the
site-specific ecological risk assessment process). Thus, an ecological
receptor evaluation was performed using the Pennsylvania Natural
Diversity Index (PNDI) online search tool to identify any habitats or
species of concern that may have been impacted by the release. The
results of the PNDI search showed that there were no habitats or species of
concern identified as potentially impacted by the release at the site.
This is an example of a complete CSM because the remediator
accomplished the following characterization goals:
Full delineation of soil contamination down to SHS MSCs and to
SHS vapor intrusion screening values.
Full delineation of groundwater contamination down to SHS MSCs
and to SHS vapor intrusion screening values. The delineation of
groundwater included a robust data set with over four consecutive
quarters of groundwater monitoring, which accounted for any
potential seasonal variations (while four consecutive quarters of
groundwater data are not required for characterization, it helps
greatly in evaluating seasonality concerns and with generating a
robust dataset to be used for groundwater modeling, if necessary).
The vapor intrusion pathway was adequately evaluated by
identifying the potential vapor intrusion source and using
proximity distances to evaluate exposure.
Exposure pathways for ecological receptors were effectively
evaluated for both the SHS process and the site-specific standard
requirements.
All potential human health receptors and exposure pathway were
adequately evaluated, including the pathways that were
incomplete.
By fully delineating all impacted environmental media and by performing
a full receptor analysis, the remediator could effectively evaluate all the
site environmental systems and the processes that control the transport and
movement of regulated substances through the environmental media and
how they interact.
c)
Applying Site Characterization to an Act 2 NIR – Example
A characterization of soil contamination is shown in Figure II-4. This example
considers a large property with several smaller environmental releases. There are
two general areas where environmental releases occurred. The remediator has

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-20
initial results which suggest these two areas of concern for further study.
Furthermore, the remediator of this property wished to obtain Act 2 liability relief
for this release so that the property can be more easily sold. With this objective in
mind, the remediator plans a site characterization and weighs options. The
following are considerations that must be made.
In addition to factors that will help to characterize the hot spots, the remediator
must consider, first in designing further investigations and later in finalizing the
site characterization, what is the concentration of regulated substance(s) in soil
that will represent the boundary of the site. It is technically more difficult and
more expensive to define the extent of the contamination to lower concentrations
than it would be to define hot spots. However, the Act 2 liability protection only
applies to the site, and if the extent of the site is very limited, so too is the liability
protection.
To apply attainment in soils, the remediator must at a minimum define the volume
which exceeds the selected standard (25 Pa. Code § 250.703(b)). Sampling
beyond the initial phase indicates that two areas exceed the SHS MSCs. The
remediator reasons that, by choosing the boundary of the site to be concentrations
much lower than the standard, the area of the liability protection is increased. The
remediator considers 25 percent of the standard, 10 percent of the standard, and
the Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) of the substance(s) as resolution options.
The extra cost of characterization allows the remediator to maximize the site area
(and consequently the liability protection) by choosing the PQL and applying it
across the entire property. Within this site area, the remediator also characterizes
factors of the media and regulated substance(s) which affect movement (See
Section III.A, Fate and Transport Analysis). Another remediator may have made
a different choice and ended up with several smaller sites with liability protection.
In considering the definition of the site in groundwater (i.e., the plume), some
phase of the assessment must determine if the contamination extends beyond the
property boundary at levels exceeding the selected standard (25 Pa. Code
§ 250.704). If the determination is that levels off the property do not exceed the
standard, then the remediator determines that the standard can be attained at the
Point of Compliance (POC). Figure II-5 illustrates this situation.
If the contamination extends beyond the property boundary at levels exceeding
the selected standard, then the boundary of the site in groundwater must include
the contamination exceeding the appropriately selected standard off the property.
Figure II-6 illustrates this situation. A remediator must remember that if the
plume exists on both residential and nonresidential properties, then different
numeric standards would apply at those properties in most cases. Background
values may also be determined (25 Pa. Code § 250.707(a)(2)).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-21
Figure II-4
Site Characterization of Soil Contamination

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-22
Figure II-5
Site Characterization of Groundwater Contamination
No Off-Property Groundwater Concentrations > MSC

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-23
Figure II-6
Site Characterization of Groundwater Contamination
Under Statewide Health Standard

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-24
Two or more rounds of sampling and analysis must be performed once the extent
of contamination in groundwater is established utilizing properly constructed
monitoring wells (25 Pa. Code § 250.204(e)).
If no groundwater remediation is needed (e.g., both rounds of sampling are below
the selected standard), the remediator may use the site characterization sampling
as part of the required attainment demonstration. The Department may approve a
reduction in the number of quarters of sampling needed to demonstrate attainment
provided there is appropriate justification under 25 Pa. Code § 250.704(d).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-25
B.
Remediation Standards
1.
Background Standard
a)
Introduction
This chapter presents procedures to be used in assessing site contamination and
demonstrating attainment of the background standard. Use of this guidance and
data submission formats should simplify reporting on the site and reduce delays in
obtaining final report approval by the Department. This chapter is designed to
help those involved understand and meet the requirement of the background
standard under Act 2 and the regulations in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 250.
Environmental Cleanup and Brownfields Program staff in the Regional Offices
are a valuable resource and will assist in answering questions on the background
standard.
Background is the concentration of a regulated substance that is present at a site,
but is not related to the release of regulated substances at the property.
Attainment of the background standard for a regulated substance may be
demonstrated by an analysis of environmental media within and around the site
(35 P.S. § 6026.302). Establishing the background concentration is discussed in
Subsection II.B.1.d of this manual. Subchapter B under Chapter 250 of the
regulations also discusses the background standard requirements.
The background standard may result in higher than health-based level
contamination (e.g. SHS MSCs) moving onto the property from an adjacent
property or from constituents which are naturally occurring. Background quality
is the concentration of substances which are unrelated to the release on the site.
In order to demonstrate compliance with the background standard, remediators
should demonstrate that onsite media do not exceed the background standard for a
regulated substance(s) by statistically developing representative contaminant
concentrations through onsite and background reference samples of the
environmental media. Subchapter G under Chapter 250 of the regulations
establishes statistical tests recognized by the Department for the demonstration of
attainment. Background statistical attainment requirements are in 25 Pa. Code
§ 250.707(a)(1) for background soils and Pa. Code § 250.707(a)(2) or (3) for
background groundwater. Demonstration of attainment for background is
discussed in Subsection II.B.1.e.vi of this manual.
Reporting the completion of a remediation to the Department requires a final
report that contains a detailed description of the process taken to reach the
background standard and the reasoning for choosing media for testing.
Section 250.204 of the regulations discusses the requirements for a final report.
Section II.B.1.e of this manual also contains a discussion on the final report
requirements for the background standard. Summaries of sampling methodology
and analytical results showing attainment should be included with the report
35 P.S. § 6026.302(b)(2).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-26
Institutional controls such as fencing and future land use restrictions on a site may
not be used to attain the background standard. Institutional controls may be used
to maintain the background standard after remediation occurs 25 P.S.
§ 6026.302(b)(4).
If the initial remediation chosen by the remediator fails to attain the background
standard, the remediator may choose instead to meet the Statewide health or site-
specific standards 35 P.S. § 6026.302(c). Sites attaining and demonstrating
compliance with the background standard are not required to meet the deed
acknowledgment requirements of the Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA) or
the Hazardous Site Cleanup Act (HSCA) or the Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act (UECA). An existing acknowledgment contained in a deed prior
to demonstrating compliance with the background standard may be removed.
b)
Process Checklist for the Background Standard
Review the historic and current information and present use of regulated
substances at the property.
Begin the site investigation/characterization and gather information about
the area on and around the property.
As an option, begin using the completeness list (see LRP website) to help
verify that all requirements have been met.
Determine if property/site is affected by regulated substances not
originating from the property.
For the groundwater background concentration, establish if it is naturally
occurring/area-wide or from an upgradient source (see 25 Pa. Code
§ 250.707).
For the soils background concentration, establish if it is a naturally
occurring or area-wide problem. The Department has not established
background concentrations for naturally occurring substances as they may
vary considerably across the Commonwealth. Geochemical references are
available for certain rock and soil types in Pennsylvania and should be
cited as appropriate. Background concentrations should be determined on
a site-by-site basis.
If using the naturally occurring/area-wide background distinction, request
in writing and receive back in writing the Department’s approval that the
site is indeed in an area of widespread contamination for the regulated
substance on your property/site before submitting the NIR (see 25 Pa.
Code § 250.707(a)(3)(i)).
Continue with the site characterization and required activities needed to
complete the final report (see 25 Pa. Code § 250.204).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-27
Submit an NIR for the background standard. Also, send a notice to the
municipality, publish a notice in a local newspaper, and attach reasonable
proof of required notices for inclusion with the final report to the
Department 35 P.S. § 6026.302(e)(1). Procedures for submittal of
notifications are contained in Section II.A.3 of this manual. Links to
sample forms are located on the LRP website.
Remediate the site to the background standard.
Demonstrate attainment of the background standard pursuant to 25 Pa.
Code § 250.203.
Calculate mass of contaminants remediated using the procedure in
Section III.D of this manual.
Complete the final report summary and submit electronically as instructed
on the LRP website.
Prepare and submit the final report, along with the optional completeness
list (if used) to the appropriate DEP Regional Office. See
Section 302(b)(2) of Act 2, 35 P.S. § 6026.302(b)(2), 25 Pa. Code
§ 250.204, and Section II.B.1.e of this manual.
If the final report is approved, the liability protection set forth in Chapter 5
of Act 2 automatically applies.
If engineering controls were used and postremediation care is required to
maintain the standard, continue with the postremediation care program
detailed in the final report. Postremediation care would not normally be
used for the background standard.
When the background standard can be maintained without engineering
controls operating, document this to the Department and receive approval
to terminate the postremediation care program.
Submit an environmental covenant, if applicable, to the Department.
c)
Point of Compliance (POC) for the Background Standard
For the background standard, the POC for groundwater is throughout the area of
contamination (plume) both from the offsite (upgradient) release that migrates
onto the property and another release within the property, including areas to
which the onsite release has migrated off the property above the background
standard as determined by the site characterization (See Figures II-7 and II-8).
This differs from the groundwater POC for the Statewide health and site-specific
standards. (See 25 Pa. Code § 250.203(a)).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-28
For a property located within areawide contamination, the minimum required
POC is the extent of plume contamination on and off the property from an on-
property release, as shown in Figures II-9A and II-9B. A remediator may choose
to use a larger point of compliance by including all areas on the property which
have been affected by an upgradient release. In this example, the remediator
could choose to use the entire area shown as being affected by the upgradient
release as the POC. In such a case, the remediator would receive liability
protection for the entire area affected by the upgradient release.
The POC for the background standard in soil is throughout the area of the soil that
has been contaminated (See 25 Pa. Code § 250.203(b)).
For surface water, point source discharges shall be measured at the point of
discharge in accordance with limits in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit (See 25 Pa. Code § 250.203(c)). For spring
or diffuse groundwater flow to surface waters, attainment of the background
standard for groundwater will satisfy Act 2.
d)
Establishing Background Concentration(s)
Background concentrations are determined using analysis of samples of regulated
substances present at the property under investigation but not related to any
release at the property. If all areas on the property are affected by a release at the
property, then background samples will be taken in an area free of contamination
from any release at the site, including representative off-property areas. Persons
may not obtain Chapter 5 cleanup liability protection by using a contaminated
area as a background reference area when they are responsible for the
contamination.
Background soil sampling locations must be representative of background
conditions for the site, including soil type; physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics; and depth below ground surface. Randomization of sampling at
background and onsite locations must be comparable (See 25 Pa. Code
§ 250.204(f)(7)).
Any wells that are used to establish groundwater concentration(s) must be
hydrogeologically upgradient or otherwise justified from the groundwater onsite
that is affected by any release at the property and that characterizes the flow onto
the site. Upgradient wells may not be appropriate to detect movement of a dense
non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) since geologic structure rather than
hydrogeologic gradient may influence DNAPL movement.
Background concentrations determination will be by a statistically valid method
that is consistent with the methods used to demonstrate attainment. Statistical
methods are included in 25 Pa. Code § 250.707 and in Section II.B.1.e.vi of this
manual.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-29
Figure II-7
Point of Compliance for the Background Standard
Compliance with Background Standard from Upgradient Release with No On-Property Release

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-30
Figure II-8
Point of Compliance for the Background Standard
Off-Property Migration with an Upgradient Groundwater Source Area Release

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-31
Figure II-9A and 9B
Areawide Contamination Scenarios

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-32
For non-naturally occurring regulated substances (primarily organic compounds)
the affected area shall be shown to be related to sources other than the release of
regulated substance on the site. This may include transport of regulated
substances onto the property in the gaseous, liquid or solid phases and associated
mixing with or partitioning to onsite gaseous, liquid, or solid-phase media. For
background conditions that are related to ongoing flux onto the site (e.g.,
regulated substances dissolved in groundwater flowing onto the site or soil vapor
transport onto the site), the background concentrations shall be determined by
monitoring the concentrations of regulated substances associated with this flux
where it enters the property. For background conditions that are not related to a
continuing source of chemical flux onto the property (e.g., historical accumulation
of airborne contaminants including particulate and associated deposition in
surficial soils), the determination of background concentrations shall include the
identification of the source(s), if possible, and a demonstration that the areal
distribution of the background conditions extends beyond the limits of the
property.
These same determinations should be made for naturally occurring regulated
substances. However, an additional determination should be made as to the
naturally occurring concentrations of these regulated substances independent of
impacts from the release(s) or other background sources. Therefore, for naturally
occurring regulated substances, the background standard would include the
naturally occurring concentration plus contributions from sources not on the
property.
Use of breakdown products of a regulated substance from offsite which form on
the site undergoing remediation can be included in the assessment of attainment
of the background standard. The Department is willing to consider breakdown
products of substances released upgradient of the property. The remediator
should submit historical information and fate and transport analyses to
demonstrate that the substances onsite are a result of chemical breakdown and not
a result of a release on the property. Likewise, a conclusion that contamination
entering a subject property which transforms or degrades to a compound similar
to a spill which occurred on the subject property will be supported by the
combined sample analysis and fate and transport analysis determination. The
remediator must demonstrate that the concentrations are the result of
transformation or direct migration of chemicals from the background area.
The establishment of the groundwater background concentrations for a site using
sampling and analysis allows for two different background conditions, as
described in 25 Pa. Code § 250.707(a):
Background from a known upgradient release of regulated substance.
Background from naturally occurring or areawide contamination (this can
also apply to soils).
The Department provides different procedures to establish the background
groundwater concentration depending on which background condition is present

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-33
upgradient and adjacent to the property. The method used when establishing
background and determining attainment of the background standard for a site
must be the same.
i)
Background from a Known Upgradient Release of a Regulated
Substance
(a)
Groundwater
This groundwater distinction occurs when an adjacent or nearby
property has had a release of the same regulated substance that
flows onto the property under consideration for an Act 2
remediation. One option for determining background conditions is
through the use of monitoring wells sampled during the site
characterization to establish the well with the highest concentration
of the groundwater migrating onto the site. Another option is to
compare the statistical distribution of the background area with the
impacted area onsite. Section 250.707(a)(2) in the regulations,
Section II.B.1.e.vi of this manual, and the statistical requirements
in Section III.B of this manual discuss the handling of the
statistical requirements for groundwater attainment in the
background standard.
A remediator who believes that a site meets the conditions for
reducing the timeframe for implementing eight groundwater
sampling events as found in 25 Pa. Code § 250.707(a)(2)(x), and
already has eight or more samples collected in four quarters or less,
may request that the Department accept fewer than eight quarters
of sampling. The request may be submitted with supporting
information to the Regional ECB Program Manager. If the
Department is not satisfied that these conditions are met, the
remediator shall continue to monitor for the remainder of the
eight quarters.
The time frame for taking the background samples when
remediation is not undertaken may start before the site
characterization is completed. This will allow a remediator who
has existing data to establish background without the need to
monitor for an additional four or eight quarters if all the
consecutive quarterly data total four or eight quarters, as applicable
to that background condition.
If remediation action is undertaken, the attainment sampling is
done after remediation is completed.
(b)
Soil
Soils where a large area was affected by a release of regulated
substances off-property do not typically move from one location to

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-34
another in comparison with the movement of groundwater.
Natural movement of soil in Pennsylvania normally involves
surface water transporting sediment, landslides, or airborne
transport of soil or contaminants.
ii)
Background from Naturally Occurring or Area-wide Contamination
Some areas of the Commonwealth have naturally occurring or widespread
contamination. A remediator should obtain a written agreement from the
Department if they plan to demonstrate that their site is in an area of
naturally occurring or widespread contamination. This decision will be
based on evidence presented to the Department in writing by the
remediator seeking the determination. When the Department agrees,
through written acknowledgment to the remediator that the property under
investigation is within a location of areawide contamination, the following
approach for establishing background is allowed.
(a)
Groundwater
When the background groundwater condition is due to naturally
occurring or areawide contamination, a minimum of 12 samples
should be collected offsite and 12 samples collected onsite. The
number of wells sampled onsite and offsite must be the same in
each round of sampling. For example, if three wells are sampled
offsite, three wells must be sampled onsite. In this example, each
of the wells must be sampled a minimum of four times. The
samples must be independent of one another. The onsite and
offsite samples must be collected at the same time. The time frame
for establishing this condition is not predetermined, as it is in the
upgradient release. By increasing the number of wells onsite and
offsite, the number of sampling events necessary to meet the
minimum of 12 samples can be reduced (two wells will require
six sampling events, six wells will require two sampling events).
The offsite wells must be located upgradient of the site. The
number of wells and the horizontal and vertical location of the
wells onsite must be adequate to characterize any release of
regulated substance at each site. All sampling data must be
reported to the Department.
(b)
Soil
When the background soil condition is due to naturally occurring
or areawide contamination, the remediator shall compare the
analytical results of background reference samples that are
representative of naturally occurring or areawide contamination of
substances on the site, with the analytical results of onsite
concentrations. A minimum of 10 samples should be collected
offsite or at the background referenced area, and 10 samples
collected onsite. The comparison should be conducted using the

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-35
statistical methods summarized in 25 Pa. Code § 250.707(a)(1) and
in Section III.B of this manual.
(c)
Historic Fill
Some sites may be located in an area where there has been
widespread use of fill (Figure II-10). This fill may contain
regulated substances. If a spill or discharge of a regulated
substance occurs on a site that received fill long ago (historic fill),
the remediator can limit his remediation to the discharge that he or
she has recently caused. In this case, the remediator would obtain
relief from liability only for cleaning up what the remediator has
recently spilled. This includes contamination resulting from the
onsite release to the soil and groundwater. Remediators who wish
to limit their cleanup to the levels that were already present in the
fill should provide information to the Department indicating that
the fill was historical (placed prior to 1980), not placed at their
direction, and widespread or involved more than the subject
property.
An example of contamination that may have occurred through
airborne transport comes from the time when leaded gasoline was
commonly used in automobiles. The surface and near-surface soils
of properties along highways have been found to have elevated
levels of lead. Samples taken from a number of properties near
and along the highways would be required to compare the onsite
and offsite conditions.
e)
Final Report Requirements for the Background Standard
For a site remediated under the background standard, the remediator shall submit
a final report to the Department which documents attainment of the selected
standard. Section 250.204 of the regulations discusses final report requirements.
A complete final report is prepared in accordance with scientifically recognized
principles, standards, and procedures. The report will present a thorough
understanding of the site conditions. It will provide a detailed discussion on the
AOC and a conceptual site model based on the results of the site characterization.
Support for interpretations and conclusions will be based on data collected during
all of the investigations at the site. The level of detail in the investigation and
methods selected need to be sufficient to define the rate, extent, and movement of
the contaminants to assure continued attainment of the remediation standard. In
accordance with 25 Pa. Code § 250.204(a), all interpretations of geologic and
hydrogeologic data shall be prepared by a professional geologist licensed in
Pennsylvania.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-36
Figure II-10
Background Standard Attainment with Areawide Fill

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-37
Two copies of the final report should be submitted for the Department’s review.
One should be a paper copy and the other should be submitted in another format
(CD, flash drive, etc.). The final report must include the information in
paragraphs (i)-(xi) of this section, and it should be organized according to the
outline in Table II-1, below.
The following paragraphs describe the information to be included in the final
report:
i)
Summary
The Final Report Summary form should be filled in and submitted to the
Department electronically. The summary submitted with the final report
should be a copy of that completed form.
ii)
Site Description
Provide a description of the site in sufficient detail to give the reviewer an
overall understanding of the site and its location, and the types of
operations that are currently and/or were formerly conducted on the site.
As appropriate to the site, the description should include location, physical
description of the property, ownership history, site use history, and
regulatory action history (past cleanups).
iii)
Site Characterization
The site characterization provides important information documenting the
current conditions at the site and shall be based on 25 Pa. Code § 250.204.
The two principal objectives of an investigation under the background
standard are to determine what constitutes background for each of the
regulated substances associated with the release, and to characterize the
nature, extent, direction, volume and composition of regulated substances
that have been released. Considerations for establishing the background
concentrations are found in Section II.B.1.d. Section 250.204 of the
regulations provides reporting requirements for the background standard.
For sites where there are multiple distinct areas of contamination, the site
characterization process should be applied to each area individually.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-38
Table II-1
Suggested Outline for a Final Report under the Background Standard
I.
Final Report Summary
The final report summary should be a copy of the electronic form
submitted to the Department.
II.
Site Description
Provide a description of the site in sufficient detail to give an overall view
of the site (Section II.B.1.e.ii).
III.
Site Characterization
Document current conditions at the site (25 Pa. Code § 250.204 and
Section II.B.1.e.iii).
IV.
Background Standard
Describe how the background standard was established
(Section II.B.1.e.iv).
V.
Remediation
Describe the remedial methodologies used to attain the selected standard
(Section II.B.1.e.v).
VI.
Attainment
A.
Soil background standard
B.
Groundwater background standard
Both sections A and B should describe the statistical methods used to
establish background and to demonstrate attainment of the standard
(Section II.B.1.e.vi).
VII.
Fate and Transport Analysis
Describe fate and transport analyses used and the results and conclusions
(Section II.B.1.e.vii).
VIII. Postremediation Care Plan
This section is included only if necessary. It describes the engineering and
institutional controls necessary to maintain the standard
(Section II.B.1.e.viii).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-39
IX.
References
(Section II.B.1.e.ix)
X.
Attachments
(Section II.B.1.e.x)
XI.
Signatures
(Section II.B.1.e.xi)

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-40
Along with a narrative, the results from the site characterization and all
sampling and analysis work should be provided on map(s) illustrating, to
the extent possible, the interrelationship of the following:
All physical site characteristics.
All groundwater, soil, sediment, and other sample locations,
including sample depth and contaminant concentration.
The surveyed locations for all assessment structures (monitoring
wells, soil borings, test pits, etc.). All elevations should be
reported in reference to mean sea level (msl), where practical.
Appropriate number of stratigraphic cross sections that adequately
depict site stratigraphy, well locations, well depths, groundwater
flow directions, equipotential lines, flow lines, hydraulic
conductivity intervals and values, sampling intervals and
concentrations. All elevations should be reported in reference to
msl, where practical.
Variation in potentiometric surfaces(s), potentiometric surface
map(s), hydraulic gradients, and groundwater flow directions.
All identified sources of releases.
The extent and concentrations of contaminant plumes in all media.
The horizontal and vertical extent of contaminant plumes,
including the relative density and thickness of any separate phase
liquids (SPL) present.
Top of bedrock contour (if encountered).
A conceptual site model should be developed and refined as information is
gathered during the site characterization. The conceptual site model
provides a description of the site and extent of contamination. Some of
the information and data used to develop the site model would include:
The type, estimated volume, composition, and nature of the
released materials, chemicals or chemical compounds (include all
calculations and assumptions).
Source(s) and extent of release(s).
Background concentrations for constituents of concern.
The horizontal and vertical extent of contamination.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-41
Affected aquifer(s) or water bearing formation(s)/member(s),
hydrostratigraphic units.
All existing and potential migration pathways.
The estimated volume of contaminated soil and water (include all
calculations and any assumptions).
For soils, include information on samples and measurements used to
characterize the horizontal and vertical extent of contamination, and the
direction and rate of contaminant movement based on factors in the soil
and the contaminant(s) which affect migration. Soil and boring
descriptions should be included as an attachment.
For groundwater, include information on samples and measurements used
to characterize the horizontal and vertical extent of contamination, and the
direction and velocity of contaminant movement based on factors of the
groundwater and the contaminant(s) which affect migration. Geologic
boring descriptions and as-built drawings of wells should be included as
an attachment. Text, tables, graphics, figures, maps, and cross sections, as
appropriate, can be utilized to describe the nature, location, and
composition of the regulated substances at the site. Providing the data in
an appropriate format will expedite the review of the report.
iv)
Background Standard
How the background concentration was established.
Type of background condition: upgradient release or area-wide
contamination.
Identify on a map the location of background soil samples and
background groundwater wells.
Document that POC attainment for groundwater is throughout the
plume.
Attainment for each medium is to be determined by the same
method as the method used to establish background levels.
Summary of sampling methodology and analytical results relating
to determination of background.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-42
v)
Remediation
Provide a description of the remedial methodologies used to attain the
selected standard. Examples of the types of information typically included
in this section include:
Identification of areas remediated based on results of site
characterization.
Descriptions of treatment, removal, or decontamination procedures
performed in remediation. Description of removal, what was
removed, and amount removed. Results of any treatability, bench
scale, or pilot scale studies, or other data collected to support the
remedial action(s).
Description of the methodology and analytical results used to
direct the remediation and determine the cessation of remediation.
This description should document how the remediator determined
that remediation was performed to address all areas that exceed the
standard.
Description of treatment technologies.
Documentation of handling of remediation wastes in accordance
with applicable regulations.
Specific characteristics of the site that affected the implementation
or effectiveness of the remedial action, including such
characteristics as topography, geology, depth of bedrock,
potentiometric surfaces, and the existence of utilities.
All other site information relevant to the conceptual design,
construction, or operation of the remedial action.
In addition to the above, this section should also include the calculation of
the mass of contaminants addressed during the remediation of soil and/or
groundwater, using the methodology in Section III.D.
vi)
Attainment
Appropriate statistical methods, discussed in Section III.B, will confirm
the attainment of cleanup under the background standard. Not all the
statistical tests discussed in the manual are appropriate for the background
standard attainment tests. Section 250.707(a) of the regulations describes
statistical tests for the background standard. The following information
shall be documented in a final report when a statistical method is applied,
except for the highest measurement comparison test described in
§ 250.707(a)(1)(i) of the regulations:

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-43
Description of the statistical method and the underlying
assumptions of the method.
A clear statement of the applicable decision rule in the form of a
statistical hypothesis for each spatial unit and temporal boundary,
including the applicable statistical parameter of interest and the
specific cleanup standard.
Documentation showing that the sample data set meets the
underlying assumptions of the method and explaining why the
method is appropriate to apply to the data.
Specification of false positive and false negative rates.
Documentation of input and output data for the statistical test,
presented in table and figures, or both, as appropriate; and
identification, by medium, contamination levels remaining onsite.
An interpretation and conclusion of the statistical test.
In demonstrating attainment of the background standard, concentrations of
regulated substances are not required to be less than the limit related to the
PQL for that substance as provided for in § 250.701(c) of the regulations.
(a)
Soil Background Standards
The determination of attainment of soil background standards will
be based on a comparison of the distributions of the background
concentrations of a regulated substance with the concentrations in
an impacted area. Act 2 regulations allow a person to use highest
measurement comparison, combination of Mann-Wilcoxon Rank
Sum (WRS) test and Quantile test, or other appropriate methods to
demonstrate attainment of background standards. No matter which
method is used, Act 2 regulations require that the minimum
number of soil samples to be collected is 10 from the background
reference area and 10 from each cleanup unit. This requirement of
10 samples is to ensure that any selected statistical test has
sufficient power to detect contamination.
(b)
Groundwater Background Standards
There are two general categories of background conditions for
groundwater. The first is naturally occurring background or area-
wide contamination. The second is background associated with a
release of regulated substances at a location upgradient from the
site that may be subject to such patterns and trends.
For naturally occurring background or areawide contamination, it
is recommended that a minimum of 12 samples be collected from

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-44
any combination of upgradient monitoring wells, provided that all
data collected are used in determination of background
concentrations. This same number of samples must then be
collected from monitoring wells impacted by a release on the site
during the same sampling event. In both cases, this sampling may
be accelerated such that all samples are collected as quickly as
possible so long as the frequency does not result in serial
correlation in the data. The resulting values may be compared
using either nonparametric or parametric methods to compare the
two populations, such as using the combination of the WRS test
and the Quantile test. When comparing with the background
results, the sampling results in the plume onsite should not exceed
the sum of the arithmetic average and three times standard
deviation calculated for the background reference area 25 Pa. Code
§ 250.707(a)(3)(vii).
For background associated with a release of regulated substances
at a location upgradient from a property, the background
groundwater concentrations will be determined at the
hydrogeologically upgradient property line of the property, or a
point hydrogeologically upgradient from the upgradient property
line that is unaffected by the release.
Section 250.707(a)(2) of the regulations allows the use of the
nonparametric tolerance limit procedure for background associated
with an upgradient release of regulated substances. The
nonparametric tolerance limit procedure requires at least
eight samples from each well over eight quarters in order to have
sufficient power to detect contamination. Once the nonparametric
upper tolerance limit is established for upgradient data, data from
downgradient compliance wells can be compared to the limit. A
resampling strategy can be used when an analyte exceeds the
nonparametric upper tolerance limit. The well is retested for the
analyte of concern and the value is compared to the nonparametric
upper prediction limit. These two-phase testing strategies can be
very effective tools for controlling the facility-wide false positive
rate while maintaining a high power of detecting contamination.
See Chapter 19 of the EPA Unified Guidance (EPA 530-R-09-007,
U.S. EPA, March 2009), which describes the procedures to use.
vii)
Fate and Transport Analysis
The Fate and Transport Section (Section III.A) of this manual provides a
discussion on fate and transport analysis. The amount of detail in the fate
and transport analysis will vary from a simple narrative description to a
very extensive detailed model with quantitative modeling as appropriate to
the circumstances of the site. Whenever a model is used, the Department
must be provided with the assumptions, data, and information on the
model necessary for Department staff to evaluate and run the model. Any

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-45
parameters used in the analysis or models should use data obtained from
the site during the site characterization.
The following are examples of situations where a fate and transport
model/analysis is used to justify a special condition when attaining the
background standard:
When shortening the number of groundwater samples for
establishing an upgradient release in the background determination
(25 Pa. Code § 250.707(a)(2)(x)), it is required that fate and
transport be fully evaluated.
When contamination remains in the unsaturated soil, fate and
transport must demonstrate that the contamination in the soils will
not impact the groundwater and raise the level of regulated
substances above the groundwater standard. This would apply to
both the soils and groundwater attaining the background standard
or when using a combination of standards; for example,
background standard in the groundwater and SHS in the soils.
When the contamination on the site is the result of chemical
transformations (e.g., parent to daughter), fate and transport must
demonstrate that the concentrations of regulated substances onsite
were the result of offsite releases.
While the previous examples will require detailed evaluation, when the
source and any regulated substance that could have migrated from the
source are removed before contamination reached the groundwater, the
fate and transport analysis could be very short and non-quantitative.
When the background standard is attained in all media, the fate and
transport analysis will confirm that no cross-media contamination will
cause contamination in one medium to raise the contamination in another
medium above the standard.
If the standard will be exceeded in the future, a postremediation care plan
is required.
viii)
Postremediation Care Plan (if applicable)
If engineering or institutional controls are needed to maintain the standard,
a postremediation care plan must be documented in the final report in
accordance with 25 Pa. Code § 250.204(g). The plan should include
reporting of any instances of non-attainment; reporting of any measure to
correct non-attainment conditions; periodic reporting of monitoring;
sampling and analysis as required by the Department; maintenance of
records at the property where the remediation is being conducted for
monitoring, sampling and analysis; and a schedule for operation and
maintenance of the controls and submission of any proposed changes. The

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-46
Department may ask for documentation of financial ability to implement
the remedy and to maintain the postremediation care controls. When the
standard can be maintained without the controls operating and
documentation of such is provided, the Department will approve
termination of the postremediation care program.
ix)
References
Any references mentioned in the final report.
x)
Attachments
Attachments may include but are not limited to:
Tables – monitoring well construction summary, groundwater
gauging data (including elevation and non-aqueous phase liquid
(NAPL) thicknesses), analytical data, historical data.
Figures – including groundwater elevation maps, extent of NAPL,
concentration data for soil/groundwater/surface water, cross-
sections.
Monitoring well construction diagrams, boring logs, stratigraphic
logs (including soil/rock characteristics).
Sampling and analysis plan(s).
Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC)Plan.
Well search documentation (from PaGWIS).
Field data sheets, such as low flow purging monitoring.
Statistical worksheets, software outputs, graphs, etc.
Disposal documentation of soil/groundwater.
Remediation system operation, maintenance, monitoring data;
mass removal estimates.
Before and after remediation photographs.
Copy of municipal notification, reasonable proof of newspaper
notice publication, Department acknowledgement of natural or
area-wide contamination.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-47
xi)
Signatures
If any portions of the submitted report were prepared or reviewed by or
under the responsible charge of a registered professional geologist or
engineer, the professional geologist or engineer in charge must sign and
seal the report.
2.
Statewide Health Standard
a)
Introduction
The SHS is established by Sections 301 and 303 of Act 2 (35 P.S. §§ 6026.301
and 6026.303) and includes MSCs that must be attained to achieve the liability
protection provided for in the Act. The MSCs are calculated in accordance with
the methodologies in § 250.304 through 250.310 of the regulations.
The numerical MSCs are contained in Appendix A to Chapter 250, Tables 1
through 6. Cleanup liability protection provided under Act 2 is contingent upon
the attainment of the appropriate MSCs determined using the procedure described
in Section II.B.2.c below.
This guidance presents the procedures to be used in assessing site contamination
and demonstrating attainment of the SHS. Use of this guidance and data
submission formats should simplify reporting on the site and reduce delays in
obtaining final report approval by the Department. This guidance is designed to
aid in understanding and meeting the requirements of the SHS under Act 2 and
the regulations in Chapter 250. ECB staff in the Regional Office are a valuable
resource and will assist as requested in answering questions on the SHS.
Failure to demonstrate attainment of the SHS may result in the Department
requiring additional remediation measures to be taken to meet the SHS; or the
remediator may elect to attain one of the other standards.
b)
Process Checklist for Remediations Under the Statewide Health Standard
Review the historical information and present use of regulated substances
at the property.
Begin site investigation/characterization and gather information about the
area on and around the property.
Optional: Begin using the completeness list (See LRP webpage) to help
verify that all requirements have been met.
Optional: Determine if the property/site is affected by regulated
substances not from the property to determine if the background standard
may be appropriate. Contact DEP Regional Office for information.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-48
Submit an NIR for the SHS. Also, provide notice to the municipality,
publish a notice in a local newspaper, and obtain reasonable proof of
submittal for inclusion with the final report. Procedures for submittal of
notifications are contained in Section II.A.3 of this manual.
Continue with the site characterization and required activities, including
vapor intrusion evaluation (see Section IV of this manual), needed to
complete the final report.
Remediate the site to the SHS.
Demonstrate attainment of the SHS. Methods for demonstrating
attainment are described in 25 Pa. Code § 250.707(b) and in Section III.B
of this manual.
Calculate the mass of contaminants remediated using the procedure in
Section III.D of this manual.
Complete the Final Report Summary electronically in accordance with the
instructions on the LRP webpage.
Prepare and submit final report, along with the optional completeness list
(if used), to the Department. Reporting requirements are established by
25 Pa. Code § 250.312 and are described in Section II.B.2.f of this
manual.
A postremediation care program must be implemented and documented in
the final report including the information required by § 250.204(g) of the
regulations if: (1) engineering controls are needed to attain or maintain
the SHS; (2 institutional controls are needed to maintain the standard;
(3) the fate and transport analysis indicates that the remediation standard,
including the solubility limitation, may be exceeded at the POC in the
future; (4) the remediation relies on natural attenuation; (5) a postremedy
use is relied upon but is not implemented to eliminate complete exposure
pathways to ecological receptors; or, (6) mitigative measures are used.
Submit an environmental covenant, if applicable, to the Department.
Receive approval of the final report from the Department, if the final
report documents that the person has demonstrated compliance with the
substantive and procedural requirements of the SHS (which automatically
confers the Act 2 liability protection as set forth in Chapter 5 of Act 2).
Except for the special case of a nonuse aquifer standard (See
Section II.B.4.c), when the SHS can be maintained without engineering
controls operating, document this to the Department and receive approval
to terminate the postremediation care program.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-49
c)
Selection of MSCs
The appropriate MSC for each regulated substance present at a site is determined
for each environmental medium, particularly groundwater and soil. The decision
tree in Figure II-11 illustrates the thought process that goes into the selection of
the appropriate MSCs for groundwater and soil. If values for the compounds on a
given site cannot be found in Tables 1 through 4, please check Table 6:
Threshold of Regulation Compounds.
The values shown in the MSC tables are generally rounded to two significant
figures. Due to rounding the numeric values for placement in the tables, the
remediator is also permitted to round the concentrations reported by the
laboratory to two significant figures for comparison to the MSC values.
For example: The chosen MSC value for a certain compound is 2.6 μg/L. If the
laboratory reports a result of 2.629 μg/L, the remediator is permitted to round the
laboratory’s reported value to 2.6 μg/L and thus is able to attain the standard.
However, if the laboratory’s reported concentration is 2.678 μg/L, rounding to
two significant figures results in a concentration of 2.7 μg/L and thus exceeds the
MSC and is not able to attain the standard.
i)
Determining Groundwater MSCs
MSCs for regulated substances in groundwater are found in Appendix A
to Chapter 250, Table 1 for organic substances, and Table 2 for inorganic
substances. To use the tables, the remediator needs to know the use status
of the aquifer under the site, the naturally occurring level of Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the aquifer, and the land use of the site.
ii)
Determining Soil MSCs
In determining the applicable soil standard, the remediator must compare
the appropriate soil-to-groundwater numeric value to the direct contact
numeric value for the corresponding depth interval within 15 feet from the
ground surface. The lower of these two values is the applicable MSC for
soil. If either the soil buffer distance (described in 25 Pa. Code
§ 250.308(b) and (c)) or the equivalency demonstration (described in
25 Pa. Code § 250.308(d)) is met, the soil-to-groundwater numeric value
will be deemed to be satisfied, and the soil MSC will be the direct contact
numeric value. The soil-to-groundwater numeric value is the MSC for soil
at depths below 15 feet, unless either the soil buffer distance or the
equivalency demonstration is met. These values are determined in the
following manner:

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-50
Figure II-11
Decision Tree for Selecting Statewide Health Standard MSCs for Groundwater and Soil

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-51
(a)
Choosing the Soil-To-Groundwater Numeric Value
The remediator should begin by determining the appropriate soil-
to-groundwater numeric value from Part B of Table 3 for organics
or Table 4 for inorganics. The numbers in the table include both
the value which is 100 times the appropriate groundwater MSC
and the number resulting from application of the soil-to-
groundwater equation in the regulations (the “generic value”). The
remediator must determine the use status of the aquifer underlying
the site, its naturally occurring TDS level, and the land use
characteristics of the site. The numeric value may then be selected
from the appropriate column on the table, and compared to the
value for the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP),
if appropriate. Since the remediator has the choice of which soil-
to-groundwater numeric value to use, the remediator may choose
the highest of these three values (i.e., 100x GW MSC, the generic
value, or the SPLP result) as the soil-to-groundwater numeric
value. The remediator must keep in mind that for periodically
saturated soils, the generic value to use in this selection process is
one-tenth the value listed in the table (See § 250.308(a)(2)(ii)
and (a)(4)(ii) of the regulations). The intent of the one-tenth of the
generic numeric value provision in the soil-to-groundwater
numeric value calculation is to account for the dilution in
contaminant concentrations that occurs in soils that are periodically
saturated which does not occur in unsaturated soil. For
permanently saturated soils, contamination becomes a groundwater
contamination issue as the soil is in constant contact with the
groundwater rather than being only periodically saturated.
The value for the SPLP is the concentration of a regulated
substance in soil at the site that does not produce a leachate in
which the concentration of the regulated substance exceeds the
groundwater MSC. Values for the SPLP could not be published in
the tables of MSCs in the regulations because this test must be
conducted on the actual site soil. The following procedure should
be used to determine the alternative soil-to-groundwater value
based upon the SPLP:
During characterization, the remediator should obtain a
minimum of ten samples from within the impacted soil
area. The four samples with the highest total concentration
of the regulated substance should be submitted for SPLP
analysis. Samples obtained will be representative of the
soil type and horizon impacted by the release of the
regulated substance.
Determine the lowest total concentration (TC) that
generates a failing (leachate concentration greater than the

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-52
groundwater MSC) SPLP result. The alternative soil-to-
groundwater standard will be the next lowest TC.
If all samples have a passing (leachate concentration less
than the groundwater MSC) SPLP result, the alternative
soil-to-groundwater standard will be the TC corresponding
to the highest SPLP result. The remediator has the option
of obtaining additional samples.
If all samples have a nondetect SPLP result, the alternative
soil-to-groundwater standard will be the TC corresponding
to the highest concentration of each contaminant. The
remediator has the option of obtaining additional samples.
If none of the samples generates a passing SPLP, the
remediator can obtain additional samples and perform
concurrent TC/SPLP analyses to satisfy the above
requirements for establishing an alternative soil-to-
groundwater standard.
(b)
Considering Direct Contact Value in Relation to the Soil-to-
Groundwater Value and Soil Depth
The number selected according to the process outlined in
Section II.B.3.b.i of this TGM for the soil-to-groundwater pathway
numeric value must then be compared to the appropriate residential
or nonresidential, surface or subsurface, direct contact numeric
value from Part A of Table 3 or Table 4. The lower of the
two numbers is the appropriate MSC for the regulated substance.
If the soil buffer distance requirements are met or the equivalency
demonstration has been made, then the soil-to-groundwater
numeric value is deemed to be satisfied and the MSC is the
appropriate direct contact numeric value for the regulated
substance. The soil buffer approach incorporates fate and transport
considerations; therefore, meeting the soil buffer requirements will
not require any additional fate and transport analysis.
(c)
Selecting Applicable MSCs – Example
The process for selecting the appropriate MSCs for a site is
illustrated in Figure II-12. This figure represents the cross section
of a nonresidential site with soil contaminated with a petroleum
product. The aquifer does not qualify as a nonuse aquifer. The
remediator is interested in determining and applying the soil MSCs
under the SHS. This example shows the process applied to one of
the regulated substances: cumene.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-53
Figure II-12
Application of the MSC Selection Process

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-54
Details of the site determined during the site characterization are as
follows (see also Figure II-12).
Soil characterized as contaminated with regulated
substances from the petroleum product, including cumene
(concentration values > PQL, see Section III.G), is shown
and extends to a depth of 20 feet. For this example, the
remediator characterized the soil to the level of the PQL,
but could have selected any concentration level between the
SHS and the PQL, with the appropriate justification.
Soil contaminated at levels greater than the applicable SHS
is shown as a subset of the contaminated area and extends
to a depth of 18 feet.
Samples collected and analyzed according to the
methodology in Section II.B.2.c.ii.A established an
alternative soil-to-groundwater value of 20 mg/kg.
SPLP testing of site soil was established at 400 mg/kg.
Shale bedrock is present at varying depths between 30 and
35 feet.
The groundwater level is approximately 35 feet, but
fluctuates (annual high and low) between 28 to 40 feet and
the natural total dissolved solids level in the groundwater is
80 mg/L.
The vertical distance from the bottom of the contaminated
area to groundwater is h = 15 feet.
Scenario #1 - the above conditions apply, and in addition,
the results of sample analysis of the groundwater show no
values greater than 3,500
?g/L.
Scenario #2 - the above conditions apply, and in addition,
free floating product (approximately 1 inch) is found on top
of the groundwater level, and the concentration of cumene
below the groundwater level is 5,000
?g/L.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-55
The remediator takes the following steps to determine appropriate
MSCs for cumene at this site.
Groundwater MSC:
1)
For Scenario #1 AND Scenario #2: As a first step, turn to
LRP regulations, Chapter 250, Appendix A, Table 1 -
Medium-Specific Concentrations (MSCs) for Organic
Substances in groundwater. The remediator looks for the
row for cumene, under the headings “Used Aquifers,”
“TDS?2500 mg/L,” “NR” (for Nonresidential). The
groundwater MSC is 3,500
?g/L.
Under Scenario #1, the remediator concludes that there is
no aquifer area which exceeds the groundwater MSC
(3,500
?g/L)
and, therefore, no attainment demonstration is
needed.
Under Scenario #2, the remediator concludes that the
aquifer area exceeds the groundwater MSC (3,500
?g/L)
and, therefore, attainment demonstration is needed.
Soil MSC:
2)
The remediator turns to Chapter 250, Appendix A,
Table 3 – Medium-Specific Concentrations (MSCs) for
Organic Substances in Soil, Part B, Soil to Groundwater
Numeric Values. The remediator looks for the row for
cumene, under the Headings “Used Aquifers,” “TDS
?
2500 mg/L,” “Nonresidential.” The two values listed are:
100x GW MSC – 350 mg/kg
Generic Value - 2,500 mg/kg
The remediator then looks over to the last column on the
right for the soil buffer distance – 15 feet.
3)
The remediator assesses the use of numeric soil-to-
groundwater values. Three options exist under the
regulations (§ 250.308).
100x GW MSC – 350 mg/kg
Generic Value – 2,500 mg/kg
SPLP value – 400 mg/kg (from analysis of site
soil—see site characterization.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-56
Among the three acceptable values, the generic value of
2,500 mg/kg is the highest. The remediator considers using
this option, but first wants to see if the site could qualify for
the remaining two options for satisfying the soil-to-
groundwater numeric value, the soil buffer and
groundwater equivalency options.
4)
In examining the soil buffer option, the remediator checks
to see if the site meets the three regulatory conditions under
25 Pa. Code § 250.308(b), which states:
(b) The soil-to-groundwater pathway soil buffer is
the entire area between the bottom of the area of
contamination and the groundwater or bedrock and shall
meet the following criteria:
(1) The soil depths established in
Appendix A, Tables 3B and 4B for each regulated
substance.
(2) The concentration of the regulated
substance cannot exceed the limit related to the PQL or
background throughout the soil buffer.
(3) No karst carbonate formation underlies
or is within 100 feet of the perimeter of the contaminated
soil area. Karst carbonate formations are limestone or
carbonate formations where the formations are greater than
5 feet thick and present at the topmost geologic unit. Areas
mapped by the Pennsylvania Geologic Survey as underlain
by carbonate formations are considered karst areas unless
geologic studies demonstrate the absence of the formations
underlying or within 100 feet of the perimeter of the
contaminated soil area.
Scenario #1 - The remediator concludes that the site meets
the conditions for use of the soil buffer alternative to satisfy
the soil-to-groundwater numeric value and, therefore, only
the direct contact numeric value applies and becomes the
soil MSC for cumene.
Alternatively, the remediator could have considered use of
the groundwater equivalency option [§ 250.308(d)], but this
includes the condition that he/she monitor the groundwater
for 8 quarters prior to submitting the final report. The
remediator instead chooses the soil buffer option above.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-57
Scenario #2 - The remediator concludes the site DOES
NOT meet the conditions for use of the soil buffer
alternative because h=0 since soil contamination extends to
the water level and, therefore, there is no depth of clean soil
between the bottom of contamination and the groundwater
level.
The remediator then checks to see if the site meets the
requirements for use of the groundwater equivalency
option. (25 Pa. Code § 250.308(d) and Section II.B.6.d of
the Technical Manual). The site does NOT qualify because
groundwater is contaminated above SHS and background.
Therefore, the remediator should consider BOTH the soil-
to-groundwater numeric value and the direct contact (DC)
value.
Chapter 250, Appendix A, Table 3A—Medium-Specific
Concentrations (MSCs) for Organic Regulated Substances
in Soil, Direct Contact Numeric Values states that the
nonresidential numeric value for cumene is:
10,000 mg/kg applied to the 0’-2’ zone in soil
10,000 mg/kg applied to the 2’-15’ zone in soil.
The remediator chooses the soil-to-groundwater numeric
value based on the generic value of 2,500 mg/kg, which
applies to the zone(s) of the soil contaminated above this
value;
Zone 1—0-18’ (see Figure II-12)
Zone 2 – the “smear zone” in the soil
column created by groundwater level
movement – 28’--40.’ Note that this
zone also is considered saturated soil
under Chapter 250.
Next, the remediator checks to see where each numeric
value is applied:
DC value
Soil-to-GW value
Resulting Soil
MSC
Zone 0’-2’
10,000 mg/kg 2,500 mg/kg 2,500 mg/kg
Zone 2’-15’
10,000 mg/kg 2,500 mg/kg 2,500 mg/kg

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-58
Zone 15’-18’ NA
2,500 mg/kg 2,500 mg/kg
Zone 28’ to 40’
NA
400 mg/kg
400 mg/kg
Zone 28’ to 40’ is periodically saturated soil. The selection
of the applicable soil MSC for this zone must consider the
requirement that the published generic value be divided by
10. Therefore, the remediator may choose from the
following values:
100x GW MSC
350 mg/kg
Generic Value
250 mg/kg (0.1 x published
value)
SPLP Value
400 mg/kg
Therefore, the remediator chooses the SPLP result as the
applicable soil MSC.
For both scenarios, analysis of any attainment samples
(determined under Section II.B.2.f.vii of this manual)
would be compared to the appropriate numeric value for
the zone in which the sample was taken, and the attainment
test (e.g., 75%/10x) would be applied to the sample set as a
whole (e.g., the percentage of samples which exceeded the
appropriate numeric value must be
?
25% and no sample
may exceed the appropriate numeric value by more than
10 times [10x]).
d)
Nonuse Aquifer Determinations
i)
General
Section 250.303 of the regulations provides for options for requesting a
nonuse aquifer determination. Anytime a person is proposing an area for
nonuse aquifer determination, they must meet the notification
requirements of 25 Pa. Code § 250.5, which are described in
Section II.A.3, relating to public notice.
A remediator may request from the Department approval to use
alternative MSCs in groundwater at the POC when the aquifer
under a site is not used or planned to be used for drinking water or
agricultural purposes. This determination is to be requested by the
remediator, and the Department’s concurrence must be obtained in
writing before the remediation may begin. The notice
requirements under the nonuse aquifer request are made separate
from those under the NIR. Note that an NIR must be submitted
with, or prior to, the nonuse aquifer determination request.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-59
Although not required, the Department suggests that this request be
submitted in conjunction with an NIR.
A remediator may rely on a “nonuse aquifer certification area” (see
below) as documentation that they have satisfied 25 Pa. Code
§ 250.303(c)(1), (2) and (3) FOR THE SPECIFIC AREA defined
as a “nonuse aquifer certification area.” If the area they are
required to document extends beyond the nonuse aquifer
certification area, the remediator still has the obligation to
document those requirements in the area NOT covered by the
nonuse aquifer certification area.
Another option a remediator may have is using the presence of a
municipal ordinance meeting the performance requirements of
Section III.E (relating to institutional controls and other
postremedial measures) as documentation that the use restriction
meets the requirements of 25 Pa. Code § 250.303(c)(1), (2) and (3)
IN THE AREA SUBJECT TO THE ORDINANCE.
Municipal authorities and political subdivisions may request
determination that a specific geographic area meets the conditions
of 25 Pa. Code § 250.303(c)(1), (2) and (3). The area in question
is then referred to as a nonuse aquifer certification area.
ii)
Request Initiated by a Remediator as Part of an NIR
This option would be used by a remediator who desires to use the
alternative nonuse aquifer MSCs at a specific property. As detailed in
25 Pa. Code § 250.303(b) of the regulations, the area in which the
determination is to be made includes the property itself, all areas within a
radius of 1,000 ft. downgradient of the property boundary, and all areas
where the contamination has migrated, or may reasonably be expected to
migrate, at concentrations exceeding the MSC for groundwater used or
currently planned to be used. In making the request, the remediator should
provide the fate and transport analysis used to determine the area to which
the contamination has migrated and is likely to migrate. The Department
will accept or reject the remediator’s request based primarily upon the
adequacy of this analysis. The area determined is the area of geographic
interest to which the conditions of 25 Pa. Code § 250.303(c) apply. A
form, Request for Nonuse Aquifer Determination, is available on the
Department’s website to be used by a remediator to expedite the
Department’s review of a nonuse aquifer demonstration. Use of this form
is optional.
iii)
Nonuse Aquifer Conditions to be Met in the Area of Geographic
Interest
The requirements for demonstrating that an aquifer is not used are
contained in 25 Pa. Code § 250.303(c) of the regulations. The remediator

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-60
may make this demonstration by conducting door-to-door surveys of all
downgradient properties or by using other appropriate survey methods,
and by contacting all community water suppliers downgradient of the
property for service area information, including plans for future water
supply well development and service area expansion. If all of the
requirements are met, the Department may determine that the aquifer is
not used for drinking water or agricultural purposes. The remediator may
use the MSCs for groundwater in aquifers not used for drinking water or
agricultural purposes in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix A to the regulations if
the nonuse aquifer determination is made. In some cases, there may be a
significant lapse in time between the nonuse aquifer determination
approval and the submission of the final report. It is the intent of DEP to
ensure that the nonuse aquifer conditions are still representative when the
final report is submitted to the Department. Therefore, at the time the
final report is submitted to the Department for sites which have a nonuse
aquifer determination approval, the DEP may require basic assessment of
any changes which may have taken place since the nonuse aquifer
determination approval was granted. This assessment would be similar to
that applied under the postremediation care plan described below.
A postremediation care plan is required to provide reasonable confidence
that the appropriate geographic area continues to meet the conditions of
25 Pa. Code § 250.303(c) if a final report has been submitted to the
Department which includes the use of a nonuse aquifer area. Typical
elements of such a postremediation care plan, which are relevant to the
nonuse aquifer status, would include review of Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) records to see if any well
drilling reports have been received for the area included in the nonuse
aquifer determination, inquiry to the water supplier of the area to
determine if properties are still being billed for water, or communication
with the municipalities to understand what changes may have taken place
which may have an effect on the water use patterns in the area. The
ecological screening process and the demonstration of compliance with
surface water quality standards continue to apply in the area where the
aquifer is determined not to be used for drinking water or agricultural
purposes. Furthermore, as described in 25 Pa. Code § 250.303(d)(3), an
environmental covenant should include the requirements of the
postremediation care plan. This will ensure that subsequent landowners
are aware of their responsibilities for postremediation care and monitoring.
The postremediation care obligation will continue only until the property
owner demonstrates to the Department, by fate and transport analysis, that
the MSC for groundwater in aquifers used or currently planned for use is
not exceeded at the property boundary and all points downgradient
therefrom.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-61
iv)
Request for Certification of a Nonuse Aquifer Area Initiated by a
Local Government
This option would be used by municipal authorities and political
subdivisions which desire to receive certification that a given geographic
area meets the conditions of 25 Pa. Code § 250.303(c) (i.e., nonuse aquifer
area conditions) where no specific property to be remediated has been
identified. These conditions are based on 25 Pa. Code § 250.303(f), which
requires an ordinance prohibiting groundwater use and requires every
property to be connected to the public water supply.
v)
Example
The following figures illustrate the process for determining the area in
which the conditions of 25 Pa. Code § 250.303(c) must be met for a site to
qualify for a nonuse aquifer designation. The requirements of 25 Pa. Code
§ 250.303(c) must be met “within the site on the property and within a
radius of 1,000 feet downgradient of the points of compliance, plus any
additional areas to which the contamination has migrated and might
reasonably be expected to migrate.”
Figure II-13 shows this area for an idealized site with a property line
parallel to the ground water contour. Note that the area includes, first, all
points within 1,000 feet of all compliance points that are at a lower
groundwater elevation (downgradient) of the property line compliance
point itself, plus any additional area to which the plume has migrated or
may be expected to migrate, as determined by site characterization and
fate and transport analysis.
Figure II-14 shows the screening area for a site where the site
characterization has determined that there is convergent groundwater flow.
In this case the screening area is somewhat smaller than in the first figure
because the area 1,000 feet downgradient (lower groundwater elevation)
from the compliance points is smaller.
Figure II-15 shows the screening area for an idealized site where the site
characterization has determined there is divergent groundwater flow. In
this case the screening area is somewhat larger than the other figures
because the area 1,000 feet downgradient (lower groundwater elevation)
from the compliance points is larger.
In areas with complex groundwater flow or other special features, the
Department should be consulted to determine the appropriate screening
area prior to conducting the required surveys.
e)
Ecological Screening
All sites remediated to the SHS must be screened for impacts to the ecological
receptors identified in 25 Pa. Code § 250.311(a). The presence of threatened or
S
o
u
1
0
0
0
f
t

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-62
endangered species as, designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the
Endangered Species Act, requires that all requirements of that Act be met in
addition to the requirements of 25 Pa. Code § 250.311. The remediator has the
option of either remediating the site to one-tenth of the applicable Statewide
health MSCs from Tables 3 and 4 of Appendix A to the regulations, as described
in 25 Pa. Code § 250.311(b), or using the ecological screening process described
in 25 Pa. Code § 250.311 (b)-(e) and illustrated in Figure II-16. The option of
remediating to one-tenth the value in Tables 3 and 4 is not available if
constituents of potential ecological concern (CPECs), listed in Chapter 250,
Table 8 of Appendix A of the regulations, are present on the site. This choice,
and the results of the screening process, if used, should be documented in the final
report.
The objective of the ecological screening procedure is to quickly evaluate whether
surface soils or sediments at a site have the potential to pose substantial ecological
impact or impacts requiring further evaluation. The site screening procedure
defines substantial impact as the potential for constituents detected onsite to cause
a greater than 20% change in abundance of species of concern compared to an
appropriate reference area, or a greater than 50% change in the extent or diversity
of a habitat of concern compared to an appropriate reference area (Suter, 1993;
Suter et al., 1995; U.S. EPA, 1989). Individuals of endangered or threatened
species and exceptional value wetlands are protected regardless of the percentage
of change in the abundance of species or in the extent or diversity of habitat. The
goal of the screening procedure is to minimize, to the extent practicable, the
number of sites which require detailed ecological risk assessment, while
remaining protective of the environment.
The key elements of the screening procedure include the presence of light
petroleum product constituents; the size of the site; the presence or absence of
CPECs on the site; the presence or absence of species of concern or habitats of
concern; and the presence or absence of completed exposure pathways, taking
into account the current or planned future use of the site. The ecological
screening process is described in this manual as part of the site characterization
process because the information required to evaluate a site for ecological
receptors is most efficiently collected at the same time as other site
characterization data. A more detailed description of the rationale behind each of
the steps in the ecological screen is available from the LRP website.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-63
Figure II-13
Nonuse Aquifer Screening Area (Parallel Flow)

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-64
Figure II-14
Nonuse Aquifer Screening Area (Convergent Flow)

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-65
Figure II-15
Nonuse Aquifer Screening Area (Divergent Flow)

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-66
Figure II-16
Ecological Screening Decision Tree

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-67
Regardless of the outcome of the ecological screening, the results are documented
in a written report. It is important to note that if all of the first three steps are not
met, i.e., there is contamination other than light petroleum products; the impacted
area of surface soil is equal to or greater than 2 acres, the impacted area of
sediments is greater than or equal to 1000 square feet; and all pathways are not
obviously eliminated, completion of the site ecological screening process requires
an onsite evaluation. Using a streamlined set of guidelines, this onsite evaluation
is a critical component of the means of identifying those sites that may pose
substantial ecological impacts, and of documenting the lack of ecological impacts
at other sites. Without such a site evaluation, a weight of evidence-based
evaluation cannot be achieved, as required by EPA guidance (e.g., EPA’s
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment, 1992) and ASTM standards (ASTM
Designation: E1706-95). In addition, this screening procedure is consistent with
the initial steps of EPA’s ecological risk assessment guidelines for contaminated
sites (U.S. EPA, 1997). The remainder of this section discusses each of the steps
of the ecological screening procedure in more detail.
i)
Step 1: Presence of Light Petroleum Product Constituents
The first step in the site ecological screening process is to determine
whether the constituents present in surface soils (soils at a depth of up to
two feet) or sediments are related only to light petroleum products (i.e.,
gasoline, jet fuel A, kerosene, #2 fuel oil/diesel fuel), which have
relatively low polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) content (American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation: E1739-95). If
light petroleum product constituents (including benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX)) are the only constituents detected
onsite, then the screening process moves to Step 9 (Final Report - No
Further Ecological Evaluation Required). If constituents in addition to or
other than light petroleum product constituents are present, the screening
process continues to Step 2 (Site Size).
The purpose of this step is to eliminate from further evaluation those sites
at which the only detected constituents are residual compounds from a
release of light petroleum products. In general, remediation of light
petroleum product release sites to prevent substantial ecological impacts is
not required because the SHSs for these compounds are generally
protective of ecological receptors.
ii)
Step 2: Site Size
The second step in the ecological screening process is determining the
area of exposed and contaminated surface soil (soils at a depth of up to
two feet) and sediments that are of potential ecological concern. The
minimum areas are 2 acres of exposed and contaminated surface soil, and
1,000 square feet of contaminated sediment.
Sediments are those mineral and organic materials situated beneath an
aqueous layer for durations sufficient to permit development of benthic

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-68
assemblages. Indicators of benthic assemblages would include
macroscopic algae, aquatic invertebrates, or aquatic plants. The aqueous
layer may be static, as in lakes, ponds, or other water-covered surface
depressions greater than or equal to 1,000 square feet but necessarily
contiguous (excluding permitted open water management units), or
flowing, as in rivers and streams located on a site (U.S. EPA, 1993b; U.S.
EPA, 1991a).
If a site exceeds these specified minimum areas, then the screening
process continues to Step 3 (Obvious Pathway Elimination). If the area of
the site is smaller than the specified minimum areas, then the screening
process moves to Step 9 (Final Report - No Further Ecological Evaluation
Required).
iii)
Step 3: Obvious Pathway Elimination
The third step accounts for those sites where features such as buildings,
paving, or other development of the site are sufficiently extensive as to
eliminate specific exposure pathways to ecological receptors. This
primarily applies to sites in heavily industrialized or otherwise developed
areas such that habitats or species of concern could not occur onsite or
within a reasonable distance. Any site with features that obviously
eliminate exposure pathways will drop out of the screening process at this
point and proceed to Step 9 (Final Report - No Further Ecological
Evaluation Required).
iv)
Step 4: Presence of Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern
The fourth step in the ecological screening process is the determination of
whether any of the constituents detected at the site and related to releases
at the site are considered to be CPECs. CPECs are identified on
Table II-2.
In this and the following step, available site information would be
reviewed to determine if CPECs are likely to have been released into the
environment. If CPECs are not detected at the site, then the screening
process continues to Step 5 (Preliminary Onsite Evaluation). If one or
more CPECs, either individually or in combination, are detected at the
site, then the screening process moves to Step 6 (Detailed Onsite
Evaluation and Identification of Species and Habitats of Concern).
The ecological evaluation process that has been developed includes
additional evaluation criteria for sites where CPECs are not found. Step 5
is an evaluation of adverse chemical effects that may result from regulated
substances other than CPECs, and as such reduces the probability that
substantive adverse environmental impacts will go undetected. Also,
surface water regulations and standards will remain applicable to those
sites, adding to the overall protection of the environment at any site, as

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-69
will other regulations applicable to species of concern, such as the
Endangered Species Act.
v)
Step 5: Preliminary Onsite Evaluation
Prior to performing onsite evaluations, it is recommended that remediators
perform internet-based habitat and species of concern searches using
online tools such as the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program’s PNDI
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) mapper. The fifth step of the site ecological screening process is a
preliminary onsite evaluation, to be conducted by a qualified
environmental scientist (common practice would use a person with a
bachelor’s degree in an environmental science field and 5 years of
experience in an environmental field), using the criteria presented in this
guidance. If, after conducting the preliminary onsite evaluation, the
qualified environmental scientist determines that substantial ecological
impacts are not probable or evident based on the weight of evidence
available for the site, the screening process moves to Step 9 (Final
Report – No Further Ecological Evaluation Required). It must also
document the presence of any endangered or threatened species within a
radius of 2,500 ft. of the site or exceptional value wetlands onsite. If after
conducting the preliminary onsite evaluation, the qualified environmental
scientist determines that substantial ecological impacts or impacts
requiring further evaluation are or may be present, the screening process
continues to Step 6 (Detailed Onsite Evaluation and Identification of
Species and Habitats of Concern).
The objective of the ecological evaluation conducted during the
preliminary onsite evaluation is to ensure that ecological impacts resulting
from regulated substances which are not CPECs are detected. The
preliminary onsite evaluation involves three steps:
1.
Review of readily available site information, including the
operational history, chemicals used, and probable sources of
releases of regulated substances; and, environmental setting with
emphasis on physical, chemical and biological factors that would
influence the nature and extent of contamination.
2.
A preliminary onsite investigation to identify physical and habitat
features of the area and to identify nearby reference areas without
contamination (if available) that are outside of the probable site
(area of contamination associated with a particular release). The
following should be noted during the evaluation:
signs of stressed or dead vegetation (e.g., chlorotic
vegetation),
discolored soil, sediment or water (i.e., a sheen),

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-70
Table II-2
Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern
METALS
ORGANICS cont’d
Arsenic III
Dichlorobenzene,1,3-
Arsenic V
Dichlorobenzene,1,4-
Barium
Dichlorobenzene,1,1-
Beryllium
Dieldrin
Cadmium
Diethyl phthalate
Chromium III
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Chromium VI
Endosulfan (mixed isomers)
Cobalt
Endosulfan, alpha
Copper
Endosulfan, beta
Iron
Endrin
Lead
Ethylbenzene
Manganese
Fluoranthene
Mercury, inorganic
Fluorene
Mercury, methyl
Heptachlor
Molybdenum
Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane)
Nickel
Hexachloroethane
Selenium
Kepone
Vanadium
Malathion
Zinc
Methoxychlor
Cyanide
Mirex
Naphthalene
ORGANICS
Pentachlorobenzene
Acenaphthene
Pentachlorophenol
Aldrin
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Benzene
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Biphenyl
Pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Tetrachloroethane,1,1,2,2-
Bromophenyl phenyl ether,4-
Tetrachloroethylene
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Tetrachloromethane
Chlordane
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Toxaphene
DDT (and metabolites)
Tribromomethane
Diazinon
Trichlorobenzene,1,2,4-
Dibenzofuran
Trichloroethane,1,1,1-
Dichlorobenzene,1,2-
Trichloroethylene Xylenes

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-71
presence of non-native materials in sediments resulting
from seeps or other discharges emanating from the subject
site,
presence of deformed organisms (if encountered),
presence of exceptional value wetlands,
presence of federally designated threatened or endangered
species.
3.
Preparation of a brief written summary of findings including
sketches of the suspected area of contamination and reference
areas. To the extent practicable, differences of greater than 50% in
the density of species of concern or in the diversity and extent of
habitats of concern shall be regarded as potentially substantive
(Suter, et al., 1995; U.S. EPA, 1989). However, the presence of
federally endangered or threatened species within a 2,500 ft. radius
of the site or exceptional value wetlands onsite would trigger
further evaluation.
Based on all of the information collected as part of the preliminary onsite
evaluation, the investigator makes a determination as to whether
substantial ecological impacts exist or are probable even though CPECs
were not detected on the site. The conclusion, which documents the
weight of evidence from the onsite evaluation, is summarized in bulleted
format.
vi)
Step 6: Detailed Onsite Evaluation and Identification of Species and
Habitats of Concern
The sixth step in the ecological screening process is a detailed onsite
evaluation and a determination of whether species or habitats of concern
exist on the site or, for endangered and threatened species, if those species
exist on the site or within a 2,500-foot radius of the border of the site in its
current or intended use or if exceptional value wetlands exist onsite.
Species of concern are identified in the PNDI on the PA DCNR webpage.
If, during the detailed onsite evaluation, no species or habitats of concern
are identified on the site, no threatened or endangered species exist within
a 2,500 ft. radius of the border of the site, and no exceptional value
wetlands occur onsite, the screening process moves to Step 9 (Final
Report – No Further Ecological Evaluation Required). If species or
habitats of concern are identified on the site, the screening process
continues to Step 7 (Identification of Completed Exposure Pathways).
Identification of species and habitats of concern requires a detailed onsite
evaluation. Common practice is to have a certified ecologist or a trained
environmental biologist perform this evaluation. At a minimum, the
person conducting the detailed onsite evaluation should be a certified

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-72
ecologist or hold a college degree in ecology or environmental science and
have at least 5 years of experience conducting ecological field work and
risk assessments.
The objective of the detailed onsite evaluation is to identify species or
habitats of concern and to make observations that will permit a
determination of whether complete exposure pathways are present at the
site, as required by Step 7 of the ecological screening process. If the
detailed onsite evaluation is being conducted as the result of potential
impacts being identified during a preliminary onsite evaluation, the
information from the preliminary onsite evaluation may be used at this
stage where the information requested duplicates efforts of the previous
evaluation. However, depending on the nature of the particular site, it
may be necessary to supplement this previously developed information.
The detailed onsite evaluation has the following components:
1.
Review of readily available site background information including:
operational history, chemicals used, and probable sources
of releases of CPECs,
environmental setting with emphasis on physical, chemical
and biological factors that would influence the nature and
extent of contamination, and
readily available literature and other relevant documents
related to recognition of species and habitats of concern,
including endangered and threatened species.
2.
The qualified investigator shall conduct the following evaluation:
complete an onsite investigation to identify physical and
habitat features of the area, then identify nearby reference
areas, if available, which are outside of the probable site
(area of contamination associated with a particular
property),
qualitatively evaluate whether species or habitats of
concern are present at the site and in the reference area, and
in comparison to reference areas, the qualified investigator
shall evaluate the following to the extent that they can be
readily evaluated at a site:
?
signs of stressed or dead vegetation (e.g., chlorotic
vegetation),
?
discolored soil, sediment, or water,

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-73
?
presence of non-native materials in sediments
resulting from seeps or other discharges emanating
from the subject property,
?
community composition differences readily
distinguished by U.S. EPA protocols such as the
Rapid Bioassessment procedures (U.S. EPA, 1989),
?
absence of biota (especially keystone species and
ecological dominants) compared with similar areas
of the same system,
?
presence of non-native or exotic species compared
with reference areas (e.g., Phragmites),
?
presence of deformed organisms (if encountered),
and
?
potential for residual contamination of habitats of
concern and areas utilized by species of concern.
3.
A brief written summary of findings including sketches of the
suspected area of contamination and reference areas. Differences
of greater than 20% in the density of species of concern or greater
than 50% in the diversity or the extent of habitats of concern shall
be regarded as potentially substantive (Suter, 1993; Suter, et al.,
1995; U.S. EPA, 1989). However, the presence of exceptional
value wetlands or federally designated endangered or threatened
species would trigger further evaluation.
4.
The site ecological screening process defines as species of concern
those that have been designated as either of special concern,
endangered, threatened or candidate by the Pennsylvania Game
Commission, Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission, and the
DCNR Bureau of Forestry. Links to current lists of such species
are summarized on their respective webpages.
5.
The ecological screening process defines as habitats of concern:
typical wetlands with identifiable function and value,
except for exceptional value wetlands, as defined by
DCNR,
breeding areas for species of concern,
migratory stopover areas for species of concern (e.g.,
migrant shorebirds, raptors or passerines),

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-74
wintering areas for species of concern,
habitat for State endangered plant and animal species,
Federal, State, and local parks and wilderness areas,
areas designated1 as wild, scenic, recreational, and
areas otherwise designated as critical or of concern by the
Pennsylvania Game Commission, Pennsylvania Fish &
Boat Commission, and DCNR.
vii)
Step 7: Identification of Completed Exposure Pathways
The seventh step in the ecological screening process is a determination of
whether a completed exposure pathway from CPECs to species or habitats
of concern exists at the site in its current or intended use. The existence of
a completed exposure pathway
2
is determined during the detailed onsite
evaluation, as described above for Step 6. Note that the CPECs in soil
beneath a paved parking lot or below the root zone (top two feet) are not
accessible to most species and habitats of concern, and therefore this
pathway is classified as incomplete. If a complete pathway exists at the
site, then the screening process moves to Step 8 (Attainment of Standard
and Mitigative Measures). If no complete exposure pathways are
identified during the detailed site evaluation, then the screening process
continues to Step 9 (Final Report – No Further Ecological Evaluation
Required).
viii)
Step 8: Attainment of Standard and Mitigative Measures
If the results of Steps 1 through 7 above do not result in the site being
eliminated from further ecological consideration, the person conducting
the remediation must demonstrate one of the following:
attainment of the SHS is protective of ecological receptors,
if the remediator cannot demonstrate that the SHS MSCs are
protective of ecological receptors, the person shall demonstrate
either that the postremedy use will result in the elimination of all
complete exposure pathways at the time of the final report, or in
accordance with a postremediation care plan, or that mitigative
measures have been implemented and a postremediation care
program has been instituted,
1
as defined by guidance.
2
Exposure pathway - the course a regulated substance(s) takes from the source area(s) to an exposed organism of a species of concern
including absorption or intake into the organism. Each complete exposure pathway must include a source or release from a source, a point
of exposure, and an exposure route into the organism. The mere presence of a regulated substance in the proximity of a receptor does not
constitute a completed pathway. The receptor of concern must contact the regulated substance in such a way that there is high probability
that the chemical is absorbed into the organism (ASTM E1739-95; modified to accommodate provisions of Act 2).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-75
attainment of the background standard, or
that the procedures of 25 Pa. Code § 250.402(c) and 250.409 and
Sections II.B.3 and III.H. of this manual have been followed to
demonstrate attainment of a site-specific standard for protection of
ecological receptors.
Mitigative measures that may be used to demonstrate attainment of the
SHS are identified in Section 25 Pa. Code 250.311(f). These mitigative
measures may only be used if no exceptional value wetlands have been
identified by the screening process, and no state or federal laws or
regulations prohibit the destruction of the habitats or species identified in
the screening process.
The following mitigative measures may be used, and in the indicated order
of preference:
Restoration onsite of species and habitats identified in the
screening process.
Replacement onsite of species and habitats identified in the
screening process.
Replacement on an area adjacent to the site of species and habitats
identified in the screening process.
Replacement at a location within the municipality where the site is
located of species and habitats identified in the screening process.
The Department shall review and approve any proposed mitigative
measures prior to implementation to ensure that the intended use of the
site minimizes the impact to ecological receptors identified in the
screening process. In addition, the postremediation care plan requirements
in 25 Pa. Code § 250.312(e) or 250.411(f) and Section III.D of this manual
must be implemented.
ix)
Step 9: Final Report - No Further Ecological Evaluation Required
The ninth step of the ecological screening process requires that a report be
written documenting the findings of the completed steps of the screening
process, the basis for the conclusion that a substantial ecological impact
does not exist, and that further ecological evaluation is not required. The
conclusion that substantial ecological impact does not exist is based on
one of the following:
The presence of light petroleum-related constituents only (findings
from Step 1).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-76
The area of impacted surface soil or sediment is less than the
minimum size criterion (findings from Steps 1 and 2).
All pathways are obviously eliminated by specific site features
(findings from Steps 1 through 3).
No CPECs are present onsite and the preliminary site evaluation
indicates that substantial ecological impacts have not been
overlooked (findings from Steps 1 through 5).
No species or habitats of concern, threatened or endangered
species, or exceptional value wetlands were identified on the site
during the detailed site evaluation (findings from Steps 1 through
6).
No complete exposure pathways from CPECs or other
contaminants onsite to species or habitats of concern were
identified during the detailed site evaluation (findings from Steps 1
through 7).
Complete exposure pathways from CPECs or other contaminants
onsite to species or habitats of concern were identified, but no
significant impacts were observed during the detailed site
evaluation.
f)
Final Report Requirements for the Statewide Health Standard
To receive the liability protection afforded under Chapter 5 of Act 2 for sites
remediated under the SHS, the remediator shall submit a final report to the
Department which documents attainment of the standard. Section 250.312 of the
regulations discusses final report requirements.
The final report shall be prepared in accordance with scientifically recognized
principles, standards, and procedures. The report should present a thorough
understanding of the site conditions. It should provide a detailed discussion on
the areas for concern and a conceptual site model based on the results of the site
work. The report should support interpretations and conclusions with data
collected during all of the investigations at the site. The level of detail in the
investigation and the methods selected shall sufficiently define the rate, extent and
movement of contaminants to assure continued attainment of the remediation
standard. All interpretations of geologic and hydrogeologic data shall be prepared
by a professional geologist licensed in Pennsylvania.
Two copies of the final report should be submitted to the Department for review.
One should be a paper copy, and the other copy may be submitted in another
format (CD, flash drive, etc.). The final report must include the information in
Table II-3, and the organization shown in the following outline is preferred:

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-77
Table II-3
Suggested Outline for a Final Report under the Statewide Health Standard
I.
Final Report Summary
The final report summary should be a copy of the electronic form submitted to the Department.
II.
Site Description
Describe the site in sufficient detail to give an overall view of the site (Section II.B.2.f.ii).
III.
Site Characterization
Document current conditions at the site (§ 250.204 of the regulations and Section II.B.2.f.iii).
IV.
Statewide Health Standard
Describe how the SHS was established (Section II.B.2.f.iv).
V.
Ecological Screening
Provide the results of the Ecological Screen described in § 250.311 of the regulations and
Section II.B.2.e.
VI.
Remediation
Describe the remedial methodologies used to attain the selected standard (Section II.B.2.f.vi).
VII.
Attainment
A.
Soil SHS
B.
Groundwater SHS
C.
Diffuse groundwater flow into surface water
D.
Spring flow into surface water
Sections A, B, C and D describe the statistical methods used to demonstrate attainment of the
standard (Section II.B.2.f.vii).
VIII. Fate and Transport Analysis
Describe the Fate and Transport analyses used and results and conclusions (Section II.B.2.f.viii).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-78
IX.
Postremediation Care Plan
This section is included only if necessary. It describes the engineering and institutional controls
necessary to attain or maintain the standard (Section II.B.2.f.ix).
X.
References
(Section II.B.2.f.x)
XI.
Attachments
(Section II.B.2.f.xi)
XII.
Signatures
(Section II.B.2.f.xii)

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-79
i)
Summary
The Final Report Summary form is to be filled in and submitted to the
Department electronically. The summary submitted with the final report
should be a copy of that completed electronic form.
ii)
Site Description
Provide a description of the site in sufficient detail to give the reviewer an
overall understanding of the site and its location and the types of
operations that are currently and were formerly conducted on the site. The
description should include location, physical description of the property,
ownership history, site use history, and regulatory action history (past
cleanups) as appropriate to the site.
iii)
Site Characterization
The site characterization provides important information documenting the
current conditions at the site, information required by 25 Pa. Code
§ 250.312, and information required for the proper demonstration of
attainment. Information developed during site characterization is
primarily intended to describe the nature, extent and potential for
movement of all contaminants present on the site or that may have
migrated from the site; the information is also used as input for developing
a conceptual site model and for the fate and transport analysis. For sites
where there are multiple distinct areas of contamination, the site
characterization process should be applied to each area individually.
Along with a narrative, the results from the site characterization and all
sampling and analysis work should be provided on map(s) illustrating, to
the extent possible, the interrelationship of the following:
All physical site characteristics.
All groundwater, soil, sediment and other sample locations,
including sample depth and contaminant concentration.
The surveyed locations for all assessment structures (monitoring
wells, soil borings, test pits, etc.). All elevations should be
reported in reference to mean sea level (msl), where practical.
Appropriate number of stratigraphic cross sections that adequately
depict site stratigraphy, well locations, well depths, groundwater
flow directions, equipotential lines, flow lines, hydraulic
conductivity intervals and values, sampling intervals and
concentrations. All elevations should be reported in reference to
msl, where practical.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-80
Variation in potentiometric surfaces(s), potentiometric surface
map(s), hydraulic gradients, and groundwater flow directions.
All identified sources of releases.
The extent and concentrations of contaminant plumes in all media.
The horizontal and vertical extent of contaminant plumes including
density and thickness of any SPL present.
Top of bedrock contour (if encountered).
A conceptual site model should be developed and refined as information is
gathered during the site characterization. The conceptual site model
provides a description of the site and extent of contamination.
Recommended information and data used to develop the site model
include:
The type, estimated volume, composition, and nature of the
released materials, chemicals or chemical compounds (include all
calculations and assumptions).
Source(s) and extent of release(s).
Background concentrations for constituents of concern.
The horizontal and vertical extent of contamination.
The portion of the horizontal and vertical extent of contamination
which exceeds the selected standard.
Affected aquifer(s) or water bearing formation(s)/member(s),
hydrostratigraphic units.
All existing and potential migration pathways.
The estimated volume of contaminated soil and water (include all
calculations and any assumptions).
For soils, include information on samples and measurements used to
characterize the horizontal and vertical extent of contamination, and
direction and rate of contaminant movement based on factors in the soil
and the contaminant which affect migration. Soil and boring descriptions
should be included as an attachment.
For groundwater, include information on samples and measurements used
to characterize the horizontal and vertical extent of contamination and
direction and velocity of contaminant movement based on factors of the
groundwater and the contaminant(s) which affect migration. Geologic

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-81
boring descriptions and as-built drawings of wells should be included as
an attachment. Text, tables, graphics, figures, maps, and cross sections, as
appropriate, can be utilized to describe the nature, location, and
composition of the regulated substances at the site. Providing the data in
an appropriate format will expedite the review of the report.
iv)
Selection of the Applicable Statewide Health Standard
Documentation of the basis for selecting residential or nonresidential
standards and for selecting the applicable MSCs according to the
procedure in Section II.B.2.c of this manual should be included in this
section of the final report.
If the site is in an area where groundwater is not used or planned to be
used for drinking water or agricultural purposes, provide the following
documentation:
That no groundwater derived from wells or springs is used or
currently planned to be used for drinking water or agricultural
purposes.
That all downgradient properties are connected to a community
water system.
That the nonuse area does not intersect a radius of 0.5 mile from a
community water supply well and does not intersect an area
designated by the Department as a Zone 2 wellhead protection area
as established under Chapter 109.
Results of the fate and transport analysis used to establish the
nonuse area.
A copy of the letter from the Department approving the use of the
nonuse aquifer MSCs, as described in Section II.B.2.d of this
manual.
If the soil buffer option is used to meet the requirements of the soil to
groundwater numeric value, submit the following:
Information demonstrating that the actual site soil column
thickness below the contaminated soil is at least the thickness
identified in Tables 3B and 4B of Appendix A to the regulations.
This information should be taken from soil sample borings
conducted during the site characterization.
Laboratory analyses demonstrating that the contaminant
concentrations in the entire soil column below the contaminated
zone do not exceed either the limit related to the PQL or
background.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-82
The boring logs and all other data presented in appropriate maps,
cross sections, figures, and tables.
If an equivalency demonstration is used to meet the requirements of the
soil-to-groundwater numeric value, submit the following:
Information describing the actual site soil column below the
contaminated soil. This information should be taken from soil
sample borings conducted during the site characterization.
Information, including laboratory analyses, gathered during the site
characterization that demonstrates that the groundwater is not
impacted at levels exceeding either the groundwater MSC or
background.
The boring logs and all other data presented in appropriate maps,
cross sections, figures, and tables.
Sampling data, in a tabular format, that shows no exceedance for
eight quarters of groundwater MSCs or the background standard,
in accordance with 25 Pa. Code § 250.308(d)(2).
Results of the fate and transport analysis that demonstrate that the
regulated substance(s) will not migrate to bedrock or the
groundwater within 30 years at concentrations exceeding the
greater of the groundwater MSC or background in groundwater as
the end point in soil pore water directly under the site.
v)
Ecological Screening
Provide documentation of the implementation of the ecological screen
described in 25 Pa. Code § 250.311 and Section II.B.2.e of this manual.
vi)
Remediation
Remediation should be planned to remediate all areas to the selected
standard.
Provide a description of the remedial methodologies used to remediate that
portion of the contamination which exceeds the selected standard as
determined by the site characterization. Examples of the types of
information typically included in this section include:
Identification of areas remediated based on results of site
characterization.
Descriptions of treatment, removal, or decontamination procedures
performed in remediation. Description of removal, what was

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-83
removed, and amount removed. Results of any treatability, bench
scale, or pilot scale studies or other data collected to support the
remedial action(s).
Description of treatment technologies.
Description of the methodology and analytical results used to
direct the remediation and determine the cessation of remediation.
This description should document how the remediator determined
that remediation was performed to address all areas known to
exceed the standard.
Documentation of handling of remediation wastes in accordance
with applicable regulations.
Specific characteristics of the site that affected the implementation
or effectiveness of the remedial action including such
characteristics as topography, geology, depth of bedrock,
potentiometric surfaces, and the existence of utilities.
All other site information relevant to the conceptual design,
construction, or operation of the remedial action.
In addition to the above, this section should also include the calculation of
the mass of contaminants addressed during the remediation of soil and/or
groundwater, using the methodology in Section III.C.
Remediation of surface water will typically be accomplished by
eliminating or reducing the discharge of regulated substances into surface
water to the level where surface water quality standards are being
achieved. Given that the usual source of regulated substance discharge to
surface water will be via non-point source groundwater discharge, the
measures necessary to attain the surface water standard should be
incorporated into the design of any groundwater remediation system.
Abatement of air quality discharges associated with the remediation (e.g.,
vapor discharges from air stripping towers) shall be handled in accordance
with the applicable air quality statutes and regulations.
During the implementation of any remediation plan, appropriate record
keeping must be performed to provide ample documentation of the
remedial actions taken, any changes made from the preplanned activities,
and any sampling performed as field controls during implementation.
vii)
Attainment
Provide documentation that the remediation has attained the selected
standard at the POC and that the standard will not be violated in the future
as a result of remaining contamination. The demonstration of attainment,

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-84
like the site characterization, should be applied to each distinct area of
contamination. Attainment must meet the requirements of Chapter 250
Subchapter G (Demonstration of Attainment).
If the Statewide health standard is numerically less than the background
standard, the remediator may elect the background standard, and
attainment of the background standard should be demonstrated according
to Section 302 of Act 2.
(a)
Point of Compliance
(i)
Groundwater
The POC for groundwater under SHS is the property
boundary. Under certain circumstances the POC may be
moved, as described below. Prior approval from the
Department to move the POC is required.
The remediator may request the movement of the POC for
situations described in § 250.302(a) of the regulations. If
any of those conditions exist, the remediator must request,
in writing, that the Department approve moving the POC.
The Department will respond in writing to the request, and
the response must be obtained before the adjusted POC
may be used and the final report submitted.
For substances with a Secondary Maximum Contaminant
Level (SMCL) established by EPA under the National
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations, the remediator
may request that the POC be moved for those substances
with SMCLs. The Department will consider moving the
POC in a range anywhere from the property boundary up to
the point of use. Therefore, demonstration of attainment at
a site may involve POCs for SMCLs which are different
from the POCs applicable to the other identified regulated
substances.
(ii)
Soil
The POC for soil is the entire area of contamination.
Demonstration of attainment of the appropriate standard is
to be made in the entire volume shown in the site
characterization to be contaminated by regulated substances
at concentrations exceeding the SHS. Some sites may have
different SHS values for varying depths or conditions of
soil. For example, on a nonresidential site, if the soil-to-
groundwater numeric value is lower than the direct contact
number, there may be one standard for the 0-2 foot interval,
another for the 2-15 foot interval, and a third for the soil at

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-85
depths greater than 15 feet. In addition, if any of these
depths are in the periodically saturated zone, the
appropriate standard may be different because of the
requirement for reducing the generic value of the soil-to-
groundwater numeric value by a factor of 10 (see
SectionII.B.2.c.ii.A). For the purpose of demonstrating
attainment, the saturated zone is considered to extend
below the seasonal high water table level.
(iii)
Spring flow into surface water
Unless an NPDES permit is required for purposes of
complying with surface water quality in a spring, the POC
is the point of first designated or existing use as defined in
25 Pa. Code §§ 93.1, 93.4, and 93.9. This could mean right
by the spring itself or some point downstream from the
spring discharge. Determining the point of first designated
use is necessary because it establishes the point where
Chapter 93 water quality standards apply.
Technical guidance to determine point of first use is found
in
Policy and Procedure for Evaluating Wastewater
Discharges to Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams,
Drainage Channels and Swales, and Storm Sewers
, DEP
document # 391-2000-014, revised April 2008. In essence
this guidance relies on biological techniques to determine
the first downstream point where aquatic life can be
documented. It applies to both perennial and intermittent
streams with definable bed and banks, but not to ephemeral
streams, that is, areas of overland runoff which occur only
during or immediately following rainfall events and where
there is no defined stream channel and stream substrate.
(b)
Statistical Tests
Attainment tests appropriate for SHS are described in 25 Pa. Code
§ 250.707(b) and in Section III.B of this manual and include:
The 75%/10x rule for soil and groundwater at the POC, and
the 75%/2x rule for groundwater off the property.
For groundwater, no exceedance of SHS.
The 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) test.
For sites that are remediated without prior full site
characterization, a “no exceedance” of SHS.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-86
A method that meets the performance requirements of
25 Pa. Code § 250.707(d).
If the 75%/10x rule is not used, appropriate statistical tests must be
employed to demonstrate attainment of SHS. The following
information should be documented in a final report:
Description of the statistical method, and the underlying
assumptions of the method.
Documentation showing that the sample data set meets the
underlying assumptions of the method and explaining why
the method is appropriate to apply to the data.
Specification of false positive rates.
Documentation of input and output data for the statistical
test, presented in table and figures, or both, as appropriate;
and identify, by media, contamination levels remaining
onsite.
An interpretation and conclusion of the statistical test.
In addition to the attainment tests described above, the remediator
must demonstrate, for groundwater remediated to the SHS, that the
standard has been attained and that it will continue to be attained in
the future as indicated by a fate and transport analysis.
In demonstrating attainment of SHS, concentrations of regulated
substances are not required to be less than the limit related to the
PQL for that substance as provided for in 25 Pa. Code § 250.4 and
250.701(c) and as listed in Section III.F of this manual. Where the
plume of contamination currently impacts or may impact
properties with different land use categories (i.e., residential and
nonresidential), the SHS appropriate for the impacted property
must be attained and maintained. For example, where a plume of
contamination emanating from a nonresidential property adjoins a
residential property that will be impacted by the plume, the
nonresidential SHS must be attained and maintained at the
downgradient boundary of the nonresidential property (See 25 Pa.
Code § 250.702), and the residential SHS applies at the residential
property. Demonstration that the appropriate standard will be
attained and maintained must be demonstrated by a combination of
sampling and fate and transport analysis.
In demonstrating attainment of the SHS in groundwater in aquifers
not currently used or planned to be used, the remediator must show
that the nonuse aquifer MSC has been met at the POC using the
appropriate tests for demonstrating attainment described in 25 Pa.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-87
Code § 250.707(b)(2) and further described in Section III.B of this
manual. In addition, the requirements of 25 Pa. Code § 250.705
must be met regarding the use of a fate and transport analysis to
show that the MSC for groundwater in aquifers used or currently
planned to be used will not be exceeded at and beyond all points
on a radius of 1,000 feet downgradient from the property boundary
within 30 years. This fate and transport analysis should meet the
requirements specified in Section III.A of this manual.
(i)
75%/10x rule
The 75%/10x rule is a statistical ad hoc rule that determines
if the true site median concentration is below the cleanup
standard. This rule requires that 75% of the samples
collected for demonstration of attainment be equal to or
below the cleanup standard and that no single sample result
exceeds the standard by more than ten times.
For the 75%/10x rule, the number of soil sample points
required for each distinct area of contamination is specified
in the Act 2 regulations and is as follows:
For soil volumes equal to or less than 125 cubic
yards, at least eight samples.
For soil volumes up to 3,000 cubic yards, at least
12 sample points.
For each additional volume of up to 3,000 cubic
yards, an additional 12 sample points.
Additional sampling points may be required based
on site-specific conditions.
These soil volumes may be comprised of zones where
different MSCs apply (e.g., depths of 0-15 feet and greater
than 15 feet). For purposes of demonstrating attainment,
the analysis of samples, based on their physical location by
the systematic random sampling method (Section III.B),
must be compared to the applicable MSC for that physical
location.
To use this rule for demonstrating attainment of
groundwater MSCs, eight samples from each compliance
well must be obtained during eight consecutive quarters. If
a shorter sampling period is to be used, there must be
written approval (preapproval is recommended) from the

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-88
Department and the no exceedance rule 25 Pa. Code
§ 250.704(d)(3) must be used rather than the 75%/10x rule.
In groundwater monitoring wells beyond the property
boundary, the rule is slightly modified. The attainment
criteria are that 75% of the sampling results must be below
the standard, with no individual value being more than
2 times the standard (75%/2x rule). This rule would have
to be met in each individual monitoring well.
(ii)
95% UCL rule
The minimum number of samples is as specified in
Section III.B of this manual.
(iii)
No exceedance rule
Per § 250.707(b)(1)(iii) of the regulations: for sites with a
release of petroleum products, soil remediation is often
conducted based on visual observations or field screening
without having conducted a full site characterization.
These sites may demonstrate attainment of the SHS using
the procedure described in Section III.B.5.b.i.C of this
Manual.
viii)
Fate and Transport Analysis
The Fate and Transport Section (Section III.A of this manual) provides a
discussion on fate and transport analysis. The amount of detail in the fate
and transport analysis may vary from a simple description to a very
extensive detailed model with quantitative modeling. Whenever a model
is used, the Department must be provided with the assumptions, data, and
information on the model necessary for Department staff to evaluate and
run the model. Any parameters used in the analysis or models used should
utilize data obtained from the site during the site characterization.
Following are examples of situations when the SHS will require a fate and
transport analysis/model:
The demonstration of attainment of a standard at the POC includes
a fate and transport analysis to show that the standard will not be
violated in the future.
In an area where the groundwater is not used for drinking water or
agricultural purposes, a fate and transport analysis is required to
show that the used aquifer MSCs are not exceeded at and beyond a
radius of 1,000 feet downgradient from the property boundary
within 30 years.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-89
In using the equivalency demonstration to meet the soil-to-
groundwater numeric value, a fate and transport analysis is
required to show that soils remediated to the direct contact numeric
value will not result in regulated substances migrating to
groundwater at concentrations exceeding either the groundwater
MSC or background.
ix)
Postremediation Care Plan (if applicable)
A postremediation care plan (PRCP), which includes the information
required by 25 Pa. Code § 250.204(g), must be documented in the final
report in accordance with that section of the regulations if:
(1) engineering controls are needed to attain or maintain the SHS;
(2) institutional controls are needed to maintain the standard; (3) a nonuse
aquifer designation has been approved for the site; (4) the fate and
transport analysis indicates that the remediation standard, including the
solubility limitation, may be exceeded at the POC in the future; (5) the
remediation relies on natural attenuation; (6) a postremedy use is relied
upon but is not implemented to eliminate complete exposure pathways to
ecological receptors; or (7) mitigative measures are used. The PRCP must
comply with the applicable deed acknowledgment requirements under
SWMA or HSCA, Section 304(m) of Act 2, as well as the requirements of
25 Pa. Code Chapter 253 regarding the application of environmental
covenants. Section III.D of this manual provides additional information
regarding the application of covenants and deed notices. The plan
typically should include:
Reporting of any instance of nonattainment.
Reporting of any measures to correct nonattainment conditions.
Periodic reporting of monitoring, sampling and analysis as
required by the Department.
Maintenance of records at the property where the remediation is
being conducted for monitoring, sampling and analysis.
A schedule for operation and maintenance of the controls and
submission of any proposed changes.
If the postremediation care plan is being used to document the continuing
applicability of an approved nonuse aquifer designation, the following are
required:
Procedures for documenting that the nonuse criteria continue to be
met after the original request is approved.
Report details and schedule for submittal to the Department.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-90
See Section III.D for the range of institutional controls available to a
remediator.
The Department may ask for documentation of financial ability to
implement the remedy and to maintain the postremediation care controls.
Except for the special case of a nonuse aquifer designation under 25 Pa.
Code § 250.303 (c) and (d), when the standard can be maintained without
the controls operating, and the fate and transport analysis shows that the
standard will not be exceeded in the future, the Department will approve
termination of the postremediation care program.
Some remediators choose to use soil management plans (SMPs) and
groundwater management plans (GWMPs) in place of PRCPs. This
practice can be problematic because PRCPs are intended to be a plan to
care for and maintain a remedy which utilizes engineering or institutional
controls, while SMPs/GWMPs are often intended to address changes to a
remedy that may occur at some point in the future. These plans are based
on current waste management or water quality regulations or guidance.
The Department cannot grant pre-approval of future soil or groundwater
management plans since those guidances or regulations may change at
some point in the future, therefore invalidating the SMP or GWMP.
Remediators should avoid using SMPs and GWMPs in place of PRCPs.
They should instead have the PRCP and the environmental covenant
address how to handle potential changes to a remedy. Any planned
change to a remedy would require the approval of the Department at the
time of the proposed change.
x)
References
Any references cited in the final report.
xi)
Attachments
Attachments may include but are not limited to:
Tables – monitoring well construction summary, groundwater
gauging data (including elevation and NAPL thicknesses),
analytical data, historical data.
Figures – including groundwater elevation maps, extent of NAPL,
concentration data for soil/groundwater/surface water/vapor or
indoor air, cross-sections.
Monitoring well construction diagrams, boring logs, stratigraphic
logs, including soil/rock characteristics.
Sampling and analysis plan(s).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-91
QA and QC Plan.
Ecological survey documentation (from PNDI).
Well search documentation (from Pa. Geographic Information
Systems Mapping Tools (PaGIS).
Field data sheets, such as low flow purging monitoring.
Statistical worksheets, software outputs, graphs; modeling
inputs/outputs.
Disposal documentation of soil/groundwater.
Remediation system operation, maintenance, monitoring data;
mass removal estimates.
Before and after remediation photographs.
Copy of municipal notification, reasonable proof of newspaper
notice publication.
Laboratory reports and any voluminous attachments may be
enclosed on a CD.
xii)
Signatures
If any portions of the submitted report were prepared or reviewed by or
under the responsible charge of a registered professional geologist or
engineer, the professional geologist or engineer in charge must sign and
seal the report.
g)
References
ASTM Designation: E 1706-05. Standard Test Methods for Measuring the
Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Contaminants with Fresh Water Invertebrates.
Section 5.1.7.
ASTM Designation: E 1739-95. Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective
Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites.
Feenstra, S., D.M. Mackay, and J.A. Cherry. 1991. A Method for Assessing
Residual NAPL Based on Organic Chemical Concentrations in Soil Samples.
GWMR. Spring.
Suter II, G.W. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea,
MI.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-92
Suter II, G.W., B.W. Cornaby, C.T. Haddne, R.N. Hull, M. Stack, and F.A.
Zafran. 1995. An Approach for Balancing Health and Ecological Risks at
Hazardous Waste Sites. Risk Analysis 15(2).
U.S. EPA. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and
Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish Second
Edition. Office of Water. EPA 841-B-99-002.
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Compendium of ERT Surface Water and Sediment Sampling
Procedures. EPA/540/P-91/005.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I, Human
Health Evaluation manual, Part B: Development of Risk-based Preliminary
Remediation Goals. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Publication
no. 9285.7-01B.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment
Forum. EPA/630/R-95/002F.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Research and
Development. EPA/600/R-93/187.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Benthic
Organisms: Acenaphthene. EPA-822-R-93-013.
U.S. EPA. 1994b. BTAG Forum. EPA/540/F-94/048.
U.S. EPA. 1996. Ecotox Thresholds. Eco Update vol. 3, no. 2. EPA
540/F-95/038. January.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process
for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. EPA/540-R-97-006.
PB97-963211. June 16, 1997.
Wild Resource Conservation Fund. 1995. Endangered and Threatened Species of
Pennsylvania. Published in cooperation with Pennsylvania Game Commission,
Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission, and Bureau of Forestry.
3.
Site-Specific Standard
a)
Introduction
The objective of the site-specific standard is to develop and evaluate detailed site
information using a rigorous scientific evaluation of a remedy to provide a
protective cleanup standard unique to that site. Use of this standard requires the
Department’s review and approval (as required by statute) of the remedial
investigation report, risk assessment report (if necessary), cleanup plan (if
necessary) and final report. The relationship of these steps in the site-specific
assessment process is illustrated in Figure II-17. The remedial investigation

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-93
report, risk assessment report, and cleanup plan may be submitted at the same
time. In some cases, only a remedial investigation report and final report are
required, and these can be combined (see Section II.B.3.g of this manual). In
other cases (such as simple pathway elimination of all present and future exposure
pathways), the risk assessment report and cleanup plan can be simplified.
All pathways of exposure are evaluated and the past, current, and future use of the
land is considered. The resulting cleanup remedy selected to meet site-specific
soil and groundwater standards may be a combination of treatment/removal
efforts and engineering and institutional controls. The extent to which treatment
and removal efforts are balanced with engineering and institutional controls is
determined by the factors used in remedy selection. These factors are described
in Section 304(j) of Act 2.
Remediators utilizing the site-specific standards must comply with the applicable
deed acknowledgment requirements under the SWMA or HSCA (35 P.S.
§ 6026.304(m)), notice and review (35 P.S. § 6026.304(n)), and community
involvement requirements (35 P.S. § 6026.304(o)) of Act 2 as well as the
requirements of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 253 regarding the application of
environmental covenants. Section III.D of this manual provides additional
information regarding the application of covenants and deed notices.
The site-specific standard is a risk management approach. It offers more
flexibility to the person than background or Statewide health standards because
detailed site-specific information is collected for the evaluation. The guidance
contained in Section II.A.2 of this manual provides a structure and process for this
data collection or remedial investigation. The additional information does involve
more time and effort to collect, and additional reviews are required by the
Department under Act 2. This approach differs in that full and total use of the site
may not be possible to the extent that specific land uses were presumed and
engineering and institutional controls are used in the final remedy. The site-
specific standard approach addresses future use limitations by environmental
covenant. Also, use of the site-specific standard requires public involvement if
the municipality requests to be involved in the remediation.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-94
Figure II-17
Site-Specific Assessment Decision Tree

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-95
In determining soil and groundwater standards, consideration should be given to
appropriate exposure factors to receptors based on land use of the site, the
effectiveness of institutional or other controls placed on the future land use,
potential pathways for human exposure, and appropriate statistical techniques.
b)
Process Checklist for the Site-Specific Standard
A checklist for the site-specific standard is provided below and can be used to
ensure administrative completeness.
Submit an NIR for the site-specific standard to the Department. Also send
a copy of the NIR to the municipality, publish a summary of the notice in
a newspaper of general circulation serving the area in which the site is
located, and provide reasonable proof of publication to the Department.
Procedures are in Section II.A.3 of this manual.
Notify the municipality, publish a notice in a local newspaper, and provide
proof of submittal to the Department each time a remedial investigation
report, risk assessment report, cleanup plan or final report is submitted to
the Department. Procedures are in Section II.A.3 of this manual.
Prepare and submit public involvement plan if requested by municipality.
Procedures are in Section II.A.3 of this manual.
Begin the remedial investigation. See Sections II.B.3.c and II.A.4 of this
manual for guidance.
As an option, begin using the completeness list (see LRP web page) to
help verify that all requirements have been met.
Prepare and submit a remedial investigation report which includes fate and
transport analysis to determine if any exposure pathways including vapor
intrusion (Section IV of this manual) exist at the site. A fee of $250 is
required. Reporting requirements are established by 25 Pa. Code
§ 250.404 and 250.408 and are described in Section II.B.3.g of this
manual.
Prepare and submit a risk assessment report (baseline risk assessment
report and/or risk assessment report to develop site-specific standards)
along with a fee of $250 to the Department. A baseline risk assessment
report is not required if the Department, in its remedial investigation report
or cleanup plan approval, determines that a specific remedial alternative
that eliminates all pathways can be implemented to attain the site-specific
standard (25 Pa. Code § 250.405(c) ). A simplified risk assessment
describing how the pathways are eliminated by the remedial alternative
should be included in the remedial investigation report. This does not
include a no-action remedial alternative. A baseline risk assessment report

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-96
is not required if no present or future exposure pathways exist, as
documented by a fate and transport analysis. Risk assessment
requirements are established by 25 Pa. Code §§ 250.402-407 and 250.409
and Subchapter F. Guidance is provided in Sections III.G and III.H of this
manual. Reporting requirements are described in Section II.B.3.g.v of this
manual.
Prepare a cleanup plan. A cleanup plan is not required if no present or
future exposure pathways exist. The cleanup plan is also not required if
the approved baseline risk assessment report indicates that the site does
not pose unacceptable risks to human health and the environment under
current and planned future conditions. Cleanup plan requirements are
established by Section 304(j) and (l)(3) of the Act and 25 Pa. Code
§ 250.410. Guidance on the cleanup plan is provided in Section II.B.3.g.ii
of this manual.
Submit the cleanup plan, if required, and a fee of $250.
Remediate the site to the site-specific standard in accordance with the
approved cleanup plan. A remedy is not required if no present or future
exposure pathways exist.
Establish attainment of the site-specific standard in accordance with the
requirements in Chapter 250, Subchapter G, of the regulations. Guidance
is provided in Sections II.B.3.g and III.B of this manual.
Calculate the mass of contaminants remediated using the procedure in
Section III.C of this manual.
Complete the Final Report Summary and submit electronically as
instructed on the LRP web page.
Submit final report, along with the optional completeness list (if used),
and a fee of $500 to the Department. Include information in 25 Pa. Code
§§ 250.411 and 250.204(f)(1)-(5). Include postremediation care plan in
accordance with § 250.204(g) as appropriate. Document cooperation of
third parties where access is needed for remediation or monitoring.
Reporting requirements for the final report are described in
Section II.B.3.g of this manual.
Upon the Department’s approval of the final report demonstrating
compliance with substantive and procedural requirements of the site-
specific standard, the site is automatically afforded the liability protection
as outlined in Chapter 5 of Act 2.
If engineering controls are used and postremediation care is needed to
maintain the standard; if fate and transport analysis indicates the standard
may be exceeded at the POC in the future; if remediation relies on natural

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-97
attenuation; or if mitigation measures are implemented in accordance with
25 Pa. Code § 250.311(f), continue with the postremediation care program
detailed in the final report. If areas of the source property were shown to
have no current or future complete exposure pathway, the postremediation
controls described in Section III.D are needed.
Submit an environmental covenant, if applicable, to the Department.
When the site-specific standard can be maintained without engineering
controls operating and mitigation measures have been successfully
sustained, document this to the Department and receive approval to end
the postremediation care program.
c)
Site Investigation
The principal objectives of an investigation under the site-specific standard are to
characterize the nature, extent, direction, volume and composition of regulated
substances that have been released and to obtain detailed site information,
including identification of exposure pathways, in order to develop a protective
cleanup standard unique to that site.
Important tasks during the site investigation include site characterization and
pathway identification. The development of a conceptual site model and
identification of contaminants of concern are also important steps in the site
investigation process. This section provides specific information and procedures
regarding site characterization and pathway identification. At the conclusion of
the site investigation, a remedial investigation report should be submitted to the
Department for review and approval (35 P.S. § 6026.304(l)(1)). Section II.A.4 of
this manual describes specific information required to be included in the remedial
investigation report.
i)
Site Characterization
The site characterization should be conducted in accordance with
scientifically recognized principles, standards, and procedures. The level
of detail in the investigation needs to sufficiently characterize the nature,
extent, and composition of the regulated substances that have been
released. The determination of the site conditions will be used to select
the remedy used to clean up the site. All interpretations of geologic and
hydrogeologic data should be prepared by a professional geologist
licensed in Pennsylvania.
Methodologies presented in Section II.A.4 of this manual should be
followed while conducting the site investigation. When evaluating the
nonpoint source groundwater discharge to surface water, a person may
consult EPA guidances in “A Review of Methods for Assessing Nonpoint
Source Contaminated Ground-Water Discharge to Surface Water, EPA
570/9-91-010, April 1991,” and “Handbook: Stream Sampling for Waste
Load Allocation Applications. EPA/625/6-86/013.” Section III.A.3 of

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-98
this manual provides guidance to evaluate impacts on surface water from
diffuse flow of contaminated groundwater.
As directed from specific knowledge of the subject property, including
historic use or chemical usage information, and based upon the guidance
in Section II.A.4 of this manual, an appropriate number of sample
locations should be investigated. These sample locations should be from
the identified media of concern in order to characterize the nature and
composition of the contaminants, including the characterization of the
source of the regulated substances. This will allow for development of a
conceptual site model taking into account the vertical and horizontal
extent of contamination; the direction, rate, extent and fate of contaminant
movement within each medium of concern; and to identify the appropriate
remedial technology options for each medium of concern.
When determining the relative location of soil or groundwater samples
necessary to characterize the horizontal and vertical extent of
contamination, factors such as hydraulic conductivity of the soils,
heterogeneity of the soils, and the nature of the contaminants should be
considered.
If groundwater is determined to be a medium of concern, adequate
characterization of the effects of a release on groundwater will require a
hydrogeologic study (as summarized in 25 Pa. Code § 250.204), which
should include the study of the geological nature and physical properties
of the underlying formation and aquifer. This study will determine how
naturally occurring physical and geochemical characteristics define the
hydrostratigraphy (position of aquifers, aquitards, and aquicludes) of the
site, which includes an assessment of the homogeneity and isotropy of
aquifer materials based on hydraulic conductivity values (measured or
published), and local and regional groundwater flow directions as well as
any influence from pumping centers.
Characterizing the horizontal extent of contamination of regulated
substance(s) will be defined by a minimum of two rounds of groundwater
sampling from properly constructed and developed monitoring wells. In
some instances, additional rounds of quarterly sampling may be needed to
evaluate seasonal impacts on groundwater contamination and to validate
fate and transport assumptions. Please refer to Appendix A, Groundwater
Monitoring Guidance, for additional information on construction and
development of wells. The initial sampling event should be conducted no
less than 14 days from the date of the most recent well development. A
shorter time frame is permissible if it is demonstrated that, through
development, pH and conductivity of the groundwater has stabilized. The
second and subsequent sampling events should ideally occur sixty to
ninety days from the preceding sampling event. Site-specific
considerations may require adjustments to the time frame. Decisions
regarding the duration of groundwater sampling should be made by

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-99
communicating with your DEP Project Officer prior to establishing a
sampling plan.
When characterizing the vertical extent of groundwater contamination,
consider the specific gravity of the regulated substances identified and the
potential for naturally occurring or induced downward vertical hydraulic
gradients. If characterizing the vertical extent of groundwater
contamination is necessary, properly constructed monitoring wells or
nested monitoring wells should be utilized to focus groundwater sampling
in zones of potential contaminant accumulation (i.e., directly above a
confining layer).
The determination of the use of groundwater is also an important task of
site characterization. The uses of groundwater may include drinking water
use, agricultural use, industrial uses, etc. As mandated by Act 2,
groundwater will not be considered a current or potential source of
drinking water where groundwater has a background TDS concentration
greater than 2,500 milligrams per liter. Other than that mandate, current
and future uses of groundwater must be determined on a site-specific
basis. Current drinking water or agricultural uses of groundwater, at the
time contamination was discovered, should be identified for protection.
Additional requirements on the determination of the use of groundwater
are in 25 Pa. Code § 250.403.
Development of a conceptual site model is an important step in identifying
additional data needs and defining exposure. A conceptual site model
identifies all potential or suspected sources of contamination, types and
concentrations of contaminants detected at the site, potentially
contaminated media, potential exposure pathways, and receptors. Many
components of exposure (such as the source, receptors, migration
pathways, and routes of exposure) are determined on a site-specific basis.
The conceptual site model provides a systematic way to identify and
summarize this information to ensure that potential exposures at the site
are accounted for accurately.
The conceptual site model may be graphical, tabular or narrative but
should provide an accurate understanding of all exposure pathways
(complete and incomplete) for the site. Examples of conceptual site
models may be found in EPA or ASTM guidance documents, including
Section 4.2 of U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund,
Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (RAGS/HHEM), Part A,
ASTM E-1739 RBCA, Tier 2 Guidance Manual, and ASTM E1689-95,
Standard Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models for Contaminated
Sites. It is suggested that the development of the conceptual site model be
coordinated with the regional project officer to ensure that potential
pathways are adequately and appropriately addressed prior to performing
the assessment.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-100
ii)
Pathway Identification (§ 250.404 of the Regulations)
Once the development of the conceptual site model is completed, current
and future exposure pathways should be identified based on this
conceptual site model. An exposure pathway describes the course a
chemical or physical agent takes from the source to the exposed receptor.
An exposure pathway analysis links the sources, locations, and types of
environmental releases with population locations and activity patterns to
determine the significant pathways of exposure.
A potentially complete exposure pathway generally consists of
four elements:
a source and mechanism of chemical release,
a retention or transport medium (or media in cases involving media
transfer of chemicals),
a point of potential receptor contact with the contaminated medium
(the exposure point), and
an exposure route (e.g., ingestion) at the exposure point.
The person should consult the most recent U.S EPA or ASTM guidances
to identify any potential current and future exposure pathways for both
human and environmental receptors. The pathway identification should
consider current pathways and the effects of engineering and institutional
controls. Future exposure pathways should be based on currently planned
and/or probable future land use. Guidance on land use considerations can
be found in the USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) Directive:
Land Use in The CERCLA Remedy Selection
Process
. DEP guidance entitled
Site-Specific Human Health Risk
Assessment Procedures
in Section III.G of this manual provides more
information on pathway identification for human exposure. Guidance
such as described in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 (relating to characterization of
exposure setting and relating to identification of exposure pathways) of
U.S. EPA’s Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human
Health Evaluation Manual
(RAGS/HHEM),
Part A
, provides a framework
for pathway identification for human exposure. Subsection 6.3.2 of Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund/Human Health Evaluation Manual
(RAGS/HHEM), Part A in particular, provides guidance to perform fate
and transport analysis.
Prior to the identification of exposure routes, a remediator must identify
sources and receiving media, evaluate fate and transport in release media,
and identify exposure points and potential receptors. The following
exposure scenarios contain examples of what should be considered:

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-101
(a)
Groundwater
The remediator shall identify routes of exposure for groundwater
such as human exposure to groundwater by ingestion, inhalation,
or dermal exposure routes. The remediator should consider effects
of discharge of groundwater into surface water and the effects on
ecological receptors. When evaluating the indoor exposure
pathways, a remediator needs to address impacts of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from soil and groundwater, not
extraneous sources.
With respect to the groundwater ingestion pathway, the following
guidance is provided. When determining whether groundwater on
or off the source property must be protected under the site-specific
standard for drinking water uses, the following will be applied
(from 35 P.S. § 6026.304(d)):
The
current and probable
future use of groundwater shall
be identified and protected. Groundwater that has a
background TDS content greater than 2,500 milligrams per
liter or is not capable of transmitting water in usable
quantities shall not be considered a current or potential
source of drinking water.
Site-specific sources of contaminants and potential
receptors shall be identified.
Natural environmental conditions affecting the fate and
transport of contaminants, such as natural attenuation, shall
be determined by appropriate scientific methods.
From 25 Pa. Code § 250.403 of the regulations, the following
apply:
Except for groundwater excluded by the TDS limitation
described above, current and probable future use of
groundwater
shall be determined on a site-specific basis
.
Drinking water use of groundwater shall be made suitable
by at least meeting the primary and secondary MCLs at all
points of exposure identified in § 250.404 (relating to
pathway identification and elimination) of the regulations.
Current drinking water or agricultural uses of groundwater,
at the time contamination was discovered
, shall be
protected.
As an example: within a city with an established public water
system and groundwater contamination extending off-property, the

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-102
complete exposure pathways depend on volatilization potential of
contamination and the current use or “probability” that future
groundwater ingestion may occur. If surrounding properties are
currently developed and have public water service, then it may be
assumed that the probability is that those established patterns of
water use will continue into the future. Therefore, there are no
current or probable future uses of groundwater as a drinking water
source; and the groundwater ingestion pathway may (all other
information supporting) be determined to be incomplete.
Note that even in cases where the groundwater ingestion pathway
is determined to be incomplete, the final report must include one or
a combination of institutional controls or postremedial measures
which provide assurance that this status continues to exist in the
future. See Section III.D of this manual for the range of
institutional controls or postremedial measures available to a
remediator. If a complete groundwater ingestion pathway is found
to exist in the future, then the responsible person must demonstrate
attainment of one of the three Act 2 standards.
(b)
Soil
The person shall consider current and probable future exposure
scenarios, such as human ingestion, dermal contact, inhalation of
volatiles and particulates, and leaching to groundwater. When
evaluating the indoor exposure pathways, a person needs to
address impacts of VOCs from soil and groundwater, not
extraneous sources.
(c)
Cases Where No Complete Current or Future Exposure
Pathway Exists
If no current or probable future complete exposure pathways exist
without remediation, then a risk assessment report (RA), cleanup
plan (CP), or attainment sampling is not required (see
Figure II-17). These cases are distinct from using pathway
elimination, which requires a remedy (such as an engineering
and/or an institutional control) to attain the standard (see
Section II.B.3.c.ii.D below).
A complete exposure pathway is one in which a receptor may be
exposed to contamination at any level, even if that concentration
equates to an acceptable risk. If the contaminant of concern is a
VOC and occupied buildings are present, then the vapor intrusion
pathway must be evaluated for buildings within the applicable
proximity distances and for preferential pathways (Section IV of
this manual). The inhalation pathway would be complete even if
vapor intrusion screening values were satisfied.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-103
If no complete exposure pathways exist, then no remedy is
required, and a risk assessment is unnecessary. Attainment
sampling is also not required because there is no specific numeric
concentration value (standard) applied to the site. To demonstrate
attainment of the site-specific standard, a pathway elimination
analysis described in 25 Pa. Code § 250.702(b)(3)(i) needs to be
included in the final report. When no complete current or future
exposure pathways exist, it is recommended that the remedial
investigation report and the final report be combined following the
suggested outline provided in Table II-8.
For groundwater, a discussion of the fate and transport analyses
used during site characterization to evaluate contaminant trends for
plume stability needs to be provided in the final report as required
by 25 Pa. Code § 250.702(b)(2). This discussion should confirm
the finding of the fate and transport analysis that the absence of
complete exposure pathways will remain and that continued future
attainment of the site-specific standard will be maintained. A
postremediation care plan may be necessary to ensure all pathways
remain incomplete and to therefore maintain attainment of the site-
specific standard. The postremediation care plan, if necessary,
should be submitted with the final report.
(d)
Cases Where Institutional or Engineering Controls Are
Needed To Eliminate Pathways
Neither a risk assessment report nor attainment sampling is
required if an institutional or engineering control is used as a
remedy to eliminate all complete exposure pathways. However, a
cleanup plan describing how the engineering or institutional
control will eliminate all complete exposure pathways is required
(see Figure II-17). A suggested outline for a cleanup plan is
provided in Table II-6. The cleanup plan, the remedial
investigation report, and the final report can be submitted
simultaneously. Fate and transport analysis descriptions and final
report requirements as described in Section II.B.3.c.ii.C also apply
in this scenario.
d)
Risk Assessment and Development of Site-Specific Standards (§ 250.402)
This section provides general information on risk assessment, developing site-
specific standards, and pathway elimination. Sections III.G and H of this manual
provide guidance on site-specific human health and ecological risk assessment
procedures. This guidance should be followed to conduct a baseline risk
assessment or to develop site-specific standards.
Any remediator selecting the site-specific standard established by Section 304 of
Act 2 should submit a risk assessment report to the Department for review and
approval unless no present or future complete exposure pathways exist as

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-104
demonstrated by a fate and transport analysis when the site was characterized. If
no such complete exposure pathways exist, a person only needs to submit a
combined remedial investigation report and final report (see Table II-8). If
complete exposure pathways exist, the fate and transport analysis, which is a part
of the exposure assessment performed during site characterization, should be
documented in the exposure assessment section of the risk assessment report.
Although it might be helpful in some cases to establish the leaching potential of
constituents in soil, meeting toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP)
limits does not automatically indicate attainment of the site-specific standard.
TCLP analysis is used for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
hazardous waste determinations to simulate leaching in a landfill. These results
determine if a waste is hazardous and can or cannot be disposed of in a landfill.
TCLP analysis does not provide useful data for calculation of site-specific risk
values. The risk associated with the regulated substances is considered in the site-
specific risk assessment under Act 2.
To determine if a site-specific risk assessment is necessary, a conceptual site
model should be developed that defines potential exposure scenarios and
pathways. The exposure scenario (e.g., residential, industrial, recreational), which
will define the exposure pathways, must be based on site-specific land use
considerations. The pathways, which describe the mechanism by which receptors
may be exposed to a source, are also site-specific. Engineering or institutional
controls that are to be implemented which will eliminate exposure pathways must
be incorporated into the conceptual site model. Then, a risk assessment only
needs to be performed if complete exposure pathways for humans and/or
ecological receptors exist under current or future planned conditions.
A complete exposure pathway exists if there is a receptor to be exposed through
an exposure route. For ecological receptors, a pathway is complete even if the
current ecological receptors are not present as a result of the contamination. A
pathway is not complete if there is no reasonable exposure route; i.e., the
contaminant is not in an available form to affect the receptors.
However, before getting into the mechanics of performing the risk assessment, it
is important to clearly define the problem that is to be addressed, the objectives of
the study, and how the results will be used to meet these objectives. This initial
step is critical to ensure a successful outcome (accurate, protective, timely, cost-
effective evaluation) and that the level of effort is commensurate with the scope
of the problem.
Under Act 2, a risk assessment report may include the following:
A baseline risk assessment report that describes the potential adverse
effects to both human and ecological receptors, under both current and
planned and/or probable future conditions that are caused by the presence
of regulated substances in the absence of any further control, remediation,
or mitigation measures.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-105
A risk assessment report that documents which exposure pathways will be
eliminated by a pathway elimination measure so that any substantial
present or probable future risk to human health or the environment is
eliminated.
A risk assessment report that describes the methods used to develop a
concentration level at which human health and the environment are
protected.
The comments obtained as a result of a public comment period, if any, and
the responses to those public comments.
If an unacceptable risk is identified at a site, a person may develop site-specific
standards based on a site-specific risk assessment. A baseline risk assessment
report is not required if the Department, in its remedial investigation report or
cleanup plan approval, determines that a specific remediation measure, other than
a no-action remedial alternative, can be implemented to attain the site-specific
standard (see 35 P.S. § 6026.304; 25 Pa. Code § 250.405(c)). A baseline risk
assessment is that portion of a risk assessment that evaluates a risk in the absence
of the proposed site-specific measure.
In developing site-specific standards, a person may use the toxicological data
presented in Tables 5a and 5b of Appendix A, Chapter 250, refer to the toxicity
database on the Land Recycling website, or refer to the sources listed in 25 Pa.
Code § 250.605 for the most up-to-date values.
As an alternative to developing site-specific numerical cleanup standards and
remediation, individuals may choose to perform a combination of engineering and
institutional controls to achieve pathway elimination for regulated substances of
concern. Common methodologies used to eliminate exposure pathways include
permanent capping of contaminated soils with parking lots or building slab
construction, groundwater and land use restrictions, vapor barriers, or sub-slab
depressurization systems.
Remediation measures may require interface with the SWMA (see Section V.A of
this manual), particularly for offsite removal of contaminated media or
management of existing waste onsite.
To prepare the development of the site-specific standards risk assessment report,
all current and probable future complete exposure pathways as identified in the
fate and transport analysis should be addressed. When pathway elimination
measures are planned and preapproved, the remaining pathways and the
eliminated pathways under the postremedial conditions should be identified in the
site-specific standard risk assessment report. Site-specific cleanup levels should
be developed to address the risks associated with these remaining pathways.
Where all pathways have not been eliminated, a risk assessment report is required.
In addition to human health protection, the risk assessment must evaluate
ecological receptors. An ecological risk assessment should be conducted with

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-106
considerations of the site-specific ecological risk assessment procedure provided
in Section III.H of this manual and the most recent U.S. EPA or ASTM
guidances, including those listed in Table II-4 to determine whether an impact has
occurred or will occur if a release goes unabated, to establish acceptable
remediation levels or alternative remedies based on current or probable future
land use that are protective of the ecological receptors.
Ecological receptors include:
Individuals of threatened or endangered species as designated by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act.
Exceptional value wetlands as defined in 25 Pa. Code § 105.17 (relating to
wetlands).
Habitats of concern as defined in 25 Pa. Code § 250.1.
Species of concern as identified in the PNDI.
At the conclusion of the risk assessment, a risk assessment report should be
submitted to the Department for review and approval. Section II.B.3.g.v of this
manual describes specific information required to be included in the risk
assessment report.
To ensure that any substantial present or probable future risk to the environment
is eliminated, both human health and ecological risk evaluations are necessary.
The objective of the Preliminary Ecological Screening is to quickly evaluate
whether surface soil or sediments at a site have the potential to pose significant
ecological impact or impacts requiring further evaluation. The site-specific initial
screening procedure described in Section III.H of this manual may be used during
or immediately after the site characterization process to assess the potential for
significant ecological impact. It should be noted that the ecological screening
procedures under the SHS (in Section II.B.2.e of this manual) should not be used
to replace the site-specific initial screen procedure (Steps 1-2 in Section III.H of
this manual) when the site-specific standard is selected to protect human health
and the environment. This is because the assumption to use the ecological
screening procedures under the SHS is that the site has met SHS values to protect
human health. This underlying assumption cannot be made when the site-specific
standard is selected to protect human health.
When conducting an ecological screening under the site-specific standard,
a screening level ecological risk assessment to determine if an impact has
occurred or will occur if the release of a regulated substance goes
unabated should be performed. If this risk assessment shows that an
impact has or will occur, the following are then necessary: an ecological
risk assessment conducted in accordance with Department-approved EPA
or ASTM guidance to establish acceptable remediation levels or
alternative remedies based on current and future use that are protective of
ecological receptors.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-107
Table II-4
List of Ecological Risk Assessment Guidances
U.S. EPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. EPA/540-R-97-006. PB97-963211. June 16, 1997.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites: A Field and Laboratory Reference
Document. EPA/540/R-92/003. December, 1991.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume I of II. EPA/600/R-93/187a.
PB94-174778. December, 1993.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume II of II, Appendix: Literature Review
Database. EPA/600/R-93/187b. PB94-177789. December, 1993.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guidelines for Exposure Assessment; 57 FR, 22888-22938, May 29, 1992
ASTM, E 1739, Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites.
Refer to the EPA website for the Region 3 BTAG (Biological Technical Assistance Group) screening
tables and the SSL (Soil Screening Levels) tables as well as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) website for the SQuiRT (Screening Quick Reference Tables) ecological
screening values.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-108
Implementation of the selected remedy, which may include mitigation
measures under § 250.311(f), that is protective of ecological receptors.
e)
Cleanup Plan
Section II.B.3.g.ii and Table II-6 of this manual describe information required to
be included in the cleanup plan. A cleanup plan is not required and no remedy is
required to be proposed or completed if neither current nor future exposure
pathways exist. Subject to the Department’s approval of the baseline risk
assessment report, a cleanup plan is also not required if the baseline risk
assessment indicates the site is within the human health and environmental
protection goals specified in 25 Pa. Code § 250.402 under both current and
currently planned future site conditions. After the site has been characterized
using the suggested guidelines (or some equivalent technique) and a risk
assessment performed to develop site-specific standards for soil and groundwater,
a remediation (cleanup) plan should be developed, which consists of identification
and evaluation of remedial alternatives, selection of a proposed remedy, and plans
for the development, construction, and initial operation of the proposed remedy.
A number of factors required by Act 2 for consideration in selecting the remedy
are set forth in Section 304(j) of Act 2. As described in Section 304(i) of Act 2,
remediation to site-specific standards may include treatment, removal,
engineering or institutional controls as well as innovative or other demonstrated
measures. However, institutional controls such as fences, warning signs, or future
land use restrictions may not be the sole remedy unless based upon exposure
scenarios applicable at the time the contamination was discovered. If the
remediation plan consists solely of fences, warning signs, or future land use
restrictions, then the calculated site-specific standard cannot be calculated using
exposure factors that are any different than what the exposure assumptions would
be if the fences, warning signs, or future land use restrictions were not in place.
This Act 2 restriction is in place to prevent the use of an institutional control as a
means of calculating a site-specific cleanup value that assumes a much lower rate
of exposure which could result in an artificially high calculated site-specific
standard.
To evaluate the short-term and long-term effectiveness of a remedial alternative,
the potential risk associated with implementation of the alternative and the risk
associated with exposure to the remediated media must be evaluated. The
pathways and exposure factors that were defined in the exposure assessment
should be used to characterize these potential risks.
The risk characterization associated with short-term effectiveness considers the
exposure of workers at the site and exposure of receptors in the vicinity
surrounding the site to migrating media during the implementation of the remedial
alternative. A comparison of a focused list of remedial alternatives may help
predict the risks associated with the implementation of the remedial alternative or
whether the implementation of alternatives may have any significant impact to
human health and the environment.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-109
The risk characterization associated with long-term effectiveness evaluates
whether the remedial alternative may attain the remedial objectives (site-specific
standards) and whether postremedial risks may achieve the acceptable levels of
risk. At times, a specific cleanup goal for one constituent may not be attained, but
the overall postremedial risk may be within acceptable levels. Evaluation of the
postremedial risk is based on a prediction of what the postremedial exposure
concentration would be. If bioremediation is considered, the remedial objective
would be the concentration that provides the basis for characterization of the
postremedial risk. If the calculated postremedial risk is within the acceptable
range, the remedial alternative would be considered a viable solution.
A remediator evaluating long-term and short-term risks of remedial alternatives
should consider
EPA’s Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
(RAGS),
Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 2 for additional guidance. It should be noted that a
quantitative risk assessment of remedial alternatives will not need to be conducted
for all sites. In most cases, a qualitative rather than a detailed quantitative
evaluation of both long-term and short-term risks is all that is needed to select the
most appropriate alternative. However, the Department may require a
quantitative risk assessment of the selected remedy if a quantitative risk
assessment is needed to select the most appropriate remedy or a perceived risk of
a selected remedy is high. No matter whether the risk evaluation is qualitative or
quantitative, the cleanup plan should always discuss the degree of uncertainty
associated with the risk assessment of the selected remedy.
Where there are imminent or immediate threats to human health or the
environment, such as waste releasing from corroding tanks or drums, mitigating
measures should be undertaken to prevent releases and further exposure as soon
as these threats are identified.
The cleanup plan must document the evaluation of the factors listed in
Section 304(j) of Act 2. The Department will review the alternative evaluated,
the evaluation of the selected remedy in terms of the Section 304(j) criteria, public
comments, and response to the comments in the cleanup plan. The Section 304(j)
criteria address a few general areas, such as the effectiveness of the remedy
(long/short term) to manage risk; the extent to which the risks are being reduced;
the ability to implement the remedy; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of
regulated substances; reliability and postremediation care; and cost-benefit
considerations.
The Department may require further evaluation of the selected remedy or of one
or more alternative remedies on its own analysis of Section 304(j) factors in Act 2
or in response to comments received from the community surrounding the site as
a result of the implementation of the community involvement plan or as a result of
the Department’s review of the cleanup plan. Remediators shall submit to the
Department, upon request, such additional information as may reasonably be
required to complete the evaluation.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-110
f)
Remediation and Demonstration of Attainment
Remediation to the site-specific standards should be implemented in accordance
with the approved cleanup plan.
The POC for demonstration of the attainment of site-specific standards is
described in 25 Pa. Code § 250.407. Site-specific standards shall be attained at
and beyond the POC, where the plume has migrated beyond the property
boundary. For groundwater, the POC is the property boundary that existed at the
time the contamination was discovered. The remediator may request the
movement of the POC in certain circumstances described in 25 Pa. Code
§ 250.407(a). If any of those conditions exist, the remediator must request
moving the POC in writing prior to or at the time of submission of the cleanup
plan. The Department will provide a written response to the request. The
Department’s written approval must be obtained before using the adjusted POC.
Unless an NPDES permit is required for purposes of complying with surface
water quality in a spring, the POC is the point of first designated or existing use as
defined in 25 Pa. Code §§ 93.1, 93.4, and 93.9. This could mean in close
proximity to the spring itself or some point downstream from the spring
discharge. Determining the point of first designated use is required because it
establishes the point where Chapter 93 water quality standards apply.
Technical guidance to determine point of first use is found in
Policy and
Procedure for Evaluating Wastewater Discharges to Intermittent and Ephemeral
Streams, Drainage Channels and Swales, and Storm Sewers
, DEP document
# 391-2000-014, revised April 2008. In essence, this guidance relies on
biological techniques to determine the first downstream point where aquatic life
can be documented. It applies to both perennial and intermittent streams with
definable bed and banks, but not to ephemeral streams, that is, areas of overland
runoff which occur only during or immediately following rainfall events and
where there is no defined stream channel and stream substrate.
The site characterization will be the basis on which the vertical and horizontal
extent of contamination above the standard is determined. Once this volume of
the site is determined and remediation, if necessary, has been performed, then
attainment of the standard will focus on the environmental media contained
within that volume of the site. Where multiple releases occur on a property which
produce distinctly separate zones of contamination, the characterization and
subsequent attainment demonstrations will apply individually to the separate
releases.
The three methods to demonstrate that the site-specific standard has been met are
pathway elimination using an engineering/geologic evaluation, the 95% UCL of
the arithmetic mean or other appropriate statistical methods to show that the site
meets numerical site-specific standards, or a residual risk assessment following
implementation of the remedy to demonstrate that the risk associated with the site
following remediation falls within the allowable risk range in Act 2. The residual

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-111
risk assessment will be based on resampling and a reassessment of the cumulative
risks associated with concentrations occurring following remediation.
If this residual risk assessment is nothing more than a presentation of the
recalculation of risk values that were previously presented in an approved risk
assessment report, the presentation of these calculations can be considered as part
of the final report and are not subject to the fees and notification requirements of a
risk assessment. However, if the residual risk assessment is following
remediation done prior to approval of a risk assessment report, or following a
change in pathway and exposure factors due to remedial measures not addressed
in the prior report, this must be a full report as defined in § 250.602 of the
regulations and explained further in Section III.H of this manual. This type of
residual risk assessment is subject to the fees and reporting requirements
associated with a risk assessment.
In demonstrating attainment of the site-specific standard, concentrations of
regulated substances are not required to be less than the limit related to the PQL
for that substance as provided for in 25 Pa. Code § 250.701(c) and as described in
Section III.F of this manual.
In demonstrating attainment of the site-specific standard, the removal of SPL is
not required if attainment can be demonstrated in accordance with the
requirements of 25 Pa. Code § 250.702(b)(3).
If the site-specific standard is numerically less than the background standard, the
remediator may select the background standard, and attainment of the background
standard should be demonstrated according to Section 303 of Act 2.
To ensure that contaminant concentration at the POC will not exceed the selected
standard in the future, a statistical time trend analysis, knowledge of the plume
stability, or other acceptable method must be provided in the final report to the
Department for review and approval.
Guidance on applying statistical methods to demonstrate attainment can be found
in Section III.B of this manual. A remediator should consider the general
guidelines of risk assessment in Sections III.H and III.I of this manual to perform
the residual risk assessment. When submitting the final report, a remediator
should ensure that the items identified in Section II.B.3.g and Table II-7 of this
manual are included.
g)
General Report Guidelines for the Site-Specific Standard
The remedial investigation report, risk assessment report, cleanup plan, and final
report detailed below are not to be submitted to the Department until the 30-day
public and municipal comment period has expired.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-112
i)
Remedial Investigation Report (25 Pa. Code § 250.408)
The site characterization shall be conducted in accordance with
scientifically recognized principles, standards and procedures. The level
of detail in the investigation and the selected methods and analyses, which
may include models, shall sufficiently define the rate of movement and the
present and future extent and fate of contaminants to ensure continued
attainment of the remediation standard. All interpretations of geologic and
hydrogeologic data shall be prepared by a professional geologist licensed
in Pennsylvania. A suggested outline for a remedial investigation report is
provided in
Table II-5
.
ii)
Cleanup Plan (25 Pa. Code § 250.410)
The cleanup plan is not required if no current and probable future
exposure pathways exist. The cleanup plan is also not required if the
approved baseline risk assessment report indicates that the site does not
pose unacceptable risks to human health and the environment under
current and planned or probable future conditions. A suggested outline for
a cleanup plan is provided in Table II-6.
iii)
Final Report (25 Pa. Code § 250.411)
A suggested outline for a final report under the site-specific standard is
provided in Table II-7.
iv)
Combined Remedial Investigation Report/Final Report
The site characterization shall be conducted in accordance with
scientifically recognized principles, standards and procedures. The level
of detail in the investigation and the selected methods and analyses, that
may include models, shall sufficiently define the rate of movement and the
present and future extent and fate of contaminants to ensure continued
attainment of the remediation standard. All interpretations of geologic and
hydrogeologic data shall be prepared by a professional geologist licensed
in Pennsylvania. A suggested outline for the combined remedial
investigation report/final report under the site-specific standard is provided
in Table II-8.
v)
Risk Assessment Report (25 Pa. Code § 250.409)
A baseline risk assessment report is not required if the Department, in its
remedial investigation report or cleanup plan approval, concurs that a
specific remediation measure that eliminates all pathways, other than a no-
action remedial alternative, can be implemented to attain the site-specific
standard (see 25 Pa. Code § 250.405(c)). A risk assessment report is not
required if no present or future exposure pathways exist, as documented in
the remedial investigation report by a fate and transport analysis.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-113
A suggested outline for a risk assessment report is provided in Table II-9.
The items in the outline are suggested as minimum requirements for
inclusion in the report; the order and titles are not mandatory. If a baseline
risk assessment is not required and a remediator submits the development
of site-specific standard numerical values as a stand-alone document, more
detailed risk assessment information should be provided in the
development of the site-specific standard numerical values document.
h)
Detailed Report Requirements for the Site-Specific Standard
The following are detailed descriptions of what should to be included in each
section of a report. Not all sections are necessary for each report. Please refer to
the outlines in the previous section for detailed information.
i)
Summary (RIR, FR, RIR/FR)
Provide a summary paragraph(s) which will provide the reviewer with an
overview of the site. This will serve to highlight the important issues and
conclusion which will be presented in the report.
The Final Report Summary form should be filled in and submitted to the
Department electronically. The summary submitted with the final report
should be a copy of that electronic form.
ii)
Introduction (CP, RA)
Provide a summary of the investigation report(s) and risk assessment
report and an interpretation of the conditions at the site (refined conceptual
site model). Discuss the chosen method(s) of remediation. The remedy
should be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of Section 304(j)
of Act 2.
iii)
Site Description (RIR, RIR/FR)
Provide a description of the site in sufficient detail to inform the reviewer
of the site location and the types of operations that are currently and/or
were formerly conducted on the site. As appropriate to the site, the
description should include location, physical description of the property,
ownership history, site use history, and regulatory action history (past
cleanups).
iv)
Site Characterization (RIR, RIR/FR, RA)
The site characterization provides important information documenting the
current conditions at the site. Information developed during the site
characterization is primarily intended to describe the nature,
concentrations, extent, and potential for movement of all contaminants
present on the site or that may have migrated from the site. For sites

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-114
where there are multiple distinct areas of contamination, the site
characterization process should be applied to each area individually.
v)
Source and Identification of Constituents of Concern (Part of
Characterization)
For the area being investigated include a description of source
characterization, which may be in the form of a conceptual site model.
vi)
Nature and Extent of Contamination (Part of Characterization)
Information needed to meet the requirements below should be included
here. For soil and groundwater, include information on samples and
measurements used to characterize the horizontal and vertical, present and
future extent and fate of contamination. Direction and velocity of
contaminant movement should be based on factors of the groundwater and
soil as well as the contaminant(s) which affect migration.
Text, tables, graphics, figures, maps and cross sections should be used to
describe the nature, location, and composition of the regulated substances
at the site. Providing the data in an appropriate format will expedite the
review of the report.
vii)
Other Information Required Under the Site-Specific Standard (RIR,
RIR/FR)
Description of the existing or potential public benefits of the use or reuse
of the property for employment opportunities, housing, open space,
recreation or other uses. Describe the past, present, and future use of the
site.
Information obtained from attempts to comply with the background or
Statewide health standards, such as background concentrations for
constituents of concern.
viii)
List of Contacts (ALL)
Name, address, and telephone number of the project manager responsible
for submittal of the cleanup plan.
Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of consultants or other persons
responsible for preparing the cleanup plan.
Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the property owner and party
responsible for the remediation cost.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-115
ix)
Remedial Alternative (CP)
Identify remediation alternatives considered and evaluate the ability and
effectiveness of the selected remedy to achieve the site-specific standards,
based on the factors set forth in Section 304 (j) of Act 2. The cleanup plan
must document how each of the factors set forth in Section 304 (j) of
Act 2 was evaluated. The evaluation should include an evaluation of the
short-term and long-term risks and effectiveness of the proposed remedy.
In evaluating the other alternatives, no risk evaluation is required; rather, a
narrative describing the consideration of Section 304(j) factors relative to
the proposed remedy should be included.
x)
Treatability studies (CP)
Provide results of any treatability, bench scale, or pilot scale studies or
other data collected to support the remedial action(s).
All other site information relevant to the conceptual design, construction,
or operation of the remedial action.
Specific characteristics of the site that may affect the implementation or
effectiveness of the remedial action including such characteristics as
topography, geology, depth of bedrock, potentiometric surfaces, and the
existence of utilities.
xi)
Design plans and Specifications (CP)
Consists of adequate design plans and specifications sufficient to evaluate
the proposed remedy including, but not limited to:
Detailed description of the remedial action (treatment and/or
removal) and remedial technology to be implemented. Adequate
design plans and specifications for all remedial activities, including
remedial design, onsite treatment, storage, removal and disposal
activities.
Estimated volume of each medium to be treated and/or removed.
Provide methodology and calculations used to estimate
contaminant mass.
Remedial Action Status Plan - To evaluate the short-term and long-
term effectiveness of the remedial action to include, but not limited
to, the following:
?
Location and construction details of all monitoring points.
?
Sampling and Analysis Plan, including QA/QC Plan.
?
Other site-specific monitoring as appropriate.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-116
Construction QA/QC Plan including engineering certification.
Locations, telephone numbers, and contacts of offsite disposal
facilities, including names, addresses, and telephone numbers of
waste transportation companies.
Site-specific Health & Safety Plan which includes adherence to all
applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) regulations and recommendation.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan consistent with
Chapter 102 (Erosion Control) relating to earth disturbance during
remedial activities.
Site Security Plan.
A schedule for implementation of the proposed remedial action.
Operation and Maintenance Plan which shall describe:
?
Startup testing, inspection and maintenance over the first
year and subsequent years of operation.
?
Identification of equipment necessary for operation and
maintenance.
?
Specification of the type, frequency, and duration of testing
or maintenance to verify optimal remedial system
performance.
All federal, State and local permits and approvals and any
agreements necessary for the construction and operation of the
approved remedial action shall be identified.
xii)
Remediation (FR)
Documentation of the methodologies used to attain the site-specific
standard. Including removal and/or treatment technologies used, and any
engineering and/or institutional controls used to attain or maintain the
selected standard. This section should also include the calculation of the
mass of contaminants addressed during the remediation of soil and/or
groundwater, using the methodology in Section III.C.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-117
xiii)
Attainment (FR)
Documentation that the remedy has been completed in accordance with an
approved cleanup plan.
Descriptions of treatment, removal, or decontamination procedures
performed in remediation. Documentation of handling of
remediation wastes in accordance with applicable regulations.
Descriptions of the sampling methodology and analytical results.
All sampling data, including QA/QC data.
The demonstration of attainment should be applied separately for each
distinct area of contamination. Demonstration of attainment in a final
report should include one or more of the following three types of
information:
Demonstration of attainment of a numerical standard:
The information includes demonstration that the calculated
numerical site-specific standards have been met through the
application of appropriate statistical tests, and demonstration that
shows contaminant concentration at the POC will not exceed the
selected standard. The following information shall be documented
in a final report when a statistical method is applied:
?
A description of the statistical method.
?
A clear statement of the applicable decision rule in the form
of statistical hypothesis for each spatial unit and temporal
boundary including the applicable statistical parameter of
interest and the cleanup standard.
?
A description of the underlying assumptions of the method.
?
Documentation showing that the sample data set meets the
underlying assumptions of the method and demonstrate that
the method is appropriate to apply to the data.
?
Specification of false positive rates.
?
Documentation of input and output data for the statistical
test, presented in tables, figures or both, as appropriate.
?
An interpretation and conclusion of the statistical test.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-118
Demonstration that contaminant concentration at the POC will not
exceed the selected standard should be based on a statistical time
trend analysis, knowledge of the plume stability or other
acceptable method.
Demonstration of pathway elimination:
This demonstration should be based on either an engineering or
hydrogeologic analysis, or both, which includes fate and transport
analysis that some or all of the exposure pathways have been
eliminated. The eliminated pathways and the remaining pathways
should be clearly identified. The pathway elimination
demonstration should include the following:
?
Identifying all exposure pathways prior to the
implementation of pathway elimination technology, based
on fate and transport analysis.
?
Identifying all exposure pathways after the implementation
of pathway elimination technology, based on fate and
transport analysis.
Residual Risk Assessment
As an alternative to demonstrating the attainment of numerical
standards, a person may perform a residual risk assessment to
show that the risk which remains at a site following remediation is
within the acceptable risk range specified in Act 2. The residual
risk assessment should be based on resampling and a reassessment
of the cumulative risks associated with concentrations occurring
following remediation.
If this residual risk assessment is nothing more than a presentation
of the recalculation of risk values that were previously presented in
an approved risk assessment report, the presentation of these
calculations can be considered as part of the final report and are
not subject to the fees and notification requirements of a risk
assessment. However, if the residual risk assessment is following
remediation done prior to approval of a risk assessment report, or
following a change in pathway and exposure factors due to
remedial measures not addressed in the prior report, this must be a
full report as defined in 25 Pa. Code § 250.602 and explained
further in Section III.H of this manual. This type of residual risk
assessment is subject to the fees and reporting requirements
associated with a risk assessment.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-119
xiv)
Fate and Transport Analysis (RIR, FR, RIR/FR, RA)
The Fate and Transport Section (Section III.A of this manual) provides a
discussion on fate and transport analysis. The amount of detail in the fate
and transport analysis may vary from a basic description to a very
extensive detailed model with quantitative modeling. Whenever a model
is used, the assumptions, data, and information on the model necessary for
Department staff to evaluate and run the model should be included. Any
parameters used in the analysis or models used should use data from the
site obtained during the site characterization. This includes identified
ecological receptors.
Modeling (optional) - Data Interpretation:
Identify any programs or modeling used to interpret site conditions
or predict plume migration. Identify codes used and any
modifications made.
Models should be developed from site-specific data.
Identify limitations/assumptions used in the model(s).
Models should be validated to reproduce conditions measured in
the field.
xv)
Conclusions and Recommendations (RIR, RIR/FR)
In addition to documenting the items listed above, the remedial
investigation report should draw conclusions regarding the existence of
exposure pathways and the potential effectiveness of institutional or
engineering controls in eliminating some or all of these pathways. The
report also should identify the appropriate remedial technology options for
each medium of concern.
xvi)
Postremediation care plan (if applicable) and other postremedial
obligations (such as monitoring or institutional controls) (CP, FR,
RIR/FR)
If engineering or institutional controls are needed to maintain a standard, if
the fate and transport analysis indicates that the remediation standard may
be exceeded at the POC in the future, or, if the remediation relies on
natural attenuation, a postremediation care plan must be documented in
the final report (see 25 Pa. Code 250.411(d)). The plan should include:
Reporting of any instance of nonattainment.
Reporting of any measures to correct nonattainment conditions.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-120
Monitoring on a quarterly basis, or as otherwise approved by the
Department, that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remedy and
periodic reporting of monitoring results and analysis.
Maintenance of records at the property where the remediation is
being conducted for monitoring, sampling and analysis.
A schedule for operation and maintenance of the controls and
submission of any proposed changes.
If requested by the Department, documentation of financial ability
to implement the remedy and the postremediation care plan.
If mitigation measures are implemented to restore or replace equivalent
ecological resources in the local area of the site, a postremediation care
plan to maintain the mitigated ecological resources is documented in the
final report (see 25 Pa. Code 250.411(f)). The plan should include:
Reporting of the ongoing success or failure of the mitigation
measure implemented.
Mitigation measures instituted at the time of the final report shall
be successfully accomplished and sustained up to five years from
final report approval.
In some cases, postremedial obligations described in Section III.E
could require documentation in a postremediation care plan.
xvii)
Cooperation or Agreement of Third Party (CP)
When a person proposes a remedy that relies on access to properties
owned by third parties for remediation or monitoring, documentation of
cooperation or agreement shall be submitted (see 25 Pa. Code 250.410(c)).
xviii) Public comments (ALL)
Include the comments obtained during the public and municipal comment
period and the public involvement plan, if any, and the responses to those
public comments.
xix)
References (ALL)
xx)
Attachments (ALL)
Attachments may include but are not limited to:
Tables – monitoring well construction summary, groundwater
gauging data, including elevation and NAPL thicknesses,
analytical data, historical data.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-121
Figures – including groundwater elevation maps, extent of NAPL,
concentration data for soil/groundwater/surface water/vapor or
indoor air, cross-sections.
Monitoring well construction diagrams, boring logs, stratigraphic
logs, including soil/rock characteristics.
Sampling and analysis plan(s).
QA/QC Plan.
Ecological survey documentation (from PNDI).
Well search documentation (from PaGIS).
Field data sheets, such as low flow purging monitoring.
Statistical worksheets, software outputs, graphs; modeling
inputs/outputs.
Disposal documentation of soil/groundwater.
Remediation system operation, maintenance, monitoring data;
mass removal estimates.
Before and after remediation photographs.
Copy of municipal notification, reasonable proof of newspaper
notice publication.
Laboratory reports and any voluminous attachments may be
enclosed on a CD.
xxi)
Signatures: (ALL)
If any portions of the submitted report were prepared or reviewed by or
under the responsible charge of a registered professional geologist or
engineer, the professional geologist or engineer in charge must sign and
seal the report.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-122
TABLE II-5
Suggested Outline for Remedial Investigation Report under the Site-Specific Standard
I.
Summary
(Section II.B.3.h.i)
II.
Site Description
Provide a description of the site in sufficient detail to give an overall view of the site.
(Section II.B.3.h.iii)
III.
Site Characterization
Document current conditions at the site. (Section II.B.3.h.iv - vi)
IV.
Fate and Transport Analysis
Description of Fate and Transport analyses used and results and conclusions. Provide detailed
conceptual site model including analysis of vapor intrusion pathway. (Sections II.B.3.h.xiv and
III.A)
V.
Other Information Required under the Site-Specific Standard.
Provide the results of ecological receptor evaluation. Describe the public benefits of the use or
reuse of the property. Identify complete exposure pathways. (Section II.B.3.h.vii)
VI.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Draw conclusions regarding the existence of exposure pathways and the potential effectiveness
of institutional or engineering controls for pathway elimination. Identify the appropriate
remedial technology options. (Section II.B.3.h.xv)
VII.
References
VIII. Attachments
(Section II.B.3.h.xx)
IX.
Public Comments
Include the comments obtained as a result of a public involvement plan, if any, and the responses
to those public comments. (Section II.B.3.h.xviii)
X.
Signatures
(Section II.B.3.h.xxi)

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-123
TABLE II-6
Suggested Outline for a Cleanup Plan under the Site-Specific Standard
I.
Introduction
(Section II.B.3.h.ii)
II.
List of Contacts
(Section II.B.3.h.viii)
III.
Site Maps
(Section II.B.3.h.xx)
IV.
Remedial Alternative
Identify remediation alternatives considered and evaluate the ability and effectiveness of the
selected remedy to achieve the site-specific standards based on the factors set forth in
Section 304 (j) of Act 2. (Section II.B.3.h.ix)
V.
Treatability Studies
Provide results of any treatability, bench scale, or pilot scale studies or other data collected to
support the remedial action(s). (Section II.B.3.h.x)
VI.
Design Plans and Specifications
Consists of design plans and specifications sufficient to evaluate the proposed remedy.
(Section II.B.3.h.xi)
VII.
Postremediation Care Plan
(Section II.B.3.h.xvi)
VIII. Cooperation or Agreement of Third Party
(Section II.B.3.h.xvii)
IX.
Public Comments
(Section II.B.3.h.xviii)
X.
Signatures
(Section II.B.3.h.xxi)

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-124
TABLE II-7
Suggested Outline for a Final Report under the Site-Specific Standard
I.
Summary
The final report summary should be a copy of the electronic form submitted to the Department.
(Section II.B.3.h.i)
II.
Remediation
Description of the remedial methodologies used to attain the selected standard.
(Section II.B.3.h.xii)
III.
Attainment
Demonstration of attainment of a numerical standard.
Soil site-specific standard
Groundwater site-specific standard
Surface water site-specific standard, and/or
Sediment site-specific standard
Describe the statistical methods used to demonstrate attainment of the standard.
Demonstration of Pathway Elimination.
Residual Risk Assessment.
(Section II.B.3.h.xiii)
IV.
Fate and Transport Analysis
Description of Fate and Transport analyses used and results and conclusions.
(Section II.B.3.h.xiv and III.A)
V.
Postremediation Care Plan (if applicable)
This section is included only if necessary. It describes the engineering and institutional controls
necessary to maintain the standard. (Section II.B.3.h.xvi)
VI.
References
VII.
Attachments
(Section II.B.3.h.xx)

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-125
VIII. Public Comments
(Section II.B.3.h.xviii)
IX.
Signatures
(Section II.B.3.h.xxi)

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-126
TABLE II-8
Suggested Outline for the Combined Remedial Investigation Report/Final Report under the Site-
Specific Standard When No Current and Future Complete Exposure Pathways Exist
I.
Final Report Summary
The final report summary should be a copy of the electronic form submitted to the Department.
(Section II.B.3.h.i)
II.
Site Description
Provide a description of the site in sufficient detail to give an overall view of the site.
(Section II.B.3.h.iii)
III.
Site Characterization
Document current conditions at the site. (Sections II.B.3.h.iv-vi)
IV.
Fate and Transport Analysis
Description of fate and transport analyses used and results and conclusions.
(Sections II.B.3.h.xiv and III.A)
V.
Other Information Required under the Site-Specific Standard
Provide the results of ecological receptor evaluation. Describe the public benefits of the use or
reuse of the property. Identify complete exposure pathways. (Section II.B.3.h.vii)
VI.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Draw conclusions regarding the existence of exposure pathways and the potential effectiveness
of institutional or engineering controls for pathway elimination. Identify the appropriate
remedial technology options. (Section II.B.3.h.xv)
VII.
Postremediation Care Plan (if applicable)
This section is included only if necessary. It describes the engineering and institutional controls
necessary to maintain the standard. (Section II.B.3.h.xvi)
VIII. References
IX.
Attachments
(Section II.B.3.h.xx)
X.
Public Comments
(Section II.B.3.h.xviii)

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-127
XI.
Signatures
(Section II.B.3.h.xxi)

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-128
TABLE II-9
Suggested Outline for a Risk Assessment Report under the Site-Specific Standard
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PART 1 – Human Health Risk Assessment
I.
Introduction
Objectives of Risk Assessment
Organization of Report
II.
Site Characterization
Site history (brief)
Site location/map
Description of sources
Nature and extent of contamination
Identification of constituents of concern
Conceptual site model
III.
Exposure Assessment
Exposure scenarios based on land use (current and future)
Potential receptors based on land use (current and future)
Summary of complete pathways (including fate and transport considerations)
Quantification of exposure (not required, if all exposure pathways will be eliminated
through pathway elimination measures.)
IV.
Toxicity Assessment
(Not required if all exposure pathways will be eliminated through pathway elimination
measures.)
Toxicity values for constituents of concern
Derivation of chemical-specific toxicity criteria (if applicable)

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-129
Supporting data listing all relevant information on toxicity
V.
Risk Characterization
Algorithms (not required if all exposure pathways will be eliminated through pathway
elimination measures.)
Calculations and Results (not required if all exposure pathways will be eliminated
through pathway elimination measures.)
Description and fulfillment of risk assessment objectives
Discussion of uncertainty for all sections of report, including uncertainties associated
with site characterization, toxicity assessment, exposure assessment and risk
characterization
VI.
References
PART 2 – Ecological Risk Assessment
This section reports the results of the ecological risk assessment conducted using the guidance in
Section III.I and, as applicable, EPA guidance.
Public Comments
Include the comments obtained as a result of a public involvement plan, if any, and the responses to
those public comments.
Signatures
If any portions of the submitted report were prepared or reviewed by or under the responsible charge of
a registered professional geologist or engineer, the professional geologist or engineer in charge should
sign and seal the report.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-130
4.
Special Industrial Areas
a)
Introduction
The SIA provision established in Section 305 of Act 2 creates incentives to reuse
industrial properties. Cleanups at these SIAs have reduced remediation
requirements which are intended to allow these sites to be put back into
productive use in the community. Act 2 established this provision to encourage
the redevelopment of properties used for industrial activities. The remediator,
reuser, and the property must meet eligibility requirements to be considered as an
SIA under Act 2. Under the SIA provision, necessary remediation will be
performed, and required notification and reporting requirements will be met.
b)
Eligibility Determination
Specific eligibility requirements in § 250.502 of the regulations provide for
qualification of a property for reuse as an SIA and for the qualification of a
remediator to use this special provision of Act 2. The property must have been
used for industrial activity. The extent of industrial activity is defined very
broadly and is detailed in Section 103 of Act 2. If the property qualifies as having
been used for industrial activity, the following additional qualifications must be
met:
The property must be one where there is no financially viable responsible
person, or it is located within a designated EZ.
The remediator must not have caused or contributed to releases at the
property. A person who is interested in purchasing a property and
undertaking a reuse of that property should contact the Department before
the reuser purchases the property.
The term “responsible person” includes the owner of the property,
regardless of whether he has or has not caused or contributed to the
contamination. Therefore, prospective purchasers of property which could
be eligible as an SIA should sign an SIA agreement with the Department
prior to the purchase of the property. The standard template for this type
of agreement is located on the Department’s website. Signing an SIA
agreement does not bind the prospective purchaser if he does not purchase
the property.
Actions in themselves that do not cause or contribute to contamination
taken under Section 307 of Act 2 relating to emergency and interim
responses will not prejudice eligibility determinations under the SIA
designation.
It is the responsibility of the reuser to demonstrate to the Department that
the reuser has not had an environmental impact on the property, just as it
is the responsibility of the remediator to document that the property meets
the other eligibility criteria for an SIA. To accomplish this, certain

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-131
information must be presented to the Department regarding the above
eligibility requirements:
?
Documentation that the property has been used for industrial
activities by including information on the ownership and
operational history of the property as part of the work plan for the
baseline remedial investigation.
?
Verification that no financially viable responsible party exists to
address the contamination on the property. Financial information
for existing responsible parties must be included in the ownership
and operational history. “Financially viable” is generally defined
as having sufficient financial resources to be able to perform part
or all of the cleanup required at a particular property.
To qualify as a property within an EZ or Keystone Opportunity Zone (KOZ), the
municipality where the property is located must be designated by DCED as an
EZ, KOZ, or Keystone Innovation Zone (KIZ). To determine whether a particular
property is within an EZ, KOZ, or KIZ, contact DCED or the appropriate local
contact person. If a remediator wants to determine the eligibility of a site for the
SIA provisions, when a financially viable responsible party is present, the
remediator will need to verify the existence of the EZ, KOZ, or KIZ designation
for the area where the site is located.
A letter from either DCED or the appropriate zone contact person should be
provided with the work plan to verify the status of the property. Persons
remediating a site in an EZ where a viable responsible party may still exist are
only responsible for remediation of contamination identified in the baseline
environmental report and specified in the CO&A with the Department as required
for remediation prior to the new use of the property. Additional remediation may
be pursued by the Department with the responsible person. Responsible persons
under HSCA must resolve their liability to the Department pursuant to HSCA.
See Section V.E of this manual.
c)
Process Checklist for Special Industrial Areas
Evaluate the property potential for redevelopment.
Determine if the property was used previously for industrial activity or if it
is located within an EZ (35 P.S. 6026.305(a) and 25 Pa. Code § 250.502).
Determine if there is a financially viable responsible party. If the property
is located within an EZ, financial viability is not a requirement for SIA use
(35 P.S. 6026.305(a) and 25 Pa. Code § 250.502).
The remediator must demonstrate to the Department that he did not cause
or contribute to contamination on the property (35 P.S. 6026.305(a) and
25 Pa. Code § 250.502).

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-132
Review the historical information and present use of regulated substances
at the property.
Prepare a work plan for a baseline remedial investigation
(35 P.S. 6026.305(b) and 25 Pa. Code § 250.503(b)).
The work plan must be approved by the Department prior to performing
the investigation (35 P.S. 6026.305(b) and 25 Pa. Code § 250.503(b)).
Begin baseline remedial investigation (use Section II.B.4.e of this manual,
35 P.S. 6026.305(b) and 25 Pa. Code § 250.503(c)).
Submit NIR for the SIA to the Department. Also provide notice to the
municipality, publish a notice of submission of the NIR in a local
newspaper, and provide reasonable proof of required notices to the
Department.
Prepare public involvement plan (if requested by municipality).
Prepare baseline environmental report based on baseline remedial
investigation (35 P.S. 6026.305(b) and 25 Pa. Code § 250.503(d)).
Department review of baseline environmental report.
Meet with the Department and concur on CO&A. The prospective
purchaser should enter into the CO&A prior to purchasing the property
(35 P.S. 6026.305(e) and 502(a)).
Remediate the property to the SIA requirements specified in the baseline
environmental report and agreed to in the CO&A (35 P.S. 6026.502(b)).
Calculate the mass of contaminants remediated using the procedure in
Section III.C of this manual.
Complete the Final Report Summary and submit electronically as per the
instructions on the Land Recycling Program web page.
Protection from liability occurs upon the signing of the CO&A with the
Department, subject to the remediator’s compliance with the CO&A
demonstrating attainment of the SIA requirements in accordance with
Chapters 3 and 5 of Act 2.
Submit an environmental covenant, if applicable, to the Department.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-133
d)
Aspects of Special Industrial Areas
i)
Immediate, Direct or Imminent Threats to Human Health and the
Environment
One of the significant aspects of Act 2 is the cleanup liability protection
provided for SIAs. The cleanup liability for the person undertaking
remediation and reuse of an SIA is dependent upon the person performing
remediation of immediate, direct or imminent threats to public health or
the environment which would prevent the property from being occupied
for the remediator’s intended purpose.
The immediate, direct or imminent threats are to be determined by the
baseline remedial investigation and defined in the baseline environmental
report. The baseline environmental report will become the basis for the
CO&A between the Department and the remediator. The exposures, and
potential exposures, presented by an SIA site must be identified in the
baseline remedial investigation. Defining immediate, direct, or imminent
threats is relevant to the remediator’s intended use of the property.
Therefore, it is necessary for the remediator to specify the intended use of
the property. The identification of these threats needs to be addressed at
the time of the baseline remedial investigation work plan and in
performance of the investigation. Only concerns identified in the baseline
environmental report and included in the agreement can be considered in
any relief from liability afforded to the remediator by Act 2. For this
reason, it is paramount that the remediator performs a comprehensive
investigation of an SIA.
Immediate and imminent threats are pending threats likely to happen
without delay or momentarily in time. Direct threats, though sometimes
similar in immediacy, also include chronic exposure. At a minimum,
immediate, direct, or imminent threats will entail:
Contained wastes which present immediate, direct or imminent
threats. Examples are regulated substances in drums, barrels,
tanks, or other bulk storage containers; and contained wastes, such
as wastes in drums, above or below ground tanks, and small
containers.
All wastes which are not containerized and which present a direct
threat to workers or other persons on the property. These may
include, but are not limited to, open containers, pits, waste piles
and other situations that allow wastes to be exposed and accessible
on the site.
In addition to situations listed above, actual exposure for onsite
human populations to any regulated substances.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-134
Actual contamination of drinking water by regulated substances.
Also, contaminated groundwater, if groundwater use will expose
persons on the property to contaminants.
Contaminated soil presenting a direct contact threat to workers or
other persons on the property. Direct contact may occur in a zone
of soil at and below the surface. The depth of consideration of
surface soil shall be the first two feet from the ground surface,
unless reuse of the property presents exposure threats at depths
greater than two feet.
Regulated substances presenting a threat of fire or explosion.
Surface water and sediments contaminated with regulated
substances, if persons are or may become exposed to these
contaminants.
Regulated substances contained as product may remain on the
property if maintained according to appropriate regulations. The
remediator is responsible for releases occurring as a result of the
remediator’s actions.
ii)
Consideration of Chronic Exposure in Evaluation of the Reuse of a
Special Industrial Area
25 Pa. Code Section 250.503(c)(5) pertains to property to be reused and
states, “Evaluation of exposure conditions within the portion of the
property to be reused to identify existing contamination that poses an
immediate, direct or imminent threat to public health or the environment
which is inconsistent with the intended reuse of that portion of the
property.” Initially, the determination of property use for nonresidential or
residential purposes will focus on determination of direct contact
exposure. In the use of the definition of “immediate, direct or imminent,”
the word “direct” includes chronic exposure. In the scope of chronic
exposure, workers or other persons using a property with existing
contamination are to be protected from chronic exposure levels of
contaminants as well as to acute exposure levels. Direct contact includes
contamination which persons may come in contact with when working,
living at, or visiting a site. Direct contact may occur by several routes.
Some examples are ingestion of soil, contact with soil, or inhalation of soil
particles or vapor from the soil. Additional direct contact pathways may
be caused by leaching from the soil to groundwater, vapor intrusion into
buildings, inhalation of contaminated process water, surface water run-off
to water bodies, and exposure of wildlife and ecosystems. Soil available
for direct contact must meet the human health and environmental
protection standards established by Act 2.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-135
iii)
Contaminant Migration Off-Property
There are no obligations or liability for off-property contamination placed
upon an innocent person using the SIA provision. For cases where the off-
property pollution is significant, there may be other available options for
addressing these risks. If there is an existing viable responsible party
(property located within an EZ), the viable responsible party would
continue to be responsible for off-property contamination. For sites where
there is no viable responsible party, the cleanup may either be remediated
by a purchaser of the property (voluntary cleanup), or addressed under
other State or federal programs. In either case, the innocent purchaser
would not be responsible for off-property contamination, as long as he or
she did not cause or contribute to that contamination. Although
assessment at the time of the baseline remedial investigation is not
required off-property, the remediator should determine whether
contamination is moving off the property.
If contamination which requires remediation is found at a future date, and
the nature, concentration, and location were not identified in the baseline
environmental report, the remediator may be liable to perform cleanup of
the contamination to one of the three standards.
iv)
Contamination Identified Subsequent to Remediation and Agreement
Conditions
Under Section 502(b) of Act 2 the remediator is only relieved from
liability for contamination which was identified in the baseline
environmental report. For this reason, it is to the remediator’s benefit to
conduct a comprehensive investigation.
v)
Storage Tank Closure and Corrective Action at Special Industrial
Areas
Remediators are only responsible for addressing the immediate, direct or
imminent threats posed at SIAs. In all cases this includes removal of
waste in containers. Materials remaining in tanks must be removed and
handled in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Product may
remain in the tanks if it is rendered inert and poses no risk. The actual
tanks are required to be removed or rendered safe. The remediator should
follow the Storage Tank Program regulations and guidance to achieve a
safe closure of tanks. Smaller containers will likely be required to be
removed. Releases from tanks that occur after the remediator becomes the
owner or operator are the responsibility of the remediator.
vi)
Consent Orders and Agreements
Remediation of all threats relevant to an SIA reuse which were detailed in
the baseline environmental report will be detailed in a CO&A.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-136
Contamination not identified in the baseline environmental report will
become the responsibility of the remediator.
A change in use of the property, from that defined in the Agreement, may
necessitate a change in the Agreement or modification of the proposed
property reuse. A land use change for an SIA may trigger a reopener
under Section 505(4) of Act 2. The CO&A with the Department will
require the remediator or reuser to provide the Department with written
notice of any change in the use of the property and to remediate any
contamination which would prevent the use of the property for its new
purpose.
vii)
Remediation
Remediation in SIAs must meet the following requirements:
Cleanup may utilize treatment, containment, removal, control
methods, or any combination of the above.
Cleanup must address all containerized waste at the property in
accordance with applicable regulations.
Soil available for direct contact must meet one of the
three remediation standards.
Cleanup of any wastes or cleanup of any medium contaminated
with regulated substances which pose an immediate, direct, or
imminent threat to human health or the environment based on the
intended use of the property must be to one of the three
remediation standards.
If groundwater is to be used at the property, the groundwater must either
be remediated in-ground or at the point of use so that it is safe for its
intended use and occupation of the property.
viii)
Environmental Covenant
An environmental covenant, as required by the SWMA or the HSCA, will
be required for all SIA remediations. Future activity and use limitations
due to disposal of hazardous wastes or regulated substances may be
required as part of the remedy and may be identified as part of the
environmental covenant.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-137
e)
Work Plan for Baseline Remedial Investigation and Baseline Environmental
Report
i)
Work Plan for Baseline Remedial Investigation
A baseline remedial investigation is required for evaluation of a property
that will be part of an SIA agreement. The objective of the baseline
remedial investigation is to establish a reference point documenting
contamination that existed prior to the redevelopment. A work plan for
the baseline remedial investigation is required to be prepared by the
remediator and approved by the Department prior to initiation of the
investigation. The findings and conclusions of the baseline remedial
investigation shall be documented in a report known as a baseline
environmental report.
The work plan for the baseline remedial investigation shall be designed
considering the unique considerations of SIAs and tailored for the specific
property. The work plan shall address how the remediator will perform
the baseline remedial investigation and shall address the items below and
any additional items determined to be appropriate by the person proposing
remediation, or requested by the Department. The work plan for the
remedial investigation shall include the steps to be taken to document the
following:
A description of the property and detailed ownership history.
Identification of the historical regulated substance use, handling
and disposal activities on the property, and any known or
suspected releases associated with these activities. This is obtained
by conducting an environmental site characterization, a review of
historical records, and interviews with persons who may have
knowledge of the property.
Characterization of the regulated substances on the property.
Identification of existing contamination that poses an immediate,
direct or imminent threat to public health or the environment which
would prevent the property from being occupied for the intended
use.
Identification of potential migration pathways off the property, or
onto the property, and any potential receptors from any release on
the property. Where migration pathways and receptors have been
identified, the remediator shall perform environmental sampling of
the groundwater at the downgradient property boundary to
determine if regulated substances from releases on the property
have migrated off the property.

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-138
In addition to the above, environmental sampling, if indicated by
the investigation, in all potential media of concern to confirm
whether releases have occurred.
ii)
Baseline Environmental Report
The baseline environmental report shall provide the results of the baseline
remedial investigation and describe the historical use, location of areas of
contamination, the intended reuse, sampling results, contaminant
migration occurrence or potential, and the proposed remediation measures
to ensure that the SIA requirements are met. Portions of the baseline
environmental report containing information about geologic or
hydrogeologic investigations shall be prepared and certified by a
registered professional geologist licensed in Pennsylvania. The baseline
environmental report shall be submitted without binding. The following is
a recommended scope of a baseline environmental report:
Summary:
Provide a summary paragraph(s) that will give the reviewer
an overview of the property. This will serve to highlight the important
issues and conclusion that will be presented in the report.
Description of Property:
Provide a description of the property in
sufficient detail to give the reader an overall idea of the property and its
location. Describe the following:
Buildings and other site features such as lagoons, tanks, treatment
plants, and other structures on the property. Include a site map
(scale of 1 inch = 200 feet).
The location of all onsite wells, septic systems, floor drains, sumps
and associated piping, storage areas, and chemicals or chemical
compounds used, stored, treated or disposed.
A description of present conditions at the property including any
evidence of a release, contaminated media, tanks, and
identification of areas of uncontained and/or SPL.
The location and name of any public or private water supply on or
near the property.
The location, name and elevation of surface water bodies (springs,
streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands) within 2,500 feet of the property.
The location of utility lines at and near the area of investigation
including any municipal or private water supply lines or natural
gas lines, sanitary or sewer lines, and any other subsurface utilities.
The location of active and inactive oil and gas wells, injection
wells, surface and underground coal and non-coal mines, mine

261-0300-101 / DRAFT December 16, 2017 / Page II-139
pool discharge points, landfills, and surface disposal areas within
2,500 feet of the property.
Identify sensitive features within 2,500 feet of the property, such as
threatened or endangered species habitat, recreational river
corridors, state and federal forests and parks, historic and
archaeological sites, national wildlife refuges, state natural areas,
prime farm land, wetlands, special protection watersheds
designated under Chapter 93 and other features.
Ownership History:
Provide a detailed property ownership history since
the release of regulated substances onsite. Include company or individual
name and address (if available), ownership period, and the general
operational use of the property during each ownership period.
Site Use History:
Provide detail on past and current uses of property and
adjoining properties; including treatment, storage, and disposal of
regulated substances. Indicate the type, estimated volume, composition,
and nature of the released materials, chemicals or chemical compounds.
Indicate the sources of regulated substances; description of spills, leaks,