United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102G)
EPA-542-B-98-009
October 1998
www.epa.gov
clu-in.org
EPA Innovations in Site
Characterization
Interim Guide to Preparing Case Studies
Site Description
Lessons
Learned
Technology
Description
Performance
Costs
-------
-------
EPA-542-B-98-009
October 1998
Innovations in Site Characterization:
Interim Guide to Preparing Case Studies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
Notice
This material has been funded wholly by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract Number 68-W7-0051. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Copies of this report are available free of charge from the National Center for Environmental
Protection and Information (NCEPI), PO Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-2419; telephone
(800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190 (voice) or (513) 489-8695 (facsimile). Refer to document
EPA-542-B-98-009, Innovations in Site Characterization: Interim Guide to Preparing Case
Studies, This document can also be obtained through EPA's Clean Up Information (CLU-IN)
System on the World Wide Web at http://clu-in.org or by modem at (301) 589-8366. For
assistance, call (301) 589-8368.
Comments or questions about this report may be directed to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Technology Innovation Office (5102G), 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
D.C. 20460; telephone (703) 603-9910.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Cost-effective cleanup (remediation) of hazardous waste sites cannot occur unless the type,
quantities, and locations of chemical contaminants present at the site are adequately determined
by a process called characterization. Sampling and chemical analysis of environmental media
(water, soil, sediment, etc.) is vital to designing a remediation regimen that will accomplish the
desired goal of reducing risk to human health and the environment. Unfortunately, site
characterization has historically been very costly and time consuming because the technological
options have been few and sometimes inefficient.
Recent technological advances promise better site characterization at less cost and in a shorter
time frame, yet adoption of new technologies into mainstream engineering practice is very slow.
Three widely acknowledged barriers to the adoption and use of innovative site characterization
technologies at hazardous waste sites are:
• potential users lack personal awareness and/or experience with the technology,
• potential users lack the established performance criteria needed to assess the applicability of
the technology for a prospective project, and
• potential users lack the cost and performance information needed to efficiently plan the
project and allocate resources.
The collection and dissemination of cost and performance information is essential to overcoming
these barriers. While technology developers and vendors can be valuable sources of this
information, their claims often carry less weight than evaluations from colleagues who have used
the technology themselves. Case studies are a means by which technology users and impartial
observers may disseminate information about successful applications of innovative technologies
and add to the pool of knowledge that helps move a technology past the "innovative" stage, thus
significantly shortening the tune required for widespread benefits to be realized. Case studies can
also be a rich source of feedback to researchers and developers seeking to improve or refine
technology performance under various site conditions.
Individual case studies may focus on a particular technology or on a characterization approach or
process. Case studies focused on process can provide education about how efficient
characterization strategies can be implemented on a site-specific basis, and thus can be valuable
adjuncts hi training courses. For many reasons, case studies are valuable tools for the
environmental remediation community.
in
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
IV
-------
Table of Contents
NOTICE ii
FOREWORD "iii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. PURPOSE 1
3. THE AUDIENCE FOR THIS DOCUMENT 2
4. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES AND FORMAT 3
Case Study Abstract 5
Technology Quick Reference Sheet ... 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ... 9
SITE INFORMATION 11
Identifying Information 11
Background 11
Site Logistics/Contacts. 12
MEDIA AND CONTAMINANTS 12
Matrix Identification 12
Site Geology/Stratigraphy .• 12
Contaminant Characterization 13
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Characterization Cost or Performance 13
SITE CHARACTERIZATION PROCESS 13
Goal of Site Characterization 13
Sampling Workplan 13
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Measures 14
CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES 14
Sample Collection Technologies or Procedures. 14
Analytical Technologies 14
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 14
Sample Collection 15
Sampling Results 15
Technology Performance 15
COST COMPARISON 15
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED 16
REFERENCES 17
-------
This page intentially left blank.
VI
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
There is growing dissatisfaction with the long study periods and the high costs of traditional site
investigations. Traditional approaches to collecting contaminant data are being challenged by
innovative methods for collecting comparable data which are based both on process (strategy)
changes, and on new technologies for collecting and analyzing samples. When used judiciously,
innovative approaches can provide high quality data in a cost-effective and timely manner.
However, they often evolve out of experimentation and pilot projects, so information on the costs
incurred can be unrepresentative, and a technology's performance across a wide range of site
conditions may be unknown or highly variable. Since project managers, on-scene coordinators,
and quality assurance managers need that kind of information to properly direct their projects,
the adoption of even highly promising technologies and strategies is hampered. The
dissemination of case studies that report cost and performance information relative to specific
project needs and conditions can help address this problem.
To reach their audience, case studies need to be brief; yet they must contain sufficient contextual
detail (site history and project objectives) for the reader to understand why the innovative
approach was appropriate and what benefits were derived from its use. Actual performance data
is the most important aspect of a case study, as potential users may use this information to assess
whether a technology might be applicable to their projects. Project costs related to
implementation must be sufficiently itemized to permit comparison with more traditional
scenarios in order to assess the cost-benefit of the innovative technology, and to permit users to
plan future project budgets. Documenting actual costs, however, hi a manner that serves these
purposes is frequently difficult.
The Technology Innovation Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency believes that
site characterization case studies can assist project managers to
• have a wider menu of technology options at their disposal,
• select from that menu the most cost-effective characterization technologies that will meet the
decision-making needs of a project, and
• use those tools to design a site characterization strategy that can produce quality data capable
of supporting defensible site decisions.
2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Interim Guide to Preparing Case Studies is two-fold. First, it provides
guidelines that facilitate collecting and documenting the cost and performance information that
will be needed to prepare the case study. This is especially useful if it is known during project
planning that a case study is being considered. Documenting facts (especially costs) important to
the case study as the project unfolds will considerably reduce the time and effort later required if
-------
that information must be extracted after the project is completed. It will also reduce the risk of
errors associated with retrieving details from memory or from incomplete records.
Second, the Interim Guide offers a suggested format for case study reports in order to encourage
consistency. The use of a standard presentation format not only facilitates reader comprehension
and use, but also saves effort and money related to case study preparation since there is no need
to constantly "reinvent the wheel" with each report. As a time-saving feature, an electronic copy
of this file may be used as a template into which a case study preparer may build the specifics of
a particular project. However, not all aspects of this Guide will be relevant to all case studies.
Additionally, this document is designated as an Interim Guide because revisions are expected as
more experience is gained with a range of case studies topics. The suggestions presented here
are of a general nature and attempts for consistency should not be construed as rigidity.
Modifications to any part of this template may be made as required to maintain relevance to the
topic at hand, especially when methodologies outside the realm of analytical chemistry are
surveyed.
Individual case studies may focus on a particular technology, such as a field analytical or
geophysical technology, a software package that interprets data or facilitates decision-making, or
a sample collection device. Case studies focused on "process" (rather than technology) could
encompass characterization strategies, such as the use of a systematic planning approach or
compression of the traditional phased approach into a single mobilization through the use of field
analytical technologies and dynamic work planning. Process-oriented case studies might also
describe successful cost-effective sampling designs used for determining background
concentrations or for composite sampling.
A case study may focus on only one aspect of a larger project, with details about the rest of the
project limited to providing a context for the selection and use of the technology, or might tackle
the description of an entire project. Whatever the designated focus, the preparer should have a
clear vision what information the case study seeks to convey.
3. THE AUDIENCE FOR THIS DOCUMENT
The primary audience for this guide are those charged with actually preparing case studies based
on project reports (e.g., project sampling and analysis plans, work plans, and project reports).
Secondary users of this guide are those charged during the course of a project's execution, with
gathering the information that will be used to prepare a case study after project completion.
Who may be interested in preparing case studies? Within the government, EPA's Technology
Innovation Office and other EPA Headquarters offices have a strong interest in case studies as
information dissemination and teaching tools, as does the Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable, which includes representatives from the Department of Energy, the Department of
Defense, the Department of the Interior, and EPA. Personnel from EPA Regional offices and
state environmental agencies may find that the preparation of case studies, which document well-
-------
planned and executed projects and the astute use of innovative technologies, may serve to
comunicate these successes to colleagues and fiscal decision-makers.
Within the private sector, consulting engineering firms may find that case studies documenting
successful projects may advertise their expertise to potential clients shopping for cutting-edge
firms. Site owners may find that the openness of a case study builds good will with the public
and with regulators. Vendors of technologies which have been showcased in a successful project
would have another marketing tool which not only demonstrates that the technology works, but
also explains how to achieve maximum performance under real-world conditions.
4.
RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES AND FORMAT
This Guide is organized in the following manner. First, templates have been provided of two
types of abstracts, a Case Study Abstract and a Technology Quick Reference Sheet (TQRS), both
of which capture essential information in a single-page, tabular format. The Case Study Abstract
summarizes the characterization project itself. The TQRS condenses information about the
performance and commercial availability for each technology featured in the case study (one
TQRS per technology). Case study preparers are free to modify these tabular templates as
needed.
The body of the report follows the abstracts templates. The generic report template includes
suggested headings to aid report organization. Within each heading is a brief statement of the
purpose of that section and some general suggestions regarding the information that might be
discussed. Some of the section headings that relate to historical background and site-specific
information will undoubtably be relevant for any project. Other headings in this Guide are
applicable for a case study focused on an analytical technology, and thus may not be relevant for
other case study topics, such as a report on a composite sampling design. The case study
preparer will have to adapt those portions of the Guide as necessary.
Experience leads to the following recommendations:
• Inclusion of information in any case study report should be limited to that which directly
supports the clearly articulated focus of the case study. It must be short and easily understood.
The tendency to clutter (and enlarge) the case study with tangential facts should be avoided.
• A case study should serve to advertise the existence and capabilities of a technology or
strategy and arouse interest. The case study itself cannot serve as an exhaustive source of
technical detail, but should offer enough evidence to convince a discerning reader that additional
information is worth pursuing through the technology vendors, project contacts, or literature
references.
• Certain sections, such as the "Observations and Lessons Learned" section should be readily
accessible to non-technical readers.
-------
To assist a case study preparer to use this template with minimum effort, electronic versions of
this Guide may be downloaded in various word-processing formats from the Site
Characterization/Application Support area of EPA's Technology Innovation Office website,
http://clu-in.org/charl .htm#application. This same website area will post actual case studies as
they become available, and these may serve as examples for case study preparers. The first site
characterization case study prepared by EPA's Technology Innovation Office, entitled
Innovations in Site Characterization/Case Study: Hanscom Air Force Base, is posted at the
above web address and may serve as a model for case studies that focus on analytical chemistry
technologies.
-------
Case Study Abstract
Site Name
County, State
Site Name and Location:
Period of Operation:
Operable Unit:
Point of Contact:
Sampling & Analytical
Technologies:
Media and Contaminants:
CERCLIS #
Current Site Activities:
Technology Demonstrator:
Number of Samples Analyzed during Investigation:
Cost Savings:
Results:
Description:
-------
This page intentially left blank.
-------
TECHNOLOGY QUICK REFERENCE SHEET
Case Study Name
%echnologyName ^ -vr J ;"<^ i^\ -• „ >" -_< T «-..,, ^ „ " * ~ ^ ' - ' ;^^ " , ^J~~^':
Summary of Case Study's Performance Information
Project Role:
Analytical Information Provided:
Total Cost:
Cost Per Sample:
Project Cost Breakdown
Instrument Cost:
Consumables Cost:
Labor Cost: Waste Disposal Cost:
Site-Specific Accuracy/Precision Achieved: Throughput Achieved:
General Commercial Information (Information valid as of [insert date])
Vendor Contact:
Availability/Rates :
Vendor Information: Limitations on Performance:
Principle of Power Instrument Weight
Analytical Requirements: and/or Footprint:
Operation:
General Performance Information . . ,
Known or Potential Interferences:
Applicable
Media/Matrices:
Wastes Generated
Requiring Special
Disposal:
Analytes
Measurable with
Expected Detection
Limits:
Other General Accuracy/Precision
Information:
Rate of Throughput:
-------
This page intentially left blank.
-------
SITE NAME
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
The purpose of the executive summary is to concisely summarize the whole case study, providing the
essential details of the site conditions, the actions taken, and the results obtained from those actions. The
focus of the case study should be clearly defined, such as whether the case study is reporting on a
particular site characterization technology as opposed to a characterization process, and whether the report
will primarily summarize only a relevant portion of a project as opposed to an entire investigation.
The 'take home' message of the case study should be presented, along with a summary of the principal
lessons learned. It is often best to write this section last.
-------
This page intentially left blank.
10
-------
^ SITE NAME
I SITE INFORMATION ••^••nMi^HMi^HHMi^HHM^^^^E
Identifying Information
The purpose of this section is to provide basic identifying information about the site. The standard
items to report here include (as appropriate):
• Site Name
• City, State, Zipcode
• Operable Unit
• CERCLIS#
• Enforcement Decision Document Date
Background [may put citation number here]
A clear description of the site background acts as the foundation on which the site conceptual
model was constructed to develop the characterization strategy. Without such a description, it can
be difficult to understand the logical reasoning behind the characterization strategy. The
description of the site background should provide a clear historical and physical description of the
area that is the subject of investigation. The historical perspective should concisely present the
history of the site as it relates to the release of contaminants. It may also include a short
description of the enforcement and investigative history.
This information will likely be derived from other documents or reports, which should appear in
the Reference section at the end of the case study, with a corresponding citation number in the
body of the text or at the section heading, as illustrated above.
Some items to report might include:
Physical Description:
• Site location
• Nearest population center
• Site size
• Study area size
• Site topography
• Physical features: wetlands, rivers, etc.
Site Use:
• Historical use
• Changes in ownership
Release/Investigation History:
• Release history
• Initial discovery/ investigation
• Removal actions: type and volume
• Present investigation
• Site map
11
-------
. SITE NAME
i SITE INFORMATION continued •••••••^•^••••^•••••i
Regulatory Context:
• NPL listing
• ROD date
• Enforcement dates, including Consent on Decree/Administrative Order
Site Logistics/Contacts
This section contains the basic contact information for the project, such as.
Lead Agency or Party:
Oversight Agency:
Project Manager: Technology Demonstrator:
Quality Assurance Contact: Technical Site Contact:
MEDIA AND CONTAMINANTS
The purpose of this section is to describe the types of contaminants present at the site, and the
characteristics of the matrices in which they are found. Include information on the listed topics as
needed to aid case study coherence:
Matrix Identification '
Type of Matrix Sampled and Analyzed: (e.g., Subsurface soil/Bedrock/ Groundwater)
Site Geology/Stratigraphy [may put citation number here if all information derived
from a single reference]
The description of site geology might include:
• Lithography
• Depth to groundwater
• Depth to bedrock
• Confining layers
• Map of study area
If appropriate, describe:
• Aquifer name and classification, e.g., sole source drinking water, etc.
• Hydrogeology
• Direction of groundwater flow
• Transmissivity/conductivity
• Potentiometric gradients
12
-------
I MEDIA AND CONTAMINANTS continued!
SITE NAME
Contaminant Characterization
Primary Contaminant Groups: List contaminants of concern
Matrix Characteristics Affecting Characterization Cost or Performance
The specific matrix characteristics that might be included will vary from one investigation to the
next. Report those that influenced the design of the study and/or affected the performance or
deployment of the technologies employed'during the investigation. Common characteristics
might include:
• Complex lithology
• Soil moisture
• Topographical relief across site
• Cultural interferences (e.g., structures that restrict implemention of a geophysical technique)
• Depth to bedrock
• Depth to water table
• Presence of matrix interferences to analytical methods
• SITE CHARACTERIZATION PROCESS i
The purpose of this section is to describe clearly the process that led to the collection of
information relevant to site characterization. The scale of the project should be clearly defined,
such as whether is was a field test, a pilot project, or a full-scale application.
Goal of Site Characterization •
When possible, the goal(s) of the investigation should be stated in terms of the type of site
investigation performed and the site-specific decisions that were supported by data. Types of
investigations that might be performed include:
• Preliminary assessment
• Browhfields assessment
• Risk assessment or other health and safety concerns
• Remedial design
• Remedial monitoring
• Site closure
Sampling Workplan [information source may be referenced here]
The description of the sampling plan can be used to establish the context for the investigation
results. The discussion should focus on the scope of the investigation and the justification for the
sampling approach. For example, prior knowledge of releases may have been used to locate
hotspots by a judgmental sampling plan, or the use of statistical measures to derive representative
statements about site contamination or risk. Action levels used to make site decisions should be
presented and the justification for their selection noted. As appropriate, information may be
displayed in tabular format.
13
-------
SITE NAME
i SITE CHARACTERIZATION PROCESS continued ••••••••^•••i
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Measures [Reference?]
Most site characterization projects will use QA/QC measures of some kind (depending upon the
type of technology), with the necessary and appropriate measures having been determined during
project planning. These measures (such as project-specific Data Quality Objectives, or analyte-
specific Data Quality Indicators in the case of analytical technologies [1]) are used to assess the
quality arid useability of the data generated during site characterization and should be described in
this section in concise terms or hi tabular format, when appropriate. The QA/QC measures
described in this section will be the standards by which technology performance will be assessed
in the Performance Evaluation section of the case study (described below).
I CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES ^^^^^^•••••••i
The purpose of this section is to provide a technical description of the technologies used in the site
characterization project if they are relevant to the purpose of the case study. Topics to cover in this
section may include:
Sample Collection Technologies or Procedures
If sample collection was an important parameter for the case study, this section can be included to
describe the specific technology used and principle(s) of operation. The name of the vendor, the
model number, and the technical operating parameters should be presented (as applicable). It is
not the purpose of this section to evaluate the performance of the technology, but rather to
describe its role in the project (for example, the collection of soil gas samples for chlorinated
solvent and BTEX target compounds).
Analytical Technologies .
Any discussion of analytical technologies should include the specific technology used, the name
of the vendor, the model number, and the technical operating parameters. As above, it is not the
purpose of this section to evaluate performance, but merely to describe the technology's use and
site-specific role (for example, field analysis for total PCBs in drummed soil to designate
individual drums for disposal either by incineration or by landfilling). A brief summary of the
operating principle may be helpful for novel technologies. Sample preparation technologies (such
as an extraction method or a purge and trap device) might be described in this section as well.
I PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ••••••^•^••••••IH^H
The purpose of this section is to report the results of the site characterization activities. Although
the nature of the information reported will vary depending on the technology or characterization
strategy used, the outcomes should be evaluated based on whether the achieved performance was
able to meet the the goal(s) of the investigation. Evaluation of a technology's performance should
14
-------
SITE NAME
i PERFORMANCE EVALUATION continued ^^••^^^^^•••55
be linked to the corresponding QA/QC measures as described in the Site Characterization Process
section of the case study. .
Sample Collection
If sample collection efficiency was important to the case study focus, describe the scope of those
activities here. To the degree possible, a discussion of deviations from the original sampling plan
should be included, since such deviations can be used to assess whether the performance of the
site characterization technologies was able to meet the expectations of the project's sampling and
analysis plan (SAP). Deviation from an original SAP may also occur as a result of finding
unanticipated site conditions or unexpected contamination. It is instructive to discuss the
adaptability of the characterization technology or strategy in the face of unanticipated problems.
Sampling Results ^^^
This section can be used to describe the quantitative or qualitative results of the investigation. The
discussion can focus on the overall findings and summarize the information that was obtained
during the investigation and used to inform the decision-making process (e.g., the number of
samples collected or analyses performed, the conclusions from a geophysical survey). A contour
map showing concentration levels in spatial relation to source areas may help the reader to
visualize the results.
Technology Performance
The specific topics to discuss will vary from technology to technology, and this section may be
unnecessary if the topic of the case study is a strategy rather than a technology. This section
evaluates technology performance in terms of the performance standards and QA/QC measures
discussed in the Site Characterization Process section. Were project-specific Data Quality
Objectives achieved? If analytical technologies are the focus of the case study, topics that might
be discussed include:
• Initial and continuing calibration verification .
• Detection limits
• False positive and negative analytical error rates
• Spike and surrogate recoveries
• Precision/duplicate and replicate results
• Accuracy/performance evaluation samples/check standards
• Field vs. traditional (confirmatory) laboratory comparisons
To the degree possible, performance results should be presented in tabular format.
COST COMPARISON
The purpose of this section is to provide as complete a description of the costs associated with the
site characterization as possible. Actual costs taken from invoices or other documents serve best,
15
-------
SITE NAME
I COST COMPARISON continued ••••••^•••^•^•••••^^•••i
but may not be available in some instances. In such instances, estimates should be provided along
with an explanation of their source and underlying assumptions. To the extent possible, project
costs should be separated into labor and capital components. Labor costs should be described in
terms of the type of labor (e.g., a mid-level geologist) and the duration of involvement. Capital
costs may be presented as purchase or rental costs, as appropriate. In instances where labor and
capital are mixed together (as in a subcontracted task), this should be explained and some effort
should be made to separate the two components. Finally, financial discounting of costs should be
avoided because of the short duration of these projects.
If known or if possible, a similar cost breakdown should be presented for comparison to an
alternate, more traditional scenario that might have been used to accomplish the same site work. If
alternate scenarios were generated during project planning to select the most cost-effective option,
they would obviously be useful sources of cost comparison information.
Where possible or available, "life-cycle" costing that considers technology costs and benefits in
the context of a entire life of a projectis a useful adjunct to the commonly used "cost-per-sample"
comparisons. For example, the use of a field method or on-site laboratory may result in a higher
cost per sample than sending the sample to an off-site laboratory, but if the rapid turn around time
of the field methods permits the collection of fewer, more informative samples, or decreases the
number of mobilizations to a site to reach the same decision, the overall cost of the project may be
substantially reduced.
Preparing cost comparisons in this way is always very difficult, because a certain amount of
prognostication is involved. No two sites will ever be exactly comparable, and there is no way to
account for every option or variable that can affect a project's costs.Any attempt at cost
comparison will always be open to the criticism that some factor was either ignored or was given
too much emphasis. With the current state of the art, there is little that can about this except for
the case study preparer to be as clear and detailed as possible about how any economic analysis
was performed so that readers can prepare their own cost estimate as they wish.
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED!
The purpose of this section is to report any important lessons learned about the particular
technologies or processes used during project execution. The lessons learned should focus on the
advantages, disadvantages, limitations, tune or cost savings discovered during project execution.
Lessons learned may be process-, technology-, or site-specific.
The advantages of having back-up equipment or contingency plans hi place may be emphasized
here. Contingency planning acknowledges that unexpected mishaps, such as equipment failure or
electrical power irregularities, sometimes happen. Anticipating these eventualities during project
planning can save the time and costs of extended down-time.
16
-------
SITE NAME
i OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED continued I
Other important lessons may demonstrate how confidence in site decisions can be optimized by
the use of systematic, advance planning and the judicious selection of site characterization
technologies. Documentating the steps that site managers can take to improve the quality and
cost-effectiveness of site investigation can be the most important lesson of all.
I REFERENCES
Ref # Author. Report Title. Publisher. City. Report Number. Date of Publication
1. U.S. EPA. EPA QA/G-5: EPA Guidance on Quality Assurance Project Plans. Office of
Research and Development, Quality Assurance Division. Washington, DC.
EPA/600/R-98/018. February 1998.
17
-------
------- |