-v \ COMMITTEE ON EPA 542-R-02-011
;^,' THE CHALLENGES OF January 2003
MODERN SOCIETY www.epa.gov/tio
www.clu-in.org
www.nato.int/ccms
NATO/CCMS Pilot Study
Evaluation of Demonstrated and
Emerging Technologies for the
Treatment and Clean Up of Contaminated
Land and Groundwater (Phase
2002
SPECIAL SESSION REPORT
Monitoring and Measurement
Number 256
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Study
Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging
Technologies for the Treatment and Clean Up of
Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III)
2002
SPECIAL SESSION REPORT
Monitoring and Measurement
Rome, Italy
May 5-10,2002
January 2003
-------
NOTICE
This Special Session Report was prepared under the auspices of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization's Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society (NATO/CCMS) as a service
to the technical community by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA). The report was funded by U.S. EPA's Technology Innovation Office. The report was
produced by Environmental Management Support, Inc., of Silver Spring, Maryland, under
U.S. EPA contract 68-W-00-084. Mention of trade names or specific applications does not
imply endorsement or acceptance by U.S. EPA.
-------
CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Presentations at the Special Session 3
1. How to Approach Environmental Problem-Solving
Eric Koglin and Georg Teutsch 4
2. Predicting NAPL Source Zones in Fractured Rock
Gary P. Wealthall, David N. Lemer and Steven F. Thornton 23
3. Non-destructive Techniques in Environmental Surveying: It's Fine... but What Do We See?
Jurjen K. van Deen 36
4. Sampling Technologies for Site Characterization and Long-Tenn Monitoring
Robert L. Siegrist 46
5. The Selection and Use of Field Analytical Technologies for Technically Sound
Decisions at Contaminated Sites
Wayne Einfeld 53
6. Current Perspectives in Site Remediation and Monitoring: Using the Triad Approach to
Improve the Cost-Effectiveness of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanups
Deana Crumbling and Eric Koglin 64
7. Site Characterization and Monitoring: European Approach & Summary of
Nicole PISA Workshop
Wouter Gevaerts 78
Appendix A
Case Study 1 - Innovations in Site Characterization: Site Cleanup of the Wenatchee Tree Fruit
Test Pilot Site Using A Dynamic Work Plan
Eric Koglin, Wayne Einfeld, Deana Crumbling, and Kira Lynch 88
Appendix B
Case Study 2 - Ground-water Risk Assessment at a Gasworks Site in a Highly Heterogeneous
Sand and Gravel Aquifer Environment
Georg Teutch and Peter Merkel 144
Country Representatives 151
Attendees List 154
Pilot Study Mission 160
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
n
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
INTRODUCTION
The Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) established the Committee on the
Challenges of Modern Society (CCMS) in 1969. CCMS was charged with developing meaningful
programs to share information among countries on environmental and societal issues that complement
other international endeavors and to provide leadership in solving specific problems of the human
environment. A fundamental precept of CCMS involves the transfer of technological and scientific
solutions among nations with similar environmental challenges.
The management of contaminated land and groundwater is a universal problem among industrialized
countries, requiring the use of existing, emerging, innovative, and cost-effective technologies. This
document reports on the fourth meeting of the Phase III Pilot Study on the Evaluation of Demonstrated
and Emerging Technologies for the Treatment and Clean Up of Contaminated Land and Groundwater.
The United States is the lead country for the Pilot Study, and Germany and The Netherlands are the Co-
Pilot countries. The first phase was successfully concluded in 1991, and the results were published in
three volumes. The second phase, which expanded to include newly emerging technologies, was
concluded in 1997; final reports documenting 52 completed projects and the participation of 14 countries
were published in June 1998. Through these pilot studies, critical technical information was made
available to participating countries and the world community.
The Phase III study, which concluded in 2002, focused on the technologies for treating contaminated land
and groundwater. The study addressed issues of sustainability, environmental merit, and cost-effective-
ness, with continued emphasis on emerging remediation technologies. The objectives of the study were to
critically evaluate technologies, promote the appropriate use of technologies, use information technology
systems to disseminate the products, and to foster innovative thinking in the area of contaminated land.
The Phase III Mission Statement is provided at the end of this report.
The Phase III pilot study meetings were hosted by several countries and at each meeting, a special session
was held for the discussion of a specific technical topic. The meeting dates and locations were:
• February 23-27, 1998: Vienna. Austria
• May 9-14, 1999: Angers. France
• June 26-30. 2000: Wiesbaden, Germany
• September 9-14, 2001: Liege, Belgium
• May 5-10, 2002: Rome, Italy
The special session topics were:
• Treatment walls and permeable reactive barriers (Vienna)
• Monitored natural attenuation (Angers)
• Decision support tools (Wiesbaden)
• Performance validation of in situ remediation technologies (Liege)
• Monitoring and measurement (Rome)
This and many of the Pilot Study reports are available online at http://ww-Av.nato. mt/ccms/ and
http://www.clu-in.org/intup.htm. General information on the NATO/CCMS Pilot Study may be obtained
from the country representatives listed at the end of the report. Further information on the presentations in
this special session report should be obtained from the individual authors.
Stephen C. James
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Co-Directors
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
PRESENTATIONS AT THE SPECIAL SESSION
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
HOW TO APPROACH ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM-SOLVING
Eric Koglin1
1. INTRODUCTION
Environmental problems associated with the improper disposal of hazardous, industrial chemicals have
existed for a long time in the United States; however, very little effort was spent on them until the
creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1971. In the early 70's there was much emphasis
placed on air and surface water pollution problems. Then, in the late 70's, a national concern for
protecting human health and the environment arose as a result of the discovery of seriously contaminated
land that was formerly used as a chemical landfill and was home to a portion of the Niagara Falls, New
York community. This area, known as Love Canal, thrust the issue of environmental protection into the
forefront and forced the Nation to develop and adopt new methods and approaches for solving
environmental problems.
The public demanded action, especially in light of the fact that other communities were actively
identifying additional contaminated lands. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was
passed in 1978 to establish a means to regulate the disposal of industrial chemicals. But RCRA did not
address the problem of cleaning up uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The U.S. Congress responded by
passing the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, more
commonly known as Superfund. The passage of Superfund signaled a new awareness of the fragile nature
of the environment and the potentially grave consequences to the public of prolonged exposure to
industrial chemicals.
2. WHAT DID WE KNOW ABOUT "CLEANING UP" THE ENVIRONMENT?
Many people thought mat the tools and approaches that had been developed in the course of
implementing the mandates of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act would prepare us for tackling
the cleanup of contaminated soil and water and industrial wastes. Unfortunately, the parallels between the
needs of Superfund and the air and water programs were few.
Of course it was naive to assume that it would be a simple problem to solve. It quickly became apparent
that technologies had to be created to safely treat, store, and dispose of wastes, as well as measure their
concentration and distribution. The number and diversity of contaminated sites was daunting. The most
obvious sites represented the biggest concerns. Along with Love Canal, mere were other sites that drew
national attention such as Valley of the Drums in Kentucky, Stringfellow Waste Pits in California, and the
PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls) contamination in the Hudson River. However, the list of sites rapidly
grew into the thousands and included many small sites such as gas stations, diy cleaners, and wood
preservers. The variety of sites brought along a myriad of contaminants, which included organic solvents,
heavy metals, pesticides, and PCBs and dioxin.
For most sites mere was a general lack of useful information and trustworthy data. This lack of data was
further confounded by our fledgling scientific understanding of waste migration. In addition, there were
some other basic ingredients missing for remediation that included:
• A lack of appropriately trained engineers and scientists. This involved two aspects: Limited training
in applying geological and hydrological skills to environmental management; and the absence of
project management skills
• A poor understanding of the lexicological and ecological effects of the 60,000+ known industrial
chemicals
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
• No suitable administrative processes or approaches for addressing problems
• Ill-defined and poorly understood legislative mandates
Another important shortcoming was the lack of suitable technologies for all aspects of environmental
cleanup including technologies for:
• Assessing the problem
• Collecting and treating wastes and contaminated soil and water
• Disposing of treated and untreated materials
• Protecting the hazardous waste site workers from harm
3. INTRODUCING SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND MONITORING
This new demand for environmental protection gave rise to a new environmental industry that introduced
the notions of "site characterization" and "monitoring," among other things. Characterizing and
remediating a contaminated site appeared to be relatively simple tasks. Initially the goals focused on
determining whether a hazard existed; if one did exist, then there was a need to determine the risks to
human health and the environment; and, finally, to gather the necessary information to select the
appropriate remedy and to support long-term monitoring.
The early approach to site characterization focused on reviewing past records, drilling one upgradient and
three downgradient wells (to assess ground-water quality), sending samples to an off-site chemical
analytical laboratory, occasionally conducting a geophysical survey, and then waiting for results.
Typically, a few months after the samples were collected the data would be pulled together only to
discover that there remained significant data gaps resulting in another costly visit to the site to collect
more samples. It was not uncommon for the field crews to be called back to sites three or more times to
gather sufficient information about the nature and extent of contamination so as to be useful in the
selection of a remedy. This approach constituted accepted practice for over 20 years. Our motives were
good and there was a genuine desire to eliminate, or at least minimize, environmental harm and
undesirable exposure. We approached every site the same way and were anxious to get the remedy in
place as quickly as possible. The "one size fits all" approach did not provide the flexibility necessary1 to
account for the oftentimes unique attributes of contaminates sites. The data collection efforts were slow
and costly because the real cleanup goals were not well defined at the outset the project.
4. TAKING SITE CLEANUP TO THE NEXT LEVEL
Initially, we did not fully understand the complexities of site cleanup, how to plan a cleanup project, nor
did we have the best tools to do the job. The task at hand appeared to be to simply restore the site to its
original or nearly original condition. The goal was basically to clean the site by removing the hazards and
eliminate the risk posed by the exposure to toxic chemicals. We were so consumed with bringing out the
dust pan and the broom, that we often lost sight of the importance of sufficiently understanding the nature
and extent of the problem to select the right size dust pan and a big enough broom. Our site investigative
and cleanup tools were, by today's standards, relatively primitive.
Early on, data quality was almost exclusively linked to the laboratory analytical methods. Therein lies an
important misconception - that using regulator-approved methods to produce "definitive data" was
suitable for decision making. A further misconception was that the quality assurance needs of the project
would be satisfied by the quality assurance/quality control program used by the analytical laboratory
during sample analysis.
It has taken years of trial and error to realize that the quality of data used for project decision-making is
affected by more factors than just sample analysis. It seems obvious now, but perfect analytical chemistry
combined with poorly collected and/or non-representative samples can only result in one thing - bad data.
It took a while, but it is clear that analytical data quality has to be distinguished from overall data quality.
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
We have reconsidered our approach in light of our past trials and tribulations in site cleanup. We have
redefined data quality to mean the data's ability to support site decisions. Clearly, the
"representativeness" of the data is a function of the sampling awt/the analytical representativeness, so
anything that compromises data representativeness compromises data quality (Crumbling, 2002). Further,
the up front project or site-specific planning must match the scale of data generation with the scale of
decision-making.
So where have these revelations lead us? Our field-based site characterization philosophy has changed
dramatically due, in large part, to our better understanding of the data needs of decision makers.
Crumbling (2001) pulls this new-found understanding together into a concept she coins as "effective
data." She states that "This concept embodies the principle mat the information value of data (i.e., data
quality) depends heavily upon the interaction between sampling design, analytical design, and the
intended use of the data."
Understanding and embracing this concept is key in building a strong scientific foundation for project
decision-making that will result in achieving the true goals of environmental protection. We must
abandon our previous notions concerning how we characterize contaminated lands because they cannot
produce results that meet the needs of most characterization and cleanup projects. There has been a
gradual transition to a field-based characterization approach that is intended to:
• streamline the site characterization and response action process
• minimize mobilizations to a site
• produce more data on a site at lower costs (relative to conventional approaches)
• produce data in near-real-time
• produce measurable data quality
Later in this Special Session I will address a new approach to streamlining site investigations and cleanup
decisions that incorporates three elements: (1) systematic planning, (2) dynamic work plans, and (3) the
use of on-site analytical tools. This approach has been called the Triad Approach and will be discussed in
much more detail over the next day and a half.
5. RESOURCES
1. Crumbling, D.M. 2002. Getting to the Bottom Line: Decision Quality vs. Data Quality. Presented at
the 21st Annual National Conference on Managing Environmental Quality Systems, Phoenix,
Arizona. April 8 - 11,2002.
2. Crumbling, D.M. 2001. Current Perspectives in Site Remediation and Monitoring: Applying the
Concept of Effective Data to Environmental Analyses for Contaminated Sites. EPA 542-R-01-013.
October. Available at http://cluin.org/tiopersp
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
7. PRESENTATION VISUALS -presented by Eric Koglin
How to Approach Environmental
Problem-Solving
W.& Eff'TOHi^m FiuHtten A^cnn
•MkxM E<¥OM* (hlMllh Utouto r
!>• ..mi
A Troubled Beginning
Presentation Overview
Historic* p*rtp*ctlv» on tlte
and monrtoring
VWiat is site charactenzaJion'7
How to apptoach site
Soorc«« of information
Evacuation of
kid?-
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
CwKUfilUHi Hi Le«« Canal
Atxtmtnnmt cttrimcirt Hritfvttntaf tit tNiattvtts
What did we know about solving these
problems?
Dawn of a New Era In Environmental
Awareness and Protection
Protecting trie environment had become a
national interest
N*w* »torie» about badly oonU>mln«t*cJ tff» and
chemical fires abounded
Renewed cwwrm about health *ir»efc from
hazardous matertate
New Federal
proUtrm
enacted to mitigate
Unfortunately, very little
Very Irtte AH Known about flKipdly how to proceed Hi
pnevenfing Ihe sprod of Iheie CHitamnants into Bie
enr/irc-TiniBnl TecfinotoglH had ID be created to
Coltect tho ssatliK,
r sr tf» waet»B so rhM Ihe cwnafrMnanto pr9Mnt«d tew
of 3
Dispose of tfto kuasjus n wayc tfial wcn> cafe from
addibonat cspciurc
Ensure Ihe safely of Dhe hazardous wasle
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
The Basic ingredients for Remediation
-?-:> da 'lt>2 dicmiLati U.'Kavc ir
-'s J";d c --BitjiEfc La heip urdcnsLand L'ie
f-'fllfh itinl i,nvir-.';riirwrilA!vit*ir.ff1 r.-l II w PDK
industrial
rrofiltoirii;
* P.'octJ-sr-i ard appraachcs tc andrc«ihc
rencdiaton tharaclcriraltan ard
i^'r-e-nf SK^'I - t'lc-w." piaitcls aic ni:1 voui
Site Characterization...
a seemingly simple concept
- To determine v.'hether a nazard exists
n heahh
- I* so. \vhe*hei lf«re a;e !.sks to
and the env ro-rrent. ard
• To gather the necessary mformat'O" to E-
and support lono-le i
to this.
A new environmental industry was
bom, "Site characterization" and
"monitoring" became part of our
vocabulary.
From this,..
But what about sites like these?
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Orthese?
Tlie number arid diversity of
contaminated sites was daunting
'l«iid«ntl»l cleanup ct luxanlaui.
in many cases, Immediate acton was
, ,, , .,..-'
...longer tsrni actions necessitated a mofe
and comprehensive approach
Site Types and Contaminants
BrownftoWt Sites
Gas. Stallone - petroleum hydrocaiton*
Cry ctaanan - tolvantt iPCE OC1,|
Piaupifl - e^anW*. metewv, are«rrtc. cadn^um. nwreurr
TOE. sulphuric acU
Tanning - Lead mcn:Ljr> bencene tutjene. chramkim
CoaJ g*»- v,td» vHivty of VOC». 5VOC*. PAHt, m*tal«
'iVood prcwrving - creosote, arsenic, PCP
Gi39» - toad. eai)iTHim. »r»er»e. clwomtum
tkiclroracs. sorni-i-anduclure - vO-t metal
10
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Site Types and Contaminants
* Chemical recydws - organic solvents
• iMd-icIrt toaitery recycles - heavy moUili
» Ch*wte«l fn4ni4*sluf
• (jndMk - wide variety
• Pestade appdcatot* - arjanaphDsphotDUa arid
* imeHers - heavv metali
• ttwnerBlofB - dtosln, RGBs, Heavy nwtata
Atxtmtnnmt cttrimcirt Hritfvttntaf tit tNiattvtts
70"s & Ed's Approach to Site
Characterization
* Rcvww pmt records
* Drtl one upgradie^t arvd 1hf ee dawmflraslient
wtis
* CollBCt samples and sertd to an off-site
laboratory
* Geophysical surveys Dccasionally oompleted
» Wait w**k* or months for the results
We Lacked the Basic Ingredients
* There was no guidance
* Tlwe w»f* tew expert*
* Investlgaifv* *nd analyllcai t«chwqu«$ and
capab ities v.'^re crude or under development
* Th« kncwl«dg» b«s« wt» limited
Vmjirt i.iial: llrlbw fto nutun amt r\Uml «T*tn*ainaiutinm
When the $$ runs out! I
11
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
7?it Historical Process - One s&» fits sttt
irHintrfy the Bite wit
charge Into Fhe maze
to |
Few loots available lb>
characterizing.
or cteanup
"M you ixn'i knc'A i*1isi«
JI Bonj
First Generation Data Quality Model
- "Data quality* depenrjte on analytical me»ho l«chrncal *«:pe-rti&» rtquirsd to manage sampling and
We've had 20+ years to improve upon
the approach,..
Rrnlilv: Dntn ust'd fur Projrcl Decision
Milking is; Generated on Samples
Perfect
Analytical
Chemistry
Kepresenfative
Sample
"BAD" DATA
Analytical Quality from Pats Quality
Characterization & Cleanup Strategy:
Where We Are Heading
12
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Field-Based Site Characterization
Philosophy
dior. processes
* Minimize rr obi izations lo a sito
"• Prrjdur;iL< irarrj data on 3 silw a" lowor costs
relative to conventional approaches
« Produce data in near rca! time
* Produce msasu.'abl*' data qual"ly
ne«d r*»l-
lime ttot* £ uncertain^ mgt
Sources of Site Characterization
Technology Information
ari:J
partrii5is.t-.ip6
Laboi atones
inlcrnp', infrrmatic-n
/i'i i o
Publications
A Clearer and More Definitive
Understanding of the...
•; Inif,-:j|t3lK:R uf y^nt^lrttiiuj rrttf't.fivtt
i. Importance of defining ire end goals ot the
proied
<' Application of ^mprfjng fiBid-OB&stt analybca11
and sarnpt'ng techn-jfoges
+ Roios of thir! stakeholders •con&ultan!5 and si?o
Sources of Site Characterization
Technology Information
Resources: General
tnntsse y?)CiSl*»
rr>t3 ureas
13
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Resources • General
Brownfte/ds Technology
Support Center
Publics-Irani!
Request **9-*|»cme support (PtderaJ
stale local parnonnal i
Report* an p«it t
Everts
14
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
6. PRESENTATION VISUALS -presented by Georg Teutsch
Miring UiA. •-!'! Mai ZilC
li.n .nil*, il.,u 1
Aw fllw
in ( liiu -iuri'iuiiikMi and
«m*H Trtfliifc
r.«ir» r
How to approach this problem 7
t Develop ntra!n9iE! concepts
\at measuic ev^cry parameter you can , prnrraunce"
(bi measure tveiyttiing ~fo\.i can aHbid
(*) .. or .. dnwlop Jectineally sound' and
i" approach**
2. Fnd lecfinoloQte* to implement ihes* itrtrteglet
i Oplirnsa stratpgies and Icctinctogic-s to rninmist costs
4. Convince *v*r/t«dy to follow
Conceptual Model
M t*m ti'Wjfc^.j.t ±i-^i--'W»'«-
Define the Goals
1 Qualjly
t|>eelRc «*•: concentralton.
mAH Itow rate or maM. flux smaller Itwi
ma> contaminant level)
WL • MRL [reduction ol «Hi ind eorrtirrtnarrt
nek level biHovii n max accepiablo risk
level - 1 e re-duct probaoiliTy rja exce«d
MCU dt LdCs|
art LoC [Locaiiofi of Compliance point, line or area
Sourc* Charactcfi&aiion
V Mow to aa»w* source
rJnll into Erie source '"'
sample the pkime ?
rs Iho appropnate scale
far the asscsincnt .'
- local ipolnl-i sea* 7
* infcogral i plur*-) ccato ? I
fMMtw X «L «ftl
15
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
CP for tn* jiMiunwil ol source atrwnglh
f
,—...*.
Integral Scale Measurement (steady-stale]
- : :
-
I
Multiply ScMtrcet ft Plumes v:
(.polluiiM pays principle 7>
' whtm to put th* CP* 7
B.IFPJ
WCGRE WeiCH
—'
>—I.
"Ta"*=».H—
Some Definitions
C Goncerfcarttofi et local scale IMt3]
Cj, ftui -juctaped cacrantafan art plume tcate |
F, rritt* flow-f *M «t p*um* icale {W T| C,
ntan DlH (M>iJ L->]
- *.
*^I=? •- i *V*K
1 * i : ir-
Scale Measurement 4unsteady-slate)
uut
~*i,'. "•%«,
4
16
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
«nd Mint-flam
Hmlmv in tidcn-
Wum.ml.rig
(UU.HWl
2, As**»inwil ol ptom* ftrwigOli
*-T— i
Modelling
•t HiiMMHn »
Why lo cornbrno conconJr, & mass flow-
rates in decision making ?
Tola) mass flow-rale F. |c g at «As scale! miffM be a
valuable addttionM dteMon variable.
a) bw condudlh-ty, hign cancartrjbon {eg jaurce located
n aqu«6f d ibrnwlkm j
-* roiutnij mas* flow Fate F, = C " O |W'T)
sMJI be fcrw •* NO ACTION REQUIRED
b) Ivgh 6onducl>v4y, low cflnMrtntoh (e.g. aouroe
feeding rrto major aquter lyitem^
4 rcButrp muBB flaw rate F, • C * O (M'T|
W»IWlilglii-» ACTKJN REQUIRED
Plume Characterisation (diff. approaches)
T1
* * * * 3 * <*» •*£•* •*•)***• *
3 •ionoprcMes
17
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Standard Appioach
Approach: MLPS foi Emvling WoJIs
f
-r-3^1* ' '" '*
18
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
High-Re solution Investigations
K-Proilteft tor Hw Character lutlon
EC-Profiles for Structural Invciiigation
19
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
',' IF ime-mbrane nterface probe I
New Dfrvetapmerti: OW-MoWtornig Drwe Poftte
f. U»ng-4*rni
Mr* Dflvvkipmflnti Min^lPrauun-Pumps (MDPl
ggjggj
Temporal Integration vs. Differentiation
•
20
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
•• •
Uno«ilarty and Carts
Application ut DerairicB-Dtrarneicr
l>f.l>.ini I ixt
* L.«u Innir.uui.tu
I .,„ .1
Select the nbest" combination ol lechnoilogies
poM«s» an .Optimal" appKcalicfi window
C* a. typ« of eyb&urTao* eitvironmentii
lochinclagiec otfar variable prkoc por iia1a>-{icirrt
ic -4. depending on deolfi of contamination I
leclwdogt^s show dirterem Keuncie* & refabtinie*
(« g. delectnn lunte, av«r»ga voiwmo«>
technologies rnarp1 have Itnited acoessabilHy
l.*fl. SCAPS ttuthl
>'rfill solnctnd technology r.wnfainallens oltar, ficar angular
npproacihc-s
lec-hndogies have different levels of fl*«-.ibil(ty
i;« g. tor dynamic
21
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
I Aswssm*nl or sennet stionflti mow {OH-effactlvt Lreir>j i
CP jpfKOdch |e.g. Inrteflrjl Puntfrino at .yomvtHMtt f4nc
Ol. Wjmii*v P^wnlnmt (Vnti.
Oi Juhalmvii Koimr
Oi Hani^ir; W*« (IMW|
Prolokl
BJid«n-WUnt«n4i«rg 'PWABl
I Uillijn [EU>
22
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
PREDICTING NAPL SOURCE ZONES IN FRACTURED ROCK
Gary P. Wealthall1, David N. Lerner2 and Steven F. Thornton3
1. ABSTRACT
Two case studies are presented that describe integrated site characterisation methods for defining NAPL
source zones in fractured rock aquifers. The first case study illustrates the use of stochastic modeling to
examine the effect of fracture network heterogeneity in the prediction of DNAPL penetration depths. The
second case study redefines the established conceptual model for LNAPL behaviour in fractured rocks.
Adoption of the proposed methodologies incurs higher up-front costs, but is likely to provide improved
confidence in the prediction of NAPL source zones.
2. INTRODUCTION
Fractured bedrock aquifers are a valuable source of groundwater in Europe. These aquifers provide
capacity to store large volumes of water in the porous matrix and to deliver groundwater to wells though a
high transmissivity network of fractures. However, these aquifer properties leave them vulnerable to
pollution from a range of industrial and agricultural activities. A major threat to groundwater results from
a group of pollutants termed non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs). NAPLs include light non-aqueous
phase liquids (LNAPLs), which are often assumed to float on the groundwater surface, and dense non-
aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs), which penetrate below the water table. When released to the subsurface
NAPLs form a discrete pollutant source that may exist for decades to centuries (Pankow and Cherry,
1996). Furthermore, dissolution of the NAPL source results in dissolved plumes with contaminant
concentrations that can exceed relevant drinking water limits by several orders of magnitude.
Characterising NAPL source zones in fractured bedrock aquifers is a significant challenge to scientists
and engineers involved in the assessment and remediation of groundwater pollution (Cherry et al., 1996).
This is largely due to the uncertain distribution of NAPL within a source zone (Sale and McWhorter,
2001). NAPL movement is highly susceptible to the physical properties of the rock mass and is controlled
by both large- and small-scale features in the subsurface. NAPLs will preferentially migrate along
pathways which represent the lowest capillary resistance to flow - in fractured bedrock aquifers this is
typically the fracture network (Kueper and McWhorter, 1991). However, the distributions of fractures in
the subsurface are generally poorly known. This results from a number of factors including physical
constraints due to the limited 3-D exposure of fractures, and economic constraints resulting in restrictive
SI budgets. The uncertainty in our understanding of the distribution of fracture networks, and hence
NAPL migration pathways, affects our ability to predict NAPL source zones.
The objective of this paper is to evaluate methods for predicting NAPL source zones in fractured bedrock
aquifers based on the availability of site-specific data. We illustrate this using two case studies. The first
reports a method to estimate the penetration depth of DNAPLs in a fractured sandstone aquifer, and
focuses on the effect of uncertainty on the range of predicted values. The second case study describes the
behaviour of LNAPL in a fractured dual porosity aquifer. It challenges the conventional conceptual model
for LNAPL behaviour in the subsurface. The implications of the findings are discussed.
3. CASE STUDY 1. DNAPLs in Fractured Sandstone
This case study details a methodology for estimating DNAPL penetration depth in fractured sandstone
aquifer. The approach has three elements - field data acquisition, constructing geometric fracture models,
and invasion percolation modeling. The novelty of this work is the application of stochastic methods to
Environment and Hazards Directorate, British Geological Survey. Nottingham. UK (E-mail: g.wealthall@bgs.ac.uk;
Tel:+44-115-936-3541)
•-}
" Groundwater Protection and Restoration Group, University of Sheffield, Sheffield. UK
Groundwater Protection and Restoration Group. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
23
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
study the propagation of uncertainty in measuring fracture network properties to the prediction of DNAPL
behaviour.
A. Methods
Fieldwork at a research site in southwest Scotland, UK. involved multi-scale fracture characterisation.
Outcrop mapping identified fracture type, intensity, orientation, dip and dip direction. These data were
compared to fracture logs from rock core samples and borehole televiewer logs at a nearby industrial site.
Packered pumping tests were used to determine vertical profiles of aquifer transmissivity and calculate
hydraulic aperture (Wealthall and Lerner, 2000).
The fracture network spatial geometry was reconstructed using a 3-D stochastic discrete fracture network
model (Dershowitz et al., 1988). Multiple fracture network realisations were generated. The fracture
network in each realisation becomes the conductive elements for simulating fluid flow.
A 3-D invasion-percolation model (Wealthall et al.. 2002) simulates the macroscopic invasion of a
DNAPL in a fractured rock aquifer. Invasion proceeds as a succession of equilibrium capillary pressure
steps, but does not account for flow resistance due to viscous forces (Keller et al., 2000; Kueper and
McWhorter, 1992; Pruess and Tsang, 1990). Bulk retention capacity is determined for each capillary
pressure step. The profiles of bulk retention capacity are qualitatively similar to the capillary pressure
saturation curves measured in fractured rocks (Reitsma and Kueper, 1994) or derived using numerical
simulation of DNAPLs in naturally fractured media (Keller et al., 2000); (Zhou, 2001). The plot of
capillary-pressure versus bulk retention capacity is used with hypothetical spill volumes and inferred
aquifer geometries to estimate the depth of penetration of the DNAPL.
B. Results and Discussion
Ninety-nine models were generated with 340 fractures per realisation and. depending on individual model
geometry, up to 1500 fracture intersections. Bulk retention capacity is positively correlated with capillary
pressure (Figure 1). At low capillary pressure values the bulk retention capacity is low, as only a limited
number of low entry pressure fractures are accessible by the invading fluid. The break in slope at
approximately 3000 N m2 is the maximum value where all connected fractures in the fracture network
have been invaded, the lowest fracture aperture has been encountered, and increasing the capillary
pressure does not change the bulk retention capacity.
Figure 1. Bulk retention capacity for 99 model realisations
l.OE-04
a
m
3
m
100
1000
10000
100000
Capillary pressure (N m")
24
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Hypothetical spill volumes were applied to the bulk retention capacity curves to define the DNAPL
penetration depth (Figure 2).
Figure 2. DNAPL penetration depth for 99 model realisations
100000
•o
a
o
Q
10000 =
1000 ,
100 ,
10
50,000 litre tank
200 litre drum
100
1000 10000
Capillary pressure (N m"2)
100000
In the absence of detailed information on the geometry of the aquifer, a cubic block geometry was used to
estimate potential DNAPL penetration depth. DNAPL penetration depth is inversely proportional to
capillary pressure. This reflects the low storage capacity at low capillary pressures and indicates that a
given volume of DNAPL will travel much further in a low storage capacity rock mass than in a high
storage capacity system. The modeling results define an envelope of values that represent the most likely
range of PCE DNAPL storage capacity and penetration depths in this type of formation. These values
(reported in SI units) are summarised in a look-up table (Table 1) for the given hypothetical spill volumes
of PCE DNAPL. Outlier values are not included in this reference table.
Table 1. Bulk retention capacity and DNAPL penetration depth ranges
Capillary pressure (N in"1)
Equivalent PCE DNAPL pool height (m)
Bulk retention capacity (nr m"")
PCE DNAPL storage capacity (ml m"3)
200 1 spill: DNAPL penetration depth (m)
50000 1 spill: DNAPL penetration depth (m)
Low capillary
pressure release
799
5
8xlO-9
0.008
325
2050
High capillary
pressure release
3197
20
2x10°
20
23
146
4. CASE STUDY 2. LNAPLs in the Chalk Aquifer
This case study describes an integrated methodology for the investigation of contaminant fate in dual
porosity aquifer to understand dissolved contaminant migration and the NAPL source zone
characteristics. The approach includes the analysis of geological, hydrogeological and hydrochemical
characteristics using rock core, geophysical (down-hole) fracture logging, vertical hydraulic profiling and
multilevel sampling (MLS) of vertical solute profiles. The monitoring borehole network was constrained
by restricted access and difficulty of installing monitoring boreholes at optimum locations in an urban
setting - the site is adjacent to a busy main highway and surrounded by industrial and residential
buildings.
A. Methods
A network of long-screen monitoring boreholes was installed at the site prior to the initiation of this
study. Groundwater samples from these boreholes show dissolved phase contamination between 20-30 m
depth, with a mixed oxygenate/BTEX plume close to the site and oxygenate-only plume further
25
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
downgradient. Additional site investigation was undertaken, which included the drilling of cored
boreholes, hydraulic testing and installation of MLS upstream of the site, in the oxygenate/BTEX plume,
30m from the site, and in the oxygenate-only plume, 115m from the site.
The spatial distribution and properties of the fracture network (type, aperture, intensity and orientation)
were measured using undisturbed rock core and downhole geophysical logging of monitoring boreholes
prior to well completion. Packered pumping tests were used to characterise the aquifer hydraulic
properties (transmissivity, storativity, hydraulic gradient), with a test-zone (inter-packer) spacing of 1-2
m. Vertical profiles of solute distribution were obtained from the MLS installation. Monitoring intervals
on the MLS were determined using profiles of VOCs (from rock core and pumping tests), relative
transmissivity (from pumping test flow rate and relative drawdown), lithology and fracture intensity (from
rock core and geophysical logs). The MLS were installed up to a depth of 55 m and the boreholes were
completed using sand packs and bentonite seals.
B. Results and Discussion
The fracture network characterisation identified bedding-parallel fractures with a dominant ENE-WSW
strike and dip of 2-29° to the SSE. A subordinate bedding-parallel fracture set with E-W strike and N dip
of 10-30° is also present. Fiigh angled fractures include sets with a ENE-WSW or E-W trend and NNW
dip of 30 to 80°, and sets with aNW-SE trend and NE dip of 35-75°. The mean fracture spacing for
combined bedding-parallel and high-angled fractures is 0.23 m.
Fractures form preferential pathways for the migration of LNAPL and dissolved phase contaminants in
the Chalk aquifer. The main controls on the subsurface geometry of the LNAPL source term are
transverse spreading of the LNAPL, penetration to below the water table, and redistribution within the
vadose zone due to water table fluctuations (smearing). The high concentrations of dissolved phase
contaminants (Figure 3) to ca. 40 m depth and negligible vertical hydraulic gradient at this depth (figure
4) imply penetration of LNAPL below the water table along vertical fractures.
Figure 3. Organic contaminant profiles for MLS boreholes 30m from site (a) and 115m from site (b)
a)
20
25-
1 3CH
35-
40
b)
20
25-
35-
40
0
7000
MTBE
-moo
21DCO
28000
MTBE
TAME
0 500 -DOO -BOO 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
TAME
MTBE
0 400 800 1200 -BOO 2000 2400 2800
-•-MTBE
-D-TAME
130
200
300
TAME
400
500
600
26
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Figure 4. a) Transmissivity (closed circle) and hydraulic head (closed triangle) in the upstream MLS
borehole and b) Transmissivity (closed circle) and hydraulic head (closed triangle) in the MLS 30 along
the plume flowpath plus transmissivity (open circle) and hydraulic head (open triangle) in the MLS
borehole 115m along the plume flowpath.
-100
25.0
30.0
C 35.0 -
•§ 40.0
I 45.0 H
50.0
Transmissivity (m2 d"1)
100 300 500
700
A
A
A
A
-1.20 -1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00
Head difference from open borehole
(m)
0.20
0 100
55.0
Transmissivity (m2 d4)
200 300 400 500 600
700
-1.20 -1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20
Head difference from open borehole (m)
An 'indirect' estimate of the depth of LNAPL penetration, using an inverse-projection of the plume base
(Figure 5) indicates that the base of the source term may be 37.0 to 38.8 mbfl, equivalent to!6.5-18.3 m
depth below the water table. The base of the plume defines dip values (3.1 to 6.6°) which are in the range
of the bedding-plane fracture structural dips determined from the televiewer logs. Adopting a simple 1-D
force balance model (Hardisty et al., 1998), fuel density of 750 kg m"3 and negligible capillary forces (due
to large fracture apertures, ca. 1 mm), indicates that a 5.5 to 6.3 m height of LNAPL above the water table
is required to produce the inferred penetration.
Figure 5. Estimation of LNAPL source term depth using an inverse-projection of the plume base
LNAPL
source
MW15
MW16
Rest water level
ca. 20.5 m bfl
37.0 m bfl
38.8 m bfl
30 m
83 m
Base of lowest MLS
40.45 m bfl
3.1-
Plume base inverse
projected source term
depths
Base of lowest MLS
./ 40.94 m bfl
45 m bfl
50 m bfl
Plume base estimates from MW
contaminant vertical profile
The dominant NE-SW to E-W trending high angled fractures suggests that LNAPL may be distributed
transverse to the plume orientation, producing a more widely dispersed source zone. This is also implied
by inverse projection of the plume envelope, based on changes in flow direction, which suggests a source
zone width of 40-60 m.
Limited direct information is available on the geometry and mass distribution of the source term, as
observed in many Sis. However, the fracture porosity is ca. 1% of the bulk rock volume and it is clear that
even small volumes of LNAPL may pervade the fracture network. Direct evidence is not, however,
available to define the true source width. Buoyancy forces may also redistribute LNAPL, particularly in
27
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
the higher angled fractures and. when present below the water table, lead to capillary trapping of LNAPL.
Water table fluctuation may also act as a mechanism for pumping LNAPL both vertically and laterally.
The depth of aquifer contamination is controlled by LNAPL penetration below the water table. This
vertical migration of product will form a deeper source zone for dissolved phase contaminants in addition
to residual product present in the vadose zone.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Integrated site characterisation approaches which combine appropriate, and often novel, techniques are
required to develop the lines-of-evidence from which we can predict NAPL source zones with greater
confidence. Adoption of the methodologies described in the two case studies incurs higher "up-front"
costs in site investigation. However, this provides a higher-quality dataset improved confidence in the
interpretation of contaminant fate, reduced uncertainty in risk assessment and assists in realistic cost-
benefit analysis of the treatment of groundwater polluted by NAPLs.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Case Study 1: Funding was provided by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
DuPont (UK) Ltd is thanked for access at their Dumfries site. The support of the Environment Agency
and ICI Chemical and Polymers Ltd is acknowledged. FracMan was used under an Academic licence
agreement with Golder Associates Inc.
Case Study 2: TotalFinaElf is thanked for funding the work described in Case Study 2. The support of the
Environment Agency and CL: AIRE is acknowledged. Gary P. Wealthall publishes with the permission of
the Director of the British Geological Survey.
7. REFERENCES
1. Cherry. J.A., Feenstra, S. and Mackay, D.M., 1996. Concepts for the Remediation of Sites
Contaminated with Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs). In: J.F. Pankow and J.A. Cherry
(Editors), Dense Chlorinated Solvents and other DNAPLs in Groundwater. Waterloo Press, Portland,
Oregon, pp. 475-506.
2. Dershowitz, W.S. et al., 1988. FracMan. Interactive Discrete Feature Data Analysis, Geometric
Modeling, and Exploration Simulation. User Documentation.
3. Hardisty, P.E., Wheater, H.S., Johnston, P.M. and Bracken, R.A., 1998. Behaviour of light
immiscible liquid contaminants in fractured aquifers. Geotechnique, 48(6): 747-760.
4. Keller, A.A., Blunt, M.J. and Roberts, P.V., 2000. Behavior of nonaqueous phase liquids in fractured
porous media under two-phase flow conditions. Transport in Porous Media, 38(1-2): 189.
5. Kueper, B.H. and McWhorter, D.B., 1991. The Behavior of Dense, Nonaqueous Phase Liquids in
Fractured Clay and Rock. Ground Water, 29(5): 716-728.
6. Kueper, B.H. and McWhorter, D.B., 1992. The Use of Macroscopic Percolation Theory to Construct
Large- Scale Capillary-Pressure Curves. Water Resources Research. 28(9): 2425-2436.
7. Pankow, J.F. and Cherry, J.A., 1996. Dense Chlorinated Solvents and other DNAPLs in
Groundwater. Waterloo Press, Portland, Oregon, 522 pp.
8. Pruess, K. and Tsang, Y.W., 1990. On 2-Phase Relative Permeability and Capillary-Pressure of
Rough-Walled Rock Fractures. Water Resources Research, 26(9): 1915-1926.
28
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
9. Reitsma, S. and Kueper. B.H., 1994. Laboratory Measurement of Capillary-Pressure Saturation
Relationships in a Rock Fracture. Water Resources Research, 30(4): 865-878.
10. Sale. T.C. and McWhorter. D.B.. 2001. Steady state mass transfer from single-component dense
nonaqueous phase liquids in uniform flow fields. Water Resources Research. 37(2): 393-404.
11. Wealthall. G.P. and Lemer, D.N., 2000. A volume-based approach to predicting the fate of DNAPLs
in fractured aquifers, Groundwater: Past Achievements and Future Challenges. A.A. Balkema, pp.
843-846.
12. Wealthall. G.P.. Lerner, D.N. and Crouch, R.S., 2002. Predicting connective pathways in fracture
networks using a novel buffered-search algorithm. (In Prep).
13. Zhou, W., 2001. Numerical simulation of two-phase flow in conceptualized fractures. Environmental
Geology, 40(7): 797-808.
29
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
8. PRESENTATION VISUALS -presented by Gary P. Wealthall, David N. Lemer and Steven F. Thornton
Predicting NAPL source
zones in fractured rocks
Gary Wealthall
David Lemer & Steve Thornton
Sponsors
* EngineeHng and Physical Sciences R
• Envromterrt. Agency
* 1C] Hlakicheirucab
• DuPoJit
• GolcJef Associates
Coiabor
* Quwn'i Uniwinaty (Ontarte)
» Utwersrtv of Greenwich
rch Counci
Case study 1
Estimating DNAPL penetration depths
in a fractured sandstone aquifer
3OO,OOO fine
f o r^B po 11 uti on
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
DNAPL saturation
-m ...Hi
in fractured rock'
Fracture network Capfllary presare
Connectivity , , , which
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Depth of penetration
A wr»ff *m«rtir ef OWflt geefati&e way1
Case study 1: Condusiors
f*ode applicable EC rnnSurEd rocks wCh high mHlns
- Chalk, sonic sandstone* baeement rodts
StwruKtic Jipproach 'captuiwt' ewtogiciM «jne«n*nty
• Gwnputaticnallv efficsei't atgorKhm
?BnrtraUon depth ic nvrrEdy raneiatod ba P
- 200 litre drum penetrate! 20 to 300 n
~o JC cm ONWl pool hfigtit? pnis«!t htghw rreK
- DMAPL storage capadtsf - 20 rnJ DWWPL per m1 rock
32
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
* Environment Aaenty
EnguwnnQ and Physical Scl*nc** Rwwareh Counc«
• ,-,! -,!,,-.
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Controls on source zone
distribution
.^ r..,. . .
.11 .—»«MI-.Thi »
*,i i «• I-,,.
kill utonini h*n
5.5m
Cs^e Study 2; Conclusions
* Rvvttd conctpluil m«JBl for LNAFLs -0 fractund nxk
• Site-jpecif«c analyse ^r aqu/er properties
- ImproweO res^ubcn of contaminant disfribudon
- FQCLK remediatiari sJraCcgies
• : ss moat ai
• Deep water tabte
- Frwaured rock (low porosity)
• Large &p4ll volume*
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
- Cc-Tbnes appropriate and often 'ncvel' techniques
- Establishes Qnei-flf-«vic*encc
- Reduce uncerwwity In nsk atsrsuncrt
- Assst in r«ili«ic tfrit-bencfit-hnalyvs for site ele*i-uo
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
NON-DESTRUCTIVE TECHNIQUES IN ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYING
IT'S FINE... BUT WHAT DO WE SEE?
Dr. Jurjen K. van Deen1
1. INTRODUCTION
In this paper we will consider the tenii 'non destructive' in a liberal sense. A surgeon who applies a
needle to look into one's knee or abdomen is performing an intrusive measurement but is certainly not
supposed to do anything destructive. It is good to understand that penetrating the subsoil with push-in
instrumentation and measuring in situ is quite comparable, apart from the scale of the operation. Even
drilling and sampling would be called in medical terms 'taking a biopt', and even that is not supposed to
be a destructive or even disruptive activity. All these techniques are non-destructive in the sense that they
leave the process at study largely undisturbed.
Push away techniques are much better known than surface techniques and will therefore be given less
attention in this paper. It is however good to realise that the question 'what do we see?" applies as well to
the push away techniques (and, by the way, to drilling and sampling as well). What we 'see" is an
accurate number at an accurate location, but that is strength and weakness in one: it is also only on that
location and only that number.
Geophysical or surface techniques determine physical properties of the subsoil, measuring from the
surface. There is a large gap between this type of information and the answers that are wanted on specific
questions in environmental or civil engineering projects. In environmental issues the questions vary from
'where are the borders of this landfill' (or even: 'where are the landfills"), 'are there any drums in this
landfill (and are they leaking)" to 'what is the concentration of pollutant X at this location". To bridge the
gap generally a lot of interpretation is needed, making the results less objective and prone to 'errors'. This
can easily lead to disappointment for both the principal and the geophysical contractor.
It is the purpose of this paper to argue that the strengths of geophysics in environmental surveying can be
employed twofold. In the first place geophysics should always be applied as an element of an integrated
survey strategy and should focus on the delineation of geometrical features more than trying to detect
'pollution' directly. In the second place geophysics is important for monitoring purposes as it interferes
little in the processes at hand.
The focus of the paper will be on basic understanding more than on casuistry. Survey results are so
dependent on the site circumstances that relying on cases may easily lead to misunderstanding.
Heterogeneity, type of soil (or rock) and groundwater level are primary determinants of the applicability.
The paper is organized in six parts. After the introduction follows a very short sketch of push away
techniques concluding in some general statements on the possibilities of push away techniques. After that
a rough overview of shallow geophysical methods is given, with typical application areas. In the next
section a number of typical environmental problems will be indicated and analyzed which contribution
the abovementioned methods may have. The fourth and fifth section will discuss and conclude on why,
when and where to apply geophysical methods.
2. PUSH AWAY TECHNIQUES
The mother of all push away techniques is the standard cone penetration test (CPT), which measures the
forces on the tip and the friction jacket of a 36 mm diameter cone and thereby generates valuable
information about mechanical properties and layering of the subsoil. Especially when combined with
measurement of the pore water pressure, the method is very informative of the type of soil and can
discriminate sands, silts, clay, and peat soils into considerable detail (Cheng-hou and Greeuw, 1990).
Research Associate GeoDelft, Delft, the Netherlands
36
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
However, virtually every conceivable measurement method can be converted to a push away version; a
(little bit outdated by 2002) overview is given by Stienstra and Van Deen (1994). Five examples suffice in
this context.
A first step from the traditional well sampling is taking ground water samples with a push away probe. By
the multilevel ground water sampling probe a number of samples can be taken along one vertical line in
one push away operation. Evaporation of volatile compounds is avoided by using a pressure pump 'down
under" instead of a suction pump at the surface. Cross contamination between different levels is
effectively prevented by flushing the filter and drying with nitrogen before pushing through to the next
level. The measurement is fast since there is no such thing as a well volume, which has to be filled or
flushed.
The next step is obviously to transfer the measurement also downwards: the chemoprobe measures
chemical macroparameters like pH and EC 'at location' by sucking a minute amount of ground water into
the probe and performing the measurement, again at multiple levels and avoiding cross contamination by
flushing and drying.
An example of a third type of measurement is the monopole permeability probe. This probe is a
stimulus/response-type of instrument: a known discharge of water is introduced (pumped) into the
subsoil, and the resulting pressure gradient a few centimeters below is registered by a differential pressure
transducer. This device measures the local hydraulic conductivity at that specific location, and, if
necessary, along the complete vertical profile.
The fourth and quite recent development in this family is the camera probe. This is the real counterpart of
the surgeon's needle with fibre optics to peep into one's knee. The soil and the pore volume is visually
observed as it flows along the push away probe. Grain sizes can be estimated, the interface between clay
and soft underlying chalkstone is easily seen and colored substances like creosote oil in the soil are
recognized immediately. The strength of the camera probe is the richness of the really visual 'picture' one
obtains.
A final and very recently developed probe to be mentioned here is the MIP-probe which is opening
possibilities of direct in situ detection and measuring low concentrations (ppm level) of VOC. The system
consists of a hydrophobic membrane mounted at the side of a probe, which is heated in order to promote
diffusion of volatile compounds through the membrane. The volatile molecules are transported by a gas
flow to the detection apparatus at the surface.
These examples suffice to show that where it concerns the type of measurement there are virtually no
restrictions. On the other hand the local circumstances are restrictive. Push away techniques can be
applied very well in (soft) soils. However their use has to be discouraged when there are pebbles in the
soil - or worse. Fortunately, large parts of densely populated areas (North Western Europe, Mississippi,
Japan) are situated on really thick deposits of soft soils. One should realise that also stiff sands and soft
chalks can often be considered as 'soft soil'.
All the push away techniques of course also have the restriction that they measure only at that specific
location. However, in any type of soil investigation one always has to start from a conceptual subsoil
model. Sound engineering judgment on what can be expected from an environmental point of view is an
indispensable tool in this respect, as is a thorough knowledge on the geology of the site. Consultation of a
geologist with local expertise always pays off!
3. OVERVIEW OF GEOPHYSICAL METHODS
Geophysical methods can be divided in several ways. In the first place we discriminate between passive
and active methods, the former utilizing natural phenomena like the earth's magnetic field or its thermal
radiation. The active methods can be divided once more in volume methods and imaging methods.
Separately we will pay attention to tomographic techniques.
37
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
Gravimetry and magnetometry are typical examples of passive methods. Gravimetry measures the local
strength of the earth's gravity field. Differences in density in the subsoil cause (generally minuscule)
differences in gravity. The method is sensitive to (large) holes like Karst phenomena, but also abandoned
mine workings. The presentation is a contour map of gravity. Ambiguity is a problem in the
interpretation, different origins may cause comparable effects. Recent development is an increased
sensitivity of the instruments, however, not solving the ambiguity problem.
Magnetometry measures the local strength of the earth's magnetic field. As this field is influenced
strongly by ferromagnetic objects (iron and steel) the method is employed frequently for detection of steel
drums and unexploded bombs. Here ambiguity is also a problem: a bomb is indiscernible from a
transformer as are an empty steel drum and an oil leaking drum. Although one might wish to have less
false-positive results, the correct-positive results can reduce risks greatly. Recent developments in data
processing have increased the effectiveness of large-scale bomb tracing greatly.
Remote sensing surely belongs to the geophysical methods. Aerial photography and infrared sensing can
contribute to the large scale detection of features. On the one hand visual images are relatively easy to
interpret because a human interpreter can understand what he sees, on the other hand the penetration in
the soil is virtually nil and subsoil features remain undisclosed. Infrared pictures sketch a thermal image
that may be influenced by features at some depth, either because heat is generated or because the heat
balance is locally disturbed.
A. Volume Methods
Electromagnetic and geoelectric measurements both determine the bulk electrical specific resistivity
(often in terms of its reciprocal: the conductivity) of a volume of soil. Typical dimensions of the volume
are meters to tens of meters (and in mineral exploration work even larger). Geoelectric measurements use
electrodes physically implanted at the surface of the ground. The electromagnetic (EM) method uses coils
to induce currents in the subsoil; this does not need physical contact with the ground. In the first place
these methods are sensitive to differences in soil composition because most soils have characteristic and
different conductivities. Also the groundwater and the chemical content of the groundwater determine the
conductivity. This leads to information on e.g. leachate plumes, but it will be clear that ambiguity often
exists in the interpretation.
The effective penetration depth of the measurement can be controlled by varying the distance between the
electrodes resp. the EM-coils and by using several distances a more or less accurate depth profile can be
generated. Besides the ambiguity in interpretation a second problem of resistivity methods is the
equivalence problem: a thin highly conductive layer gives nearly the same response as a thicker, less
conductive layer.
The resolution of the methods decreases rapidly with depth. The presentation of EM and geoelectric
methods can be in maps or vertical sections where regions of different conductivities are outlined, hi
vertical sections it is often not clearly indicated how large the inaccuracy is in the isoconductivity-lines,
and often one is not even aware of a problem. Although the use of iso-lines can suggest a high accuracy
(in the few- %-range), in practice the depth accuracy is not better than 30-50% of the depth due to the
ambiguity mentioned above.
Developments in these methods are the multi-electrode methods which have become popular after
computer controlled measurements on large number of electrodes became possible, also in combination
with sets of electrodes in boreholes and applying tomographic techniques. This has improved the lateral
continuity of the measurement results considerably. Also different variants of the resistivity methods
(spontaneous and induced polarization) using natural electric fields and the time dependence of induced
fields have been applied to characterize the subsoil.
38
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
B. Imaging Methods
The third and filial group of geophysical methods consists of the imaging methods. In principle these
methods can give the most accurate picture of the subsoil with a resolution, which deteriorates only
slightly with depth. The methods are so called pulse-echo methods; they are based on the measurement of
the travel time (and sometimes also the amplitude) of a reflection from a transmitted pulse. The
reflections observed at a large number of locations are combined numerically to a synthetic image of the
subsoil.
The basic difference between volume methods and imaging methods is that volume methods determine
primarily an average value of soil properties between the surface and some effective penetration depth.
Depth information is gained by subtracting values from different penetrations. On the other hand the
pulse-echo methods generate echoes from interfaces between layers or other heterogeneities. In principle
this is a depth-independent process and the deterioration of results with depth is caused by signal
attenuation which decreases the signal to noise ratio.
The imaging methods have an acoustic and an electromagnetic variant, reflection seismics and ground
probing radar (GPR). Reflection seismics has been developed to a great extent in oil and gas exploration
since the penetration in the soil is many kilometers. Downscaling the method to ground water exploration
depths (100 m) has been performed successfully. However, application to shallower depths is limited
because of instrument related problems, which have not yet been solved. Recent developments are
focused on better controlled sources (vibration units) for compressional and shear waves.
The information that is acquired by seismics is related to mechanical properties. Reflections arise from
acoustic discontinuities. Depth to bedrock, or in case of marine seismic surveys depth to bottom, is an
easy target. Soil interfaces are sometimes discernable but it appears often difficult to relate seismic
"horizons" as they are called, to hard information from borings or CPTs. Pollution is generally invisible
for seismic methods. A severe disadvantage on land is that the method is time consuming because one
needs physical contact with the soil to generate the acoustic pulse or wave and to detect the reflections. In
practice this means pushing a large number of geophones into the ground.
The hardest restriction from the point of view of environmental applications is the depth range which in
fact just starts at 30 - 50 m, which is too deep for most problems. The second restriction is that pollution
hardly influences the acoustic parameters; the information obtained is therefore of a general, geologic
nature more than the distribution of pollution.
The electromagnetic counterpart of seismics is ground penetrating radar (GPR). The first difference with
seismics is that the pulse is an electromagnetic wave instead of acoustic. The reflections originate
therefore from electromagnetic contrasts instead of acoustic. The second difference is an operational one:
the lack of need of tight physical contact, hi GPR it is possible to drag the transmit and receive antenna
over the surface; this makes the measurement less time consuming. As with seismics, data processing is
essential to generate an image. The most important development in the last years is the introduction of 3D
techniques where echo data from several parallel tracks is combined. This has led to a significant
improvement in resolution and reliability.
GPR echoes are generated primarily by changes in the dielectric permittivity, a parameter that is largely
determined by the water content and the composition of the soil. This means that the primary information
is on layering and heterogeneity of soil strata. In principle the presence of organic contaminants (DNAPL
as well as LNAPL) will change the water content or influence the shape and thickness of the vadose zone.
Therefore the presence of these substances may be (and has claimed to be) visible in the echograms. The
second electric parameter that influences GPR is the electrical conductivity. It is generally this parameter
that limits the application of the method because of the signal attenuation. As clay has a high
conductivity, the penetration through clay and clayey soils is rather limited. On the other hand conductive
polluting substances in ground water may give themselves away by the attenuation they generate in GPR
signals.
39
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
Pulse-echo methods are usually presented in the form of vertical sections below the survey tracks. One
should be aware, however, that echo's from 'aside' the track are indiscernible from echoes down under,
although the presentation suggests otherwise. This makes interpretation often cumbersome. Introduction
of 3D data acquisition has proven to be an essential step forward, but of course increases the amount of
work and therefore the cost of a survey considerably. On the other hand it may be worthwhile when it is
important to have a 3D image of the location's subsoil.
C. Borehole Techniques/ Tomography
Many of the abovementioned techniques can, with or without adaptations, be applied from boreholes or
between boreholes. In the first place, the soil geometry as well as the pollution are viewed from a
different angle when working in a borehole. Especially for deeper locations this may be an advantage
without compromising the resolution. Moreover, working between two boreholes and applying
tomographic techniques opens new possibilities: for GPR, where attenuation is generally a problem, the
penetration increases greatly since one measures in transmission, not reflection. However, the great
advances that have been made in medical tomography cannot be expected to occur in geophysics as the
number of measurement positions remains too small for a satisfactory coverage. Therefore in many cases
the resolution remains the bottleneck in application of tomography in geotechnology.
The above overview is largely based on an inventory (CUR, 1996), containing 22 four-page fact sheets on
the different techniques (in Dutch). A similar fact sheet collection was made a few years earlier by
BRGM (1992) (in French). The CUR report also has a special section on tomography.
4. TYPICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
In order to estimate the significance of geophysics in environmental engineering, a number of typical
application areas were defined in a brainstorm session in 1999 in the context of the NOBIS program,
NOBIS being the predecessor of the current SKB-program (CUR/NOBIS, 1999). This list may serve as
well to illustrate the possibilities and limitations of the several methods. The typical problem areas are:
1- mapping the preferential air channels during sparging in sandy soil
2 - detection of physical objects (cables, UXO)
3 - monitoring of processes in a contaminant plume near a landfill
4 - detection of hot spots DNAPL in the subsoil
5 - detection of oil contamination in industrial area.
For these five problems a check was done on the performance of the geophysical techniques. The result is
summarized below.
Area
Geophysical Applications
GPR can image heterogeneity at 10 cm scale, application from surface or borehole
multi electrode geoelectric (preferably from borehole or push away system) cheaper but less
detailed
aspect "monitoring' (changes from the time zero situation) is helpful
GPR: in sand adequate, in clayey soils of limited use, 'all' type objects (also synthetics).
EM for conductive objects (metal)
magnetometer (for iron/steel objects)
extent of plume (if conductive) by GPR, EM, geoelectric
processes in the plume: little options available
GPR: detection of first non-permeable layer and irregularities therein. If within depth range:
perhaps direct detection of DNAPLs
reflection seismics: 'deep' (20m+) heterogeneity
GPR: some claims that direct detection is possible.
40
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
A recent study on the feasibility of geophysical investigations of small landfills was published by the
geophysics group of ETH Zurich (Green, 1999). The main result of mat study is summarized in the figure
below. Refraction seismic, which is a specific application (interpretation) of seismics, is mentioned
separately in this study. This reflects that site specific circumstances (Switzerland overburden on bedrock
- vs. Netherlands only soft soil) influence the feasibility of techniques heavily.
Bedrock
at 200 m
Sediment
structure
50-200m
Ground
water
table
Refraction
seismic
GPR
Geoelectric
Magnetic
EM
Very
shallow
sediment
structure
Lateral
boundaries
of water
Thickness
of waste
site
Classification
of waste
contents
Excellent...
... No information
Comparison of information content of different geophysical data sets (taken from Green, 1999).
An important conclusion from Green (1999) is that integration of the datasets is crucial in order to obtain
a consistent picture of the landfill and the surrounding sediments. No single dataset was capable of
providing all of the necessary information.
5. DISCUSSION
The optimism in the beginning of the 1990's for specific application of geophysics on environmental
problems has disappeared gradually. A typical example is the extended study on the Borden site in
Canada, where a controlled spill of DNAPL was monitored by all possible techniques, geophysical as
well as traditional. Numerous publications show that is very well possible to follow the process. The real
problems become manifest when we try to survey an unknown site without a clean, time-zero reference.
Geophysical results are generally ambiguous with respect to natural heterogeneity and pollution, so it is
difficult to state the extent of the pollution, not to speak of concentrations. The number of 'pollution
detection" papers in the SAGEEP conferences which have been and are the primary channel for this type
of results, has decreased over the years. Incidentally one finds claims of separate companies that success
has been achieved.
The basic contribution of geophysics is in delineating the geometry of a site: layering, the ground water
table, heterogeneity e.g. fissures in hard rock and either sandy or clayey beds and lenses in soft soil, and
the location of objects as (possibly leaking) drums. Because of the overview one gets by the geophysical
methods they are useful in an early stage of a site investigation also in order to guide the more traditional
sampling and in situ measurements. Moreover traditional techniques are always necessary to check and
specifically to depth calibrate the geophysical results. It is important that the investigators think in terms
of a conceptual subsoil model and try to 'colour" that model with help of all pieces of information
available, including a rough or a detailed process model of the subsoil and the pollution: the geometry of
the sources of pollution, groundwater flow, dissolution, adsorption and desorption are the key factors. A
suitable strategy is outlined in the ETH paper mentioned earlier (Green, 1999). An important advantage of
geophysics in environmental engineering is the non-intrusive character, lessening the risk of cross
contamination along the vertical direction.
41
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
In the near future the most important contribution of environmental geophysics can be expected in
monitoring applications: measurement and process control of rehabilitation projects. In the world of oil
exploration the development of monitoring techniques and strategies is under way and can be found in the
literature under key words like '4D-techniques' (time being the 4th dimension) or 'time lapse
measurements' (Tura, 2001). In the oil world it becomes more and more important to deplete existing
reservoirs more fully and therefore to monitor the depletion process. It can be expected that the R&D
results will gradually disperse through the open literature and can so be transferred to the civil and
environmental engineering business where R&D budgets are always orders of magnitude behind those of
oil exploration.
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
R&D papers and case histories are prone to stress successes and underrate failures. Success stories are in
9 out of 10 cases controlled situations or monitor cases. Within that context they are successful and
valuable; they can however not be extrapolated to reconnaissance tasks at "new" sites. Monitoring is
surely the field where environmental geophysics in the next years will contribute most.
An important aspect of environmental measurements in general and environmental geophysics in
particular is the validation of the measurements. Of course there is never a 'golden standard' to which the
results can be calibrated. It is therefore crucial to think from a subsoil model perspective and try to fit the
results within that model, understanding mat individual results sometimes can be faulty or inaccurate.
What is needed is a best guess of the overall situation, based on the best available evidence. Unfortunately
it is not clear beforehand which method will deliver which part of the information.
It will be clear that geophysical methods are not a panacea for every problem. It should be understood.
however, that this is the case for sampling and in-situ methods as well. On the other hand, oil and mineral
exploration is inconceivable without geophysical surveys, although only a fraction of the locations
indicated by geophysics really leads to actual exploitation. It would be a good tiling when this was kept in
mind in environmental and civil engineering applications as well.
7. REFERENCES
1. BRGM, CGG, CPGF and LCPC, Geophysique appliquee, Code de bonne pratique, UFG Paris 1992,
ca. 50 pp. and 75 fiches (in French)
2. Cheng-hou, Z., G. Greeuw et al., A new classification chart for soft soils using the piezocone test.
Engineering Geology, vol. 29 (1990) 31- 47
3. Geophysical techniques for soil investigation, CUR rapport 182, Stichting CUR, Gouda, 1996, 167
pp. (in Dutch)
4. Status report on geophysical techniques in environmental engineering, CUR/NOBIS Productgroep In
Situ, Gouda, January 1999, ca.12 pp. (in Dutch)
5. EEGS, Proceedings yearly SAGEEP conferences from 1992 on
6. Green, E. Lanz and H. Maurer, A template for geophysical investigations of small landfills. The
Leading Edge, vol. 18 (1999) 248 - 253
7. Stienstra, P. and J.K. van Deen, Field collection techniques - Unconventional sounding and sampling
methods, in: Rengers, N. (ed) Engineering Geology of Quaternary Sediments, Proc. 20-year Jubilee
Symposium Ingeokring Delft, Balkema 1994. p 41 - 56.
8. Tura and G. Cambois (eds.), Instrumented oil fields, The Leading Edge (special section), vol. 20
(2001)613-65
42
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
8. PRESENTATION VISUALS ~presented by Dr. Jurjen K. van Deen
Non-destructive technique*:
it's fine, but what do we too?
Dr. Jurjen K vxt Decn
push-away techniques
wturl can b* rn*a*ure<» by iwrahaH, c*n b»
mostly cheaper,
tetOf, clearwr
soft soils
- pebbles or worse
drilling pfeferred
monopole
permeability
probe
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Types Of geophysical techniques
passive
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
typical problem areas
typical solutions
- monitoring air sparging
* objecl detection
- monitoring processes in plume
- defection ON API htrf spots
- detection LNAPL
GPfl gw>-«laclnc
ab|«c1 detection
magnelo, EM. OPR
- mcwi rtQ ring prooa«« In plume
OTlonl GE, EM, 6PR: mlurnal process
- deltctitmi DMAPL hot »polA
GPft.'seiimicR {with luc.N,l
GPflf?)
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
SAMPLING TECHNOLOGIES FOR SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND
LONG-TERM MONITORING
Robert L. Siegrist1
1. OVERVIEW
Contamination of soil and groundwater by toxic chemicals is a widespread problem at industrial and
military sites around the world. Effective site characterization and long-term monitoring that manage
uncertainty are fundamental to remediation practices that protect public health and environmental quality
with cost-effective expenditures of limited resources (Crumbling et al. 2001). For example, when a site is
first discovered or alleged to be contaminated, site characterization activities must accurately delineate the
current nature and extent of contamination in the subsurface and provide appropriate and adequate data to
enable site cleanup goals to be established. Once cleanup goals are defined for a contaminated site,
remediation technologies may be implemented and process monitoring is commonly critical to ensure
proper operations. Following cleanup to a given end-state, longer term monitoring may be required to
ensure no change in risk evolves during periods of years to decades.
Site characterization and monitoring involves several components and specific activities. Environmental
sampling is one of the most critical components that can provide data to:
• Characterize contamination, if any, at a site following its initial discovery,
• Enable risk assessments to determine the need for cleanup and set cleanup goals,
• Enable control of technology function during cleanup operations,
• Help verify achievement of cleanup goals and termination of active cleanup, and
• Ensure that short-term cleanup performance is sustained over the long-term.
Sampling involves the definition of a problem domain and the observable members or population units
within that domain (Figure 1). In specifying observable units within the domain requires consideration of
the representative elemental volume (REV). This is a volume of environmental media that embodies all
relevant features so that sampling and analyses of a single REV unit can be used for inferences about a
site or a subpart thereof. The problem domain is normally comprised of multiple replicates of REV's that
represent that domain. The size of a REV can vary from micro- (e.g., mm to cm) to macro-scales (e.g., m
to km) and the number representing a site is highly dependent on the properties of the site and the
contaminant release and distribution properties within that site. Sampling then involves specifying a
position in space and time (known as a space-time framework) often followed by the physical acquisition
and removal of a specimen upon which a measurement can be made either onsite or at a remote location.
The samples so collected can include different media and be in the form of discrete samples (independent
single points in space and time) or composite samples (combined multiple points in space and time), or
subsamples of either of these. Sampling may also involve direct sensing or observation of a property of
interest without physically acquiring or removing a "sample" per se from the environment. For example,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can be measured using a probe that is inserted into groundwater
within a monitoring well.
Professor and Division Director, Colorado School of Mines, Environmental Science and Engineering Division, Golden, CO. USA 80401-1887.
Phone : 303.273.3490. Telefax: 303.273.3413. Email: siegrist@mines.edu.
46
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
Figure 1. Features of a space-time framework for sampling at contaminated sites.
Non-invasive remote sensing
Discrete samples with
_ *,«.,. mathematical
Integrated samples ~ |_^ integration (space, time)
active (space) / HB^
Integrated samples ~
passive (time)
The toolbox for sampling technologies is large and still growing (e.g., USEPA 2002). It includes a wide
array of devices and systems, many of which are designed for shallow subsurface sampling, drilling for
sample acquisition, and direct-push insertion for sampling. Factors affecting which technologies and
methods to are most suitable include (1) site location and access, (2) media to be sampled, (3) properties
to be measured in the sampled media, (4) size and geometry of the domain to be sampled, and (5)
duration and frequency of sampling required. Effective technologies enable acquisition of samples that
are representative, meaning (1) the attribute of interest does not change as a result of sample acquisition
and pre-analyses handling and (2) the attribute measured in a sample can be used to infer an attribute for
the larger domain from which it was taken. Sampling technologies should minimize the cost of
acquisition to maximize the number of space-time locations that can be observed, should be compatible
with the property to be measured, and should enable measurements to be made in situ or onsite.
Effective sampling for characterization and monitoring at contaminated sites becomes more challenging
under the following circumstances:
• Absence of information about the characteristics of the origin of contamination,
• Increasing size of the domain of interest in space and time,
• Increasing spatial and temporal heterogeneity of the environmental media and contaminant
distribution,
• Contaminants are unstable and/or extremely costly to quantify (e.g., VOCs, redox-sensitive
metals, and dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs)), and
• Sampling is required to support critical and costly decisions that must necessarily be based on
detailed and highly certain results.
Field investigations and laboratory research have demonstrated the importance of sampling to achieve
accuracy and certainty when quantifying subsurface contamination (e.g., Siegrist and van Ee 1994,
Crumbling et al. 2001). Examples of research involving sampling effects on quantifying VOCs and
DNAPLs in soils are given in this presentation, including: (1) sampling and spatial modeling of
trichloroethene (TCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) in silty clay soil at a field site in Ohio (West et al.
1995), (2) sampling and analyses of TCE in sandy vadose zone soil during a laboratory study (Sheldon et
al. 2000), and (3) sampling effects on quantifying DNAPLs in sand from a site in Florida. Some
implications of these and related studies include the following. In subsurface samples containing VOCs
like TCE, to avoid serious negative bias in quantifying concentrations, sampling must be done such that it
47
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
minimizes media disruption and atmospheric exposure and samples must be immediately immersed
directly into the analysis solvent (e.g.. methanol). At DNAPL sites, under some conditions sampling
effects (e.g., bias) can cause overestimates of the mass depletion of the DNAPL source that is actually
achieved. In unsaturated soils, quantification errors may be more serious due to volatilization effects
exacerbating negative bias. These and other results affirm the need for great care in sampling practices
and also support the need for onsite and in situ measurements.
Sampling is a major component of site remediation and is critical to characterization and monitoring.
Sampling includes issues and activities related to sample quantification (whether it involves physical
acquisition or direct sensing) and also estimation of properties at un-observed locations in space and time.
The toolbox for sampling technologies is large and growing. In general, technologies must minimize
sampling-induced changes in the environmental media or properties of interest. As a result, direct-push
sampling is equivalent to or better man conventional drilling and sampling methods and in situ and
integrating approaches are needed. Careful application of multiple tools is critical to cost-effective
characterization and long-term monitoring.
2. REFERENCES
1. Crumbling, D.A., C. Groenjes, B. Lesnik, K. Lynch, J. Shockley, J. van Ee, R. Howe, L. Keith, and J.
McKenna (2001). Managing Uncertainty in Environmental Decisions. Environmental Science &
Technology. 35(19):404A-409A.
2. Sheldon, A.B.. R.L. Siegrist. and H.E. Dawson (2000). Experimental Validation and Reliability
Evaluation of Multimedia Risk Assessment Models. CSM final project report to U.S. EPA Center for
Environmental Research and Quality Assurance, Office of Research and Development (ORD),
Washington, D.C. ORD. grant no. R825411. March. 2000.
3. Siegrist. R.L. and P.O. Jenssen (1990). Evaluation of Sampling Method Effects on Volatile Organic
Compound Measurements in Contaminated Soils. Environmental Science & Technology. 24(9): 1387-
1392.
4. Siegrist, R.L. and J.J. van Ee (1994). Measuring and Interpreting VOCs in Soil: State of the Art and
Research Needs. EPA/540/R-94/506. U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab, Las Vegas,
NV. 53 pp.
5. U.S. EPA (2002. Innovative Technologies, Characterization and Monitoring. EPA Technology Innovation
Office, Washington D.C. http://www.epa.gov/tio/char.htm
6. West, O.R., R.L. Siegrist, T.J. Mitchell, and R.A. Jenkins (1995). Measurement Error and Spatial
Variability Effects on Characterization of Volatile Organics in the Subsurface. Environmental Science
& Technology. 29(3):647-656.
48
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
3. PRESENTATION VISUALS ~presented by Robert L. Siegrist
Sampling Technologies
—
Site Characterization and Long-
Term Monitoring
Robert L. Stegrisl, Ph-D,, P,E.
En.ii miirwnljl &d*nc*
Colorado School nT Mln«.
Tf Itphon*- M127J.WW. EnaK:
JVA rOt'CCMS Country #»pro*«n{3f,V-« AfMrtfVig
Aottfr,
Sampling Framework
--
Represewlatrve elemental volume (REV i
Q Vntant of mdta ttut imbcdHS al relevant rtatuns to
that sampling and aralys«* o< » single REV unit r*n tw
UHd tar mtmncn
Pmnan rt inrtHrat te t ompnwd err nunplt retplKatn of
O KfV'* dvpvnd on
m- to itmiriin
>nH can nry fccwn cm- In
i
Sampling Framework
- 3* i
Contaminated Sites & Media
Sampling Framework
\ftdvy do we sampl*,,, 7
D Provkte a Knowledge base from which
Inference* can be made regarding the entire
population and diwnain of InteiMi
D Sampling is required tor:
• Char •cbwDtnfl Eh» niMlln ind nlplil of
Mi:nilc«hnj tj illumes film Him during I:|H»IIU|I
Sampling Framework
a
What do wt mMn by "Sampling" 7
D Environmental sampltng consists of jctivtti«&
related to the delknWon of a problem domain
and the observable members or population unita
within ItaM domain
P Par JTsosi *>nw imnm«>ntai itudiM, sampling
involvesi specif ynq a position In eltttet space or
lime, or both
Q Trite can be referred In as tha ~spoc*4irn«
ditmeworp" r Ihv lortti of
D ENscnti umplM
C Con»xn«»
P
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Sampling Framework
Sampling may also Involve the direct sensing or
observation of a pioperty of lniei**t wilhout
pfi yr.ir.ally acquiring or rvrnovaig a ~safnpl»" p«r s*
Irani II us ehv n unlnen I
Q For *x»mp|*, VOC» can be rti€>s*ur«l MBWQ a
prob* which Is inserted inla a graundvealor well
Sampling Technologies
Tha '-tooflxHt" for samplng technologies is quit* Urge
vnth a wide array of de-vice* and system*
Effective iochnplogias finable acquisition of iarnplos
mn: .^rf • rfrrps^ntsrtiv*"
D Affrtbuta orlntw*ft'ui4 haiiilling
D AflrAiuta m*nur*cl In a «anifil> can h> uxrd la Inhf "I
atitu l»ro*r domain IromnMch ttMns tilain
»t»ould
D Minimize cost uf KqidstHan to nuxlrrtzi niurtMr of IOCAHMB
D Enabta m*HU(*niMiri 1o b* mad* n tltu at onsttt
Sampling Technologies ^
£ Shallow Mibsurlace aaiFipUng
D Sail ptulwt hH 9J» unifilcuj
_ wii>d H.>JIIIH-V for ic>l i'illdi jr J gti oiftuion fi-c
D luckho* 1»*1 pit* lor pMt)t amrVfti MH) Mmipting
D Small (billing and probing ••^•••l
Sampling Framework
Fea
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Sampling Technologies
Direct .push tor sa
CSoi gas wrnpirtg
C Ground watt* i •nilin
In '.«ll mn*urr
Sampling is Critical
• FfeM ihv»Ttgjlinn5 and bbonalorv rcseanch hjvo
to
accuracy and certainly wtxin quantifying
contam inalian
E».nnnpt? experiences. with VOC& and D*IAFLn
O Sampling and spatial moitolrtg err TCE and TCA in silty cby
ml at a n?td rf* in Ohm
O tomjMinif am) aralyvf nf ICC in Mndy vad0*r zones
O *3m(>lln5 rWfrlT nn i
tnftewi*
Sampling Effects on VOCs ^
TCE
10 10 100*
fflKKKW*
ftrid GC Jiufyra 1000 morm TCt
Ilijin lib «|i«lv*«»
I 3 B E 3 Z I
Co-tocjhtd sampli pus (» tocafloiKi
Sampling Effects on VOCfi
Sampling Challenges
for crwaetenKHion artO
rnonHot ing become* mote challenging with:
D AtKttK* al rrtorma*KHi about B» w MKn of ccMbnvuBon
D lnu«i&lnfl tua
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Sampling Effects on VOCs
Purpos* are! Approach
D Crtuimn t
4nd hinrtllmj no »iapBtying TCg In
fay up-tow utumlicn wMli TGE In WMM
C TCE mm prssenrt « TCE mail iddtd - TCE
mass In dnwugt
C SampUnQ by dli*v:t-pu4h. 1Mn4utM ITWTIKXK
with nrtcfo-cor* subsampllng. direct
(mmwston In haunt, and OC anatyafe
D t«wp»r»9«Ti i>t T -.nnl.iinn.ilinn ill II .'.• anti .1*
C T»mfi«ilm«« of J, 18, end 3*C
C Four iwrciii ic-qultMan nwttiMR:
• C«i Helton mn»r> id In MtOII
• C*M IHIlM 1 UMMIpHd lm» NWM
O Qtt etMomrte^nphy uiklyicfi
O CompartiMM bttwMit mthodt ptai kiuwn
added ind nhote cor* extncAon bi H*OH
Sampling Effects
A
• Some lmpltca4K)n& ot &ami>linfl e11«(s_.
Q In »ub*Uftec wmpM uuntsnng FOE and TCf, to MreM
• rnMBtic UMBi dMnvTHM BKl -iin>*»f**rt* txpown
* liiimriMfiy Inomrw IMetht «ri!«y^t« inUmi (ir-irumv;
D M DHAPL tifaiv, urrpilig inWti un cauu ovin-
psIltmS*^ c* rh> vnutcv mn-l rlppl^llnn artlialV arhlrivri
?i* n
D In unmtw3rtc4t H4K, quanWcalwn error my be mon
xirlovi dtft to volatilization tffKts
D Rnuts amrrm need lor urtat cm In
and (he Dbt nMd for In
D RtD « n**dAd to luppcirt tovnmvd ctand*id prodlDtrt
Sampling Effects on VOCs
^**fK
umj^j:j
as1«ria1iGii a| gn-obsarved kxijlions in spjcj) «nd tim«
Too lt» K of sampling lcchnofoc|ie-s is large and growing
s.ifTipling technologies should mmlnnlzQ changes In
modia or properties of tnl»resl as a re-sufl at
Direct-push sampling ts e*qulgatent or b«t1er
conven(iion«M dniimg and safnpllng rrwthods
in vtu dnd nvlegral ing appt&aclin ai< n«ed«d
of nvurNple tcnlt (i critical to
•rfvctri1* cfurjici»riialKwi and lantg-larm monitoring
52
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
THE SELECTION AND USE OF FIELD ANALYTICAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR
TECHNICALLY SOUND DECISIONS AT CONTAMINATED SITES
AN ANNOTED OUTLINE
Wayne Einfeld1
The following outline discusses some critical issues in a question and answer format that should be
considered prior to the deployment and use of field analytical technologies for contaminated site
characterization or monitoring. A summary overview of the various field portable analytical technologies
is also included.
1. WHAT ARE THE KEY COMPONENTS IN THE DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVE PROCESS?
Application of the data quality objective (DQO) process is fundamental to the successful use of field
analytical methods. The DQO process is a methodical approach used to facilitate technically sound
project decisions and the ultimate achievement of an acceptable project end point. The key element in the
DQO process is the development of a decision rule, which is essentially a quantitative statement of the
project objective. Other key components in the process that support the development and use of the
decision rule are given below:
• Qualitatively define the decision that needs to be made
• Further define the decision in quantitative terms using a decision rule
• Define the limits on the error associated with the decision rule
• Identify the measurement data necessary to support the decision rule
2. WHAT DECISION NEEDS TO BE MADE USING THE DATE FROM ON-SITE
MEASURMENTS?
The data quality objective process (DQO) can help in the transition from a qualitative problem statement
to a quantitative framework through the use of decision rules and their associated margins of error. This
quantitative problem statement or decision rule helps sets the stage for selection and use of field analytical
methods.
• Example qualitative decision rule: If TCE levels increase in the down-gradient monitoring wells.
remedial action may be required
• Example quantitative decision rule: If the average concentration of TCE at any down-gradient well is
greater than 50 |J,g/L then remedial action is required. A 5% chance of designating a well sample
"clean" when in fact it is "dirty" is acceptable. Similarly, a 15% chance of designating a "clean"
sample "dirty" is also acceptable.
The development of such a decision rule will help in the selection of measurement technologies and in the
determination of the sample size necessary to generate the data needed to make the decision. Field
analytical methods may be an appropriate choice to generate the data that are used to make these critical
decisions. Some typical applications are listed below:
• Identify a "clean" or "dirty" site
• Identify or map a subsurface contaminant plume
• Conduct a real-time, on-site determination of the adequacy of an ongoing treatment process for
contaminant removal
Sandia National Laboratories
53
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
• Generate data that will support a decision as to whether contaminant cleanup levels have been
reached and formal site closure can occur.
• Conduct periodic long-term monitoring for assessment of contaminant stability at a closed site
3. WHAT LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY IS TOLERABLE AT THE DECISION POINT?
All measurements have associated uncertainty and these may translate into decision errors. For example,
declaring a site clean when in fact it is dirty (false negative) or, declaring a site dirty when in fact it is
clean (false positive) are both decision errors influenced by sampling and analytical uncertainty. The
acceptable errors, set during the DQO process will influence both the choice of the sampling and
analytical method and the number of samples needed from the site. Important concepts and considerations
related to overall uncertainty include:
• Confidence interval about a mean measurement value
• Tolerance for false positives (declaring dirty when in fact clean)
• Tolerance for false negatives (declaring clean when in fact dirty)
• Tolerable error levels may be specified in regulations or may require good judgment (e.g. statistical
best practice)
• Performance measures of candidate analytical methods, such as accuracy and precision, are necessary
in order to best apply the DQO process.
• The combination of sampling error and analytical error will strongly influence the overall uncertainty
in a measurement
• Often the sampling error is large in comparison to the analytical error
• The combined accuracy and precision of the candidate sampling and analytical methods should be
known in order to best apply the DQO process.
4. WHAT ARE THE VARIOUS CONSTRAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF FIELD
ANALYTICAL METHODS?
Site characterization, monitoring, and cleanup projects that may utilize field analytical instrumentation
will necessarily have a number of associated constraints. They will likely include the some or all of
following:
• Budget
• Schedule
• Regulatory requirements for a specific method
• Availability of field analytical measurement equipment
• Cost of rental or procurement of field analytical equipment
• Requirement to interface with other scheduled events at the site
• Contractual obligations (e.g. lab services may be designated in the overall site cleanup contract)
• Regulatory acceptance of innovative or alternative methods
• Availability of performance attributes (e.g. accuracy and precision) of the candidate field analytical
methods
5. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE CONTAMINANTS AT THE SITE?
Prior to the initiation of work at a site, it is important to ascertain as much as possible about the site prior
to any measurement campaigns. This information can be used to build a conceptual site model and assist
in the development of a technically sound overall project strategy. Sources of information may include the
following:
• Legal records
• Other archived corporate site historical data
54
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
• Previous environmental measurements
• Experience from similar site operations at other locations
• Other sources of information (e.g. personal interviews)
6. WHAT GENERAL MEASUREMENT APPROACHES ARE AVAILABLE FOR USE?
In the development of a site measurement plan, careful consideration should be given to all of the
available options for measurement options. The optimum solution might include a blend of various
approaches. Cost tradeoffs between the various options may not be clearly obvious. In many cases the use
of the field analytical methods may be nearly equivalent to the off-site laboratory approach in terms of
direct costs. Cost savings through field analytical approaches are often seen in indirect ways such as: a
reduced overall deployment time on site; a reduction in the need for multiple deployments of sampling
crews at a site; or expedited site characterization/remediation by virtue of near real-time measurements
onsite combined with a dynamic workplan. The general measurement approaches that can be applied are
listed below:
• Fixed off-site laboratory
• On-site mobile laboratory
• Field-portable instrumentation with ex-situ samples
• Field-portable instrumentation with in-situ samples
• Conventional sampling (e.g. drilling)
• Innovative sampling and analysis (e.g. direct push + in-situ probes)
7. WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF FIELD PORTABLE METHODS?
The selection of a field analytical approach brings with it both advantages and disadvantages. In most
instances, the advantages outweigh and disadvantages such that the overall field analytical approach is
desirable and will expedite site characterization and project completion. Important advantages and
limitations are listed below:
Advantages
• Quick-turnaround, timely information
• Detection limits generally below risk-based action levels
• Sample preservation and shipping issues can be minimized
• Compatible with the dynamic planning process (e.g. the ability to change the overall investigation
plan based on new. timely information)
• Lower per sample cost and analysis speed may enable a higher sample density at the site thereby
resulting in a more thorough site characterization
• Technology can be targeted at specific analytes for increased speed
• May be able to operate field analytical methods with existing field crews thereby avoiding the need
for a separate analysis crew
Disadvantages
• Potential for additional training of field crews
• Field-portable systems may not be readily accessible
• Regulator distrust or outright rejection of innovative field analytical methods may occur
• Some field analytical methods may have reduced precision and accuracy when compared to
conventional laboratory methods
• Some level of confirmatory off-site laboratory analysis may be advisable
55
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
• Unknown contaminants may be encountered which are outside the analytical scope of the field
analytical method
• Performance attributes (e.g. precision and accuracy) of some of the newer field analytical
technologies may not be known
8. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE FIELD-PORTABLE TECHNOLOGIES AVAILABLE FOR USE
(SORTED BY CHEMICAL CLASS)?
Geophysical Technologies
• Ground Penetrating Radar
• Electromagnetometry Survey
• Magnetometer Survey
• Seismic Survey
• Borehole Geophysical Survey
Metals
• Field portable x-ray fluorescence
• Field-portable electrochemical methods (Anodic stripping voltametry. ion specific electrodes)
• Hand-held mercury analyzers
• Colorimetric tests
Inorganics (nitrate, sulfates, etc.)
• Electrochemical in-sitii analyzers for water applications
• Colorimetric test kits
Semi-volatile Organics
• Fluorescence analyzers for BTEX or other aromatic hydrocarbons in soil
• Immunoassay kits for PCBs, pesticides, and explosive residues
• Field-portable reagent kits
• Field portable GC and GC/MS (with temperature programming)
• CPT with LIF for aromatic hydrocarbons
Volatile Organics
• Photoacoustic spectrometers
• Handheld photoionization and flame ionization detectors
• Field portable GC and GC/MS
• Field-portable reagent kits
• Field portable FTIR spectrometers
• Direct push sampling and analysis with MIP
9. WHERE CAN I FIND MORE INFORMATION ON FIELD ANALYTICAL METHODS?
• US EPA Technology Innovation Office
www.epa.gov/tio
• US EPA Superfund Field Analytical Technologies
vvww.epa.gov/superfund/programs/dfa/fldmeth.htm
56
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
• US EPA, Field Analytical Technologies Encyclopedia
http: //fate. clu -in. org/
• US EPA REACHIT Technologies and Applications Database
http://vvww.epareachit.org/index.html
• The Triad approach to Site Characterization and Remediation:
http://www.epa.gov/swertiol/pubicliar.htm
• Case Studies Involving Field Analytical Methods
http: //www .epa. gov/tio/chartext edu .htm#case
• US EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV)
www. epa. go v/etv
• U.S. Department of Defense Environmental Science Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)
http://www.estcp.org/index.cfni
For More Information Contact:
Wayne Einfeld, Sandia National Laboratories
Phone: 505/845-8314 E-mail: weinfela5sandia.gov
Eric Koglin. US EPA Office of Research and Development
Phone: 702/798-2432 E-mail: koglin.eric^epamail.epa.gov
57
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
10. PRESENTATION VISUALS -presented by Wayne Einfeld
Field Analytical Technologies ^
for
Technically Sound DecU
What is "Data Quality"?
PttlH Quality = 1 he ability «f ilatu to prwidt*
inf.irm.iiNin (hut mt'«'i* uwr fU'wU
• / '.\ir.v need in make correct decisions
- [>;H;I quality re hues 10:
.itiiklv nl'ihc daU set U> rqprcwrnl IhcHnuc Uatc" m
i in- LunivM ol (!K ilvci 5.1011 Jo be nude
inIbcmntiofl ««nt ikfll Techniques
I'crinrni.iiKV L lkiiiiLli.Ti»tii;a
- Cost Considcntioits
Simmon
• IkifBi v, lib I!K t'tul in m UN!
* 'A |mi ibxHUxi c-vLJs h' >*.
* '.Vlini (Jam WB nce»uart
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Dala Quality Terminology
I tola Quilih ObjLf li t »." • • I 'NKKIB • A
lena to uivc jnd llf-uNc planning pnocea
enMepiiiiillv uji.-ut«i;;i I in ii -.\- method
The DQO PRILVSS
lAUaQuilin I..1|-.|ci: ll-i ts - Chilli MilUM: mid
quantitative -,lulcnici:ls llinl LrnnJatL iuin IcL'hnical
Itrojecl goab into technical pr..'n.-si-,|>,%,
decision gjCMils
Al data jtmntian adivtMt are dumd *n» tt«
Seven Stages of DQO Planning
Decision Rule - Definition
Sliihrliitr I'rulilfiii lu lit- AiiJi-.-
SK-|> 2 JdeiiriK the IV. ioi I to Be Made
-•Uj- : Kkntil\ MllrwInftiiMalhcrtoiiita
-kj- I MIIIIP^ lln. HiiUiiJiiiici d'lllL-Sllkly
'•I'-i' • Dculup '. 'ixcrtainiv LcMlatraillUi
s.|q* ? tjiptimizc the Design for ONotniiig Dalu
. ! li-SI N -.liiloiwilvilml
tltffine >n iiclntn aivl nllcnule nu50mtg/k.g lead, then
- take net i sample 90 cm deeper si
fl*npte (oeanon, wd
- step aul 10 rrelcrs and taw: a now
•uriice soi samptc.
- Fitamlyze flntt tepeal venteil and
horizontal sarnpte coiiechor, ijrtii
resuHs aie less lha-i 50 mo/kg in
bom M&ffecal amd hwizwual
Aiujtlicr IJccisiiMi Rule Lxample
IT sampling data from tin: i \ca\aicd 5
footaTtii indiCsHc i hat rhi- mcin level of lead In
sot) is abcnc 25 ppm. no add«iio»al
cvcm ation will be ncccssan
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
How Good is Your Data?
Perferi
Sample
DATA
MM-.I DKtinjitmli Analytic1:!! Data
Quality from Overall Dalai Qualtiv
Ooal: A 0*teni(bl» srte d*c*lon
itw "truw" site cofiditian
How many samples'.'
SatilgllL* iiuinlvi iv JL-k-niiilx-J h\ I liitlii
*M'IHC iteration iarequired fm tlie' hcsi" approncli
Si>llwaic Itxjls H.IC avitiLablc U> nwii Ihi* pKrliktii
60
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Why Field Analytical?
J ield
fctfvamtagta
l,.1itt.'l.-IUnim".«>-J. liiu;}-, niN'ttjirfhni
Ganmlli >nk->|ii»k del
(haic adequate [wvcnivtj
As coJ imm|ile (Mtaen. i«li(ft dtiil •li^ijllllu
1 TnpaliW*' »rth ilvmnnw ptann
r*i.5ww
I.ewer ptt lAfripfe cant - > kigher
lili«iul i.i .1 . .f |nn.ujcitmr! i iralul
Hti!j|ulilriri (llttfiuri JIT ruiBTghl rcj*;
I -..luninilnj uiil ulnfiulc uxlliiuS nul
i.v-a'
'.ilJiljuml crew I! lining mat bcnnncu^r
% ^
Field Analytical: I low Applied9
; J A nal vti ca! What" s A vai lab I e
Mnp j sulsuiuwtf v'LtriLjiniiuiin pluiur
• t l-l '• • ' • « -_• ! . ...... L- I -ll .
• Geue-mte data 10 dir«i anaomii VM| icmM'.al o*
in.-j.uunil
• ticncrate data 1n su|-qinri n ale clpsiire deciHion
• Conduct pcttodic long-term itiointDfing ai t-l*«:d
«.
U, I.:K
X-n\ fl urircsccnc-c
llotiii-hcld iiiLTi-urs
1 1 itisirtv- «esl kite
Aimlvtical What's Avail ;i: •!
Volatile Orjjii
I ickl AiiLilytical What's Available?
Semi' volatile
tiC nrel tlC-MS
Rtflltetil l«*.1 Li Is
nmil-'
Keagetil kits
• • -IMS
tl'l til
61
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Traditional vs Field Analytical. Costs I Traditional vs Field Analytical: Costs (con..)
RroMem Perform full efHr*c1e«'l23!Mxi of g
hciD-ic fring ranges for heavy rncta-is at the
Pfcfiidio ol San Francisco
• i pork plan. 2 addeiia .:^ .".i
• 3 B|# ira«tli7«:v* • '.. i
• 400«una«s wo HLI
* ' nqnt 3 addenda 5tJ OX!
• -iTtfyeerprciMfltaneiflW* S 5ffl3D
• TotM $163 ax
Field XRF ADDfoach
Cost
• KRC ftertnl (« wta»
» 4X1 KRF W(ti[t«T-H
* iniiuacd r rants roe
• Tf Ub DC ««ii|»e«
An iAJutuli:il uitnl tJhtliut lit 52**
VKHU.V utsiar turtcr
ohlariniiiul h> Jrixarbon*
62
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
AnalyiicaJ Performance Parameters
SI'.' 'II-II
',' Li I I I )'. '!).. Ll | "I
LS EPA EnvirwiitMMitn] Tcdinolufiv
Vcrifkjilioit (ETV) f*nig,ntiii
J 1 >tJi|i5ln;ll lij ! i' V III l'>»? Ill '. ail; die p;ilnPllinii;i; i,.l
Tm.iviHiM.1 '^>'i iriinrmtihil livJtniili'UK1"
-I 'n.-i-l'-iat-v jf-i.rl.lliL-. and un. i I inli • ",'.il. i.-.hl-i.lli.-.ri' L
:ini .Hi.: iilliL'r i-.
Jl J'ulrl i. juJ |vn>:ili: |HL:ln>.i^ tt^l t- '-Illlt -S'.'K 11 • uriji;
. s-,il,< in • i i-,u.- ih i
l-orrnore information on b'l V
Stimmarv
llXlilM.lU>UtC!t CflllCI
licunt svilli tli»c old «u mind
63
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
CURRENT PERSPECTIVES IN SITE REMEDIATION AND MONITORING:
USING THE TRIAD APPROACH TO IMPROVE THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE CLEANUPS
DeanaM. Crumbling1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
U.S. EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response is promoting more effective strategies for
characterizing, monitoring, and cleaning up hazardous waste sites. In particular, the adoption of a new
paradigm holds the promise for better decision-making at waste sites. This paradigm is based on using an
integrated triad of systematic planning, dynamic work plans, and real-time measurement technologies to
plan and implement data collection and technical decision-making at hazardous waste sites. A central
theme of the triad approach is a clear focus on overall decision quality as the overarching goal of project
quality assurance, requiring careful identification and management of potential causes for errors in
decision-making (i.e., sources of uncertainty).
2. PERSPECTIVE
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) manages the Superfimd, RCRA
Corrective Action, Federal Facilities, Underground Storage Tank, and Brownfields programs. "Smarter
solutions" for the technical evaluation and cleanup of such contaminated sites can take two major forms.
One is through the adoption of new technologies and tools; the other is to modernize the strategy by
which tools are deployed. Both are connected in a feedback loop, since strategy shifts are both fueled by
and fuel the evolution of innovative technology. In the area of hazardous waste site monitoring and
measurement, new technologies have become available with documented performance showing them
capable of substantially improving the cost-effectiveness of site characterization.
The current traditional phased engineering approach to site investigation (mobilize staff and equipment to
a site, take samples to send off to a lab, wait for results to come back and be interpreted, then re-mobilize
to collect additional samples, and repeat one or more times) can be incrementally improved by the
occasional use of on-site analysis to screen samples so that expensive off-site analysis is reserved for
more critical samples. Yet, as discussed elsewhere, integration of new tools into site cleanup practices
faces an array of obstacles [1]. If the cost savings promised by new technologies is to be realized, a funda-
mental change in thinking is needed. Faster acceptance of cost-effective characterization and monitoring
tools among practitioners is even more important now that Brownfields and Voluntary Cleanup Programs
are gaining in importance. For these programs that focus on site redevelopment and reuse, factors such as
time, cost, and quality are of prime concern. Modernization of the fundamental precepts underlying
characterization and cleanup practices offers cost savings of about 50% while simultaneously improving
the quality of site decision-making.
The idealized model for an innovation-friendly system that produces defensible site decisions at an
affordable cost would have the following characteristics:
• it would be driven by achieving performance, rather than by complying with checklists that do not
add value;
• it would use transparent, logical reasoning to articulate project goals, state assumptions, plan site
activities, derive conclusions, and make defensible decisions;
• it would value the need for a team of technical experts in the scientific, mathematical, and
engineering disciplines required to competently manage the complex issues of hazardous waste sites;
• it would require regular continuing education of its practitioners, especially in rapidly evolving areas
of practice;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Innovation Office. Washington, DC
64
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
• its practitioners would be able to logically evaluate the appropriateness of an innovative technology
with respect to project-specific conditions and prior technology performance, with residual areas of
uncertainty being identified and addressed; and
• it would reward responsible risk-taking by practitioners who would not fear to ask, "why don't we
look into...?" or "what if we tried...?"
What form might such an idealized model take? A major step toward this goal would involve
institutionalizing the triad of systematic planning, dynamic work plans, and real-time analysis as the
foundation upon which cost-effective, defensible site decisions and actions are built. None of the concepts
in the triad are new, but the boost given by computerization to technology advancement in recent years is
now providing strategy options that did not exist before. Pockets of forward-thinking practitioners are
already successfully using this triad; the concept is proven.
3. THE TRIAD'S FIRST COMPONENT: SYSTEMATIC PLANNING
Most organizational mission statements pledge a commitment to quality. EPA is no different. EPA Order
5360.1 CHG 2 requires that work performed by, or on behalf of, EPA be governed by a mandatory quality
system to ensure the technical validity of products or services [2]. A fundamental aspect of the mandatory
quality system is thoughtful, advance planning. The EPA Quality Manual for Environmental Programs
explains that ''environmental data operations shall be planned using a systematic planning process mat is
based on the scientific method. The planning process shall be based on a common sense, graded approach
to ensure that the level of detail in planning is commensurate with the importance and intended use of the
work and the available resources" [3].
Systematic planning is the scaffold around which defensible site decisions are constructed. The essence of
systematic planning is asking the right questions and coming up with a strategy to best to answer them. It
requires that for every planned action the responsible individual can clearly answer the question, "Why
am I doing this?" First and foremost, planning requires that key decision-makers collaborate with
stakeholders to resolve clear goals for a project. A team of multi-disciplinary, experienced technical staff
then works to translate those goals into realistic technical objectives. The need for appropriately educated,
knowledgeable practitioners from all disciplines relevant to the site's needs is vital to cost-effective
project success.
A. Multi-disciplinary Technical Team
During the planning phase, the most resource-effective characterization tools for collecting data are
identified by technically qualified staff mat is familiar with both the established and innovative
technology tools of their discipline. For example, the hydrogeologist will be conversant not only with the
performance and cost issues of well drilling techniques, but also with the more innovative and (generally)
less costly direct push technologies entering common use. The sampling design expert will understand
how uncertainties due to sampling considerations (where, when, and how samples are collected) impact
the representativeness of data generated from those samples, and thus the ability of those samples to
provide accurate site information [4]. The team's analytical chemist will not only know the relative merits
of various traditional sample preservation, preparation, and analysis methods, but also the strengths and
limitations of innovative techniques, including on-site analytical options. The chemist's responsibilities
include designing the quality control (QC) protocols that reconcile project-specific data needs with the
abilities of the selected analytical tools. When risk assessment is part of a project, involvement of the risk
assessor at the beginning of project planning is vital to ensure mat a meaningful data will be available for
risk assessment purposes. Other technical experts might include (depending on the nature of the project)
regulatory experts, soil scientists, geochemists, statisticians, wildlife biologists, ecologists, and others.
When project planners wish to express the desired decision confidence objectively and rigorously in terms
of a statistical certainty level, statistical expertise is required to translate that overall decision goal into
data generation strategies. Demonstrating overall statistical confidence in decisions based on
environmental data sets will require the cost-effective blending of the:
65
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
• number of samples.
• expected variability in the matrix (i.e., matrix heterogeneity),
• analytical data quality (e.g.. precision, quantitation limits, and other attributes of analytical quality)
[5],
• expected contaminant concentrations (i.e., how close are they expected to be to regulatory limits),
• sampling strategy (e.g., grab samples vs. composites; a random sampling design vs. a systematic
design), and
• costs.
Since sampling design and analytical strategy interact to influence the statistical confidence in final
decisions, collaboration between an analytical chemist, a sampling expert, and a statistician is key to
selecting a final strategy that can achieve project goals accurately, yet cost-effectively. Software tools are
also available now to assist technical experts to develop sampling and analysis designs. Although they
can be powerful tools, neither statistics nor software programs can be used as "black boxes/' A
knowledgeable user must be able to verify that key assumptions hold true in order to draw sound conclu-
sions from statistical analyses and software outputs.
The statistician is concerned with controlling the overall (or summed) variability (i.e., uncertainty) in the
final data set, and with the interpretability of that final data set with respect to the decisions to be made.
The statistician does this during project planning by addressing issues related to "sample support" (a
concept that involves ensuring that the physical dimensions of samples are representative of the original
matrix in the context of the investigation), by selecting a statistically valid sampling design, and by
estimating how analytical variability could impact the overall variability. The field sampling expert is
responsible for implementing the sampling design while controlling contributions to the sampling
variability as actual sample locations are selected and as specimens are actually collected, preserved, and
transported to the analyst. The analytical chemist is responsible for controlling components of variability
and uncertainty that stem from the analytical side (such as analyte extraction, concentration, and
instrumental determinative analysis), but also for overseeing aspects of sample preservation, storage,
homogenization, and possibly subsampling (if done by the analyst). The analytical chemist should select
analytical methods mat can meet the analytical variability (precision) limits estimated by the statistician.
The chemist must be able to evaluate the relative merits of methods for their detection capacity (detection
or quantitation limits), specificity (freedom from interferences), and selectivity (uniqueness of the
analytes detected), and match those properties to the data type and quality needed by all the data users
involved with the project. Finally, the chemist is responsible for designing an analytical QC program that
will establish that the analytical data sets are of known and documented quality.
Controlling the various sources of analytical and sampling uncertainties (assuming no clerical or data
management errors) ensures that data of known overall quality are generated. Since the single largest
source of uncertainty in contaminated site decisions generally stems from matrix heterogeneity,
increasing the sampling density is critical to improving decision confidence.
B. Managing Uncertainty as a Central Theme
Project planning documents should be organized around the theme of managing the overall decision
uncertainty. The purpose of systematic planning, such as EPA's Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process
used for the systematic planning of environmental data collection, is to first articulate clear goals for the
anticipated project, and then to devise cost-effective strategies that can achieve those goals. Project
planning documents [such as work management plans, quality assurance project plans (QAPPs), sampling
and analysis plans (SAPs), etc.] should be written so that the reader can explicitly identify what those
decisions are and what sources of uncertainty could potentially cause those decisions to be made in error.
The balance of project planning documents should discuss the rationale and procedures for managing
each major source of uncertainty to the degree necessary to achieve the overall decision quality (i.e.,
decision confidence and defensibility) desired by project managers and stakeholders.
66
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
After completion of the project, summary reports should clearly discuss the project goals that were
actually achieved, the decisions that were made, the uncertainties that actually impacted project decision-
making, the strategies used to manage these uncertainties, and the overall confidence in the project
outcome (which is a function of what uncertainties remain).
C. Conceptual Site Model
Using all available information, the technical team develops a conceptual site model (CSM) that
crystallizes what is already known about the site and identifies what more must be known in order to
achieve the project's goals. A single project may have more than one CSM. Different CSM formulations
are used to depict exposure pathways for risk assessment, the site's geology or hydrogeology,
contaminant concentrations in surface or subsurface soils, or other conceptual models of contaminant
deposition, transport, and fate. Depending on the specifics of the project, CSMs may take the form of
graphical representations, cross-sectional maps, plan-view maps, complex representations of contaminant
source terms, migration pathways, and receptors, or simple diagrams or verbal descriptions. The team
uses the CSM(s) to direct field work that gathers the necessary information to close the information gaps
that stand in the way of making site decisions. Data not needed to infonn site decisions will not be
collected. (Although this sounds elementary, the one-size-fits-all approach used by many practitioners
routinely leads to the collection of costly data which are ultimately irrelevant to the project's outcome.)
The CSM will evolve as site work progresses and data gaps are filled. The CSM thus serves several
purposes: as a planning and organizing instrument, as a modeling and data interpretation tool, and as a
communication device among the team, the decision-makers, the stakeholders, and the field personnel.
Systematic planning provides the structure through which foresight and multi-disciplinary technical
expertise improves the scientific quality of the work and avoids blunders that sacrifice time, money, and
the public trust. It guides careful, precise communication among participants and compels them to move
beyond the ambiguities of vague, error-prone generalizations [5]. Systematic planning requires unspoken
assumptions to be openly acknowledged and tested in the context of site-specific constraints and goals,
anticipating problems and preparing contingencies. It should be required for all projects requiring the
generation or use of environmental data [6].
4. THE SECOND COMPONENT OF THE TRIAD: DYNAMIC WORK PLANS
When experienced practitioners use systematic planning combined with informed understanding about the
likely fate of pollutants in the subsurface and advanced technology, an extremely powerful strategy-
emerges for the effective execution of field activities. Terms associated with this strategy include
expedited, accelerated, rapid, adaptive, or streamlined site characterization. Its cornerstone is the use of
dynamic work plans. Formulated as a decision tree during the planning phase, the dynamic work plan
adapts site activities to track the maturing conceptual site model, usually on a daily basis. Contingency
plans are developed to accommodate eventualities that are considered reasonably likely to occur during
the course of site work, such as equipment malfunction, the unanticipated (but possible) discovery of
additional contamination, etc. Dynamic work plans have been championed and successfully demonstrated
for over 10 years by a number of parties [7, 8]. Success hinges on the presence of experienced
practitioners in the field to "'call the shots" based on the decision logic developed during the planning
stage and to cope with any unanticipated issues. For small uncomplicated sites, or for discrete tasks
within complex sites, project management can be streamlined so smoothly that characterization activities
blend seamlessly into cleanup activities.
Just as the design of a dynamic work plan requires the first component of the triad (systematic planning)
to choreograph activities and build contingencies, implementation of a dynamic work plan generally
requires the third member of the triad (real-time generation and interpretation of site data) so that data
results are available fast enough to support the rapidly evolving on-site decision-making inherent to
dynamic work plans.
67
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
5. THE THIRD COMPONENT: REAL-TIME ANALYSIS
Real-time decision-making requires real-time information. There are a variety of ways real-time data can
be generated, ranging from very short turnaround from a conventional laboratory (off-site analysis) to on-
site mobile laboratories using conventional analytical instrumentation to "hand-held" instrumentation set
up in the back of a van or under a tent in the field. For many projects, on-site analysis in some manner
will be the most cost-effective option, although this will always depend on many factors, including the
target analyte list and the nature of the decisions to be made at a particular project. On-site analysis can be
performed within the standard phased engineering approach; however, it does not achieve its full potential
for cost- and time-savings except in the context of dynamic work plans. All sampling and analysis designs
should be designed with thoughtful technical input from systematic planning, but the nature of field
analytical methods and the critical role they play in the context of dynamic work plans makes systematic
planning vital so that the most appropriate sampling and measurement tools are selected and suitably
operated.
Data collection is not an end in itself: its purpose is to supply information. There has been a counter-
productive tendency to fixate solely upon the quality of data points, without asking whether the
information quality and representativeness of the data set was either sufficient or matched to the planned
uses of the data. On-site analysis can never eliminate the need for traditional laboratory services; but the
judicious blending of intelligent sampling design, dynamic work plans, and on-site analysis,
supplemented by traditional laboratory testing as necessary, can assemble information-rich data sets much
more effectively than total reliance on fixed lab analyses. The lower costs and real-time information value
of field analysis permits much greater confidence in the representativeness of data sets due to greater
sampling density and the ability to delineate a hot spot or "chase a plume" in real-time [4]. When the
gathering of reliable information to guide defensible site decisions is a clear priority, field analytical
technologies offer a much more valuable contribution than is implied when the concept is downplayed as
"field screening." The cost advantages of on-site analysis extend well beyond possible "per sample"
savings, since the use of the integrated triad approach maximizes the chances that the project will be done
right the first time over the shortest possible time frame.
informative data sets that accurately represent true site conditions across the project's lifetime (from
assessment to characterization through remediation and close-out) never happen by accident. No matter
whether the on-site generated data are expected to be used for "screening" purposes or for "definitive"
decision-making, good analytical chemistry practice must be followed and QC protocols must be
designed carefully. Analytical chemists are the trained professionals best able to construct valid QC
protocols that will integrate: 1) the site-specific data needs and uses; 2) any site-specific matrix issues
and; 3) the strengths and limitations of a particular analytical technology. Ignoring these considerations
risks a chain of errors that waste effort and money: faulty data sets lead to erroneous conclusions, which,
in turn, lead to flawed site decisions and/or ineffectual remedial actions. Good decisions rely on
representative data sets that are of known quality. Therefore, the expertise of an analytical chemist must
go along when analytical methods are taken to the field, whether in absentia as a written site-specific
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) mat a technician will follow, or in person as an instrument operator
or supervising field chemist.
Field analytical chemistry has made significant advances in scientific rigor and credibility.
Computerization, miniaturization, photonics (e.g., lasers and fiber optics), materials research,
immunochemistry, microwave technologies and a host of other chemical, biological, and physical science
disciplines are contributing to a multiplicity of technology improvements and innovations for analytical
chemistry in general, and for the specialized practice of on-site analytical chemistry in particular. When
compared to the convenience and control offered by fixed laboratory analysis, field analysis offers unique
challenges to its practitioners, leading to the blossoming of a recognized subdiscipline. Field analysis now
has its own dedicated international conferences, a peer-reviewed journal (Field Analytical Chemistry and
Technology, published by Wiley InterScience), and university-based research centers. There is a small but
growing number of companies offering specialized on-site analytical services and consulting expertise to
the environmental community, and their professional standards and practices will be addressed by the
68
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
newly formalized Field Activities Committee within the National Environmental Laboratory Accredita-
tion Council (NELAC).
Environmental chemists are not alone in recognizing the potential of field analysis. Even the
pharmaceutical industry is taking their analytical methods to the field to screen for new drugs in marine
and terrestrial ecosystems. "Who would have thought we could do this much in situ now? When we first
started, people said we were crazy." marveled a University of Illinois chemistry professor. While
acknowledging that ''on-site analysis may seem the stuff of science fiction," he predicted mat the pace of
technological advances will make it commonplace for the pharmaceutical industry within five years [9].
Will the same be true for the environmental remediation industry?
On-site interpretation of data is greatly facilitated by decisions support software tools using classical
statistical analysis and geostatistical mapping algorithms. Laptop PCs may be used to manage data and
produce 2- or 3-dimensional images representing contaminant distributions, including an assessment of
the statistical reliability of the projections. Cost-benefit and risk-management analyses produced within
minutes can allow decision-makers to weigh options at branch points of the dynamic work plan, or to
select optimum sampling locations that can give the "most bang for the characterization buck" by
minimizing decision uncertainty. The graphical output of the software greatly facilitates meaningful
communication of site issues and decisions with regulators and the public. As with all tools, users need to
understand possible pitfalls and consult with experts as necessary to avoid misapplications that could lead
to faulty outputs.
6. EXPERIENCE WITH THE TRIAD APPROACH
In the early 1990s, the Department of Energy (DOE) articulated the concepts of the triad approach as
Expedited Site Characterization (ESC) [10]. In addition, DOE linked dynamic work plans with systematic
planning with the intent of speeding up Superfund site investigations and feasibility studies at DOE sites
in an approach called SAFER (Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration). Showing the
acceptance of this paradigm among remediation experts. ASTM has issued three guides describing
various applications of expedited or accelerated approaches [11. 12, 13].
In 1996-1997, EPA Region 1 and Tufts University coordinated with the U.S Air Force to conduct a
demonstration of a dynamic site investigation using real-time results generated by a mobile laboratory to
delineate residual soil contamination at Hanscom Air Force Base. The project showed that innovative
technologies combined with an adaptive sampling and analysis program could drastically reduce the time
and cost, while increasing the confidence, of site decisions [14].
Argonne National Laboratory's Environmental Assessment Division (EAD) uses Adaptive Sampling and
Analysis Programs (ASAP) to expedite data collection in support of hazardous waste site characterization
and remediation. ASAPs rely on "real-time" data collection and field-based decision-making, using
dynamic work plans to specify the way sampling decisions are to be made, instead of determining the
exact number and location of samples before field work begins. EAD focuses on the decision support
aspects of ASAP data collection, including the management and visualization of data to answer questions
such as: What's the current extent of contamination? What's the uncertainty associated with this extent?
Where should sampling take place next? When can sampling stop? A variety of software tools are used to
facilitate real-time data collection and interpretation, including commercial databases, standard
geographical information system (GIS) packages, customized data visualization and decision support
software based on Bayesian statistics, and Internet applications to foster real-time communication and
data dissemination. The EAD is documenting that ASAP-style programs consistently yield cost savings of
more than 50% as compared to more traditional sampling programs [15].
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) began institutionalizing an integrated approach to
systematic planning under the name 'Technical Project Planning (TPP) Process." Although it does not
address dynamic work plans and on-site analysis directly, the TPP engineering manual stresses the
importance of a multi-disciplinary team that performs "comprehensive and systematic planning that will
69
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
accelerate progress to site closeout within all project constraints" [16]. A 1997 review of 11 initial
projects performed under the TPP approach demonstrated the following successes:
• Met all schedules (and '"train-wreck" and "break-neck" milestones);
• Improved project focus and communications;
• Improved defensibility and implementability of technical plans;
• Eliminated "excessive" data needs and identified "basic" data needs;
• Increased satisfaction of USAGE's Customers;
• Improved relations and communication with regulators; and
• Documented cost savings of at least $4,430,000 (total savings for all 11 projects) [17].
In addition, a well-documented USAGE project using the triad approach in combination with
Performance-Based Measurement System (PBMS) principles (for both the field analytical and fixed
laboratory methods) achieved site closure while demonstrated an overall project savings of 50% ($589K
actual project cost vs. $1.2M projected cost) [18].
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection created the Dry cleaning Solvent Cleanup Program
(DSCP) to address contamination from small dry cleaner shops. Under the DSCP, rapid site
characterizations are performed using on-site mobile laboratories and direct push technologies to
characterize soil and ground water contamination, assess cleanup options, and install permanent
monitoring wells, all in an average of 10 days per site. Site characterization costs have been lowered by
an estimated 30 to 50 percent when compared to conventional assessments [19].
Whether the focus of a site investigation is ground water, surface water, sediment, soil, or waste
characterization, or a combination thereof, the triad approach has been shown to achieve site closeout
faster and cheaper than traditional phased approaches. The question becomes: What are the barriers that
hinder wider utilization of this approach? Past reasons no doubt included the limited selection of rapid
turnaround field analytical and software tools so vital for implementing dynamic work plans efficiently.
As described earlier however, recent years have seen a growing array of analytical options able to meet
many types of data quality needs. Technology advancement would be even more brisk if a paradigm of
logical evaluation, acceptance, and use by practitioners and regulators were the norm. To benefit from the
tools we currently have and boost our available options, we must modernize habits that were established
during the infancy of the environmental remediation industry. Other papers in this series address the
limitations of prescriptive requirements for analytical methods and analytical data quality [4, 20].
7. REFERENCES
1. National Research Council. 1997. Committee on Innovative Remediation Technologies. Innovations
in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC. pp. 40-75. http://www.nap.edu
2. U.S. EPA. 2000. EPA Order 5360.1 CHG 2: Policy and Program Requirements for the Mandatory
Agency-wide Quality System. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, May.
http:'7www.epa.gov/qualityl/qs-docs/5360-l.pdf
3. U.S. EPA. 2000. EPA 5 3 60 A1: EPA Quality Manual for Environmental Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, May.
http://www.epa.gov/qualityl/qs-ciocs/5360.pdf
4. Crumbling, D.M. 2001. Current Perspectives in Site Remediation and Monitoring: Applying the
Concept of Effective Data to Environmental Analyses for Contaminated Sites. EPA 542-R-01-013.
September, http://cl.nin. org/tiopersp/
70
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
5. Crumbling, D.M. 2001. Current Perspectives in Site Remediation and Monitoring: Clarifying DOO
Terminology Usage to Support Modernization of Site Cleanup Practices. EPA 542-R-01-014.
October. http://cluin. org/tiopersp/
6. U.S. EPA. 1998. EPA Office of Inspector General Audit Report: EPA Had Not Effectively
Implemented Its Superfund Quality Assurance Program, Report No. E1SKF7-08-0011-8100240,
September 30, 1998 http://www.epa.gov:80/oigearth/audit/list998/8100240.pdf
7. Burton, J.C. 1993. Expedited Site Characterization: A Rapid, Cost-Effective Process for Preremedial
Site Characterization, Superfund XIV, Vol. II, Hazardous Materials Research and Control Institute,
Greenbelt, MD, pp. 809-826.
8. Robbat, A. 1997. A Guideline for Dynamic Workplans and Field Analytics: The Keys to Cost-
Effective Site Characterization and Cleanup, sponsored by President Clinton's Environmental
Technology Initiative, through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://clu-in.org/download/char/dynwkpln.pdf
9. Drollette, D. 1999. Adventures in drug discovery. In Photonics Spectra, September 1999, pp. 86 - 95.
10. DOE. 1998. Expedited Site Characterization. Innovative Technology Summary Report, OST
Reference #77. Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy. December 1998.
http://ost.em.doe.gov/ifd/ost/pubs/cmstitsr.htm. See also
http://www.etd.ameKlab.gov/etd/technologies/proiects/esc/mdex.html
11. ASTM. 1998. Standard Practice for Expedited Site Characterization ofVadose Zone and Ground
Water Contamination at Hazardous Waste Contaminated Sites. D6235-98. Conshohocken, PA.
www.astm.org
12. ASTM. 1998b. Standard Guide for Accelerated Site Characterization for Confirmed or Suspected
Petroleum Releases. E1912-98. Conshohocken, PA. www.astjn.org
13. ASTM. 1996. Standard Provisional Guide for Expedited Site Characterization of Hazardous Waste
Contaminated Sites, PS85-96. Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org
14. U.S. EPA. 1998. Innovations in Site Characterization Case Study: Hanscom Air Force Base, Operable
Unit 1 (Sites 1,2, and 3). Washington. DC. EPA 542-R-98-006. See also
http://'clu-in. org/charl_edu. cfm#site_char
15. U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Assessment Division (EAD) Adaptive Sampling and
Analysis Program (ASAP) vvebpage: http://www.ead.anl.gov/project/dspt_topicdetail.cfm?topicid=23
16. USAGE. 1998. Environmental Quality: Technical Project Planning (TPP) Process (Engineering
Manual 200-1-2), Washington. DC. August 1998.
http://www.iisace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-mamials/em200-l-2/toc.htni
17. USAGE. 1999. Personal communication with Heidi Novotny, PE., Technical Liaison Manager, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers HTRW Center of Expertise, July 22, 1999.
18. U.S. EPA. 2000. Innovations in Site Characterization Case Study: Site Cleanup of the Wenatchee
Tree Fruit Test Plot Site Using a Dynamic Work Plan. Washington, DC, EPA 542-R-00-009. August.
See also http:/ clu-in.ors'charl edu.cfm#site char
71
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
19. Applegate. J.L. and D.M. Fitton. 1998. Rapid Site Assessment Applied to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection's Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program, in Proceedings Volume for the
First International Symposium on Integrated Technical Approaches to Site Characterization. Argomie
National Laboratory, pp. 77-92. Paper available at http: • cluin.org charl_edu.cfm#mode_expe
20. Crumbling, D.M., 2001. Current Perspectives in Site Remediation and Monitoring: The Relationship
Between SW-846, PBMS, and Innovative Analytical Technologies. EPA 542-R-01-015. August.
http: '/'cluin. org/tiopersp/
72
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
8. PRESENTATION VISUALS -presented by Eric Koglin and Deana M. Crumbling
Tilt* TtnuJ Appmacli
A New Strategy for I tncicni S^L-
Characterization
Eric Koglfn
Dcnna Crumbling
1 s Emiromtienuil Protection Agency
Lji Vcyas. Nevada and Wttslimyion, DC
ni lying {'onrcpl for 1'Hiitl
iiliiim"
-.1*111 TijM.1 (ihillllHh
cwitli* dtcivum uiiiU n liikral'k w eraU tmcurliiinli-
WpKilu- ni.i|i< >irl..-l.iinli.- . i.^--»Li.M .-n .-n.i i
MiMiifin lilt: »t» irti:j:> 1i> liiillliltv cir:ll nu^.4 MIKtH-.
•
\IIO>MK ,il uiwenultitj i V'arioui tlrabtgiei BViflnhlij to
•JBUf a »\ midml malrtial •KartMtlB ITCOI I u M
Purpttse:
• To articulate clear gtvil-, I'M ilic pjoicci
• Tu dkr\ ix.' L-usi-cflcclnc sinilci.:!'.:. ihm can
I n develop i» sei of decision njlc-1* thai «an
be used i« the field
S> stemalic Planning
i •. rti
I vi sitruUyv L-lf.irlv .I.Mi'n:.l
Ueilhft {II.IKv!
IJt-iii i'. ..ii.-^ i,-J iL-ii,i»nc\ or ujK
Pryjeiet-spceifit Cunccptuul Site
JJciilitie< Lbla l iiliTtnmUrfli luqrv
.. . .
lialu iiiJi.iriiuJiinn cap; titled
.I.H.i n:l-:K"iniUiciii ynjiH
73
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Planning
*e proj
team b> gcmnr ih
rigjll pCLFpk linr.
chcmisj Indrologisi
geologist clc.
• (iroup Similar Data Needs
Idjntifj Data Need Overlaps
, SM :h. ii- iw'.j.i n
uni..: I'hs.'isiiRequiremiriHv
G'iV DJU Need*
cu ] \ivlint! [>ala and Build
("onccplunl Site Model
11 .Mr :''~'ing
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Seven Steps of DQQ Planning
Step I Slule lliir frubkin iu fie Aildicionl
Slcp ,1 jtkiuil\ All lilt' JujiuK In S|K ] k.Fcii|(Hii.s>
Sltf p 4 Nil r i irvi I lie I ii'Uisd.if ie* ivf MIC- Sti»,K
Slcp T- Ik'vclnp f'k'Uii'-iiin KiiLul's)
Slcp 11 IX-vdnp ( 'liL-rU;iiiilS L' to moct cleanup
LsUlitssh clean-up iinaJs. nutto rcyuLilar
concurrence
Evaluating Resources and
Conslrainls
I h.'lL*rinitniiu Ihu- hiuloi:t
Generating Rc-al-timc O«£1 ••. I
75
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
What is a Dynamic Work Plan?
I>CtCUtflCtttil1l{Ml Of MIC !A "iUliialK! JltilMtllHg prDCC>»
Ilic colleclion H" stem)
L^-aluatcd tn the C4.ni.tcxi of ilic W.X*s
I !*ed to modrly the d\ niimic unrk pbn and
ifncccssan.'. plan the next plus;: of
76
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Project Closure
* Achieved when project goals satisfied
Sil'c reslnrvd
"" "JllhWttl I'nt fifllK'i.tal ik'SigN
IftiUi pnlhcrctl I'nr nini.il nswtwnieiii ci( In/urd
Ihila ualliLToJ ILM |IIIIU-"ILT:I" riXYiilciiiiiiu. dcsiui
Field-Based Site Characterization
Philosophy
» Stream hue the site chanactcn^gho-u and
response action processes
• Minrmi/c mobili/auotts to a srte
« Prepuce more daUi on a site at lower coRts
retain e to com entu.in:i I approaches
• Produce data nn nc.iT real lime
• Produce mcns-urahk daUi iiaSiu
Summary
• The components of'1 riad have been around
for years
The cdlkctivc. approach is run el as
compared id the ijadiiional suited approach
• I lie use of near real time dala an s.ile lias
been rureiv done
' IHnJ Handbook*
W mUat IHW-J "IV*|frt ^I
nrar Ftrm-AoM in TrijteT™
Oafa Auwwiwut and Viwwilfcation Tn«il»
\v\p intf rprct djitii itiati:
VI '"I"!' Mr*i!tt-nti^ unil R^
Corrrnt I
11
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND MONITORING:
EUROPEAN APPROACH & SUMMARY OF NICOLE PISA WORKSHOP
Wouter Gevaerts1
Site Characterization and Monitoring
European Approach
&
Summary of Nicole PISA 'Mxkshop
W osier Get asrls i Arcodn-Gstta i
Chairman NICOLE SPG
MUViMi
1 NICOLE Background
» I'X t-jffnvtrmr >plithlo
kxhlULjl JU|U-lllK(Ull
..., i
- II injHul^fprmirtfimtlltii v» (irKcHed tt*. m«r
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
2 Europe and ao*l pollution
Ell tat bnrdh noted on nil pdlwlim < wd
this v, HI MI chnofic Hnnediotoh ' i
» |-'JTii|VJ|| S«'ll I'J|«T
|upa
I'll triwillll.
^f 2 European Environmental Agency
• I I? tliatti »u*.
> *.*• kdk
• P»«|.~^_
r
'
t.^_ , ^-
?
2 Site investigators : EE<<
I
2 Europe and soil pollution (2)
»K|
«* i«l p- !»ll ml
lln- ,1^. IIIIL- a) :•.
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
2 European networks
. ., I
- ii viii.n Fmna
•
2 NICOLE Network Meeting on 18-19
April 2C02
OOBT-QTIstTIVE Slll-l <. I lAkACHIRISATli.«
I'lTCUl ItO
•itntrtKbic «w
•n • ,, I ..i .-ii In I. I, .".
3 Site investigations : 2 small
examples
* Hut It* Nui* PiM uiH'MI>^ Nmtlii Mti j.knl
I ut'ii' Ui Jtt dif^ Im u llttii w liul tfl»tt: f^fta Jitol
-ile SIH.i members k> •nU; m • .llci 1. < J
•' , ••,! I.HI..H
4 Common Fomm
• til* iHii irf u6nmt\tm ml
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
*
»2tomiMiBf *t
fcftnt
.',
-nan
*IH
1191
Alt
aas
Ml
nagg
RMita ihirtc^lMi n«ll Mlcfl
•••
ft. Ml
. i
WC
•raj
SB
I«B
CD
utt
f}H
us
KB
«03
AC
ma
2100
T3H
ems
a
4 Current technology
dir«i ptoli.
• s.iil uu utiqiuf anh BBR ptipttir • It IhiiiinN!
CMTiiltrf AflSw*q«i tMtneeo aaoBkie
•Garnil >UMB id •MI ilntkmJ : •c
u wlive m
5 Almost proven but almost not
ifsed/accepted
Mf
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
,. -.,,
5 t MIP (Membrane Interface Probe)
• llAPRUIl W? r- i
AKM&
to
51 ROST fRe^pid Optics! Screening
Ttsol)
Li
iJL
to
5 T Existing technology
il'inniia to Mr Nauhaui FujXcl
-«•!
MP47T Cm (Mo*-) rf ' K« PtaBi
5 t Samp
.. . • .1
82
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
TK*IH|IM
52 Geophysics
• in u. u*0. hill
-ii-
u jfcnul Hl*« ul
5.3 Gecstelistics - Optimal sample
number
•OCll ' IJr RHINE* . Suite* I
• S»£|:
Illl.. i . l nnllS III ' '
i ml MtnafEiini'-
;•.«•
5,4 Strategies in investigation
IBiMlu to Dr G Te-Jtitfi
-
MLP1 | >*Ut
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
6 Non pf oven technology
Ree.
high
. Lo« of uettlnQ
M*y t* 1% nu*w it h> Hn Mi on •
moi» or tau ngutar bult
6 Flux chamber
6 A k3t of technology in developownt
Inr CNA^L no*) MC
• bc-scnsoia IDF Niai
HMIHI
• fieciForec tonguei and note*
i:n(K-.l niiid
B Directives
convenlional sMe
t^A
use Of Field sc <«nlrg
9
o
0
0 °
Q (i
a 0
3^
6 MACROSENSE
MCWIS
Total Soil Managemert Cosl
yl^
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
7 Conclusion
* M.. teal l
+ t K-III. ,1
• Fiiurioal ipcculi -•
nMuitomnt TIII& trcca = A!H* t^iiiuuuiL uiii-n,
7 Conclusion : Future ^ Hopeftjlly r
Ifchanha to &rncn Btuistcns MAHl
_o_
• -
t>«r f*^?-
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
APPENDIX A
87
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
uTllBU OuaiDS
CnuirvuwiuMtal
ermroonwfTis
Sdld Wasi* and
Emergency Response
(51026)
EPA-542-R-OG-OD9
August 2000
www.
sluin.org
Innovations in Site
Characterization
Case Study: Site Cleanup of the
Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot Site
Using a Dynamic Work Plan
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
EPA-542-R-00-009
August 2000
Innovations in Site Characterization
Case Study: Site Cleanup of the Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
Site Using a Dynamic Work Plan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
Washington, DC 20460
August2000
89
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
Notice
This material has been funded wholly by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract Number 6S-W6-006S. 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 Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP), P.O. Box42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419; telephone (800) 490-9198 or (513)
489-8190 (voice) or (513) 489-8695 (facsimile). Refer to document EPA-542-R-00-009, Innovations in
Site Characterization Case Study: Site Cleanup of the Wenatchee Tree Fruit Tent Plot Site Using a
Dynamic Work Plan. This document can also be obtained electronically through EPA's Clean Up
Information (CLU-IN) System on the World Wide Web at http://cluin. 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, DC 20460; telephone
(703)603-9910.
90
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
Foreword
This case study is one in a series designed to provide cost and performance information for innovative
tools that supportless costly and more representative site characterization. These case studies will
include reports on new technologies as well as novel applications of familiar tools or processes. They are
prepared to offer operational experience and to further disseminate information about ways to improve
the efficiency of data collection at hazardous waste sites. The ultimate goal is enhancing the cost-
effectiveness and defensibility of decisions regarding the disposition of hazardous waste sites.
Acknowledgm ents
This document was prepared by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for the United
States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Technology Innovation Office under EPA Contract No.
68-W6-0068. Special acknowledgment is given to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District,
and Garry Struthers Associates, Inc. for their thoughtful suggestions and support in preparing this case
study.
91
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
Table of Contents
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Acknowledgments iii
CASE STUDY ABSTRACT vi
TECHNOLOGY QUICK REFERENCE SHEET vii
EnviroGard"* DDT Immurioassay Test Kit vii
RaPID Assay* Cyclodienes Immunoassay Test Kit ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
SITE INFORMATION 2
Identifying Information 2
Background 2
Site Logistics/Contacts 5
MEDIA AND CONTAMINANTS 6
Matrix Identification 6
Site Geology/Stratigraphy 6
Contaminant Characterization 6
Site Characteristics Affecting Characterization Cost or Performance 8
SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND REMEDIATION PROCESS 11
Systematic Planning and Sampling Work Plan 11
CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES 21
Sampling Design and Methodology 21
Analytical Technologies and Method Modifications 24
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QQ Measures 27
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 30
Performance Objectives 30
Strategy and Technologies Used to Attain the Performance Goals 30
COST COMPARISON 32
OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED 34
REFERENCES 35
92
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
List of Figures
Figure 1. Topographic map showing the location of the WTFREC relative to the town
of Wenatchee and the State of Washington 2
Figure 2. Site Plan for the WTFREC Test Plot 3
Figure 3. Disposal on the ground 3
Figure 4. Burial of concentrated pesticide products 3
Figure 5. Site plan showing the orientation of the rows and columns, sample locations,
and the two focused removal (RF) areas 10
Figure 6. Flow chart showing the integration of site characterization and remediation and
use of the dynamic work plan 12
List of Tables
Table 1. Established Contaminants of Concern for the WTFREC Test Plot Remediation 7
Table 2. Analytical Methods 17
Table 3. Sensitivities of Field and Fixed Laboratory Methods Relative to Cleanup Levels 18
Table 4. Example. Removal Decision Matrix for Shallow Disposal 23
Table 5. Immunoassay Test Kit Performance Criteria 24
Table 6. Modifications to Reference Methods 26
Table 7. Summaiy of Field Duplicate and Equipment Blank QC Samples 29
Table 8. Time Frame for Activities 31
Table 9. Cost Comparison 33
93
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
CASE STUDY ABSTRACT
Wenatchee Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center (WTFREC) Test Plot
Wenatchee, Washington
Site Name and Location:
Wenatchee Tree Fruit Research and
Extension Center (WTFREC) Test
Plot
Wenatchee. Washington
Period of Operation:
1966-early 1980s
Operable Unit:
A 2f 1 GQ-square foot test plot area
used for pesticide disposal testing
Point of Contact:
Greg Gervais
Quality Assurance Representative
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-
Seattle District
4735 East Marginal Way South
Seattle, WA 981 34
Sampling & Analytical Technologies:
1 , Systematic planning process
2, Dynamic workplan
3 , Direct push soil sampling
4. Field measurement imrnunoassay
analysis (IA) technologies combined
with limited fixed laboratory analyses
Media and Contaminants:
Soil contaminated with organochlonne
pesticides, organophosphorus
pesticides, carbamate pesticides, and
paraquat
CERCLIS #:
None
Current Site Activities:
Washington State University test and
laboratory facilities; local residential
development
Technology Demonstrator:
Garry Struthers Associates, Inc.
3150Richards Road, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 93005-4446
(425)519-0300
Number of Samples Analyzed during Investigation:
A total of 271 samples were analyzed for the focused removal, characterization, final confirmation, waste profile, and
wastewater analysis phases of this project. Roughly two-thirds of analyses were performed in the field by IA kits. Field and
laboratory QC samples were also analyzed during this project.
Cost Savings:
The site characterization and cleanup approach used in this project resulted in savings of about 50% (over $500,000) over
traditional site characterization and remediation methods, which rely on fixed-base laboratory analysis with multiple rounds
of mobilization/demobilization to accomplish site cleanup.
Results:
Project was completed successfully and cost-effectively, The WTFREC test plot area was remediated, and shown to a high
degree of certainty that regulatory cleanup standards were achieved. The regulator, the client, and local stakeholders were
very satisfied with the project's outcome.
Description:
This case study describes an approach to site cleanup that includes the use of systematic planning, on-site measurement
technologies combined with limited fixed labors to ly analyses, and rapid decision-making (using a dynamic work pla.n) to
facilitate quick cleanup, Site characterization information, obtained in the field through the use of IAkits, was used to guide
removal activities by means of an adaptive sampling strategy. This approach permitted a cost-effective cleanup of the
contaminated site.
94
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
TEOINOLOGV Q1.1CK REFERENCE SHEET
Knvirotiard* DDT lniiuuno^^iv Test Kil
- Sludy: Silt f :\vMtup of ilif W««iVfi-||ft- Trt-f Frull Ti*( Plol Kile
•A Jhuamic Work Plan
Technology MMM Envi»C*«i* DDT lannnefeuk.v Ttrt KM
$m..y *l C«, Slw)v', IMtrn...** [.bnu* i»
Pr.j^R-lr.
Sure--Hir.p in-tH.'
'i.'i i -p:rr- !'-'>: -tf'li'tf riuilitt
•.-h.TXTTW.Ttrr> r-.'mt'vil
u.i-r... tt#T*^.liM\ ,«>j
Ji^.^.ll i.f :H.'||>
^>Jlll^lllJt:<<:.i 'Aid* LM >j
J,.| i>1>:i |«.:i...Jr.
i, u»K-|K'ijl [nfi-rnMtir.n Pni<.-iii*il
SffTI i.pltlllilsl hx= Cnl»-iT»*.» i-
r«j>iKi:k'* in f'A\ ll.Tklc L»JIII|.IIIL-fi. tedtjK
vu i^j> •Jn.i»ion< i:> i* ui i'le
il.il ih.pi"J 1^-14: lln. !•_--! Li
[i^jl < mlrsul < -irf SH.iiSii l>u ':J t.ni|,|i.-.
,t T, ,:*.;..:,
r 'l.m Irr |il!l ij>,| -tp!r)u"i
•; -.-iC'l^l. TiTi]:. ,ni?r£ tlw ;jsc-Ji,:.Jy.
UrJ r i JivcJ 1 j iji Uijiv ^ ijh >r> I n Uiili1, >J_U
itKX-lC'ls. .til. ill Ir.trw ,,zli .il-M.-Uv'.-.l I«JI *i-
e.g.. ttiifii'.-tb'JiJX r-riuui J. 'J,i>fc MT.^CSJI^I
,ck,lll>
l-ljJr«.l^rS.o,plrH.|«"V^- ,«,-„,.!.
lYijir.:! ft,* Hi™tdi,u»
Sp«ln,»rt«rr«!:
S'l nil |'.-r ff icSun, r.r
11! J lU av.lil.J4t ,|j
SJ" J«v loV*« .TTinnO,
C*n'fM'j-, v 1krf»i c»i n ^./hi-iftl
1 ijli-iT C ml :
-Tfrn\ ^""IT^I
• ;iil|iU' |IIH hik < '.J'.
.:•-!-.(
1>< r,^i l;ji jt iniri'i pn.ilK' N i^'i 1 '"'-» hrd"i K I!K rn."*:»il x"i.l J:<% li;.i;,)l ll.'.- 1 .]l-iii.d '.I L-iJH'.lil'j
|J;K |';>IU !.>.-. ui t.J
iiriiple^ rein ilif -ji;. OK PK:WX! leini "kieiiiiuif.1Uu i( CJl «»t kn r-;«jh c-l 5
tiVT«-x i (Mil i -.uiiltl niJe.'AJc £ul UK >Jv- -f^jl^V. (.krurfJlp Ic
.oniiKJji.l ic L' ZJ|>I l)|:f-, it IXll|)> lij«! l>ct~iL-v«:ivili:il
i.f llli*. |r.:jti:t 'A-.n llutf Ik's il'JlLi! ikh rimi.'i irt-i -A1:*.-: rt.'. ii-/>
,-1 IMI .11 ii-i', iJili.
AII iinpiiii.ui: JHI*-:L :
iA :r,: K: i«.' M
lK-C'.iL-.i, -Sll i.:iir ll «.- l.lllLT pliA'CH •:!'' {)K: phifl^.l l-'-^t c\ijllplf.. i! < ll A' .L*|*T qiiiU
I'rrm if»- uvii-Tflv «i!r -nlli*? l\-«? • nr«.-«iiK'*Vg
ITx- pf cs icion .>-hit:^.V'l '*»>•• itK t^^ Vil *± f- i^^^.;^.) H^* OK .1
il.< 'In Jc- >junpk> 'Aiiti rutli .-" I'lhvflihis-iot !«!'! mnfle--
i-<-.VI'ii '•»»!,-.!. |}«
I,,lv 1 Jtlo, liirt, i
m.- j. K PI • '.• Jix- L-r ,-i^1, ..i,i :i MK-i ui Iti'l :> ...f .V',,.
^.^I>i«,,.^IC^
V.-lll.r*jl ••"•It** i:\rr
5,4" |Kr IJ.p.*:"t >1«iu i
iKf--'!
'1 liTmshp* A(li«.'(^|
•', Kr-,:h ol 1 ,'' iw\A 'iiripM*
LMI||I| »«.- i\Hiir*'J J'jJ
jjii.-j'r.l ui 4 h^-I .U1. ''•• uii:
r--il --.<•-
95
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
TEOINOLOGV Q1.1CK REFERENCE SHEE
r 1)1)1' Irani lino-assay Test Kit
r.>ciiTi ul < 'eamu-Kinl iutumaavu ilDfatioan** viltd urfAuKUii ItfUUt
TJ,ll .rv.lil.iHr
11 ; Pcii::fc.k>i Ifccv
N,.w.wk r*\> I""'T
I'l'lUvlfllr if AiM^rK J Opcnlii'U
init'jji:.i.|! vii: J...T. i I-J 1 SA i ji-ii H«I 1 <.-:„ LVH 1 ::> 1
•inl irlaj? j C L.tij|. k Ur^rfi
l^ullul i"ji j4^_|. T'l :• iii.l
T-'T tf.' -n T, ril ?r: tnnv .TllhT r#-^.r«>rK5iirifK
f-';m n JtiiilKHT"1!
TriWif | W'fl»|Tf ID'»1*
II1 01 •'.'"' •• 17 h |"J'H' i -• iKv>V''l 10 '-li.te- I!K }--fi!-
v.rlK-u.Mri^lpo-.r
It \l hi mA' t'
.M ]^,1 "Mil ijL'K ^ I'lJIIJII C !&Mi :-f t^'J^I.' Ib IL'.f J.'L'il IW
4;-mp'V" 7* rill tit.- kxl kil
Apfklicafclr
Snjl -T-J W.rrr
W ir^ifi ti^nfTirif^Jl
R.r<|UUltt^ Sp^Llil
SiuJI'. uliuitc^ ut
r:-vllliA>jl UVtJ l'j< -Alnplc
tui-j'k: •. I'Klllc
AtuJvl-r^ \1rjMiiin*lilc
r:'!:|J • "'5 -i;; • kn
i:-l*. I'.nntk-i
Ol hrr friravml A.f cnruci iTJnrti-d-»« lnr*irmnlH«:
Rjytt- ,if Tbf tnsbp*
' p I1" 1 " itfnpk •• viii V i',-^-r><- 1 .li oif.' tirirt. '.villi
fv--iili* .i'. ailil 1; in.'" tiL'fji^i.
96
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
TEOINOLOGV Q1.1CK REFERENCE SHEET
RuPII) Assay* <'vclodiencs liunmnnimav "lest Kit
- Sludy: Silt Qvaiiup of ilif W««ivfi-||ft- Trt-f Frull Tk*l Ploi Silt-
•A Jhuamic Work Plan
Twhnolofiy >••< Rjf'ID Ass.iv* Cyclodkncs buwiMttdnv TV* Kit
Sutmarv of C'une&tody'j rrtf-jtiiiuDK lnrti«i.«£lu»
Pn,j,*R-lr.
>!.'<: r-p:rr- !'-'>: -tf'li'tf iiiu'liw
UiilM. X-lb" Jl.ii ICllH'Vlj.
i, ii»K-|i-riJI Inf trin jrtnn Pm
SffTI \t ITii ilsl riX= CnTKirflMr-
^iMi'.iif'i''. 'lij'-r i«> ".15 iiijit.
1 > liiu* tlto: r.i-v Hlililv. lln. tl'"t p-T.:Hi<.-. r,r
SI'S «)iV id tS • 'nionC'i
U?™?!,^
Sllr -S,,«f*t. .U«^.'1>,«*0 A«l,^«l.
lU-fc>( kll i> inkiJ^ujJl'. "Uj>cJ I|( ."'•^li.iJil-', I|K in^UiJ
Vf. j;,i li:\t-.!ll^-( JLI-, -LiJj? ItMIIi lln. XllL', MlC fi;tt|L~cl IL' UN -.bu'lLTlLlIICiI llt.rf :l ^'^
iiT H ' ^In rr^vlt1 |»|oi 'iT-'Til iiiilk'.cr lli;* ~i~*' ^ilf-ajwc il *• t'
\xjh-r:' til iliib- fti>i|fcl <.viv ili.it ll" •: ir*n U iklcnini;* ir-ii v. ?t-
... ,„-.<, VJ .*iriii(! rh- l.i->'r r<--!*"> of '!>• r<">'^
»M-
£>l>[''i\ • t'K.rw -i-'ri^iiivil:, an K|~!^WI| in+r'1;
K Jl.'jilj. lltr 1 t:-O> lit 1 CV'.I HJ *• 'I'1"
)ih^f ;v(l:.fwiK pM ciik-. •: in V >i»:>l l&c.iJfx,**
kll K^lllt^ 'AVti: ..-|«lll|>U>-ll III r^li'll lllH<.*'.J4V
^HhVi^T^iir^HiT*'1"'^1'"' 'tm^'
TnliJl I nil 1hfr Snmptr jpprnv 1-7 " |wr oinpk
-...-.i.-J..,
l.ulnr f ml
^HK^^'
tt.oj=i in .iikt TI.I
pili«I ^n. l>. •]! it: '.£ •{
i^r.- ;-:>lli.KV.-- Li -.-1
-.:.!, IlLTi'H X'>l III l^-lll:
k.lirpl.-.vlfr, :,r
^•vi't-.w'!'';""tK-'!i^!--
Mi-(:(f.iilLti.«-lilc'vJ';" lit; !'.•>•; l.ll >»u l»t-:*Jlr', ||HT mil1, -l> 'il .1 1 .in ul
il.< 'In Jc- -iin|'k> '•'•iiti rutli .'* \ sbjiihi-iol f«|i| '•uncle-- TiF- I'.-l.l-i,.- [..-roiin
•lilteleikC .4 II* Jlijilli. ifci 1 j^r J tiun. VK- ILI 1 1 i.':U I-JI :\KX 1 I I Jtlo, liirt, i
lie j- K I'l • V Jix- L-r SV. ni,| :i u;c.i ui ftl'l :< -.-f '"•,
W (rHI^ Dl!t|l4t>al < 'M
^7IJ%|1*tlHlIt'
T^uruM-.Ufc^:
A Ut-Ji LI| L' iuelJ -iiii|ik>
iiidL,>^v:il in iti*2l .]j". 'f". uit:
97
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
TEOINOLOGV Q1.1CK REFERENCE SHEET
RuPII) Assay* <'vclodiencs !iuinunn;maY Test Kit fconlinued)
GettrialCeniibrititi lufmuuBuu ilciforiauli»» vtttl ru «f Auguri ItfUUt
TJ,ll .rv.lil.iHr
Slr.ti'pt.' f 'ui^jififl i^ •:. lr«; TVrT< Ir^l 1; il is nr< ^pi'rirK" for jr 4 .1 ii^ulCiii ] .J'd Ih. x-Tilli1.
IAV.-U ..JK L-:III "; -UHv' > 1 iLiIad* '. -^ -h-H' . ijiJ'^"'v: jl DDnri
i>:^dl^>^l~-illic i^otn-l-Ji--'
11^^ Ifi K 1 '.L*;-! I'll 4--1UJ jtjllll • V CIIJ.'t IIK-llllkcii
Lu ti-'Jv'jl-ullr^Mf .l>fc j'. ii-i Ib-A i jr Ji_l t_l: l^1-*mi
rri'lli:K>;l ;*•.! j*: ;rji'fc:.ly .-l>- |K|.J JiJ ifet uitlli.f
Oil rty; tMrjn" ''.V>^ii j -rilor-ij*1' ':\~,f\l£ P.!, (ill".* l«
|n.;- I'l.inc.
• ' • i r
!•:-, i,k-- ci.,,ni-t-l,> rf '. .i.M '.rLlillk; k..| kil
'' '. i ITI^VB i-i ->••! .in J
1 S ii el u jij^ i» lii *•;•)!.
Siv \~>fi'.i>, 1'. \k-llir,f 1" II
rrviihi j. ,~iil jNr IPI 'Hi n iMr«>.
98
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ^^^^^~^^^^^~
This case study describes an approach to site cleanup that includes systematic planning, on-site
measurement technologies combined with limited fixed laboratory analyses, and rapid decision-making
using a dynamic work plan to facilitate quick cleanup. The integration of site characterization, on-site
measurements, on-site remedial decision-making, and remedial action resulted in the expedited and cost-
effective cleanup of a site contaminated with pesticides.
The test plot area of the Wenatchee Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center (WTFREC) contained
soils contaminated with organochlorine pesticides, organophosphorus pesticides, and other pesticides due
to agriculture-related research activities conducted from 1966 until the mid-1980s. In 1997, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) implemented an integrated site characterization and remediation
project at the site. This approach permitted characterization, excavation, and segregation of soil based on
the results of rapid on-site analyses employing commercially-available immunoassay testing products.
Key to the project's success was a pilot test that assessed the suitability of the on-site analytical methods.
Site-specific contaminated soil was analyzed by both immunoassay (IA) methods and by traditional fixed
laboratory methods. The results of the pilot test demonstrated the applicability of the DDT and
cyclodiene pesticide IA methods and provided comparability data that the project team used to develop
site-specific action levels that wouldguide on-site decision-making using the IA results. The IA action
levels were refined during the course of project implementation as additional comparability data sets
(composed of matched LA and fixed laboratory results) became available.
A soil excavation profile was developed in the field using the analytical results according to a decision
matrix developed by the USACE. Several phases of field activities were conducted under a dynamic
work plan framework using an adaptive sampling strategy. Characterization and cleanup were
accomplished within a single 4-month field mobilization, and the entire project cost was about half the
cost estimated according to a more traditional site characterization and remediation scenario relying on
multiple rounds of field mobilization, sampling, sample shipment, laboratory analysis, and data
assessment. The costs of waste disposal were significantly reduced by using field analyses to
characterize and segregate wastes that required costly incineration from other wastes that were suitable
for less expensive disposal methods. The "surgical" removal of contaminated materials ensured that
closure testing would demonstrate regulatory compliance to a high degree of certainty, while making
field activities such as sample collection, sample analysis, soil removal, soil segregation, and final
disposal of soil and wastewater highly efficient and effective.
The key features of the project that contributed to its success included:
Systematic planning accomplished by a team representing the USACE, EPA, the site owners, and
state regulators with the appropriate mix of skills and decision-making authority.
• A conceptual site model based on a review of historical records from the site.
A dynamic work plan that permitted the field team to make real-time decisions on the basis of
data generated in the field.
• The pilot study that demonstrated the utility of the field analyses and provided data that were
used to establish site-specific action levels.
An adaptive sampling and remediation strategy that relied on the combination of the field
analyses and fixed laboratory data.
99
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Tr*»
SITE INFORMATION
llhtlllf. Ill^ Hlfnrill.lliill
WctatdiM Tree Ftuil Rewircli UK! E?Llfltsioii CaAat iumlv UV-rk Waft and [ntmunoam}' F»fW Ki&
Locution:
CERCU5 *
ROD Daw
Hacfcjirnund
I'lii-U-al Dt-irrJplkm: flw Wt-rinltliee Tt« Ftuil Rawuvll iml EMansioii C«Met I
! reseun.il fKilrty, us located in stouflKtislAVeiizlclwc, Wt-;lim.E.l',ni \nee Figure 11.
1. Topogpiphic mop showing the Jocaticm of It* WTFREC teliliv* to tfat (own of Wnnlchw nnd
Uitf Slalu of WaiiBii|a-.m
100
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Frail TMI Fl..r
I SITE UN-FORMATION
In Ibe jiut dn U.S. Public PfeiJlhStruk* f PI!S J, ind
the U.S. CrtviTMinKntiJ PnMccBun Agency iEPA;i
•sod • 2, JOO vqtmrr-fool Its! plot uea l>xal and EPA, Uw L'S. Ann)'
Cotpc of Engine*** <1SACI; I coEKl-ndrJ that lilrril
•cwiLimtnitir.'m extended bejxmd the previously
identified edgfl of SIB test plot mo. The new
of die «ffiu»Brth»i.l area was
initially used fey Ifae PHS, ind Utrr by Ibe EPA, *s • lent Ijdlily In derecmiru the ellecavenciH of various
lind dcpoaiJ mdhoik for pesnades.
Pescidde liiputJ tetot^ icpcaiedly begin in 1966 und continued until the c«3y lySDt The dispnul
expeiimenU formed HI tirg.inuthloriiw |OC| aod ntg.MinpbMphcins | OP) pesticides, b»1 could potiibjy
tave included the testing of oUier pesticides. Pesticide hunii vis ccmducted it Ibe site acing the
fbllo^ing three mrlhuds:
(1> Peitiriifei WRC diluted »f Ifa culwal ind poarcd Ihtrviph die opciiiags of
dnder hlwkv («» FigurvJ);
12 :< Pnlkiiki «rn diluted *ilh twlVtM and poitfd dlwclly ottto lite ground
; and
Ptsiitidw »CT* mixed «iib litne., lyv, CUT
Purex*. pldc«d in piper lugt ind tiuntd
tnv Lo three feet btiow the grovnd
s i s« Fi§«re 4> th,
0*
. .ii.l
101
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
In the mid-1980s, the property was transferred from EPA to the Washington State University (WSU).
WSU currently operates test andlaboratory facilities at the WTFREC and uses the orchards shown in
Figure 2 as their primary research areas. Nearby residential development is changing the land use
pattern, increasing the concern that the test plot be remediated.
Release/Investigation History: Between 1985 and 1987, WSU performed limited sampling and
analysis of soil in and near the test plot in response to concerns about pesticide contamination. After this
initial sampling, WSU contacted EPA and asked for assistance in characterizing and remediating the test
plot site. EPA and its contractors performed site investigations, which included sampling and analysis, in
1990, 1991, and 1994. Sampling activities included the collection of four background samples from an
area approximately 1,200 feet west of the test plot.
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) obtained assistance from the USAGE for the purpose
of remediating the test plot site. USAGE used sample results from the WSU and EPA sampling events to
determine the primary areas of OC and OP pesticide contamination at the site. Prior to writing
specifications for the test plot remediation, the USAGE reviewed records and publications from the
research facility and contacted several WTFREC researchers for additional information regarding
experiments at the site. Based on this research, the USAGE identified the three reported methods of
pesticide disposal used during pesticide research activities at the WTFREC.
Given the history of pesticide disposal at the site, there were significant concerns regarding the vertical
migration of pesticides in the test plot area. Research articles written by EPA researchers in the 1970s
indicated that no significant pesticide contamination was expected at depths greater than 8 inches below
any of the initial disposal depths in the test plot area. Sampling performed by WSU and EPA in the
1980s and 1990s at the test plot area confirmed this expectation. USAGE used the article findings and
sampling data from EPA's and WSU's investigations to develop initial plans for characterization and
excavation at the test plot area.
Regulatory Context: The Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot cleanup was performed under the regulatory
oversight of the State of Washington Department of Ecology's Voluntary Cleanup Program.
102
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
^^m SITE INFORMATION continued
Site Logistics/Contacts
Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
"Customer" or Responsible Party:
Howard Wilson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
USEPA Headquarters/Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-1646
Regulatory and Oversight Agency:
Washington State Department of Ecology
Thomas L. Mackie
Central Regional Office
15 West Yakima Ave -- Suite 200
Yakima, WA 98902-3401
(509) 454-7834
Project Manager:
Ralph Totorica
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers - Seattle District
4735 East Marginal Way South
Seattle, WA 98134
(206) 764-6837
Technical Site Contact/Quality Assurance
Contact:
Greg Gervais
Quality Assurance Representative
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers - Seattle District
4735 East Marginal Way South
Seattle, WA 98134
(206) 764-6837
Kira Lynch
Project Environmental Sdentist/Chemist
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers - Seattle District
4735 East Marginal Way South
Seattle, WA 98134
(206)764-6918
Technology Demonstrator:
Mike Webb
Garry Struthers Assodates, Inc.
3150 Richards Road, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98005-4446
(425) 519-0300 (x217)
103
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
Matrix Identification
Type of Matrix Sampled and Analyzed: Soil
Site Geology/Stratigraphy
The WTFKEC is situated at approximately 800 feet above sea level and 194 feet above the normal
elevation of the Columbia River. The WTFREC is located approximately two miles east of the Columbia
River. The eastern foothills of the Cascade Mountains, which begin approximately one-half mile to the
west of WTFREC, rise to about 2,000 feet above sea level. The site lies on an alluvial fan deposited
along a steep drainage that flows eastward from the Cascade Mountains to the Columbia River. The
alluvial soils are composed of poorly sorted boulder gravel and gravelly sand with some clay layers. The
surface gradient in the area is approximately 200 feet per mile. The gradient portion becomes less steep
as the alluvial fan merges with the Columbia River flood plan.
Contaminant Characterization
Primary Contaminant Group: Table 1 contains a list of the established contaminants of concern and
action (cleanup) levels used for the WTFREC Test Plot remediation. The primary contaminant groups
include organochlorine pesticides, organophosphorus pesticides, carbamate pesticides, and paraquat. The
action levels in Table 1 were based on the specifications of the Washington State Model Toxics Control
Act (MTCA) and raiige over five orders of magnitude. See the "Site Characterization and. Remediation
Process" section for more information on establishing cleanup levels during this study.
The on-site and fixed laboratory analyses performed for this project focused on two groups of
organochlorine pesticides: the cyclodienes and the DDT series. The cyclodiene group is characterized
by a six-membered ring with an endomethylene bridge structure (a double bond between two carbons at
one end of the ring). The specific cyclodienes of interest at the WTFREC site included: aldrin,
chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, endrin aldehyde, endrin ketone, endosulfan I and II, endosulfan sulfate,
heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, and toxaphene.
The DDT series consists of the various isomers (2,4'- and 4,4'-) of DDT, as well as the isomers of the
related compounds DDE and DDD. The compounds of greatest lexicological concern are the 4,4'-
isomers, which are also typically the most prevalent compounds contained in commercial DDT
formulations. The toxicological data for the 2,4'-isomers are more limited, and 2,4'-DDT was generally
present in lesser amounts in commercial formulations than 4,4'-DDT (often a 20/80 percent mixture of
the 2,4'- and 4,4'- isomers), although the exact ratio varies with formulation and manufacturer. As a
result of the scarcity of toxicity data, for the 2,4'-isomers alone and the desire to have protective action
levels, the action levels used for the WTFREC test plot remediation were based on the sum of both
isomers (2,4'- and 4,4'-) for all three compounds in the DDT series.
On-site analyses for DDT and cyclodienes were used to guide the decisions of the dynamic work plan.
Fixed laboratory analyses for the primary contaminant group in Table 1 were used to establish a closure
confirmation data set for regulatory compliance.
104
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
^^^ ^^^^^^^^ft>nal<)iM^n'jj^rjirirjnjl«]
^H M}'|1|\ \MX'O\TAV|[\AM^ tnininiifd ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
Tittlt 1. E^tabltuliHl f ijntaminiiiiE$ ->r<'i«[KrK*iH.di»..ri... P.Mirliln
.lickllll
7-:t.]nti
j:ii.lnn oltkhy^lf**
^iiJiiiikit-iiK1**
"Jhh-iiiri-i I
j-liii -.,1111:111 II
I I " Ii
HI 'I1'4
:• u i.-."*
ii'iii--"
.^/AYW.j-MJk iiimiuTKi
M.ctli..N.y4;-,]i.r
Akbin
.•iWv-P-W.
.••.i.'-Hti...1
;,,',V.j-f!M.:
rhlr-niirs
HqTi.K-H-.i
-!,;,,r;ul !,., f-p^.uk-
1 "\1|> llCJIt
ii ly,;-,
:j
24
24
4KI1
4SI!
4SH
"I |^- 1
2 '-4
-1 1 '
fi ",;,••;
• i:
i, r..?ss
1 !• '-•
Ii- V,
i! -A
H if.v
I! 22-'
1! 11"
If '.rtiv
f 1 hi 1 P t' ' 1
1 J,,S |, ,i,.|, [..l,:, Jr,.r.,i,.
''-ul^.iM^m^M'.r^il.vlr-
P.1l,)llV':-ri
Mi;l"rvl p n:ill i ill
•1 MI ii.in i-rTivl F-I irtlt f :>n* *
M:ll:in,,,,|
Lik.,n
l:'IAT':..lKhl.-n-=.-;.
!>.;<,' r,
l>,ll,K-rtLi.<(.:
P;iu,.y,.r-clJriy!'"'
r.in.;.x[.r, intdiyl**
MTC'A
Mtlhuxl R*
rutmup
].**•*] l.msi'kK.I
v.'ll
.On
•l*i
:•!
J.:i
1 ,-.J . 1
4"
J.-W
T-'
H.
4».i
•t, |
furhaiupit* P^tiriJ*^
k":||lMI\l
Kiiia.l.i.nvirlu.t.ilxn:-
Sim
-I'M
•S-lls^-lliiu'.,.!; P^ticlile
r, ii .^11. ii
.1^.1
" flu.1 "A",i-:||j-^i,,n S-laii1 Vl"i.|i.l ['••M'.'-; i ':M]|;--| A-J i\'T' V\l ••p'.\'ifn'-: I|IK\' nu'll.",!.-; f»i v=i..iHij-liiirj4
HH-il -ii "In; '>V]J'KK \;:>-'. ?!"! n'nKiliHli.in Svc lln: "SiU"vlfini^ii-r^.i?i"'-ii.rhl KuiKxIi^iiii'ii
P'ri'i-l,^:-." wvl|i-.|| ;IT II -:IK Ill1:l|!|i llli'lu'-l! l| tf lur '.'1 M'|X A MI,-||II'I,| H ylrtlliMT' |i;v^|>. i,|l|M-fX ll'ni
•: -1 4 i:^n>;r; "I t'.ich ivnwuiiJ -;c .»; Ita ^itn • •!'. ..i [>I>T siiil^.y' PD I'l.
105
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
MEDIA AND CONTAMINANTS continued ^^"^^™
Site Characteristics Affecting Characterization Cost or Performance
The design of the study and the implementation of field and laboratory activities were influenced by
several site-specific characteristics. These included:
• Above-ground objects and vegetation that required removal prior to field sampling
• The presence of concentrated pesticide products buried at the site
The need to segregate the excavated materials for cost-effective disposal
Removal of Above-Ground Objects and Vegetation: A number of objects that were in and
immediately adjacent to the test plot at the commencement of the work were removed and disposed of
according to the Remedial Action Management Plan (RAMP). These included the barbed wire fence and
fence posts, the chemical storage shed, and the trash cans. Additionally, all of the vegetation within the
boundaries of the test plot was cleared to a level of approximately two-inches above the ground surface
or less (GSA, Inc. 1998, p. 15).
Excavation and Removal of Concentrated Pesticide Products: Concentrated pesticide products had
been buried at two locations on the site. Prior to characterizing the entire site, these buried products were
removed during "focused removal" activities. These activities consisted of excavation of materials based
upon visual indicators, followed by closure confirmation sampling of the areas to ensure that all of the
contaminated materials had been removed.
Figure 5 is a site plan showing the orientation of the rows and columns established for the cleanup
activities as well as the locations of the various types of samples that were collected. The rows in Figure
5 were established based on historical data from the site regarding the pesticide disposal experiments that
were conducted mere. As noted earlier, in addition to burying bags of concentrated pesticide products
mixed with lime, lye, or other chemicals on the site to monitor their breakdown, pesticides were diluted
with solvents and poured through concrete blocks on the site, and mixed with soil and placed directly
onto the surface. Each row includes areas used for similar disposal experiments. For example, during
the site characterization phase, samples collected from columns 1 and 9 were only analyzed for OC
pesticides, and samples collected from columns 2 through 8 were analyzed for both OP and OC
pesticides. The columns were drawn perpendicular to the rows to provide a grid spacing that was
statistically determined to allow detection of a hypothetical 5 foot by 10 foot elliptical hot spot.
The two focused removal areas were each approximately 10 feet wide (east-west direction) by
approximately 24 feet long. One area was identified as Focused Removal Area 2/3 (FR2/3) because it
spanned adjacentportions of columns 2 and3 on the site; while the other area was identified as Focused
Removal Area 4/5 (FR 4/5), because it spanned portions of columns 4 and 5 (see Figure 5). Based upon
the USAGE review of the research records, the materials removed from FR2/3 were expected to contain
elevated levels of OP pesticides and the FR4/5 materials were expected to contain elevated levels of OC
pesticides.
Bags of concentrated pesticide materials were encountered within each of the two areas, at approximately
18" below ground surface (bgs). Excavation continued downwards until approximately 6" of soil was
removed below the last visually-observed bag remnant. Final excavation depths were approximately 27"
bgs for FR2/3 and approximately 33" bgs for FR4/5. Excavated materials were segregated according to
expected contaminant and concentration during excavation and placed directly into designated roll-off
bins. A total of 45.74 tons of material was excavated during the focused removal activity, 22.32 tons
from FR2/3 and 23.42 tons from FR4/5.
106
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
MEDIA AND CONTAMINANTS continued ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B
Segregation of Excavated Materials for Disposal: With over 45 tons of material excavated from the
focuses removal activities, the potential costs to dispose of those materials were significant. Of the
contaminants of concern shown in Table 1, endrin and lindane were significant disposal concerns
because of their presence on the list of constituents for the RCRA hazardous waste toxicity characteristic.
All wastes generated during the remediation activities were to be recycled, salvaged, incinerated, or
disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle C permitted landfill. The following three different "disposal"
classifications were anticipated, based on RCRA and the Washington State waste regulations:
Dangerous waste
• Non-dangerous waste
• All other solid waste (including demolition debris, personal protective equipment, etc.)
The "dangerous waste" included soil containing pesticides and contaminated with endrin and lindane at
levels in excess of the RCRA toxicity characteristic limits. The "non-dangerous waste," a State of
Washington designation, consisted of soils that passed the toxicity characteristic, but contained
contaminants in excess of the State of Washington limits.
The LA testing product for the cyclodienes responds more strongly to endrin man to any other cyclodiene
other than chlordane. Therefore, after correlating the IA results with gas chromatographic analyses
conducted off-site during the pilot study, the on-site IA results for the cyclodienes were used to identify
those excavated materials that were high in endrin and therefore designated for the most costly disposal
option, incineration. The IA testing product for DDT responded to DDT, DDE, and DDD, and the on-
site results were similarly correlated with gas chromatographic analyses conducted off-site during the
pilot study.
The wastes in the roll-off bins were profiled in this fashion, based upon analytical data and generator
knowledge. In addition, TCLP leaching was conducted off-site, based on the LA results, and used for
final classification of the endrin-containing wastes.
107
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
'.'• . I, I. „ . I Hr I I llJ Te»l I'M
?^
» -•
4-
o
• rf-
a
i
Q
3
- t
3 ^
. . . „.
(
•*
O
*
D
O
. O
4
-
a
4
*
a
n '
?
D
1
a •*
n
- .,
*n fl«
g
I
IS
*
1
V
-
a
1
s
roi* * ^
c
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
^B SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND REMEDIATION PROCESS ^^^^^^^^^B
Systematic Planning and Sampling Work Plan
Prior to implementing (he remedial action at the WTFREC Test Plot, the USAGE and their contractor
(GSA, Inc.) planned the project by preparing narrative and quantitative acceptance and performance
criteria for data collection, a field sampling plan (FSP), and a quality assurance project plan (QAPP).
Project planning was based on the specifications set forth in the Remedial Action Management Plan
(RAMP). Current EPA guidance suggests that acceptance and performance criteria be developed for data
collection, evaluation, using the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process. The DQO process is part of an
overall systematic data collection planning process and ensures that the right type, quality, and quantity
of data are collected to support overall project-level decision making (e.g., see Data Quality Objectives
for Superfund: Interim Final Guidance (USEPA 1993) and other guidances for the Data Quality
Objectives Process (USEPA 1994, 1999, and 2000). The use of systematic planning, and subsequently,
the use of a dynamic work plan, optimizes all site activities (not just data collection) and achieves the
most effective results.
Planning and Field Teams: Planning and field teams were created to include the appropriate mix of
skills and regulatory authorities needed to plan and implement cleanup of the WTFREC test plot. In
particular, the regulatory authority (Washington State Department of Ecology) was involved in the
planning process and approved the use of the dynamic work plan and the decision logic to be used during
the cleanup.
The Planning Team was comprised of representatives from EPA ORD (as the USAGE'S customer), the
regulator (Washington State Department of Ecology), stakeholders (Washington State University, as
property owner, represented by the Environmental Manager, the Facility Manager, and an Environmental
Scientist in charge of cleanup issues), the USAGE Project Manager/Team Leader, and the USAGE
Project Chemist/Scientist, Project Engineer, Health & Safety Industrial Hygienist, and a Construction
Engineer.
The Field Team was comprised of representatives from the USAGE (Project Manager/Team Leader,
Project Chemist/Scientist, Construction/Project Engineer, Field Quality Assurance Officer, and Health &
Safety); the prime contractor (Project Manager, Field Engineer, Project Chemist'QC Officer); and
subcontractors to perform excavation, IA, operate the Geoprobe, and manage soil disposal activities.
Conceptual Site Model: The initial conceptual site model (GSM) was developed by the USAGE after
review of records and publications available at the research facility and based on contacts with WTFREC
researchers. The information indicated that vertical migration of pesticides to a depth greater than eight
inches below the disposal point was not expected at the test plot area. In addition, the information
indicated that there would be negligible horizontal migration of pesticides at the site.
The initial remediation boundary of the investigation was established based on the location of an existing
barbed wire fence around the site. The approximate dimensions of the test plot were determined to be 70
feet by 30 feet. For additional information on delineation of the test plot area, see the discussion below
in DQO process Step 4, "Define the Boundaries."
Dynamic Work Plan: Based on a pilot study, the USAGE determined that site decisions could be made
in the field, aided by the use of semiquantitative data (i.e., data used to make a decision about whether
concentrations were above or below a certain action level) generated using on-site measurement
technologies. The use of data generated on-site would allow relatively quick decision-making regarding
subsequent steps. This approach would efficiently guide the characterization and removal efforts by
means of an adaptive dynamic sampling strategy. Using adaptive sampling and analysis strategies, field-
109
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Tr»* Ir
SITE ciiURACTRKiz.vnoN AM> KKMEOUTION FROCKS* <.>min«ni
il ri-.T]lt; -.vert uwJ. n-
•:,nnplc'. ir,« ['iguK PI.
Ihe t'S-M ,ir>.i I (••Seller direu die
;- of Ilic TicM Hj-.^Si .>f
This sluJy .ippT'ii-Ji pcmiilk'ilrupkllotaliMii unJ Jtbiiinji^ifil'hp'r iita-:. >iiiii.i:'.l the ri'iiiinval ui
i."iilarniKik'd «iil. iiiiti qwkl v iA'ndlU'd-u'lKii fiicu^h iiirnnii;ii:-.->ii bid >>«<-:i v»1U-ck-ii In sdtk •.-.•:;• Ilit1
I'.-iiirJl.il •.![••-• ,|. '1C, 'A ill' Illl:, i|i|ih :l. h Ilic |il '|Ct I --r.lhi II illlTlll.>'cit Ilic . • 'llr.-L (r. >li :il»l ^.u:'. •• , nt
--rMli.'-Uii 3i ilcili"hlli;',ill'.i|i i'3
." ttm,. :-r, "iiif; lir.'tr uvl ii'f.
ihl t-l IW itiilly iJc.ilifl^J when r]tt j'il:i|ci.l n.i>
rt <• ^K-'>,^ the frerjll fl.i'A f'l'uvrt. ir>-!uJitit: il>: iViTtitun-- fihinr&ng JHii ihe JTii|itr. i I •'.lit $iic
iori wiili site miKiiiuiuii. In piiiL^Tiljr 5iit «.hjut.tenzjtu.iTU. In lri^urc i>, clit tic Id r.jinpljr^:, litUarijlyi.it
>l'i.iwn in in LUT.IGV: .n;d dynan^Li: "Icop. "
l'iglir[' ft. |-li''A i:|l:lll J >
.1', Ull-lli Unit, pi -ill
ll .r i
,.stl I fllicih iTn -11 I •>.! il:,c ..it'll'c
110
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
BS SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND REMEDIATION PRO CESS continued BBB9
Application of the Data Quality Objectives Process: The initial planning steps, stated in terms of
EPA's DQO process, are described below:
Step 1: State the Problem - In this step of the DQO process, it is necessary to define the problem,
identify the planning team, and establish a budget and schedule. For the purpose of the remedial action,
the problem was to identify those soils and wastes which were contaminated.
The specific goals of the WTFREC Test Plot Remediation included:
• Focused removal of concentrated pesticide product
Gross removal of pesticide-contaminated soil
Restoration of the site to achieve the MTCA Method B Cleanup Levels
• Characterization, classification, and disposal of contaminated materials.
As described previously, planning and field teams were assembled with the appropriate mix of skills
needed to plan and implement the cleanup project. The planning team specified an expedited schedule
for completion of the remedial action.
Step 2: Identify the Decision - Three decisions were identified during this step of the DQO process. The
first decision was to determine whether the soil within each "exposure unit" (described below) was
contaminated above the action levels established under the MTCA for each contaminant of concern
(COC). Any soils contaminated above the action levels had to be removed. Any soil that was not
contaminated at or above those levels could remain in place.
After removal, a second decision was required to determine if the remaining soil attained the cleanup
standard.
Once they were removed from their original locations, soil and other wastes required appropriate
disposal, based upon RCRA and the Washington State Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303).
Therefore, the third decision was to determine the appropriate classification of the remediation waste for
disposal purposes. Three different waste classifications were used: dangerous waste, non-dangerous
waste, and solid waste (including demolition debris, personal protective equipment, etc.). Each
classification involves different disposal methods, including incineration for the dangerous wastes, the
most costly approach. Therefore, it was critical that wastes from the site be segregated on the basis of
their waste classification in order to control disposal costs.
Step 3: Identify Inputs to the Decision — This step of the DQO process required a list of the information
inputs needed to resolve all parts of the decision statement. For example, to make remedial decisions
(i .e., to remove or not remove the soil), the necessary inputs included, at a minimum, a list of
contaminants of concern and action (cleanup) levels (see Table 1), the units of measure (e.g., mg/kg or
nig/L), target quantitation limits, candidate analytical methods capable of achieving the quantitation
limits, and measurement performance criteria.
A list of constituents of concern were identified based on previous investigations conducted by WSUand
the USEPA. The Washington State Model Toxics Qmtrol Act (MTCA) establishes three basic methods
for establishing cleanup levels: Methods A, B, and C. The MTCA Method B is the standard method for
determining cleanup levels for ground water, surface water, soil, and air. Cleanup levels are established
using applicable state and federal laws or by using the risk equations and criteria specified in the MTCA
regulations. The planning team determined that the Method B was an appropriate method for setting the
cleanup levels for those COCs with calculated MTCA Method B levels.
13 August 2000
111
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
BS SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND REMEDIATION PRO CESS continued BBB9
For COCs that do not have calculated MTCA Method B levels, the USAGE, EPA, Washington State
Department of Ecology, and WSU agreed to use the MTCA Method B cleanup levels for their parent
compounds (e.g., endrin ketone and endrin aldehyde had the action level of endrin and endosulfan sulfate
had the action level of endosulfan I).
Table 1 contains the list of the contaminants of concern and the MTCA Method B cleanup levels
established for this project. The quantitation limits for the field and fixed laboratory analyses were
established as described in Step 7.
It was determined that commercially-available immunoassay field test kits could measure two of the most
important classes of pesticides, DDT and two cyclodienes, dieldrin and endrin. The availability of the
test kits proved to be a critical element in optimizing the study design (see DQO Step 7), implementing a
dynamic work plan, and using real-time decision-making to streamline the cleanup process.
Step 4: Define the Boundaries - In this step, the planning team developed a detailed description of the
spatial and temporal boundaries of the cleanup problem.
Initially, the surface location and dimensions of the test plot area were established based upon the
location of the barbed wire fencing. The barbed wire fencing secured a rectangular area with
approximate dimensions of 69 feet-9 inches (from east to west) by 29 feet-9 inches (north to south).
From the previous investigations, however, the USAGE concluded the horizontal extent of
contamination, as defined by the MTCA Method B action levels, was not necessarily confined to the
fenced test plot. For the initial conceptual site model (GSM), the USAGE decided to extend the
boundary of the area of potential contamination as follows:
Another three feet beyond the northern edge of the test plot
• An additional 5.5 feet beyond the eastern edge of the test plot
• Another 10 feet beyond the western edge of the test plot.
Other locations within and near the test plot were identified by the USAGE a.s having minimal to no data
indicating the presence of contaminants. However, during the site characterization, as the GSM matured,
the boundaries were extended slightly beyond the original boundary established for the remedial action
(see Figure 5). Samples collected by EPA from the non-orchard area indicated that the background
pesticide levels in the area did not exceed the MTCA Method B cleanup levels (GSA, Inc. 1998).
The test plot was divided into nine columns (1 through 9) and three rows (A, B, and C), making 9
removal columns and 27 sampling grids. Each column was a separate "exposure unit" and was
established by the USAGE to correspond with a discrete potential removal location, based on historic
data on disposal locations, as well as past sampling and analysis actions. The final determination of
attainment of the cleanup standards was made based upon evaluation of the entire footprint of the test
plot site (i.e., all nine columns).
Depth of contamination was another spatial boundary of concern for site remediation. Within the site
boundary, two areas or were identified within which bags of concentrated pesticide product were buried.
Based on historical information, it was determined that pesticide product may have been buried to depths
up to 4 feet (48 inches) below ground surface (bgs). Historical data and research indicated that migration
of pesticide contamination beyond this depth was expected to be minimal (i.e., an additional 8 to 12
inches). These two areas were designated as FR2/3 and FR3/4 and were excavated as part of the focused
removal excavation (see previous discussion of "Excavation and Removal of Concentrated Pesticide
Product" on page 8) followed by closure confirmation sampling of the areas.
14 August 2000
112
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
BS SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND REMEDIATION PRO CESS continued BBB9
The temporal boundary (i.e., time frame for project completion) was established based on the desire to
complete on-site activities prior to the onset of winter. The winter climate at Wenatchee often includes
cold temperatures and snow. Therefore, completion of the site activities before winter was important to
ensure worker safety and to avoid weather-related delays of excavation and sampling. In addition, EPA
requested an expedited cleanup schedule in order to show good faith to the stakeholders.
Step 5: Develop a Decision Rule — In this step, the planning team specified the parameters of interest,
action levels, and developed a decision rule.
As noted previously in "Media and Contaminants" (see page 6), the DDT series consists of the various
isomers (2,4'- and 4,4'-) of DDT, as well as the isomers of the related compounds DDE and DDD. As a
result of the scarcity of toxicity data for the 2,4'-isomers alone and the desire to have protective action
levels, the USAGE, EPA, Washington State Department of Ecology, and WSU agreed that i t was
appropriate to add up the soil concentrations of the 4,4'- and 2,4'-isomers of DDT and to compare this
value with an action level based on the sum of both isomers (2,4'- and 4,4'-) for all three compounds in
the DDT series.
A soil removal decision matrix was established for both the "shallow burial columns" and the "deep
burial columns" to guide the field sampling and establish a basis for removal and confirmation sampling,
or no further action. For example, if the immunoassay field kits found contamination in the interval 0 to
12" bgs at concentrations exceeding the action level established for the kit, then additional analyses were
performed on samples representing the interval 12" to 24" bgs. If no contamination was found above the
action level, then the 0 to 12" interval was removed and the removed soil was subjected to confirmation
sampling and analysis.
Based on the IA results and the decision matrix, more samples were actually collected than were
analyzed. This type of decision rule was applied to depths no greater than 72" bgs. Sampling was
limited to depths of 72 inches because the LTSACE believe that all pesticide contamination would
effectively be found within that depth interval. This was based on the assumption that no pesticide
product was disposed below 4 feet (48 inches) bgs and that migration of pesticides would be minimal
(less that one foot) beyond that depth.
Finally, for the closure confirmation data to demonstrate attainment of the cleanup standards, the data
must pass three statistical tests. These tests are:
The analyte concentration for no more than 10 percent of the samples can exceed the cleanup
standard for that analyte;
No sample concentration can exceed a level more than two times the cleanup standard for
any particular analyte; and
• The upper confidence limit (UCL) of the data for each analyte rnustbe statistically shown to
be less than the cleanup criteria for that analyte.
The procedure to be used to calculate UCLs depends on the distributional assumptions that are made
about the data (e.g., normal, log normal, or oilier distribution) and the size of the sample population. For
the WTFREC test plot cleanup, LTCLs were calculated using guidance published by the State of
Washington Department of Ecology (see Ecology 1992 and 1995). For most of the data sets, an
assumption of a log normal distribution was appropriate, and in these cases the UCL was calculated using
Land's method as described in the Washington State Department of Ecology guidance. For data sets that
15 August 2000
113
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
^B SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND REMEDIATION PRO CESS continued ^^^^^B
contained a large percentage (>50%) of nondetects, the largest value in the data set was used as the UCL
in accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology guidance.
Step 6: Specify Limits on Decision Errors - A decision error occurs when sampling data mislead the
decision maker into choosing a course of action that is different from or less desirable than the course of
action that wouldhave been chosen with perfect information (i.e., with no constraints on sample size and
no measurement error). Data obtained from sampling and analysis are never perfectly representative and
accurate, and the costs of trying to achieve near-perfect results can outweigh the benefits. Uncertainty in
data must be tolerated to some degree. The DQO process controls the degree to which uncertainty in
data affects the outcomes of decisions that are based on those data. This step of the DQO process allows
the decision maker to set limits on the probabilities of making an incorrect decision.
When the data lead you to decide that the baseline condition (or "null hypothesis") is false when in fact it
is true, a "false rejection" decision error occurs (i.e., the null hypothesis is falsely rejected- also known
as a false positive decision error or Type I error). In the reverse case, a "false acceptance" decision
occurs when the data lead you to decide that the baseline condition is true when it is really false (i.e., the
null hypothesis is falsely accepted - also known as a false negative decision error or Type II error).
For the final calculation of upper confidence limits on the mean using the closure confirmation sampling
data, the Type I error rate (a) was set at 0.05 as specified by the requirements of theMTCA. Setting the
error rate at this level ensures there is only a 5% chance of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis. In other
words, when the MTCA standard has not truly been met, the chances are only 1 in 20 that the statistical
test will erroneously conclude it has been met.
Step 7: Optimize tfte Design for Obtaining the Data - The objective of this step is to use the outputs of
the first six steps of the DQO process to develop a sampling and analysis plan that obtains the requisite
information from the samples for the lowest cost and still satisfies the project objectives.
For this project, the overall DQOs were as follows:
Provide field analytical results for DDT and cyclodienes (especially dieldrin and endrin)
with quantitation limits that are less than the field/operational action levels in order to guide
the removal of contaminated soil from each defined, "column" of soil at the site such that
final cleanup goals will be met within a single field mobilization.
• Ensure that the turnaround time for the field-generated data supports the real-time decision-
making needs of the dynamic work plan.
Collect sufficient soil data to confirm that the soil left in place meets the MTCA cleanup
standards such that:
- no more than 10 percent of samples exceed the cleanup standard,
- no sample can exceed two times the cleanup standard, and
the hue mean concentration must be below the cleanup standard as measured by a 95%
upper confidence limit on the mean.
• Provide analytical results that can be used to segregate and classify excavated soil and other
remediation wastes for management as solid, hazardous, or dangerous waste according to
RCRA and the Washington State Dangerous Waste Regulations.
16 August 2000
114
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Tr»* Ir
SITE ca\RA KKMEOUTION FROCKS* <.>min«ni
Piiut Tf*l
In MI cfton I'" Jrvel''p the iiiiulyticsl T'liii inJ'..lenlily i ovl-etUecmc iniltdci] :Jrut;TY. a pili'r ie;i ~'f~
ilw 1A niclbxL-- wji. o^UiKteti u.$ir£ ivinuniirjwd jutt'tn.1 w>il linn 'Jit -iw Tlu1 pilvf wfj On irjvx:;ti)tiiiir-: !.••> Ji'ii>'inrril.: ilu- useful in.--;-: -•••!' llu- LA
Incll't '.!• (MI -.ili-mlr iutyw, r I :-.-:i|l:-i 1i«l l>[! I ..llhl 1 1, tli'.lirrir -.I IfKH I r.ipr-.ll'i t w.iil v'-r.l.iuii Idi<:i us^d Jit dit t;ii; InnJ no i ', jntly M| UrugrLral l't -n trtlir
t' i[il.i[:uii.iiir .. Tiieicfftc, jltTiiiiigh lh« le>l tjl nuy he cjJiriT.iwd iiiirig • TK: spc-uitit |i'.';.iii. Kit. the
ret-piir^c- ^t-nc-rjud durir^; Ihie lesl ts ilui; 10 .ill jt Ihtpi'ter.dil re£LUiil£-prc«ciil LII dit iiiTifJt nth of
which tlitit- i rcipurac lo .1 diETtit'in leciw Smut- Ihc ckiiiup k\cU fur tluj ind mo>l uthcr pr.ijecb-
ITC 'MMdon s-ptjit/L ti'TilJiriir-irr.'., l.ht I A lo'.tiiii.llr. cjmiiil 1>£ iiiiildi mike vlt.irjip ik'fiHiir^ wiiii.iiiF
xonuJt-niie ihf tiit-spei.itic n.il'iTi ol ihi-; hirulilk>n
I |c plli.il :
lAtlc -.I'lk-i'i.-..! :ihi'- i|ilil I .ili.'i.Vi! jVlh-'ll- Mlir l:'l .A ilnl;, :•!• :ll.il I'l't 'i'l rlir II i.hri:iL:il Ijipl ij.li Tic
IcMlk:, ill I'r-lll rV|iri r- 1 :ll til y ic> *1 I*-S l^fr plMJctl Kall'i Ii' ^IrlcTTnl! e lllc llhhly < -I lllc 1A
re MI I r^ ti'i :-iir-i|iti.iri!. .Lcii: !-..n imkir^j
Aiulv-.itil nitlhocdi.iil ]>crli'miiiii.<;
rocfiirtirji.'nv, i:-sLilHi:-Jf£d hv rJi£ prpjecl itjni .anil ..I.TiMiiieriU-J ir- rlie y/vl'l' • . ' i¥.A [ii. I ii'r^h >. A
llw .i[ijilvli'..il nit tlioJi i.5 pre'.eriK(.ll ii; Tj'frlt 2.
i. AnalMicnl Mrihodi
til" 'MS 'A i> ij>tJ iiMcihid SI I!; Id! i5n- L%'|'t~
* llnm i-* A i>|HTCll :-|:lMll>HIKlriL tlldlll*.! I IKCil nil [.-I l
unrter I'BMs
It'*
^-JH'iU'l I 'l'A-(.rf--i '
;>t
•truly 1*
Ovt.Lidi<~rt LA liclJ toy:
I.M.'iJ 1A li'.-U ivrJ
;:>l?,-lhi.|,h...,|!?K.|l|. ^:,l|..Klt>,
<.'i£in;>chK-.rin« pesticide
CrnhMlrd'-r.,
P:irH^i
M.lhHMl
S^'-S^.-J'.:!-*!
S'A'-W-+:U2
SW-S4-1- SI-SI. Tii.^llilc,lT
SW .S^.S.iSl
SW-K4^M-Sl. ,,|,,l,1i,;,i»
RM-S-H.I"
A-: r»>k'J in fahk .. ;--c n
.HI .Mulvin.'.il i'ln':in-:!c!ii il'^js;. ij»pi-:i:t..1i nJrpic-,1 1'1, |-|'A in
K iiii-'iiluxl I" ivo'tniii -.iJalc if
'M-; '-ivu Jv--iKii«.sl Hy IK1 pc"i(v
^ •••nlli rln jinl«''ini.i.M.;<:-K|i.i:\l i
.',IIB \"'K iiii>liciu.liiMc-:iir-li.--i
115
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
SITE ClilARACTRKlZ.VnON AND RKMEDHTION PRO CUSS" chillin««l
rt\«J I j'o irnory reference mctinJr.. llw [A irtttliiKls -.Ten ramified, in ntdcr Ir illiva- i single
k'Sc iiiilvw.l n:-iiif: ivtiiiili? I>DT niJ cv
Ei| aMishiitjE ^il (-Specific. \rliun L-*v<|< fur the Field 1>*I Kit*
I lie pi h'l iiMj1, cc .ill i:- ..i •urinrjcil r|i:ii rlit I>, tc.r kit, ire iiitei iiiiTcillv 'rni-cil 1 <.'.<', lit ph. I'-v it>=
H:.n:'il:ii.[iKvi ni..iiilcr li tcitLiu tht '.•>.•- iiie\t.c ivl iilsc \K^,t'v, •: <>iiihiH:it 'iVtili ilit Jiv" lli.il llic
ie;t kiii ir.|ii -IK! i-.« Tiirte rhiii niK i I :he Li'iajinii uiiu > I *.i--Th.<;ni :ic ihs I-HC, t.hr /'i I'JCLI it-.mi ileitniiiucii
ih.ii i TM:'! \<:;\ kir rc3.uk iif:; rnp kt: | |if-«i i L,MI|..| ichliLiie lliir ihc >oic-s|ici.i1k (.lenivijfi \a\A Icrnn
nijuniirKl ic^i , H[>T. I '
- iru; Ale- spdirifu JitlJ i^ti'Ti levels ri.i/cijwd ^nlh (he [">[>! LV lest kit siJ (JK: iyckijicni IA itil
tiriixily. it *.lit .IMC! of r>.cU nv>Ti:.
I It- .;ticil ri i ll c niirll i iU !»>.>ill I'-f..!
Illc jMlr-1 .-Hilly IMCC filK!* ..'l Trc ^rii'illlVlllcx .ir lie :lli:ll t li-.:ll llrll i -.I:-. :-x'-r±'e-.l :-.•! \l K licM IA rc
niil rr*cj'.;itn'::aii-;y ..I'linniHriiii; :i?til^-iri Acit c\ ^liiarcd u-hirsvc h' live M : I' 'A MeUMi! R L'lcjiiiiip
levels, c^uhlilhcil li'i till:. |||.I|KI.| I lit anal ii, i;, Ir ilJIjil..-;, j IlK-tn'il lli.il ',t:l:- :,t-;i.|tlVc clj.ui-ll lii rr
ll:i:.i.|ITci: Ki/il. :ll hit i;f..|t- lli:ill ..|ii-->iill lllf M I I. 'A KleihOil 1-^ JL-UI|||' lL-Vt-i T:lWi .< II IllNll lit-, rJic
iti\pin<-.> fnr iJis •rniim i.riiunn luhi:, ;•: LiMiucrn rtlirivi to iti* MT( A Mtilir<.i ti \.L«-.iiiiip level;..
k.V Sfii.'.iti'vitir'. nM irlrl ami Fhtd l.tk-ji il ury Mi-rJu-iK (Uhtivtlii i'li-uinijp
C.iri*m1i*,il
I'MtUm.
t.nJriri
4.4'-lJ'»l
4, 4'. Dim
4 4 =rij'i.
MI <:A M-Hiu.ii »*
M.II.-.;^
:4
; ->4
;.'>-!
4.L'
Fi»UI MvilHuJ
fi.uis
--
II K
-
^^""KSir
'-l.'MKXi'7
•:i.;nn;.]--
O;MII i
>J::HL!,S
•x-'jiitj'
* UlC ~A ICfrl Vll JCUttl', f ki "ACH: C'C J'll^K-i I'S UlC L--41i.^:llll^l^in L'l 11 i' li-Vf L--4 -.-1 UK L jlj 1 ^Jill :^.-illlL<^ ^Ckll'i /ITil
l-li- ill r..--1 L.ll IT»- .;•,;]!. Ih-Jt.- lil i;«,i In ,ln'.klll u:il ^n.ll ill •• .1-: t ;ti M .*i',l • !•:! .J : Kl:f ,!.« i llnl *.' 1 -•! : 1 b>l
k :n TI ,n c «! H »<"! inriij:"iDT HrK.ilw i-.iliK1- J-nv* Kpr^-^N 1ji.r ...Vu.ll ill^'Jv^ llj. Ji lllilla L<| nx *.>• .:KI-' li^i't: '^-.=l^
Anuhi'tivuIQnnlily Cmilrnl
irij; llx- plt'l lc-:'_ llx ^liiini:J 5iiJilu- pi"j<'.-| '< ini ii.'-:i^iifJ ;i fkkl
nn "l'.:|i 'iv,i:. mci' '.'.' rrr'iiili.T iiiJ tiwnrt1 I)M: 'fir'iilv u. irn P-clJ rr-ml('- Hul rt
116
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
^B SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND REMEDIATION PRO CESS continued ^^^^^B
use of such traditional QC operations such as calibrations and laboratory control samples, as well as
continuing to submit some split samples for fixed laboratory analyses in order to detect potential
interferences and to monitor the comparability of the field and fixed laboratory results over time and
across different areas of the site.
Monitoring and Refining the Action Levels
As a result of the continued generation of fixed laboratory results for a subset of all the samples collected
for field kit analyses, the field kit action levels were further refined after the characterization phase.
Comparison of the IA and fixed laboratory data sets generated during the characterization phase
determined that the 5 ppm field action level being used for the DDT IA kit was overly conservative.
With the approval of the regulator, the DDT IA field action level was raised to 10 ppm for the removal
phase of the project.
Site Cleanup Phases
Using information from previous site investigations and the results of the pilot study, the cleanup project
was designed to take place in seven phases.
Phase 1: Mobilization
Phase 2: Focused removal of pesticide product
This phase employed field test kit IA analyses with fixed laboratory confirmation of a
subset of those results.
Phase 3: Characterization of the remediation area
This phase employed field test kit analyses for DDT and cyclodienes, fixed laboratory
analyses for the organophosphorus and carbamates pesticides and Paraquat, as well as
fixed laboratory confirmation of a subset of the field test kit results, leading to the
revision of the action levels for the test kits in some areas of the site.
Phase 4: Gross removal of contaminated soil
This phase employed field test kit IA analyses
Phase 5: Final confirmation sampling for site closure
This phase employed fixed laboratory analyses.
Phase 6: Backfilling, grading, and restoration
Phase 7: Characterization and disposal of contaminated materials.
The final phase employed fixed laboratory analyses of soil samples as well as the
production and analysis of TCLP leachates to characterize RCRA-regulated wastes.
19 August 2000
117
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
^B SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND REMEDIATION PRO CESS continued ^^^^^B
Optimizing the Sampling and Remediation Program
The optimization strategy focused on Phases 3, 4, 5, and? of the site cleanup. One of the key elements
of the optimization of the sampling and remediation program was the use of field methods to make
remedial decisions in the field (primarily during Phases 3 and 4).
In Phases 2 and 3, the sampling strategy for the site characterization was optimized by the use of a
"focused" sampling design in which sampling was conducted in areas where potential or suspected soil
contamination could reliably be expected to be found. Another example of the optimization was the use
of direct push soil sampling technology (i.e., Geoprobe) in lieu of traditional and more costly drill rig and
split-barrel samplers. Using homogenization and sample splitting techniques, the team was able to
provide sample volumes for IA analysis, fixed laboratory analysis (if needed), and archiving from a
single collection event (see additional discussion under "Sampling Design and Methodology" on page 21
of this report).
In addition, the team employed field analyses using IA and supported by limited fixed laboratory
analyses to increase the density of sample locations compared to that possible under traditional sampling
and analysis programs. This facilitated the "surgical" removal of contaminated materials and ensured
that closure confirmation testing would demonstrate compliance to a high degree of certainty. The
combined benefits of the optimized approach produced both time savings and significant reductions in
the overall project costs by making field activities such as sample collection, sample analysis, soil
removal, soil segregation, and final disposal of soil and wastewater highly efficient.
On-site activities in all phases were facilitated by the use of a mobile office trailer and a mobile
laboratory trailer. The cost of trailer rental was more than offset by savings realized from the on-site
analyses (see also "Cost Comparison" in this report).
Note that the advantages of using field methods include the ability to match the rate of sample processing
with the rate of sample collection providing efficient sample handling (e.g., minimal sample tracking,
transport, and storage) and rapid turnaround time of field results in relation to the desired on-site
decision-making abilities.
August 2000
118
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
Sampling Design and Methodology
Sampling was performed at the site during various stages of the investigation including the following:
• After focused removal of pesticide products
• During the site characterization (using a direct push sampling method combined with
IA analyses) prior to excavation
After gross soil removal to evaluate attainment of the cleanup standards (closure
confirmation sampling) and to guide further soil removal activities, and
• Sampling of waste soil and decontamination water prior to waste characterization for
waste classification and disposal.
The text to follow discusses the sampling design and methodology for each of these sampling events.
Focused Removal Sampling Design: Focused Removal Area 2/3 (FR 2/3) and Focused Removal Area
4/5 (FR 4/5) (see Figure 5) were excavated until all visible evidence of pesticide disposal was removed.
Upon completion of excavation activities, confirmatory samples were collected. The sampling grids for
this effort were established by the row divisions of the test plot across the excavated areas. This resulted
in six sampling areas or grids. A single random sample was then taken from within each sampling grid,
except for one grid in which the sample location was biased towards a location with a piece of white
particulate matter. The particulate matter may have come from one of the bags of concentrated pesticide
products buried at the site.
Site Characterization Sampling Design: Site characterization sampling was initiated following
completion of the focused removal activities. The site characterization included collection of soil
samples throughout the test plot area. The samples were collected for the purpose of characterizing die
site so that an excavation plan and preliminary waste disposal plan could be developed. Samples were
collected using direct-push sampling equipment.
The sample collection approach was described as "focused sampling." Focused sampling is defined as
the selective sampling of areas where potential or suspected soil contamination can reliably be expected
to be found if present. One sample was collected from within each grid. The number and size of each
grid were determined in advance using a statistical analysis of the site and an estimate of potential hot
spot size. For sampling within each grid, biased locations were selected in the field based on visual
observations of surface conditions. If there was not sufficient information to select a biased location,
then a random sample was obtained instead.
At each sample location, a soil core was taken from the ground surface down to 72 inches. Samples were
taken from each core to represent each one-foot interval within the bore hole. Each sample representing
each one-foot interval was then homogenized and split into three subsamples — one for field analysis, one
for possible fixed laboratory analysis, and one to be archived for possible future analysis.
Gross soil removal was aided by the use of a decision matrix to guide the analysis of samples, develop a
removal profile, and select samples for fixed lab analysis. This approach was part of the adaptation of
die sampling design under the dynamic work plan. Table 4 is an example of the decision matrix used at
the WTFREC site for shallow soils. For example, if the field kits found contamination in the interval 0
to 12" bgs at concentrations exceeding the action level established for the kit, then the next interval (12"
to 24" bgs) was analyzed by the field kits. If no contamination was found above the action level, then the
0 to 12" interval would be slated for removal, and a split of the 12" to 24" interval was sent for fixed
laboratory analysis. (The fixed laboratory data helped ensure the accuracy of the removal profile, as well
21 August 2000
119
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
as add to the data set establishing the comparability of the field results to fixed laboratory analyses with
respect to the action level.) This type of decision rule was applied to depths no greater than 72" bgs.
Sampling was limited to depths of 72" because the USAGE believed that all pesticide contamination
would effectively be found within that interval. This was based on the assumption that no pesticide
product was disposed below 4 feet (48 inches) bgs and that migration of pesticides would be minimal
(less that one foot) beyond that depth.
Confirmation Sampling Design: At the conclusion of the gross removal excavation, closure
confirmation sampling was conducted of the bottom and side walls of all 27 grids using IA analyses.
Each grid to be sampled was laid out into nine equal sub-grids, a random selection of the sub-grid to be
sampled was made, and the sampling point was marked with a wooden stake. Shallow soil samples were
collected from within a 12-inch diameter area around the sampling point, placed directly into the
samplingjar, and analyzed using the fieldIA method. Concentrations found above the IA action levels
resulted in further excavation. The modified action level of 10 ppm for the DDT test was used to direct
this excavation. The comparability data set had established that DDT IA results below 10 ppm correlated
well with the mix of individual DDT, DDE, and DDD concentrations that did not exceed their respective
MTCA standards.
When IA analyses indicated that no further excavation was needed, closure confirmation sampling for
fixed laboratory analysis was performed. This sampling consisted often samples, one for each column,
plus a sample for the second elevation in column 4. To ensure conservatism, the grid with the highest IA
result in a given column was the grid sampled for the fixed laboratory analysis. The ten final closure
confirmation samples for fixed laboratory analysis were discrete surface samples taken from the same
location as the previous IA sample (refer to Figure 5 on page 10 where the triangle symbol represents this
lA/fixed laboratory sampling location). The final closure confirmation samples submitted to the fixed
laboratory were analyzed for the OP and, OC pesticides, paraquat, and carbamate pesticides listed in
Table 1.
Waste Characterization Sampling Design: Upon removal of the material from the ground, itbecomes
a waste governed by the Washington State Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303) and not by the
MTCA action levels. The waste was segregated into roll-off bins. See "Segregation of Excavated
Materials for Disposal" in the "Media and Contaminants" section of this report (page 9) for more
information on waste segregation. Waste stream characterization sampling was conducted at the
conclusion of the focused removal excavation and again as significant segments of the initial gross
removal excavation were completed.
During the focused removal, samples were collected from each of the segregated waste streams. Each
sample was collected as a composite sample from at least five differentlocations within either a single
roll-off bin or a grouping of roll-offbins. The proportion of sample collected from within any roll-off
bin was representative of the proportion of waste soil within the bin as compared to the collective
grouping of bins.
Some of the roll-offbins were not specifically sampled, particularly towards the end of the gross removal
activities. Based upon the information known about the contents of these bins, the judgement was made
that the relative contaminant concentrations within these bins were either at or lower than other bins,
which were already known to be in the non-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulated
waste category. All waste characterization samples were analyzed by fixed laboratory methods.
August 2000
120
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
•-•
TS -F
£ M
7"^i
i |
I -f
"5 1
1 *
LZ "•
•E*
— ^
_ -Hi
IT
* •*•
*r
i 5
£. ?
M
ll
* I
_^ -=
~ "
J
•^
t
•"*.
1-
J
|
i
,
%
£
£
z
r-i
T
!•*
t.
i
a
Jt
2
C
H
Si
e
1
E
^
-'
•^
-
H
C
.n
„
a
"
„
Ll
r » ,^, i.
T j-_, H
fcf i" £
|7 -C-
2 v ^
'= 1" c
"-' ~ :~
C«. p
= .^ ^
^ CJ =
F 1 •"*
= 5 §
I 1 £
R = ' ~-
"2 "3 '"'
— ^ -'
2
'p
H
^
,.
/.
£
f-i
. C
V » < 1
j; "H.7 ..^
=• = j ^ ,-
^ "^ 'X
Lj *"" V
, - ** C C
*i- „ b • =
' *^ ~^" =
5 -LI = I
= = ? E
.7- — i 1C
5 S 'R :-
•r r: = '-
i i :"j •!
r: -3 -i "f
= = = •• i
^- '•-* ^ Z-
v
•?:
-
^
•u
•Li
— ,
• t C!
"" _u y j^ ;^
c_ s ™ ^
s 5 s i ^
'•"' ~^ _ -t ;-
"^ . — •*.< v
't;i v |f
15!^ !
- t -r- -c =
- ^ - = 1
'j 'Z 'Z 1 '^
i i 5 '0 '-•'
c = = i ~
i i 1 :- .1
j -'j j — B
{S .~ iZ P ' • .
— ^ — — :-
"1
•T
;Ji
j
•u
•tl
t
A
• • t ~
SSJI'?^
** "t-"^" — £ J6
±~ F ^ .<- L> — •
= 7 7 ~" - —
"' ~j ~^: r*- -s- ~
f ^ ^ il v ^
— • V^ &• 3t
"•*••'* "^ "j?
r -t •-' y- -s: -
'-" '.'' • I T 2
----•='•=
^ ± = 2 ^ :--
= = = =•= ^
"^ t ^ =^ y ^_
'~ *"' ""^ '"' •" D
~ — 3 --5 — ™ -ji^.
r r = f f "t
_L 0. J- J- J- d
~
/
^
i
V
•^
;<
1C
, :=
^1 T
. . -| C
/!;UlrMl
^ "E. *sL 4 -^ J? .H
c- = = "r "i^ t, Z.
E -. -. ^ = > jf
w —^ -J a/ *" _Q ,-
^55 '^ "A Z ^'
•^J r : ! :, '— ~F.i -j
- 3 4: ? u; c c;
P -f- a*, v - c- =
3 5 5 5 3 R :--
| = r ,= j= ^ rz
i i i i i :j i
-4 — — — — JJ3 -
c ~ = -s s p -~
U - - a. u. u. .;
.'}.
.£
u
;i
S
•^
M
*
121
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
OIAK.MTKRIZATION TECHNOLOGIES eu-itniiitd
T>«liltnbt. nl V-'i-~ilf ;in:il>.'a.-i :IM>.] ]<\v<\ I.ibr-Mf..ii\ ;iii;ily.-»->. In w.i'iulr l|:v
,• .|ll:irni'Hnl.. i'| Vi!| »i;l|| I'i'l 1'fn: (•• Vl|.:Ml, ::.:!|' fait-,-. K-||I.I'.:<| illtl [I'M'
..•'ll"il|rn"U'|i :-innp''|rf£ p|l;-nr:.. .if Illls p| r'C'. I . II 1IIIMI •(:ii-->1 J Ik'.l :l|!:|l >:•.!- -,\j\ I K-1- WlTi- IIMsl .1 1 rl(r site
It 'i -.,»( i;v;uir». li'-nnin; pr^'Hi.,!^-.. ;iih! i:i;--i!lli.. a-rii; :^IJI|I|L-I VK^iU'jl ^-s Irlurirs.! ibir;> IIOITI ri1".!:!] VilnM i!0l>
i jul'i >.-.-• (iV i:,lr , li:n Kl.-||/:il: -Mi :MII ii|i|r>. n-rn; ill :il i. A-.it li'-- (!•(' :il.l'!X |iril|i.ulrs. I ( ' _ |' CX' |:i->Jn.Tik-
IIH! t '! ' i ."' nc-r:if n ^1 ;i ti'vp^l Inlirf ilfi'iiL Tl -f lf-A "-.' tiip-^'A tlni.il Oir-, IL'K- f-r 1r^lrijtK>r >.»l l|(t?>j: :inily.TF-^
iTwl I flulcil (ji ' fuller Fie LilirM.l^lhiM.i.rs!JLll ic. ilex ICl.1 It-lnlcil vi'Urill'.c :Kll:ii:>. U, .ti |T:ll I i-it'llir
pr<.>|ci.-l j-Ulilurrv |Kr<.c.> AlUi|yfik:il t-lici: nib »clt •.ll.vi'K LI! in ,li". L-|. .|ril jj |i|:ir^ [• ~i u'iinf K'lli 1A alivl
lixc.1 li'>:irK"iri analse •••.
IDIDIU ni>*$n,*v Field Atuly^U: l:r>T>-;i-,ite-:,i>il .uiii^lirr^ jh.l :ii:alv.,i:- .Inmti: ihe I'^.M:.;..! r«nn<',;il iii.l
inL-^ta:jLlt-n;*jiirn phase;.. Iwr >.in-iiie--immu:i:>i.ht'iiu^;il .iriiilyie:-, out i:-t DtJl :ir«.kiric- iVir
tVLlMiiiiit-i wtrtpc-Tti'Tnie--.) hyi>'SA The (-'tfrtbrtt-irA.!:: tnitri.i r.'rllitittrriuii.'i-'i.iy r^-.-ii jrt .'iirlr.!.:..!
in I'aSlt 5
Tablt 5. tnsniuiiM»i'iJV Tf.l Kil ftrf.irniLUK-t Crhc-rla
Typ*
|RKJ ami
Sol"
Si.r:
*Vfti-V.Kir'ti "f .iixT.tTi-.)| .vf ».»•>• 'A-.n IvHt •! nil imixrilpf 4K-iii« -i.tn.Hir 1.i?i1.i'.-iim7»tt''l '.-ilii* Kiwil rcii'
^cliiilrvilEca f»fl 'fjL- icsili'.iiy L^>:tlp4 ^ptii J|MM.V Ifclh: llK-.uil '. "S nvd'.^n.' 'A ;i< iml IK;LI I'lT!,., |ijHh:l ^> :ifc^i
TT.I*. p^l'nTTTinil r-~ .i^w^^ t|w .Ktr.rx^.'
I lie |.'niii'iTin:i.i>.i^ Itil:-. 'AcirTcilr-lfiei.'! II i hi:-, fei f'i n|ip-'n:\ii Tulf l|i I-' (Hinplc', ill .1 s:ile i.f
ippt j^i nuwly Jti* t-j^I'i pel !£••:( kit per diy. I-JK h b iuh n-'iuMluil •-'! i -..cl oi ft> jt-^ t '..nnjilti and
control lOt'i r-unpUs: r-u>.li i>, t jlit»r.iaexTi .»iinplc5. field iiui>licalei. lib iiupli'_.iK> nrJ l.ibi-.u-jrv icniTol
wimple".. S^nie at iJti c;ilit>rilii^ii Minpk'. were i i'liiliuicJ i:i JuplicAU*. Tt»t c jhhrA~ii.ii .LlJ were 111 in!"
i >rtui^lil lirw withliiit'ir rcarewHi1-) indlhe K;.IJ|QIIB •:.ihbrili'"m lirif '-vt- iistJ I"
liclj aiu
;l -/Si u*4ii|(< IH' wi'.liiri .in jvi.'ij'M^y wirnLi'A lirrn |i"i"i in ,i: 'M.n •,-rri-n^Ml i*"l|i llu- hlMWii I ''•"' pi/Kvil i.-.jli>t|:irT!.i|' f'iiii iV^nrn'i.! -ill' i list- '*.ilh. b', rlir;
I|!:'l|l'l|:li;ll.l-Cl. |-|..HAOu<- |i.| l||l \\V-f. Tl'.!.' yllllpk Kl'vlK.-.. Hlf M--U.X'|lri'|l'|i :if ll »- 1,«lltll lll'l.y v I'-'lh III
'l «:p.'. :i!--ivf MIL- i.:i1|}i|:ir|i:i|, \:\\-::.l-. :ii >,| I|IL: | ( 'S |ft.r.x,-!V wi:, ln^li Itiii ]MM|I|I.
if, & i.netfi.ilt'tr b;, ililii'idg lie i (.>i sriulinii s-.l/j|'il'(t 'AilTi t?sr«.h ft Al'rt JilM'irti 0" Ifn- |.'!"S uplr rliu
rjn^e u3 L.ihbijli'.in, die incjiiLCS rttoi'sry wi^ tlr-.-ei tp Itn 4xph.Kd iU'-1 pe~x.«nl. Olberc.i>f; 1-11
rtci'"i'
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III)
January 2003
[n JOHN? bjldier.. '-
I ir llier-« Kiithis beir^'rerf'jrcij ITX! ttrni.
l't-:pik 111-.' simple "•niix.^tiiii'ali"!! pci'i'cis 'HfJ, 'Ji? iKiirii.iisn-.eHv <||. 'iisbk MI i few
\i--f"-. ttt.<-a.f-\r . OK ii'-mll •:• -ird uii -.vi^ thai --implc inlii^miib-Txi l> hi-.l u"l -^igciiilfk-iiill '( afktkJ !hi-
rVtl >•. 'li' n : Vi:ll»-.l iHil i -I rs-3!. i Ml..l:lpjilOpH:ili.- •. >:iinip II nrrltiiijx. is I ixpii in? h;, iKu: inrcl:;BHPikv>.
r HiX'lMircruil. ^cir M>i:il ti 'I .t'l x*'|l xjli jr-V>» I''- l»l" .MliVr^rJ li" C-T^MI ^ ^. T(|ni nir |>r;-.li-.-!.li;-t Hlii.3
;ilj.-:llH!|;lli)>.p-vIMtll>. ]H-:-.ll-.--.|[S All J^r:-.!Kl'.lf.i ll:,lcil r-l| lf« .|II.II|I: I ill. 'II hlril r:lNt-i |ri rf|f hi 1%| U Vtflr
IC[V.||L'ilhy llic l.llM.|:l"iMV \'i>ill:^.l"li!ic. Hllil cufil'.:llclu.V i T illfllhut :l!f tlciLllhci! titlu'A
irKjllnHi.. SiTii£-:l:,|it;i.r. i •! lilt t l>.cj 1 .iV.i| jlriV TiiL-lln-.l, Vselt ll>>,lillcil li-: lilt |:'IT|
;ii:.il i n _.il ]>eii(.TiiiiTKc tirv]iir*>.l li-siip^'n pti je-">'"-'l^ Ihth^nii'iiliciiii-rti i
CV;llu,ltf-.l .IH.I li^lHllullMj ihlrij;ill lilt «:.X f.T..ii.ciSjr<;x 111 ..'^1:3 :..' |Mi'VlJe iiU.I
xa",.'ts i c.(i. . pnviiii' n mil "r-ii.;." ip|irr£>7uv ir rhe iiT^ii.le.1 >iir-i i_;e. /i lir.i pi she iiic-lbi-ii
..lili'-.iii-.'h; ;i[.vri|i-i;il ti> '.lit I.I'A
-.-tnk'ii in I.iKt •'•.
lroT (lie ,m.il'i .TIS • i'L'F p£;'.li .:,!(-.. Hy Molhc-J S L-l I , pai <:hconijk£T.i|:4iv mi'.? ^pci.rr:iM-i>py ;'"J' Mh;
n: -.linn n,':ili"ll 'A;+< M:-.I-,| ii^.li.-J!.) 1.1 T llli.'x*1 ':lin.M«ti'.i.w:||'fi "Aill iiH^'y'.'M !'!•' ••.•i|i|>i|iH i.W'v'^l-il i N'|'|!|
^|-v>.-rii-yjlll I?K ll.i-l'hi.l A'i H l'.-::.ll|r. iripui'. fit i-.-r}tvll'«T|-r :||.I1..'A ..|i|..r in. I hi<,l:i^.T||i|M.ni.-til iir:,l!-.-.le< I IL-I til:i--.il
i \»lni!i-riir icjM'ilnl .*, .irl.ll i i .1 K| yli.S-l i in. I r-.'\:i|ili;rr ^.H IIMI -iilri 'AulT :il ci| I, .'Cil 1>J M r7! i tf.ul '.'t llic
lllp.Ti |icll»rni:'ilii.c liquliE-.Tin.iiiiili-;j;r.i|i>iy lHir'1 t'j If tl v?iii;|Lr '.,ll:ill;, lo.i nillirtKlr.l 1:U IN-:- L- •,' -nip -i.ii,!>
IVi'i |!i •:,-•! hlc .Liu- In I lif nii'i.fc::ll« f\1i cv: .k'k-L [|. 'li 1 illftl [cqlll f I'-hli-i tt.1 due I;' rciluLli.ih rl ITilert-;:i:lufi.
Ih* L\ K:-'.i tvtte il.o]iii'i±ik-,l:,Ii(;lilly in.- injike a iincle s-'.'il txlrisiiir'n vtr. t If.r h.nh Ihx- •.yi-lnJiene
r.*D7 1l rtpnn "hf i.i't Indiriu-^ a.; (.lit-liirin iini
ri:i; I'lvr^H £i<;i\ r.|'!|:t |rKtJ|Ui.i HHxtltVilll' >ll< will:. I" ''ll!pH'v%' -iCIHI l|'.l Iv ltr.\ •ui'li.'l'Mvily t:'l xpvi.'il
nul'rU'i:- M^rlti.i-.i iiii'ijitv-ilii;i-n KM OK pmpi'sr "I "iii'ipiininx p*-!.T---iiiii;ii^.i' it. viii^iym '^iili I}'K
p';i|iv"'iiMii'.T-^r-*>l '!ii-.jxur.i,'ii ^rf •.>l--i':n I I'HMSl :ipT"iiM-.h I'miy lnrplnin:i|f<--i.l h> bl'A I'l'A i.U'l
pt'-'ict-'l :ltf ^pci.-|tf-ri.l ii'hl :(|T .. :;i:il :l.* fl Hm.i li^l :-a;lurll i|^: I -irlll^tt. ll';|[ llii-i:l !|li':--r 'K"CiV. Hi i *.i--^l-
rlli,-. Ir. r IIIMIII ci I it.lri flic -'NM S :ip|n i.iatti Itir i'>'.lll:i!f~l ti;n inlill inl\ IIAJ l^tr < •ph;.i|l In . illif-'lf . l|.S\V-K4fi nl 1'llX.f •licllt.i.l lt>.".ll I!-. :iri:i| .:.. lli:il
lie t.l|pjil>lu i •! llir^.lllrr.- llic Mlillylti 1. 1 i-i.li.clli ill rlifr illHhl.. '.-:•. :-t i,r-IUKl:i i! ll'c lL-|i."l'.ilr'rf IcVi-l. i1 1
vlltt-m illil jl "lit LunhderfcC Ic'.tfl it! ir«lli-*1Tl. I?K p-.'l\ IK Ir- lltilfce i :'ll ij'll:ll j. I- 'Allll T'.I'A • [Cjj>ljll';, .1! IP, vi iiii Emirc tltxil'-il'.is in ii (f itn:J ^t-lei-n >ii iihl 'i.rf For iiir-re
iirk-n-niiir-ri iii1. J'k\1S. js.r. ii- lilL;^. i'i ','.".'. .cLujtLi'i'^^'A'-^j'ti lir-fiu- liiki
In hlJi'iiTi li1 lilt1 spojilK iiieihT,!.-! ti.'ifn.T^'.'ii vnfij'. :-t\.;ii'tr- wf SW'-.!Mr- xj-rii;ii-i spt'i-ilicalii'iin thai
jpplv \i- i. In1 HX'iJi-.'ib- I:'T IJ'J-; pti'tt-,1. fjcin'ij' lin-' cliirrnili'janpl'.v irvOh'ni 7i:ipittnin'iil> IK' i.'iilhiu'J iri
123
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Trf? Kruil T*M FU-I
Md'li;idJ;i>>i Chjfien- Three ir>.l I'.air ol S'.V -S-to Jesonhc if
•:_ :||l':|l'Ml-r-. lv. C.iC
1. lli.HI.ll
Mtlbod
JiiJ-l
4U4J
KM!
S;:4|., 1M,I, |k.!
VLSI STi,
Mciiif icalkuWJu itifka lion
r.xirjitjf.r. lluKl. '.v L-U /mre mdt
'.vjler r.ftilijriiil IIILV liii:, ni.i.k
Uin it it jJIrwjtic I.T .1 tinpU
ic:,u. Die t-xlii^ti.Ti ', i4umj: 0,1
britkel die Jtai'n levels K.r Iht-;
CPJS> ;j2rr-iar, ily rc;iilli
Tli-; eMMii^.iii •i..'lii"nt 'A .Li .l-.iiih
L"K ictiiinliT'il? b-rchcic lest; H
i.ii.' MS :;;iihti rli.ii. UC Sl'i.i .i,:i
nuli.Ad Ir.'in Iht ,..!iTce nu:rJi:>d
inipri •.id:.tk-i.tivniy .irxl imiiiij
Umili in nit-si Ike i-'R it'.: Uyc-.;
r.iCM'O'Ail^i^il .v.irK.lr.li,
:..r i iril [Mllnx :h. t ,'l.lllr. Ii. li.c
r.».i.ttri':t pr ij^tl dtit-.:ii'n lirnir
jn.ilvit li:-l .ill-:iwt-.l rJit lc-;s .<:L,
Lji.1 NP£J '.ethrini'ji t;. l1^ n:-tJ in
S.!j l>. Ific rniiniliL: ;ivm prii:ij:
dus to re.|ir..h;iri of in«ri'CT*T>;<;.
Holsur. Fliii- pt;luid«; v, js ..brt
C'>npi»iritl ir- rireK- u-.td |I-r ipi
avi>f^TJ|'l"(!1 jl ari;.i.
Tliis "-Ki-ti'.iplti't.'iiriait inclrrjJ
S"il mjlcix itcntdi-nc.il-' pr:>i:cdu
^•KI| r.nlitt rliiiii
Ihie le.l LI ;np:itiMe ;v.\h iht
itiiplt txiri.iii'n lor hi .ill
; JiujSltd it.-. 2 U nil, to htl'.i
t wi-ts ^ai-tfcl IT. the pil-.'.| -•!'
led :,' _u nil it. Ntcicr hri^l
l:-iii .'I! ".lit pil .•! >-llld> LTn,
, ;i.it.l. I'tir :-ilHT|.(:.:lK:i 1TI.I
l.l'x: I. 'T ill! • ntilhi'd >\tK
h J4 li. I'lit mi-idifiLiiii-ii
Wd liiM tl'A'u^ll ..]UillllUlii
LI'A \5..-if,.,l i.i: m-i.lilir
S\\ '-S4f. riitlln'ib. I lie
rtciuiTtiiwni-, :mti restmled
a1, s bui nu.rt '.tlei.liv«
T
t£f
Tl
•;.
>iti..l ,-.£" it.-'l.L' . LPA Mc-lbxl
ily in ini^'H .'-vt^l piTli.'Tiii.nu
The ^'iirojiiit ^f-C'-if..! Vi.i
ill !•: .1 :?iTn'^lU- tiricc ill*
:iilrir.il ifTilu .inniir- in lltir-
.ux.oinriii'diM-.- pii-Kjiiil ir.
ft:. Ac; ch fi£..l I'v '_!>;•. T»TI i
4
i
>ll
ii- ilii- ,lc>.cli ;-.iin.-ur .•: I|-K KAMI- iliu- I NAi.'l ic-w^l i|-« l.\ kilxiijj,nci.- r'rtc.l liK.mi.p, ii-,ii':i:- ^.illj
,IIT3i--0 >H..ilM tK.tU llir >JIC. 1 :'Tlhc^'."fl!|.V'lill^ JivITlK: li"7l.i rV'UTl.l ill llicv* :,.iil:,, It ',•.;!> :IJ'.JV ITfllf fTi 'II tint
f.il'.ii :,ni>.h it-LiT.i l.if.iF kil rt-iiill rl ; ppni..ir i ^y-.[.Hlicrit- kit result...f1.'!.I p|iniTiiji:lir iiuiiLjie ihjl .1
••:!<• iii-ip H-irKlird t-".r iii irkli^ijiul ci -ifi|(. -iiiJ '-rj:- o^cc.ltil I lit IA it-".r;. ±w Hie:-" JLV'ITIFO :ii ilic
n.i-.lpi'ini c. rKintrwi. :i l^. tl: llicreK>re. Iht- j-.niij.k picpjriiioii pit'CL-Jurt; -.viirt .i-i.tiiniijMii IP iht
.lctv;i..n nubnc re^ii- ..f Itr: piujtci: hy --itnuc tin ..dirtr-slU'ii rMd|:..inl t...ikcTiliiti-.>n jl 5fpiii ind
•J.l'S'i ppni f.ir [JUT .inJ -.y^ hiJiirj;:-. re ;pc-..lively.
111- |i:nl|,ii";ii !"r-. J'III.I
prlvfl " l|i :i|'.lrl 10 itihkL- |] 'K- --•.-•.i| |-I:IK-I- :i" r.r(|i-i- rh-£.rr.s- iii-'i'l^iOl rvim Ilili- 'Alli-M if'lufi'i I. li'i fl v
.-.,•11 f-:ifilr,; tin IA ;•--:•.iII;.. ^i-ii>.T ll'i? 1>vt>1-Uhorili;M> ilir.i j tl y(' .;ii ipli-.. rlic IA K%uh-i :.1llp/i !i i: i 'l.'ii^tKrnl u-t-rS cl |, "II i!^.'' .:
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
respectively contribute the most to the response for the DDT and cyclodiene immunoassay kits.
However, because the proj ect samples all contained a mixture of compounds, the immunoassay results
were expected to correlate better with the sum of the compounds (after talcing into account their
respective reactivities toward the immunoassay test) than with any single component.
As expected, a plot of the correlation between the field and fixed laboratory results during the focused
removal and characterization phase of the remediation was not quantitatively consistent A number of IA
results were higher than predicted by the regression line, particularly for the cyclodiene test. In some
cases, cross-reacting pesticides or other compounds were present to cause additional response. Most of
the samples were either well above or well below the IA action limit, so at few locations was the
proposed excavation profile uncertain based on the LA. results alone.
For the mostpart, the proposed excavation profile based on IA results alone was confirmed to be correct
when compared to the excavation profile based on the fixed laboratory results. The excavation decisions
that were based on IA results below the action level (i.e., results indicating a "no further action required"
decision for that sampling location) were entirely confirmed by the fixed laboratory results. Therefore,
the IA tests produced no false negative decision errors with respect to the action level. Due to the
presence of cross-reacting compounds (i.e., interferences), a few cases of false positive decision errors
with respect to the action level were encountered. In particular, endosulfan compounds present in the
analyzed soils were found to respond strongly in the cyclodiene test, yet these compounds have a
relatively high clean-up standard. When endosulfans were present, even a high IA result (e.g., 2 ppm
cyclodienes, reported as dieldrin and endrin) didnot necessarily indicate that a clean-up standard was
exceeded.
During the characterization phase (Phase 3), ongoing comparison between the IA results and fixed lab
results revealed that IA results below 10 ppm correlated well with the mix of individual DDT, DDE and
DDD concentrations that did not exceed their respective MTCA standards. As a result, the action level
for DDT was further refined to 10 ppm (i.e., raised from the 5 ppm field action level used at the start of
the project). The modified DDT action level was used during the gross soil removal phase (Phase 4) to
determine the need for further excavation.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Measures
A number of different QA/QC measures were implemented during sample collection and field and fixed
laboratory analyses. Table 7 provides a summary of field QC samples prepared and analyzed. The table
also provides the total number of field samples associated with the analyses. In addition, laboratory
control samples and blanks were analyzed for each parameter at a frequency of 1 per batch (up to 20
samples) for all analyses, both field and fixedlaboratory analyses. Matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicates were also analyzed at a frequency of 1 per batch (up to 20 samples) for all parameters, with
the exception of cyclodienes, DDT and TSS. For those analyses, matrix spikes were not used and matrix
duplicates were analyzed at a frequency of 1 duplicate per batch. In addition, four performance
evaluation (PE) samples were analyzed by the fixed laboratory during the various sampling and analysis
phases of the project. The various QA/QC measures are described below.
August 2000
125
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
Field Qualify Control Samples: Field quality control samples were collected during field work to
monitor the performance of sample collection and measure the effects of sampling bias or variability.
Field QC samples included the following:
Equipment (rinsate) blank: An equipment blank is a rinse sample of the decontaminated
sampling equipment to evaluate the effectiveness of equipment decontamination or to detect
cross contamination. Equipment blanks were prepared during the focused removal, site
characterization, and final confirmation study phases. Equipment blanks were not prepared for
analysis by IA.
Field duplicate: Field duplicates are taken to evaluate the reproducibility of field sampling
procedures. Field duplicates were prepared during all phases of the cleanup proj ect including
focused removal, site characterization, final confirmation, waste profiling, and wastewater
characterization. Field duplicates were collected for IA field analysis and fixed laboratory
analysis.
Field Analysis (IA) QA/QC Measures: Quality control checks employed during field analysis included
the following:
Calibration samples: High-purity materials providedby the kit manufacturer were used as
calibration samples to determine kit range, detection or quantitation limits, precision, and
instrument drift. For the IA tests, a set of three calibration standards were used. Calibration
verification was performed with each batch of 12 samples.
Negative control: An unspiked blank was used along with calibration samples during kit
calibration.
Matrix duplicates: An intralaboratory split sample was used to document the precision of the
method in a given sample matrix.
Laboratory control samples: A laboratory control sample was prepared from a solid matrix
performance evaluation (PE) sample containing known concentrations of target analytes.
Fixed Laboratory QA/QC Measures: In addition to periodic five-point calibrations, the following
laboratory internal analytical quality control measures were employed by the fixed laboratory to ensure
the quality of the analytical data:
Continuing calibration verification (CCV) compounds: CCV compounds were used daily to
verify calibration.
Internal standards: Internal standards were used for GC/MS analysis to monitor the
consistency of response factors, relative retention times, injection efficiency, instrument drift,
etc., for many organic analysis.
Surrogates: Surrogates are compounds which are similar to the target analytes in chemical
composition and behavior in the analytical process, but are not normally found in real-world
samples. They are added to each sample, blank and matrix spike prior to extraction or
processing. They were used to monitor the performance of the extraction, cleanup (when used),
and analytical system.
August 2000
126
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Trf? Kruil T*M FU-I
lititik A iiii-ll, '.I Kink i, lif-rii In :ii:vtys t .'lifn: niuifii ulrVrb rli riff hil'i-'ali-:) I' I t*
trnr-|il<:ili rclcrcrh.e lii.jlii'i; ITK! i ini-rJ lliir'ivli Itii- •."hi|i!c"t .ili.jMt |il i-|u.l:lh.i.i ,i: K|
Mains ffikt: A i!ir.n\ :-pike is. .m .iliqiiiu .•: ibn :-uii|!k spiked witli kr»wn i!'in.t-nrr.itii'tti I
rii];,M:- [I is iis<:di,' iix Ltnarj. ihx- K.L, ,if iS: meiff-'J.
Nljlrn tpikt duplicite I.MSDI: MSI^.- wtre U:-t.l lii .lnciiiLiiril die j.rtxijii'n iiiJ.'r'ii> H
nic-lhi'd, tiic MMJs. irv ininlihiniinn1 :-filit :-un|jl-::. >|-.f:t .1 with i'.le-iti .jl -.1 'TiLi^lrilii'ni •••
.ir.ilyic-1.
c«Ti)iir.ct-Mn a-jih (Jit niiuix ••
- locbfr-eicimnlc iriiiris-rfjiu.! p-i-'-lfin^ fr •••in'aV
% ?[, i.miplej >..m K; uii-J to pti'M-Jc irili nni:i"ii ..: >'\ :\ ' i'f"t \ MIV A li'M" ••"! t'i'iic I'fi i. iri|"k>- wnr ".nhn nil 1.-1 i -^ M-:nJ t^v'
l-r.-. Ir ll|i;
Tubl* "
"f I will
lllaiik QC
Saniplf Type
?.' .. FfrU
D-bcLt
i- '.-.-a
I ••*•"' T I
127
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
Performance Objectives
The goal of the project was to identify, characterize, remove, and dispose of all pesticide-contaminated
soil and debris from the test plot area of the WTFREC. Action levels for soil removal on the project
were determined to be the MTCA Method B Cleanup Levels (see Table 1).
The final determination of whether the remedial action attained the cleanup standards was based on a
statistical analysis of the sample data representative of the final conditions at the entire footprint of the
site at the maximum extent of excavation. The statistical requirements to demonstrate cleanup were:
1. The analyte concentration forno more than 10 percent of Hie samples can exceed the cleanup
standard for that analyte;
2. No sample concentration can exceed a level more than two times the cleanup standard for
any particular analyte; and
3. The upper confidence limit of the data for each analyte must be statistically shown to be less
than the cleanup criteria for that analyte.
Approximately 230 soil samples were analyzed by IA to support focused removal, site characterization,
closure confirmation, waste characterization, and, QA (including field and laboratory duplicates)
activities. Approximately 100 soil samples were analyzed, in a fixed,laboratory to support focused
removal, site characterization, closure confirmation, waste characterization (including wastewater
analysis, TCLP organics and inorganics, PCBs, total metals and total pesticides in preparation for waste
disposal) and QA (including equipment blanks and performance evaluation samples) activities.
Strategy and Technologies Used to Attain the Performance Goals
The strategy and technologies used to attained the project goals included:
Systematic planning
• Use of an adaptive (dynamic) sampling plan
On-site analysis and "immediate" availability of results using immunoassay analysis (IA)
technologies combined with limited fixed laboratory analyses, and
Rapid on-site decision-making guided by a decision matrix (a dynamic work plan) that used
field analytical results to characterize, excavate, and segregate pesticide-contaminated soil.
Performance of the dynamic work plan approach was highly superior to a traditional scenario, had that
occurred at this site. Because of the ability to sample and test the sides of the excavated areas, it was
discovered that pesticide contamination exceeding the regulatory standard existed outside of the original
boundaries of the site (as determined from historical information). Since this was discovered
immediately, it was simple and convenient to continue excavating until compliant soil was reached. This
resulted in the removal of an additional 60 tons of soil by extending the sides of the original boundaries
(see Figure 5).
Under a traditional scenario, however, this discovery wouldnot have been made until fixed laboratory
results for samples collected for cleanup attainment confirmation were received. Likely those sample
30 August 2000
128
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Tr»* Krni( T»M I'M
V R KH>KM tN< K f AVU L H I I ON t.•.l ailihllMlwl i;\p-| :-.r-. U':i'ili1 liir.i; rwll r-ili'MI I -il In •pli-pllr :< n-...'llj >A..i|l.
|il II II J ,:il i|'h ry .ilnl :ll :ll •.-,!:-. |il:il l-rl inl'-llyi: !• • llii- :•: le li> . li.< .1., I..-I l.-'i- ll.L- Killl .trie:. -'I II f
lei ni nil H).'. L'i'ti, •-iini iijiTn-n. 'Anir |..u ilic If-nllx In L •ulrif hi, I: I mini The li\c.!I:i'-- ni:l rhrni iflinii ':' I he nlfc-
li> c\s.-j', ;ilc Vcl .lji;,l!n *lli1 ]»n1r-;lTi .»Uiln 11' i"r:-.inr •rUiUp 1 hr i«,c n1 r( K;-,il-r :iuil y -r-, .ill.'. .1 .1'. lull i.
IViilli f-Hli ;ft:ii.levl ihir lili|a.lf,i:.;inl :4liiSillfM---iflil Chilli t~.i|-e', clir:,
ii.-k'T:: i--'inpU'kil ihc
-i. -avirk in o:)nj'nuui-n w-idi tin. l'S.-V.T, J>.l On ?r;«jecl
it Tt-;l I'l"l r> i lnn^.tT tf'iil.iin-t :,-••• h- f>.i-f4ji ii.u l:u' »ci >:•>•"•> lli;m llic Ir.iililii't M! x|||i.t Hn \irisilii-,
l>ik
ivst-i'/y"
IVMI'I, Is'MI 1-JM4
Ajf'n.1 EWi
I,,,.,- I".'*,
Atyll.-.! I'J1/"
Ntfil 1-^-JJ I'M"
s..-pi ::-:-(. IM-^
<^r 1 i. /:V ,--. Yf-f
<*-lk \V.-,..l 4, LT mil
I>-x. i'X lw'
|:v.;. ].. l'.^~
lit,:..ni«i-ii 1Ailh^!U'--TK1ill^ :-.ri|l-: '-.i l>.-j;^> |..\ *i|,l l'.ii,-iTpir'--.-
p-.--*:i||rH'Ki-
1. SAf'F- i-riill:iLlx "AirTi i.iS.J, In pnliMtii xilc am V
f-,ii'l'-li7.ili-.'ii '-I '.I'H.mKrjjM: -.II^MFI ncm> Ir sire
|-iu.-ii',t.,l |';.:I'I-H:I| :K-ii\nrn-< -j.ir-^,,1 i.-Mrrf'I'.-ii/,! i-l'' ""•! f-Mi1- rv>-iv,iU;.,l[
i!i!i':-.-i KI;H r-x il i-. 'IV! lie:-. -jl:n IL'I!, •. * '|li|'-' r li;-.l i,"*"1' li'i i>. r,^i,-.i'. tlr.li. M||I:*"I
L!' 'Hiiri: i--.iu"i ?i-ti > -ii -i:itrf|ili,> i-.V.l.<)i i"i^i I'l.l i-LIri''-!!*! i;-:»Ml;ii PII ti il irh
ill.til'iCICil
AJ.IiC'TijJ iTi^jvir-jiTn ;.i£ side-nMl'Ir. mJ flr^r pfrfnmitJ: firul clcr.urt
•;i--ilmn,ili-:Mi :-.iniplnw ci'nipk-'.cd I'v-i r.ins c\\:jvileJ.i
r|. ,.:nn- '•:• iritrnrutii.ir K'jvi'ic-! i-rrnpTticJ
4--,-: l.i||. i.ri||.ili:MMl ;.• Iwkrill. Mil,' ri.-iro|:lCn?| .. ..||ip>|i;.|
129
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
COST COMPARISON ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^5
The approach to site cleanup employed in the WTFREC Test Plot resulted in considerable savings
compared to traditional site characterization and remediation approaches. The use of systematic
planning, a dynamic workplan, and on-site measurement technologies combined with limited fixed
laboratory analyses allowed for the cost-effective cleanup of the contaminated site with savings of
roughly 50% over traditional methods. Although it is extremely difficult to project a likely cost scenario
if a project were to be performed using a different work strategy, extrapolations are sometimes possible if
enough cost detail is available from the actual project. The USAGE made detailed unit and activity costs
available for preparing this case study. A cost comparison is projected based on the following
information and assumptions:
Assume that a more traditional approach would also use direct push sampling to produce a similar site
characterization profile in order to roughly delineate the boundaries of contaminated soil requiring
removal. Then a similar number of samples sent for traditional fixed laboratory analysis might be
assumed. Based on knowledge obtained during the actual cleanup, remediation of this area without the
use of a dynami c work plan coul d have possibly produced at least 391 tons of contaminated soil (see
Notes4 and? ofTable 9) requiring incineration, since segregation of less contaminated materials from
more contaminated materials during excavation would have been difficult without the immediate
feedback of real-time results. The excavation, transportation, and disposal cost alone for this volume of
contaminated soil would have exceeded $560,000 (see Table 9). The use of fixed laboratory methods
and/or more rapid turn-around times for fixed lab results would have resulted in a substantial increase in
analytical costs.
Furthermore, the dynamic work plan allowed the site team to discover immediately that unexpected
contamination existed outside of the original project boundaries and then to seamlessly extend sampling
and excavation until clean soil was reached. Under a traditional scenario, this discovery would likely not
have occurred until after the fixedlab results for anticipated closure confirmation had been returned,
examined, and reported to project decision-makers. In all likelihood, the discovery mat the initial
removal did not attain regulatory cleanup standards would have incurred additional costs to prepare new
planning documents, remobilize to the size, and conduct yet another round of characterization sampling
and analysis, excavation, and closure confirmation sampling. In all, the estimated cost of cleanup
without the use of a dynamic work plan and field analytical methods may be projected as totaling nearly
$1.2 million. A simple analysis of cost repercussions also does not faetorin the frustration of regulators,
clients, and stakeholders when "surprises" delay site closeout.
In contrast, the actual total cost for site characterization, remediation and closeout at WTFREC was
approximately $589,000. Of this total, $100,000 were expended by the USAGE for planning, design,
contracting and project management. (The cost for project oversight was assumed to be the same under a
traditional scenario.) A moderately detailed breakdown of actual and projected costs and assumptions is
shown in Table 9.
In addition, the USAGE had prepared a different cost comparison estimate for remediating the site that
assumed excavating and incinerating the entire 70-foot long by 30-foot wide by 7-foot deep original plot
(estimated as 708 tons of soil) without performing any site characterization. The estimate for this was
$ 1,122,049. Although this estimate included closure testing, it did not include the cost of remobilization
to extend the excavation after sidewall contamination was discovered. It is notable that the cost of
traditional site characterization couldhave been approximately equivalent to the cost of the most
conservative treatment option for this site.
August 2000
130
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Trf? Kruil T*M FU-I
<"OKT
Tahlk 4. < •
tlcm
I.V.w,
I'n-^iiTj-virJ
1 KtT> U.lll 1 ~-:-llll -M.1 M.lU,t4JirJ |.LAJUII^!
ihour^jillb ijiil iciiHil.^-.:..ll
l/.ll.l \'l.\--CII.:i
TOTAt. pRo.n:fT rosrr
P!sniiiulrJ <. oil Without L -K &f bynuuiK
VtSitrl. Ilia tud l-'idJ AArftiU 0. C.. -J
"I raifilitiaal" afi|ir«aich^
jy.....'"
S'.— K
SJ<.,.,.
$|,i,,JM
i 1 >:> I-'-
iNscNoie 3i
S<-.vi.v
• rfc N u t c . '
s •;-•.;.' i.-
1 u-IC .VulL- 1'
Sll.lh".
i.i5.U^
1 <*S' \ll(/; ?-l
Sl'.._"-l
S:-M..V,.!.
S|,,| u>.
1 *« N!i»ti: '-•I
$M"l
IvK- Xol<- ~i
HM;,,
ili.-ftlM.l
Si ••'•'•
^I.IW.SI*
A'.«*»l <>« rnai: DyDuiuh:
W*rkt1.ij »ml HdJ
AuuHiit
Sj.',.»M 1
J'lJI!! i
i l',»» '
J|ll III! 1
SI 'J.l^.
i |f.."51'
« i-r^." Nulr >'
S-" 11
$1 I..4K'.
ii i. '.!•.'•:•
Sl5..*'ll
Nc-l 4'iMiiiHt
s :»..*•>*
ii ".i! =
i-j.M.v]
S IM,!,;-:
i-ljr^.
SSW.MlI
\ci«-::
] M.-lllu'J>-.l '^[MKIiMl I';.|IMI'.- JVIllJiit ,
i ilx- lielJ U -in Ui*.; , llme'i'-ic,
|i|^lt -A llli lidtj Utuiltti:
i'-r-.T irHiin<-: T.^M fit-Ill Mill I/.'
f.-'i'1| lal'l":H ' K ' f*Mfi^i.V<. -; •? p*' *M ••.«li|-l'.-. uiii..*i| J tlM:-J I.Vi:ui ' .'•• ' f
>:-jini.rt . l:t .i.l:'
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
^^^ Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test Plot
The involvement of the regulator and stakeholders during project planning allowed the team to develop a
decision-making strategy that all parties would follow during the removal action. This reduced the
amount of risk and cost associated with clean closure disagreements mat can cause schedule delays,
especially during contractor mobilization on site. However, it relied on a planning team with the
appropriate mix of both skills and regulatory authorities.
The conceptual model of the site was based on a thorough review of historical records of site activities.
However, the project team still encountered contaminants in areas that were not originally anticipated.
Without the ability to generate analytical data on site and in near real time, the costs to remediate the test
plot and the time required would have increased greatly.
Substantial cost-savings were realized through the use of IA and an adaptive sampling plan. Cost savings
were realized through reduced analytical costs (compared to traditional fixed based laboratory analysis)
and reduced mobilization/demobilization costs that would be incurred if multiple mobilizations were
required.
The on-site analysis was designed to support in-field decisions regarding further characterization,
removal, waste segregation, and waste disposal. By conducting the pilot study and using additional
fixed-laboratory results to correlate with the immunoassay results, the action levels for the field analyses
were continually updated and adapted to changing site conditions. This approach reserved resources
(both time and dollars) that could then be applied to the relatively expensive fixed-laboratory analyses, or
used to increase the number of samples that were collected and analyzed by immunoassay.
The ability to increase the number and density of samples that were collected also helped to minimize the
amount of soil that was removed, as well as reducing the amount of soil sent for incineration, the most
expensive possible disposal option.
The length of the project from mobilization to site restoration of the site was relatively quick compared
to traditional methods.
The adaptive sampling strategy allowed several different sampling strategies to be employed throughout
the cleanup, based on the intended use of the data and the need to optimize the overall design. For
example, during the focused removal phase, random sampling was conducted within grid blocks, except
where there was a need to bias a sample location towards an observed stain in the soil. During site
characterization, soil cores were purposefully located near visual indicators of contamination within grid
blocks. In the absence of visual indicators of contamination, sample locations were randomly selected.
Finally, samples collected for confirmation of cleanup were discrete samples randomly located within
gridblocks. The assumptions of random samples is required for application of the statistical tests to
determine attainment of the cleanup standards.
The combined benefits of this optimized approach facilitated the "surgical" removal of contaminated
materials and ensured that closure confirmation testing would demonstrate compliance to a high degree
of certainty. Significant time and cost savings over the life of the project were possible by making field
activities such as sample collection, sample analysis, soil removal, soil segregation, and final disposal of
soil and wastewater as efficient and effective as possible.
34 August 2000
132
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Trf? Kruil T*M FU-I
. In, :;;?rvSin:!|t,.-r. A v-:,-ci
.,Kl|ii-"| 'iVl-IIJk-lu'l-. 1fV!.i||l*
'i. Sriiilr, "A 'A Aunnii
iuv I'WS. I'in:il
'uis'dit* ITKK' "U-<« Plm
'TV|.KIK..I I:=M I ->:.:V.l- S,:..l.|llc
..-, /'Am j'~.v.i:i .S.'.Mj,'.ii'.'i|;:- j-'iais, r';jr; fl.lf>ij;i iWv 'ir'Kf.':
.' f V- -J ji'i'HIi.'il'.'i.'J,- -,'J A'^lll I.
iUvijin'uv /jW.fT.-JJ PA -r &•>
4. l!S.ACt. •:!" S Airm ' 'i-rp ofl'.ncJrKcrsi. J^"V WlP|cjr Rt!l|i'-.Ml A<,:ii.'!1
Auc.'J .1.
?•. I 'ST-.F'A I ')''.'< h. I'.IM.VJ [/lui'.'i.v t^.ut• Ji'i'iw /'i ••! I'.vi ,'!'r X'.y.i. • r'.vaj. hiitrin1. h nil ' i'l i.i^aitt.t
I!I:A 5Ji,J.''--V.': i..i"'l v'lfi..).- i.-.| Ncliil \V;I;M :nid F-11'jiirjt^iii.s Rt^i-'Uic. 'A'i.;hi:]ii!i',iii, UC.
lilrj: j.-.tjii^i'v iu'iTi.ji ^i '^i ii>'iL-.tiiinl "•'- -I. J'-PA-*'!"! R.'J'1 'i'5.; ''.'Ilii:< ol" R^KAK:! mil
flrjfi. IT:!?, '-v'.v.v.tf ?..j.ji. .^ij ihiyj .^. ..>>.; ^-| y'dpJf. ''Jllicc i'f ITMIiTdnciii.il hili'>Tniali''-,
111 1i*i'ii-lliriji ll'T: H'-K^ I-*C-''4.',1 IUC|L"'.'T F:L'.'h-^-y I ."(Lt'li-rii:!, I. JV^->. ! r.VL/iu'i r'. V.' ViiYAj'.'hrVv- ur*'t? /.VJT.J
. i.'iJi'UT L> .'i^VJJi'iiJ . ^'!lK;i!.iti' -II N.'. 'Vj ^AM. .ITiliiHi' I'.iVY
II Cli-.rnii:. )itiiii'.jl i.'Lipip±ii;,. April iH?S MclhcJ Jt-M-S-LO Ar.ilyjit >:>rFirji(u.il RoiJut^.
•: mil" Rt'.ejT'.*i .i I tavdMpnwrii t.'cpiraiMrj:. Riclmu'rid. •:. A •; Pjnquji an.ily .<-.• ptirtonncd by
NiTlli 'Tea:-! Lihurjldn*:;, Artili, t'A /
y.f •'•'-J/jf, I'-'nii-J hitj- vi-ft-w.rpi JH-." jii.ihr, 1 •.y.-Jr.... g-l>itv-l-ii3l.j'<.3r M'A'>;"vi >!.
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
PRESENTATION VISUALS -presented by Eric Koglin, Wayne Einfeld, Deana Crumbling, and Kira Lynch
Tree Fruit Case Study; A Removal
Action Using a Dynamic Work Plan
-.
Case Study
Tree Fruit Project
* Problem Pesticide contamination of soil i
vadose zone
* Scope of Remedial Aon vni
- Locate ar-d remove bags of
(focused removal)
-Characterize pesticide oontaminated soil
excavate to m«*t WA «t3t« cleanup sios
^Managei'dispos-e excavated material!
134
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Systematic Planning
Coordinate Assemble Tea.
*• Who's Who?. Coordinate with often!, teg
and stakehddera
* Plarinino Team, diert. State
USACE staff
* T*eftnieal/Fi6icl Team USACE 8ten~, pn«i*
contractor staff, and subcontractor naff
* Community outreach found little additional
interest
Systematic Planning
Review Existing Information CSM
* tvalu ale site hi-sknv
* !ni«rvi«w informants
* R^vrtw historical informal)
* Develop Initial CSM
- See Fallowing dtagrams
'Begin to develop IISD of potential cantammantB
DQO Step 1:
State the Problem
• Hftzai aou* mttenals must be located and
TBmoved.
* Contaminated sods must be addressed to
cleanup standards
* Waste m-aUHnals must to d«poMd oi pr»p«fly
135
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
DQO Step 2:
Identify Decisions
* Problem' FH»6iicid« contamination or vdi:!06.
* DBCisionc ta be rnaKc
- Local* and remove contamination
-Remaining soil meet WA stale cleanup
standards
.»Manage excavatee malenal for disposal
»mare ra too
*• laridfiliing
DQO Stop 3:
Identify Inputs to the Decision
,• List of constituents cf concern (COC< •fc.na ai
the aitfi
# Determine whicn clean up level applies
DQO Step 4:
Define Boundaries/Constraints
* Spatial
DQO Step 5:
Develop Decision Ruiefs}
* £npul From the
stakeholders and the reaula:o-:s
DQO Step 6:
Limits on Deciskin Error
rneete stringent Washington state reg
cleanup standards
-for 33 incSvidual pec-ticide anaiy'es
'to a 95% statistical confidence
DQO Step 7:
Optimize the Data Collection Design
# list? a nynani-r: VVark Plan
* Or,-flrte Bialyss uainj .rnrnLnoaaaay 1 1 A; fis
* Hcrforrri pre told ware p
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Optimize On-Site Methods
Pre-fietd wrk puot study
* Compared IA ID ana Tit-specific ana
.- inegrrtand erw*-ro»etwrty twhavlorgf IA Ml
» Establish Inrtral Reid deciBioraclJor, levete
CUM = L ppm eycifdir M--S. = DOBB rum
* Pfo)ec3'Spe>cfrtc SOPc eatabisried to improve project
performance and save labor costs
. Adjusted range al e»»bra1>c.n sianjJards
- Increased ihe volime ol the cxtra-tiixi sal
• Us«d a different solvent tor tn
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Field Work Plan using DWP
Approach
Work Phase 1: Mobi
* Setup field office and field tab trailer
* Moved in equipment
* Esl3blish*d ducofi pad and waste
* Removed old fencing storage shed, and surface
vegetation From test plot area
Field Work Plan using DWP Approach
Work Phase 2: Focused Removal
# Used a &ackhoe ta unco.'
product
* Segregated sal and materials
expected contaminant and coi
* Collected confirmation samples, analyzed oy
both field and fixad lab methods
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Field Work Plant using DWP App
Work Phase 3; Site Character!*
* Geoprot>« used to tate ear* samples
* Implement the DWP dect&'on logic foe
chtractacizing ifw alia l> g, using the *u
disposal decision mafn-
* iA data used to develop eveavatcn profile
* Excavation would be perforned based on IA
profile
* Profile cof-tirmed iat«r by tix&d lab r
Field Work Plan using DWP Approach
Work Phase* 4: Gross Removal
4 Soil wat excavated ba«&d upon the soil
contamination profile established by the I
results
* Floor a' excavation analyzed by i
* if lA results > field action i^\.j?i, more soil
removed fcy hand
* When IA results * field acbon level,
eonfirmabon sampie was collected
139
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
CSM: Planned & Actual Excavation Depths
Field Work Plan using OWP
Work Phase 5; Closure Test my
* Closure eontlrmsBofi from floors occurred
immediate^ after vertical remova1 actlvibe
completed
* i - expected comami nation was fount
sictewalls of lh« excavation
* i A giBited delineation, eic^abon. end provided
closure confirmation of the eidewalle
Final CSM: Lateral and Vertical
• I ! I ! i I I !
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Field Work Plan using DWP Approach
Work Phase 7s Waste Disposal
* Campasiting wni u&od la rapracontalivo iy &jT.plif
wastes
* VV«OB* s%'«if> aruiy^M! by FUECM! laboratory ai\alys.lc lo
charactcrucc waitc la rrtcctdispoul rc-auirtmenls
w r>nn5«ft
- TCIPQC postodcs
- TCLP Irelate
Cost Comparison (per US ACE)
I Rev.*« Brisling Data
2 De**gn Sile CbarattfiriialKin
3 Implement 5«e
4 Reveiv Cl\ai data
5 D«agn R*nr*dy
6 Irnpteirienrl Remedy i-
Dspciidl
B Ctosjre report
TOTAL
Traditional DVW"
57 150 Sit ,DOO
SO £17,640
SO 534,134
SO S10,000
£16,500 £26,460
S166.O94 J271,t16
S910DOO 1153,570
120305 S.20.3O5
S1.122,0« SSB4.22S
Th-s tra d'bpnal irc^st estimate a&SLrnci r>?
only renioval arxS inanerefion of the entre plot volurr*
Wenatehee Tree Fruit Project:
Successes and Lessons Learned
Summaryi Applications of Field-Based
Analytical Technologies
* USACE Cast and Pertannancc Report
M'.'HiliMini: Uvylirrc-i
# TPP Mdnunl down S&ddaibh: f KMII.
+ "A Gu»dp n^ lu-" G
141
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
142
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
APPENDIX B
143
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
CASE STUDY 2 -
GROUNDWATER RISK ASSESSMENT AT A GASWORKS SITE IN A HIGHLY
HETEROGENEOUS SAND & GRAVEL AQUIFER ENVIRONMENT
George Teutsch1 and Peter Merkel2
, < -m \t« :nc
I'tut -M.J.I •
<:riiu»iiiMj*ri Ki«k V.vnumrnt jil .1 <, JUMII I.. Stlv In .1 IMnlili
11 rt »!•»•»Mr-it. Siiud & ti«Tl*r) tqtllfrl J m«h A Fttor J.(rtlH
I » wroti ril 1 btupi.
Sltmlut-r i
S.U., U.u.t^J »,l l.^.ctl.
] '.1.1.1,. NU
I- ItHttr+
* riim* tin *yMi»lli|» I fi Haul
InitUI
* itijulltt tfsrt*«t
* «r*i loe*
llrlr> nui-iirlf •« tinmi Slr*T Vmali tb
Center for Applied Geoscience (ZAG), University of Tubingen, Germany
Center for Applied Geoscience (ZAG), University of Tubingen, Germany
144
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
SO
CB
-4TB •:.
UN
t!3
•v
itt
prnoown p«a
IB(I*| rr*Hi*i(:
-00
.,:, i. -,
•' ' .'
I I .11 .J»mt-\'mm
Iftl II**
/
• < hwmltal umHifa
• V. ytwrt at jUaaw
* nfcmiaiiii if 0 nhiaii
, lfcfllM.Hlt4.UrM
I I • ' «
' . • - \ ? .
'^'"' - S!/ I 1
-•-,*—••-•->*' / ; j
-. -— .'' / /
I*""
Mum*
C, -- WCL, Icompoynd spsciflc ITSK
man fliy/; rale or masi flux smaller than
mat conlamlnarf teVel]
Quality
f>.L '. MRL [raducbon al ate and corrtamnanl s$iixi6c
risk lev-el betow a max. accepfabte rmh
l - I.e. reduce uroijaOIIUy to exceed
•t LeC [LMartlofl ef Cempllaoc* point. HN» or
of gr.'cn c -1C itj
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
|L .,. i.
,,. ..
Plum* etWWMlMlM by Cf *
-* h'" fc.l«p»ti«l K*-,i|llL»« hill i>
TIM
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
ilMrp-«l Srrtl*
01
Mn.ed Ccmlamination (VQC* * PAHl)
pie m wldiK txa C ptnil aquHw - W tat)
. rai|pHHlBi jnt
M«» Htm Hair ( «mpuriti«
,, ,T.I 1.
-n \i
I
]
[i
i
,*• ,im -!•>& *•
,-'././/
liili-i.il I'uiiipuii" I f* IkiJu
..—* ...
147
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
PAH* at Control plan**
f Sl I IKK* lll»« al lh> ninJnil fibwv
M
it
l»
I-
I"
Slratlurr nf IVvmttmian
r f^H^Bftdfl
!. I I«U li mtmtt
• S»w.. KHBM
> llu
.r,,.L,mn, vin . .
t'tpvci A. (!•«!
PtniMfe* £ Hk*Mliti
al Cwlrol Plan**
UTKX n»u nulr%
Reproducabihty at nwasuiement rr&uMs
r^
•»*.
H
,!,„
Transport Model SWfcRT v*. MT3CMPD
''——*~' t^s^r *""^
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Aft*'
__*.*.
•••HilHlliirj lilwl 1 'lIpflHMUlM
f«M lu < r^
* N V rmtrm bvl fei quaalifi i( pnirt vain tyamiltnt
A 4 iHtjiH^Dfll mbiA^nn BH-4 i|'i«a1lr altxHlkoi
nl •
149
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
COUNTRY REPRESENTATIVES
Directors
Stephen C. James (Co-Director)
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati. OH 45268
United States
tel: 513-569-7877
fax:513-569-7680
e-mail: james.steve@epa.gov
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr. (Co-Director)
Technology Innovation Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
United States
tel: 703-603-9910
fax: 703-603-9135
e-mail: kovalick.walter@epa.gov
Co-Pilot Directors
Volker Franzius
Umweltbundesamt
Bismarckplatz 1
D-14193 Berlin
Germany
tel: 49/30-8903-2496
fax: 49/30-8903-2285 or-2103
e-mail: volker.firanzius@uba.de
H. Johan van Veen
TNO/MEP
P.O. Box 342
7800 AN Apeldoorn
The Netherlands
tel: 31/555-49-3922
fax: 31/555-49-3231
e-mail: h j.vanveen@mep .tno.nl
Country Representatives
Analiit Aleksandryan
Ministry of Nature Protection
35. Moskovyan Strasse
375002 Yerevan
Armenia
tel: +37/42-538-838
fax:+3 7/42-151-93 8
e-mail: goga@arminco.com
Harald Kasamas
Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry,
Environment
and Water Management (BMLFUW)
Division VI/3 - Contaminated Sites Programme
Stubenbastei 5
A-1010 Vienna
Austria
tel:+43-1-51522-3449
fax:+43-1-51522-7432
e-mail: harald.kasamas@bmlfuw.gv.at
Jacqueline Miller
Brussels University
Avenue Jeanne 44
1050 Brussels
Belgium
tel: 32/2-650-3183
fax: 32/2-650-3189
e-mail: jmiller@ulb.ac.be
Lisa Keller
Environmental Technology Advancement
Directorate
Environment Canda - EPS
12th Floor, Place Vincent Massey
Hull, Quebec K1A OH3
Canada
tel: 819-953-9370
fax: 819-953-0509
e-mail: Lisa.Kellerir/iec gc.ca
151
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Jan Krhovsky
Ministry of the Environment
Department of Environmental Damages
Vrsovicka 65
100 10 Prague
Czech Republic
tel: +420/2-6712-2729
fax:+420/2-6731-0305
e-mail: krhov@env.cz
Ari Seppanen
Ministry of Environment
Ministry of Environment
P.O. Box 35
00093 Government
Finland
tel: 358/9-160-397-15
fax: 358/9-160-397-16
e-mail: Ari. Seppanen@ymparisto.fi
Christian Militon
Environmental Impact and Contaminated Sites
Department
French Agency for Environment and Energy
Management (ADEME)
2. square La Fayette
BP 406
49004 ANGERS cedex 01
France
tel:(33)-2-41-91-40-51
fax: (33J-2-41-91-40-03
e-mail: christian.militon@ademe.fr
Andreas Bieber
Federal Ministry for the Environment
Bemkasteler Str. 8
53175 Bonn
Germany
tel:+49/01888-305-3431
fax: +49/018888-305-2396
e-mail: bieber.andreas@bmu.de
Anthimos Xenidis
National Technical University Athens
52 Themidos Street
15124 Athens
Greece
tel: 30/1-0772-2043
fax: 30/1-0772-2168
e-mail: axen@central.ntua.gr
Francesca Quercia
ANPA - Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione
dell'Ambiente
Via V. Brancati 48
I-00144 Rome
Italy
tel. 39/6-5007-2510
fax 3 9/6-5 007-25 31
e-mail: quercia@anpa.it
Masaaki Hosomi
Tokyo University of Agriculture and
Technology
2-24-16 Nakamachi, Koganei
Tokyo 184
Japan
tel:+81-423-887-070
fax:+81-423-814-201
e-mail: hosomi@cc.tuat.ac.jp
Ilgonis Strauss
Ministry of Environmental Protection and
Regional Development
Peldu Str. 25
Riga, LV-1494
Latvia
tel: +371/7-026-405
fax:+371/7-026-558
e-mail: strauss@varam.gov.lv
Kestutis Kadunas
Hydrogeological Division, Geological Survey
Konarskio 35
2600 Vilnius
Lithuania
tel 370/2-236-272
fax: 370/2-336-156
e-mail: kestutis.kadunas@lgt.lt
Bj0rn Bjernstad
Norwegian Pollution Control Authority
P.O. Box 8100 Dep
N-0032 Oslo
Norway
tel: 47/22-257-3664
fax: 47/22-267-6706
e-mail: bjorn.bjonistad@sft.telemax.no
152
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Marco Antonio Medina Estrela
ISQ - Institute de Soldadura e Qualidade
Centra de Tecnologias Ambientais
Tagus Park
EN 249-Krn 3, Cabanas- Leiao (Tagus Park)
Apartado 119
278 lOeiras-Codex
Portugal
tel:+351/1-422-8100
fax:+351/1-422-8129
e-mail: maestrela@isq.pt
loan Gherhes
Mayor's Office
Municipality of Baia Mare
37, Gh. Sincai Street
4800 Baia Mare
Romania
tel: 40/94-206-500
fax: 40/62-212-961
e-mail: igherhes@baiamarecity.ro
Branko Druzina
Institute of Public Health
Trubarjeva 2-Post Box 260
6100 Ljubljana
Slovenia
tel: 386/1-244-1486
fax: 386/1-244-1447
e-mail: branko.druzina@ivz-rs.si
Bernard Hammer
BUWAL
Federal Department of the Interior
3003 Bern
Switzerland
tel: 41/31-322-9307
fax: 41/31-382-1546
e-mail: bemard.hammer@buwal.admin.ch
Kahraman Unlii
Department of Environmental Engineering
Middle East Technical University
Inonu Bulvari
06531 Ankara
Turkey
tel: 90-312-210-5869
fax: 90-312-210-1260
e-mail: kunlu@metu.edu.tr
Theresa Kearney
Environment Agency
National Groundwater and Contaminated Land
Centre
Olton Court 10 Warwick Road, Olton
Solihul, West Midlands B92 7HX
United Kingdom
tel:+44/121-711-2324
fax:+44/121-711-5925
e-mail: theresa.kearney@environment-
agency.gov.uk
153
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
ATTENDEES LIST
Anahit Aleksandryan (c.r.)
Ministry of Nature Protection
35 Moskovyan str.
3 75 002 Yerevan
Republic of Armenia
tel: 37/42-538-838
fax: 37/42151-938
e-mail: goga@amiinico.com
Meri Barbafieri
Institute for Ecosystem Study
Unit for Soil Chemistry
CNR
Via Moruzzi 1
56124 Pisa
Italy
tel: 39/050-31524-87
fax: 39/050-31524-73
e-mail: barbafieri@ict.pi.cnr.it
Paul M. Beam
U.S. Department of Energy
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown. MD 20874-1290
United States
tel: 301-903-8133
fax: 301-903-4307
e-mail: paul.beam@em.doe.gov
Andreas Bieber (c.r.)
Federal Ministry for the Environment
Bernkasteler Str. 8
53175 Bonn
Germany
tel: 49/228-305-305-3431
fax: 49/228-305-305-2396
e-mail: bieber.andreas@bmu.de
Harald Burmeier
Fachhochschule North-East Lower Saxony
Department of Civil Engineering
Herbert Meyer Strasse 7
29556 Suderburg
Germany
tel: 49/5"l03-2000
fax: 49/5103-7863
e-mail: li.bunneier@t-online.de
Claudio Carlon
University of Venice Ca Foscari
Department of Environmental Sciences
Calle Larga Santa Marta 2137
30123 Venice
Italy
tel: 39/041-234-8564
fax: 39/041-234-8548
e-mail: carlon@unive.it
Cliff Casey
Southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering
Command
PO Box 190010
North Charleston, SC 29419-9010
USA
tel: 843-820-5561
fax: 843-820-7465
e-mail: caseycc@efdsoutli.navfac.navy.mil
Maria da Conceicao Cunha
ISEC
Quinta da Nora
3030 Coimbra
Portugal
tel:+351239722694
e-mail: mccunlia@isec.pt
Andreas Dahmke
Institute of Geosciences, Department Applied
Geology
Cliristian-Albrechts-Universitat zu Kiel
OlshausenstraBe 40
24098 Kiel
Germany
tel:+49/4318802858
fax:+49/4318807606
e-mail: ad@gpi.uni-kiel.de
Branko Druzina (c.r.)
Institute of Public Health
Trubarjeva 2-Post Box 260
6100 Ljubljana
Slovenia
tel: 386/1-432-3245
fax: 386/1-232-3955
e-mail: branko.druzina@ivz-rs.si
154
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Vitor Ap. Martins dos Santos
German Research Centre for Biotechnology
Mascheroder Weg 1
D-38124 Braunschweig
Germany
tel:+49/531-6181-422
fax:+49/531-6181-411
e-mail: vds@gbf.de
Wayne Einfeld
Sandia National Laboratories
P.O. Box 5800
Department 6612
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0755
United States
tel: 505-845-8314
fax: 505-844-0968
e-mail: weinfel@sandia.gov
Marco Antonio Medina Estrela
ISQ - Institute de Solidadura E Qualidade
EN 249 - Km 3, Cabanas - Leiao (Tagus Park)
Apartado 119
278 lOeiras-Codex
Portugal
tel:+351/1-422-8100
fax:+351/1-422-8129
e-mail: maestrela@isq.pt
Volker Franzius
Umweltbundesamt
Bismarckplatz 1
D-14193 Berlin
Germany
tel: 49/30-8903-2496
fax: 49/30-8903-2285 or-2103
e-mail: volker.franzius@uba.de
Wouter Gevaerts
Gedas Milieu
Clara Snellingstraat 27
2100Deurne
Belgium
tel: 32/3/360 8300
fax: 32/3/360 8301
e-mail: info@gedas.be
loan Gherhes (c.r.)
Mayor's Office
Municipality of Baia Mare
37, Gh. Sincai Street
4800 Baia Mare
Romania
tel: 40/94-206-500
fax: 40/62-212-961
e-mail: igherhes@baiamarecity.ro
Bernhard Hammer (c.r.)
BUWAL
Federal Department of the Interior
3003 Bern
Switzerland
tel: 41/31-322-9307
fax: 41/31-382-1546
e-mail: bernard.hammer@buwal.admin.ch
Alwyn Hart
Environment Agency
National Groundwater and Contaminated Land
Centre
Olton Court
10 Warwick Road
Olton
Solihull B92 7HX
United Kingdom
tel: 44/121 7115879
fax: 44/121 7115925
e-mail: alwyn.hart@environment-agency.co.uk
Henri Halen
SPAQuE (Public Society for the Quality of
Environment) - Wallonia
Boulevard d'Avroy, 38/6
4000 Liege
Belgium
tel: 32/4-220.94.82
fax: 32/4-221.40.43
e-mail: h.halen@spaque.be
Pablo Higueras (c.r.)
University of Castilla-La Mancha
Almaden School of Mines
Plaza Manuel Meca, 1
13400 Almaden (Ciudad Real)
Spain
tel: +34 926441898 (work in Puertollano)
fax:+34 926421984
e-mail: phigueras@igem-al.uclm.es
155
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Masaaki Hosomi (c.r.)
Tokyo University of Agriculture and
Technology
2-24-16 Nakamachi, Koganei
Tokyo 184
Japan
tel: 81/3-423-887-070
fax: 81/3-423-814-201
e-mail: hosomi@cc.tuat.ac.jp
Stephen C. James (Co-Director)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati. OH 45268
United States
tel: 513-569-7877
fax:513-569-7680
e-mail: james.steve@epa.gov
Kestutis Kadunas (c.r.)
Hydrogeological Division, Geological Survey
Konarskio 35
2600 Vilnius
Lithuania
tel 370/2-236-272
fax: 370/2-336-156
e-mail: kestutis.kadunas@lgt.lt
Harald Kasamas (c.r.)
Bundesministerium fur Landwirtschaft und
Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und
Wasserwirtschaft (BMLFUW)
Abteilung VI/3 - Abfallwirtschaft und
Altlastenmanagement
Stubenbastei 5
A-lOlOWien, Osterreich
Austria
tel:+43-1-51522-3449
email: harald.kasamas@bmu.gv.at
Theresa Kearney (c.r.)
Environment Agency
National Groundwater and Contaminated Land
Centre
Olton Court 10 Warwick Road, Olton
Solihul, West Midlands B92 7HX
United Kingdom
tel:+44/121—711-2324
fax:+44/121—711-5925
e-mail: theresa.kearney@environment-
agency.gov.uk
Amy Keith
NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center
Building 4200, Room 436
MSFC, Alabama 35812
United States of America
tel: 256-544-7434
fax: 256-544-8259
e-mail: amy.keitli@msfc.nasa.gov
Lisa Keller (c.r.)
Contaminated Sites Division
Environmental Technologies
Advancement Directorate
Environment Canada
351 St. Joseph Blvd, 19th floor
Hull, Quebec K1A OH3
Canada
tel: (819) 953-9370
fax:(819)953-0509
e-mail: Lisa.Keller@ec.gc.ca
Eric N. Koglin
U.S. EPA
NERL, ESD-LV
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-3478
United States
tel: 702-798-2432
fax: 702-798-2107
e-mail: koglin.eric@epa.gov
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr. (Co-Director)
Technology Innovation Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (5102G)
Washington, DC 20460
United States
tel: 703-603-9910
fax: 703-603-9135
e-mail: kovalick.walter@epa.gov
Jan Krohovsky (c.r.)
Ministry of the Environment
Department of Environmental Damages
Vrsovicka 65
100 10 Prague
Czech Republic
tel:+420/2-6712-2729
fax:+420/2-6731-0305
e-mail: krhov@env.cz
156
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Hans-Peter Koschitzky
University of Stuttgart
Institut fur Wasserbau
Pfaffenwaldring 61
D-70550 Stuttgart (Vaihingen)
Germany
tel:+49/711-685-47-17-14
fax:+49/711-685-70-20
e-mail: koschi@iws.uni-stuttgart.de
John Liskowitz
ARS Technologies Inc.
114 North Ward cStreet
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901
United States
tel: +732-296-6620
fax: +732-296-6625
e-mail: JJL@arsteclinologies.com
Claudio Mariotti
Aquater S.p.A, ENI Group
Via Miralbello 43
61047 San Lorenzo in Campo
Italy
tel: 39/0721-731-511
fax: 39/0721-731-376
e-mail: claudio .mariotti@aquater.eni it
Peter Merkel
SAFIRA
Lehrstuhl fur Angewandte Geologic
Sigwartstr. 10
D-72076 Tubingen
Germany
tel: +49/7071-297-5041
fax: +49/7071-5059
e-mail: peter.merkel@uni-tuegingen.de
Jacqueline Miller (c.r.)
Brussels University
Avenue Jeanne 44
1050 Brussels
Belgium
tel: 32/2-650-3183
fax: 32/2-650-3189
e-mail: jmiller@ulb.ac.be
Christian Militon (c.r.)
Environmental Impact and Contaminated Sites
Department
French Agency for Environment and Energy
Management (ADEME)
2, square La Fayette
BP 406
49004 ANGERS cedex 01 FRANCE
tel:(33)-2-41-91-40-51
fax: (33)-2-41-91-40-03
e-mail: christian.militon@ademe.fr
Francesca Quercia (c.r.)
ANPA - Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione
dell'Ambiente
Via V. Brancati 48
I-00144 Rome
Italy
tel. 39/6-5007-2510
fax 3 9/6-5 007-25 31
e-mail: quercia@anpa.it
Charles Reeter
U.S. Navy, NAVFAC
Engineering Services Center
1100 23rd. Avenue, Code 414
Port Huename, California 93043
United States
tel: +805-982-4991
fax: +805-982-4304
e-mail: reetercv@nfesc.navy.mil
Steven A. Rock
Environmental Engineer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati. Ohio 45268
United States
tel: 513-569-7149
fax:513-569-7879
e-mail: rock.steven@epa.gov
Phillippe Scauflaire
SPAQUE
Boulevard d'Avroy. 38
4000 Liege
Belgium
tel:+32/4-220-9411
fax: +32/4-221-4043
e-mail: p.scauflaire@spaque.be
157
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
Ari Seppanen (c.r.)
Ministry of Environment
P.O. Box 399
00121 Helsinki
Finland
tel: 358/9-199-197-15
fax: 358/9-199-196-30
e-mail: Ari.Seppanen@vyh.fi
Robert Siegrist
Colorado School of Mines
Environmental Science and Engineering
Division
112CoolbaughHall
Golden, CO 80401-1887
United States
tel: 303-273-3490
fax: 303-273-3413
e-mail: rsiegris@mines.edu
Kai Steffens
PROBIOTEC GmbH
SchillingsstraBe 333
D 52355 Duren-Gurzenich
Germany
tel: 49/2421-69090
fax: 49/2421-690961
e-mail: steffans@probiotec.de
Ilgonis Strauss
Ministry of Environmental Protection and
Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia
Peldu iela 25
Riga, LV-1494
Latvia
tel:+3717026 405
fax:+3717026 558
e-mail: strauss@varam.gov.lv
Jan Svoma
Aquatest a.s.
Geologicka 4
152 00 Prague 5
Czech Republic
tel: 420/2-581-83-80
fax: 420/2-581-77-58
e-mail: aquatest@aquatest.cz
Georg Teutsch
University of Tubingen
SigwartstraBe 10
72076 Tubingen
Germany
tel: 49/707-1297-6468
fax: 49 707-150-59
e-mail: georg.teutsch@uni-tuebigen.de
Kahraman Unlii (c.r.)
Department of Environmental Engineering
Middle East Technical University
Inonii Bulvari
06531 Ankara
Turkey
tel: 90/312-210-5869
fax: 90/312-210-1260
e-mail: kunlu@metu.edu.tr
Jurjen K. van Been
GeoDelft
P.O.Box 69
NL 2600 AB Delft
Netherlands
tel: 31/15-2693-730
fax: 31/15-2610-821
e-mail: j .k.vandeen@geodelft.nl
H. Johan Van Veen (c.r.)
TNO/MEP
P.O. Box 342
7800 AH Apeldoom
The Netherlands
tel: 31/555-49-3922
fax: 31/555-49-3231
e-mail: h.j ..vanveen@mep.tno.nl
Joop Vegter
The Technical Committee on Soil Protection
(TCB)
Postbus 30947
2500 GX The Hague
The Netherlands
tel: 31/70-339-30-34
fax: 31/70-339-13-42
e-mail: tcb@euronet.nl
158
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
John Vijgen
Consultant
Elmevej 14
DK-2840 Holte
Denmark
tel: 45 745 4103 21
fax: 45 745 4109 04
e-mail: jolin.vijgen@get2net.dk
Gary Wealth all
Environment and Hazards Directorate
British Geological Survey
Keyworth
NG12 5GGNottingham
United Kingdom
tel: 44/115-936-3541
fax: 44/115-936-3261
e-mail: g.wealthall@bgs.ac.uk
Anthimos Xenidis (c.r.)
National Technical University Athens
52 Themidos Street
15124 Athens
Greece
tel: 30/1-772-2043
fax: 30/1-772-2168
e-mail: axen@central.ntua.gr
Mehmet Ali Yukselen
Marmara University
Environmental Engineering Department
Goztepe 81040 Istanbul
Turkey
tel: 90/216-348-1369
fax: 90/216-348 -0293
e-mail: yukelsen@mutek.org.tr
159
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
PILOT STUDY MISSION
October 1997
PHASE III C Continuation of NATO/CCMS Pilot Study:
Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies for the Treatment
of Contaminated Land and Groundwater
1. BACKGROUND TO PROPOSED STUDY
The problems of contamination resulting from inappropriate handling of wastes, including accidental
releases, are faced to some extent by all countries. The need for cost-effective technologies to apply to
these problems has resulted in the application of new/innovative technologies and/or new applications of
existing technologies. In many countries, there is increasingly a need to justify specific projects and
explain their broad benefits given the priorities for limited environmental budgets. Thus, the
environmental merit and associated cost-effectiveness of the proposed solution will be important in the
technology selection decision.
Building a knowledge base so that innovative and emerging technologies are identified is the impetus for
the NATO/CCMS Pilot Study on ''Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies for the
Treatment of Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase II)." Under this current study, new
technologies being developed, demonstrated, and evaluated in the field are discussed. This allows each of
the participating countries to have access to an inventory of applications of individual technologies, which
allows each countiy to target scarce internal resources at unmet needs for technology development. The
technologies include biological, chemical, physical, containment, solidification/stabilization, and thermal
technologies for both soil and groundwater. This current (Phase II) pilot study draws from an extremely
broad representation and the follow up would work to expand this.
The current study has examined over fifty environmental projects. There were nine fellowships awarded
to the study. A team of pilot study country representatives and fellows is currently preparing an extensive
report of the pilot study activities. Numerous presentations and publications reported about the pilot study
activities over the five-year period. In addition to participation from NATO countries, NACC and other
European and Asian-Pacific countries participated. This diverse group promoted an excellent atmosphere
for technology exchange. An extension of the pilot study will provide a platform for continued
discussions in this environmentally challenging arena.
2. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The United States proposes a follow-up (Phase HI) study to the existing NATO/CCMS study titled
"Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies for the Treatment of Contaminated Land and
Groundwater." The focus of Phase HI would be the technical approaches for addressing the treatment of
contaminated land and groundwater. This phase would draw on the information presented under the prior
studies and the expertise of the participants from all countries. The output would be summary documents
addressing cleanup problems and the array of currently available and newly emerging technical solutions.
The Phase III study would be technologically orientated and would continue to address technologies.
Issues of sustainability, environmental merit, and cost-effectiveness would be enthusiastically addressed.
Principles of sustainability address the use of our natural resources. Site remediation addresses the
management of our land and water resources. Sustainable development addresses the re-use of
contaminated land instead of the utilization of new land. This appeals to a wide range of interests because
it combines economic development and environmental protection into a single system. The objectives of
the study are to critically evaluate technologies, promote the appropriate use of technologies, use
information technology systems to disseminate the products, and to foster innovative thinking in the area
of contaminated land. International technology verification is another issue mat will enable technology
users to be assured of minimal technology performance. This is another important issue concerning use of
innovative technologies. This Phase III study would have the following goals:
160
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase III) January 2003
a) In-depth discussions about specific types of contaminated land problems (successes and failures)
and the suggested technical solutions from each country=s perspective,
b) Examination of selection criteria for treatment and cleanup technologies for individual projects,
c) Expand mechanisms and channels for technology information transfer, such as the NATO/CCMS
Environmental Clearinghouse System.
d) Examination/identification of innovative technologies,
e) Examining the sustainable use of remedial technologiesClooking at the broad environmental
significance of the project, thus the environmental merit and appropriateness of the individual
project.
3. ESTIMATED DURATION
November 1997 to November 2002 for meetings.
Completion of final report: June 2003.
4. SCOPE OF WORK
First, the Phase HI study would enable participating countries to continue to present and exchange
technical information on demonstrated technologies for the cleanup of contaminated land and
ground-water. During the Phase II study, these technical information exchanges benefited both the
countries themselves and technology developers from various countries. This technology information
exchange and assistance to technology developers would therefore continue. Emphasis would be on
making the pilot study information available. Use of existing environmental data systems such as the
NATO/CCMS Environmental Clearinghouse System will be pursued. The study would also pursue the
development of linkages to other international initiatives on contaminated land remediation.
As in the Phase II study, projects would be presented for consideration and, if accepted by other countries,
they would be discussed at the meetings and later documented. Currently, various countries support
development of hazardous waste treatment/cleanup technologies by governmental assistance and private
funds. This part of the study would report on and exchange information of ongoing work in the
development of new technologies in this area. As with the current study, projects would be presented for
consideration and if accepted, fully discussed at the meetings, individual countries can bring experts to
report on projects that they are conducting. A final report would be prepared on each project or category
of projects (such as thermal, biological, containment, etc.) and compiled as the final study report.
Third, the Phase III study would identify specific contaminated land problems and examine these
problems in depth. The pilot study members would put forth specific problems, which would be
addressed in depth by the pilot study members at the meetings. Thus, a country could present a specific
problem such as contamination at an electronics manufacturing facility, agricultural production, organic
chemical facility, manufactured gas plant, etc. Solutions and technology selection criteria to address these
problems would be developed based on the collaboration of international experts. These discussions
would be extremely beneficial for the newly industrializing countries facing cleanup issues related to
privatization as well as developing countries. Discussions should also focus on the implementation of
incorrect solutions for specific projects. The documentation of these failures and the technical
understanding of why the project failed will be beneficial for those with similar problems. Sustainability,
environmental merit, and cost-benefit aspects would equally be addressed.
Finally, specific area themes for each meeting could be developed. These topics could be addressed in
one-day workshops as part of the CCMS meeting. These topic areas would be selected and developed by
the pilot study participants prior to the meetings. These areas would be excellent venues for expert
speakers and would encourage excellent interchange of ideas.
161
-------
NATO/CCMS Pilot Project on Contaminated Land and Groundwater (Phase I
January 2003
5. NON-NATO PARTICIPATION
It is proposed that non-NATO countries be invited to participate or be observers at this NATO/CCMS
Pilot Study. Proposed countries may be Brazil. Japan, and those from Central and Eastern Europe. It is
proposed mat the non-NATO countries (Austria, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, Hungary,
Slovenia, Russian Federation, etc.) participating in Phase II be extended for participation in Phase III of
the pilot study. Continued involvement of Cooperation Partner countries will be pursued.
6. REQUEST FOR PILOT STUDY ESTABLISHMENT
It is requested of the Committee on the Challenges of Modem Society that they approve the establishment
of the Phase III Continuation of the Pilot Study on the Demonstration of Remedial Action Technologies
for Contaminated Land and Groundwater.
Pilot Country:
Lead Organization:
U.S. Directors:
United States of America
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Stephen C. James
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
tel: 513-569-7877
fax:513-569-7680
e-mail: iames.steve@eDa.gov
Walter W. Kovalick. Jr., Ph.D.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Innovation Office (5102G)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20460
tel: 703-603-9910
fax: 703-603-9135
e-mail: kovalick.waltertffiepa.gov
Co-Partner Countries:
Addenda
Phase III Meetings Held:
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Turkey,
United Kingdom, United States
February 23-27, 1998, in Vienna, Austria
May 9-14, 1999, in Angers, France
June 26-30, 2000, in Wiesbaden, Germany
September 9-14, 2001, in Liege, Belgium
May 5-10, 2002, Rome, Italy
162
------- |